Sitting of 18 January 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration for Lords amendments read.
To be considered on Thursday 25 January.
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL(By Order)
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL(By Order)
REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL(BY ORDER)
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL(By Order)
Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Thursday 25 January.
LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL[Lords] (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Thursday 25 January at Seven o'clock.
VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL[Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 25 January.
MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL[Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 25 January at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Inflation
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of inflation.
    The Economic Secretary of State to the Treasury (Mr.
    Richard Ryder): The underlying rate of inflation excluding mortgage interest payments is 6·1 per cent.
    Mr. MacKay: Does my hon. Friend recall that before Christmas shop stewards at Ford sensibly told their members that excessive wage claims would lead to job losses and loss of business for the company? Therefore, is
    392
    he like me, disappointed at the wage offer that has been made by the Ford management and so irresponsibly rejected by the trade unions in the past week?
    Mr. Ryder: I am disappointed that the unions at Ford have not accepted the offer that has been made to them. Excessive pay awards ultimately cause unemployment unless they are matched by increases in productivity.
    Mr. Livingstone: Does the Minister agree that the biggest impact on reducing inflation would be achieved by tackling the deficit on the long-term capital flow out of Britain, which is the basic reason why the Government need to keep short-term interest rates so high to attract short-term capital into the country to balance that deficit? Does the Minister really think that his constituents—or anybody in Britain—values the freedom to carry on paying vast mortgage rates simply to allow British finance capital to flow abroad at the rate of a £30 billion deficit this year?
    Mr. Ryder: Industry has far more to fear from inflation and high pay awards than from interest rates.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Will my hon. Friend ignore those who are now arguing that it is necessary to increase taxation to combat inflation? Will he confirm that, as the Red Book stated last year, the Government's long-term objective remains achieving a balanced Budget?
    Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend's question bears a close resemblance to a Budget submission. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have heard it.
    Mr. John Smith: Is it not astonishing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself does not answer a direct question on the rate of inflation? Do the Government stand by the Chancellor's prediction that inflation will have an annual rate of 5·75 per cent, by the fourth quarter of this year? Does he not understand that if the Government deliberately increase the cost of living by forcing up mortgage rates, and electricity, water and transport prices and by introducing the poll tax, they are guilty of what the Confederation of British Industry has described as causing inflationary own goals? When will the Government admit that they are responsible for the underlying rate of inflation?
    Mr. Ryder: I take no lectures from the right hon. and learned Gentleman on inflation because when he was a member of the Callaghan Government, inflation averaged 15½ per cent., whereas, under this Government at the moment the underlying rate of inflation is 6·1 per cent. The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first question is yes, and the answer to his second question is that industry has far more to fear from inflation and high pay awards than from high interest rates.

    Share Ownership
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the number of shareholders in the United Kingdom has increased during the 1980s.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The latest Treasury and stock exchange survey in February 1989 showed that approximately 9 million

    393
    people—that is 20 per cent, of the adult population—owned shares directly. This represents a threefold increase in the number of shareholders since 1979.
    Mr. King: Does my hon. Friend welcome the dramatic addition to that list of shareholders represented by those who invested in Abbey National and in water, the flotation of which took place so successfully a few weeks ago? Does he agree that as eastern Europe seeks to adopt methods of privatisation and to encourage individual responsibility and investment by its people, the only political party that wants to take Britain back to a mark I type Polish economy is the Labour party?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. The figures that I gave do not include those who bought shares in Abbey National and in the successful water flotation. He is also right that the former Socialist countries in eastern Europe are appointing Ministers responsible for privatisation. In Poland my opposite number has the splendid title of the plenipotentiary in charge of ownership changes. In Hungary a commissioner responsible for privatisation has been appointed. The Labour party will not stand a chance of being elected until it appoints a shadow Minister in charge of privatisation.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that shareholders are still a minority of the adult population? Is it not outrageous that the Government have sold off assets which belong to all the people to a tiny minority of the population and boast about it? In any decent society would not the Cabinet be prosecuted for theft?
    Mr. Lilley: Shareholders are certainly not a minority of the population. There are now more direct owners of shares than members of the trade union movement.
    Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of privatising industries is that, in most cases they are now profitable and the Exchequer receives corporation tax from them whereas before privatisation, many of them made losses and cost the taxpayers money in subsidies?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. British Telecom now pays more in corporation tax than it used to pay in dividends to the Government when we owned the shares.
    Mr. Boateng: Will the Financial Secretary take this early opportunity to clarify the Treasury's attitude to the banking sector? We are told that the Prime Minister is fizzing with anger and demanding retribution of an unspecified nature against it. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer received his instructions? When the Prime Minister fizzes, does the Chancellor boil or gently bubble?
    Mr. Lilley: I am happy to say that the banking system in this country is 100 per cent, privately owned. We intend to keep it that way. The subject under discussion is privatisation and share ownership. Within that context, I am happy to say that it will remain a successful, privately owned industry.

    Taxation
    Mr. Barry Porter: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it remains his policy to achieve lower rates of direct taxation.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): We have set an objective of 20 per cent, basic rate of income tax, without a time limit.
    Mr. Porter: I am sure that all my hon. Friends are delighted with that response. In drawing up his Budget statement will my right hon. Friend also consider that it would be helpful to give some fiscal encouragement to savings and investment rather than to consumer spending?
    Mr. Major: My hon. Friend makes an important point about savings. I shall make a careful note of it. The real difficulty with the savings ratio is not so much a fall in the stock of savings, but an increase in the amount of borrowing. Our interest rate policy is intended to deal with that.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Chancellor take a more positive and enthusiastic attitude to incentives for saving, particularly in a year when the necessary and welcome move towards independent taxation and the national insurance changes will make for a looser fiscal stance?
    Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is an old parliamentary hand. When was any Chancellor enthusiastic before a Budget?
    Mr. Yeo: Bearing in mind the obvious advantages for everyone of lower taxation, can my right hon. Friend advise my constituents in Suffolk whether he knows of any politician who is currently recommending higher taxation?
    Mr. Major: Whether the person concerned is a politician is a matter for judgment, but I believe that it is the official policy of Her Majesty's Opposition to raise taxation substantially both in terms of direct taxes and national insurance contributions.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Just among ourselves, would not the Chancellor like to take this opportunity to admit that 2 per cent, off" the mortgage rate is worth substantially more to most home owners than 2p off the basic rate of income tax? Would not the Chancellor also like to take this opportunity to repudiate the top rate tax-cutting, interest rate-rising policies of the previous Chancellor, or would he prefer to wait until the Budget? In the meantime, will he confirm that, as the former Minister for Housing and Planning told us not so long ago, the Conservative party's official response to those who are struggling to pay their mortgages is that they should take in lodgers?
    Mr. Major: Even among ourselves, in the privacy of this exchange, I am reluctant to concede too much to the hon. Gentleman. I note his implicit acknowledgement that the Labour party would reverse the Government's policy of cutting top taxes and would increase taxation quite substantially. Mortgage interest rates will fall when interest rates fall, which will be when we begin to see some progress in reducing the rate of inflation, and not before.

    Gross Domestic Product
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth in gross domestic product during the 1980s (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other European Community countries.
    Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth in gross domestic product during the 1980s (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other European Community countries.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): Since 1980, growth has averaged 2·7 per cent, a year in the United Kingdom, compared with 1·9 per cent in other European Community countries.
    Mr. Stevens: My right hon. Friend's reply not only shows the relative improvement in the Government's success compared with other EC countries, but also gives the lie to the Opposition's continual talking down of our economic progress. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there remains potential for substantial growth in the United Kingdom economy and that, in order to realise that potential, it is vital that we should continue to improve our productivity and hold down unit prices to improve further our international competitiveness?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right to stress that the growth in productivity has paved the way for the dramatic change in Britain's growth trend. During the 1980s, our economy has grown faster than any other major EC economy and that has been based precisely on the facts that my hon. Friend mentions.
    Mr. Fishburn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the trade figures that have been announced today, it will still be at least 20 years before the average Briton enjoys the same wealth per head as the average Frenchman or German, so that we are only at the start of a wealth creation process with the hardest part yet to come?
    Mr. Lamont: The gap in living standards between ourselves and the French has narrowed, but my hon. Friend is right to say that there is a gap. However, that will continue to narrow if we can maintain the sort of rate of growth differential that we have had in the past decade.
    Mr. Shore: Would not the result be significantly different if the Minister were to take the base year 1979 rather than 1980? Taking account of the relatively poor performance of the European countries during the past decade, how far would he attribute full membership of the ERM/EMS as a factor in producing that rather poor outward result?
    Mr. Lamont: If one took 1979 as the base year, the British economy would still have grown faster than the EC average and faster than the French and the Germans', something that has not happened in Britain for many years. In the 1970s we were bottom of the league; in the 1980s we have been top of it. The relevance of the ERM is much more to do with inflation, although inflation might ultimately also have consequences for growth.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Is it not the case that, since 1979, our growth rate has been scarcely better than that of any other EC country, despite the enormous advantage of North Sea oil? If we look ahead over the next year, is not the Treasury's forecast is for less than 1 per cent, growth and that what the Government's economic policies have introduced is a self-inflicted hard landing?
    Mr. Lamont: I answered the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question when I replied to his right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Even if we take the base date as 1979, with the
    396
    recessionary environment which existed then because of the high inflation that we inherited from the Labour party, our growth rate has been above that of France, Germany and the EEC average. Of course, we are having a pause this year. That is not surprising after the excellent record that we have had. However, the trend of our exports and productivity means that the long-term outlook for this country is far better than it was then when the Labour party was in power.

    Industrial Investment
    Mr. John Green way: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the prospects for industrial investment over the next 12 months.
    Mr. Major: The Industry Act 1971 forecast published with the Autumn Statement projected total business investment to grow by 9¼ per cent, in 1989 and 4½ per cent, in 1990. This follows growth of 30 per cent, in real terms between 1986 and 1988.
    Mr. Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend noted the results of a survey of leading industrialists published this week which described the fear of a recession as a myth based on a misconception? It rejected the gloomier predictions of the effect of high interest rates on industry. In his forthcoming Budget, will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor give priority to measures that will keep up the momentum of increased investment seen under the Government? Will he target the small independent business sector as one deserving of particular help through investment-related taxation reform?
    Mr. Major: I have noted the survey to which my hon. Friend refers and he characterises it accurately. He will know that I cannot anticipate the Budget. However, I can draw to his attention the fact that the small business sector is still growing substantially, with a rate of VAT registrations of more than 1,300 a week during the past year.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: But manufacturing industry will clearly be damaged by the high level of interest rates, even if they remain as they are and do not increase. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that something must be done for manufacturing industry? One problem that it faces is that the capital allowances militate against investment—a rate of 25 per cent, capital allowances in the first year is not realistic. Manufacturing industries cannot retrieve 75 per cent, of the cost of that investment at the end of the first year and, therefore, the allowances are an investment disincentive. Will the Chancellor replace them with a proper investment incentive, as existed pre-1979?
    Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the reforms in corporate taxation introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in 1984. They made significant changes, not least a dramatic reduction in the prime rate of corporation tax. The vast majority of capital investment in manufacturing in recent years has come out of retained profits, at present taxed at a much lower rate. There will be a slowdown in capital investment in manufacturing, but there will be continued growth. There has been a considerable record growth in recent years.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one factor in the continued good news about business investment is that Britain has managed to increase labour productivity and keep down unit costs of labour? If the position were to change—given the irresponsibility of certain unions backed by the Labour party—the climate for business investment might decline. In the internal market of the European Community businesses could switch their investment criteria elsewhere which would largely be the result of the unions' failure to appreciate the position.
    Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Productivity is vital, not only to maintain competitiveness and present profitability, but to open up the opportunity of future investment to create future jobs and prosperity.
    Mr. John Garrett: What are the figures for manufacturing disinvestment? Bankruptcies rose—by 40 per cent, last year. In the city that I represent, 400 jobs were lost in a liquidation which the management attributed directly to the Government's level of interest rates. How many more victims will there be of the Government's use of interest rates as the sole means pf controlling the economy?
    Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman picks a strange day to make that charge. He does so on the very day unemployment and employment figures show that more people in this country are in work than ever before.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the north-west of England is present enjoying an economic boom, with increased investment and reduced unemployment? Does he agree that the Government have laid to rest for ever the idea of a north-south divide?
    Mr. Major: I agree with my hon. Friend. Between 1980 and 1988, investment growth in the whole economy grew at the rate of 4½ per cent, per year. Between 1970 and 1980, the rate of growth was not 4½ per cent, annually but 0·4 per cent.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Leigh ton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of business investment was represented by manufacturing investment in (a) 1978 and (b) 1988.
    Ms. Harman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of business investment was represented by manufacturing investment in (a) 1978 and (b) 1988.
    Mr. Ryder: Twenty nine per cent, and 22 per cent.
    Mr. Leigh ton: Does not that show that the Government have presided over a collapse in manufacturing investment? How does the Minister intend to close the yawning trade gap caused by our deficit in exports of manufactures, which is now about £17 billion per annum—equivalent to £32,000 per minute—unless investment is increased? Does the Minister have any policies for dealing with that situation?
    Mr. Ryder: At the tail end of the last Labour Government, manufacturing output was at a low. Since then it has increased by 12½ per cent. Also, the United
    398
    Kingdom enjoyed a higher average growth rate in the 1980s than West Germany, France and Italy. In the 1970s, our growth rate was lower than all three of those countries.
    Mr. Forman: Has my hon. Friend studied the recent Peat Marwick survey showing that manufacturing industry is even now intending to increase by about 68 per cent, its investment in new products and services, and by about 46 per cent, its investment in further training? Is not that completely convincing evidence that this country has not lost the investing habit?
    Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is correct. Business investment in 1989 is likely to have reached a record level as a percentage of gross domestic product. In 1987 and 1988, we saw the fastest growth in investment over a two-year period since the war.
    Mrs. Beckett: Despite the Minister's optimism, he is surely aware of the Confederation of British Industry's recent survey of investment intention, which implies that the country may be about to hit serious problems in that regard. At least the figures he gave earlier answered the original question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), which is more than can be said for his answer to my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Do not the figures signify a substantial shift away from investment in real wealth creation during the period of the present Government? Does not that create anxiety in respect of Britain's long-term economic future?
    Mr. Ryder: The CBI forecast still predicts that investment will continue. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already made clear, the 1980s saw record levels of growth and investment. After two or three particularly strong years at the end of the 1980s, growth is likely to slow a little over the next 12 months.
    Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that in order to sustain the growth in manufacturing industry that has been achieved over the past few years, it must be encouraged to invest? When he and his colleagues prepare for the next Budget, will they consider the view of the north-west CBI that tax allowances on machinery for purely manufacturing purposes would be of great assistance and help to sustain the investment that is necessary?
    Mr. Ryder: I shall ensure that that suggestion is borne in mind when we come to prepare the next Budget. I remind my hon. Friend that profitability levels are now the highest for 20 years.

    Money Supply
    Mr. Kirk wood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest target for MO.
    Mr. Ryder: One to 5 per cent.
    Mr. Kirk wood: Instead of the Treasury ministerial team hiding in their pre-Budget bunker, which must be the most archaic and arcane way imaginable of developing any democratic country's economy, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government are paying no attention to the credibility of their anti-inflationary policies—given that MO, which is the cornerstone of that policy, is so

    399
    sadly and stubbornly off target? Why do not the Government make an effort to restore credibility in their anti-inflationary policies with an early announcement of Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism?
    Mr. Ryder: MO has been declining for the past year. At this time last year it was 7·4 per cent. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last party but two of which he was a member, was prepared to support a Labour Government in the late 1970s, when MO was 13·1 percent., a far higher figure than today. MO is one indicator that the Government take into account when formulating base rate policy.
    To answer the hon. Gentleman's latter question on the European monetary system, we have made it clear that we shall enter that system when the conditions set out at the Madrid summit have been met.
    Mr. Gow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present level of inflation has been caused by excessive monetary growth between 18 months and two years ago? Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to reaffirm his belief that inflation is a disease of money, and that he will persevere with his policy of high interest rates?
    Mr. Ryder: Yes, Sir. Inflation is caused by demand exceeding supply, and my hon. Friend reminds the House of the problems that arose—as a result of a monetary policy that was looser than it should have been after the Wall street crash.
    Mr. Cohen: Are the Government planning a tight monetary policy with perhaps higher interest rates to force up unemployment, as an unofficial incomes policy?
    Mr. Ryder: There is no question of there being an incomes policy. We never hear whether the Opposition want lower or higher interest rates. Opposition Front Bench spokesmen have no monetary policy.
    Mr. John Townend: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, to achieve the conditions under which interest rates can be brought down, it is necessary to reduce the increase in MO and the increase in broad money?
    Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is correct that broad money—M4—is another indicator that must be taken into account when formulating monetary policy.

    EC Banking
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what work he envisages being undertaken by the joint committee and associated secretariat of central banks of the member nations of the European Community now being established.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: As I explained in the explanatory memoranda that I submitted to the Scrutiny Committee, the committee of European central bankers will consider the co-ordination of monetary policy, but will have no powers to impose its views.
    Mr. Fatchett: As it is becoming clear that the German Bundesbank is keen to establish itself as a central bank for western Europe, what is the policy of the Government and the Bank of England? Is it not fair to say that the Governor of the Bank of England wants more
    400
    independence from the Treasury, and would like the Bank of England to operate in a similar way to the German Bundesbank?
    Mr. Lilley: It is not fair to say that the Bundesbank has the ambition that the hon. Gentleman has ascribed to it. The governor of the Bundesbank has expressed considerable sympathy with the ideas that we have put forward for the evolution of monetary union, as have the governors of the central bank of Switzerland, the board of academic advisers to the German Finance Ministry, and the leading French economist and Nobel laureate, Professor Allais. There is a great deal of support for our views on European monetary union.
    Mr. Butcher: While considering the role of the central banks, will my hon. Friend reconsider the position of the Bank of England? Does he agree that if the Bank of England had had the same powers and role as the Bundesbank, inflation would not be as high as it is today?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend knows that we considered that idea some 18 months ago, and we concluded that it is difficult to have a constitutionally independent central bank, such as exists in the United States and West Germany, within our Westminster constitution because the House, on behalf of the British people, expects the Government to be accountable and responsible for monetary and economic policy.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Treasury Ministers have reiterated several times today their intention to take sterling into the exchange rate mechanism when the conditions are right. Every time the Prime Minister opens her mouth, however, she adds to the list of those conditions, and it is clear that the Government have no intention of taking sterling into the ERM at an early stage. Does that not leave us very much on the sidelines in the developing discussions about our European monetary future, and should we not be playing a much more constructive part?
    Mr. Lilley: We have made our position very clear: we shall join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system during stage 1. What is unclear, and what the shadow Chancellor was unable to tell us during a debate on the subject, is what the Labour party's conditions are. Are they the four that he enunciated, the three enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition or all seven?

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the corporation tax rate in the United Kingdom and other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.
    Mr. Lilley: The United Kingdom corporation tax rate is one of the lowest rates in the major industrial countries. With permission, I shall circulate the figures in the Official Report.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present happy level of inward investment owes much to our low level of corporation tax? Does he also agree that the growth of the small business sector is largely due to that? Does he accept that small businesses need special support, and that we should continue that support—in contrast to the policies of the Opposition, who seem to

    401
    attack small businesses constantly, particularly in relation to the social charter? What, in my hon. Friend's view, would be the effect of their policies on such investment?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact that this country has the lowest rate of corporation tax makes it an attractive country in which to do business, as countless foreign investors have discovered. The fact that our corporation tax rate for small businesses is now only 25p—far the lowest of any of the rates of which I am aware—is one factor behind the healthy growth of such businesses, at a rate of more than 1,300 new businesses every week during the past year.
    Mr. Mullin: In that case, are we to assume that the Chancellor has no objection to the record profits being shared with the work force?
    Mr. Lilley: Profits, by definition, are measured after the benefits to the work force—both pay and profit-sharing. We have introduced schemes to encourage profit-sharing, and to give a tax incentive to companies that take part in it. I am happy to say that that has given a stimulus to the spread of profit-sharing arrangements in British industry.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Would not one of the best tax-related ways of helping British industry be a reduction in tax on savings, which would make a larger pool of investment income available to industry? Is my hon. Friend aware that this country taxes savers twice—first, when they earn and then on the yield of their investments?
    Mr. Lilley: I note my hon. Friend's point, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done so, too. My hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Is not the Minister really saying that Britain has become a tax haven for dodgy money, and does that not sum up the political values of his Government?
    Mr. Lilley: I did not catch the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I imagine that he was probably welcoming the low rate of corporation tax and the great boost that it has given to small businesses.
    Following is the information:

    Main national rate (per cent.)

    Total national + local tax

    Australia

    39

    —

    Austria

    30

    40·1

    Belgium

    143

    —

    Canada

    28

    43·5 (Ontario)

    Denmark

    250

    —

    Finland

    33

    47·0–52·5

    France

    42

    —

    Germany

    50

    60·03 (average)

    Greece

    46

    —

    Iceland

    51

    —

    Ireland

    43

    —

    Italy

    36

    46·4

    Japan

    40

    56·0 (approx average)

    Luxembourg

    34

    41·3

    Netherlands

    35

    —

    New Zealand

    33

    —

    Norway

    50·8

    —

    Portugal

    36·5

    —

    Spain

    35

    35·7

    Sweden

    52

    —

    Switzerland

    9·8

    29·2 (Zurich)

    Turkey

    46

    47·84

    Main national rate (per cent.)

    Total national + local tax

    United Kingdom

    35

    —

    USA

    34

    40·13

    1 Will be 41 per cent, from 1 January 1990 if Finance Bill is enacted.

    2 Will be 35 per cent, from 1 January 1990 if Government proposals are enacted.

    Notes:

    (1) The rates of company tax shown are those at present in force.

    (2) There are lower rates for smaller companies in Belgium, Canada, Finland, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, United
    Kingdom and USA.

    Bank of Credit and Commerce International
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he or his officials have had with United States counterparts about the banking operations of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
    Mr. Major: There has been close liaison between United Kingdom and United States customs officials in connection with Operation C-Chase, a drugs money-laundering investigation directed at the Medellin cartel, involving bank accounts held with the BCC group.
    Mr. Rathbone: The Chancellor will be aware of newspaper reports of the handling of huge amounts of drug-trafficking money by the bank, which transferred £15 million from this country to Luxembourg last year and has held the major part of $60 million in deposits for Mr. Rodriguez Gacha and the Medellin drug cartel this year. Is he satisfied that there is sufficient national and international supervision of the bank's operations? In the light of his investigations, what initiatives will he present for inclusion in the report by the international financial action task force, which is due in April?
    Mr. Major: I am aware of the reports to which my hon. Friend refers and I am satisfied with the supervision responsibilities and powers available to the Bank of England. As my hon. Friend will know, under the Banking Act 1987 the operations of BCCI in the United Kingdom are supervised by the Bank of England. Internationally, overall supervision of the group is carried out by a college of supervisors with representatives from a number of countries in which the bank has its operations. I have no doubt that those supervisors will give careful consideration to the outcome of the case, and it would be inappropriate of me to comment on that now.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer really wanted to get hold of the money that has been salted away by the drug barons, he need only use the system that was adopted by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer during the miners' strike. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the miners' money was in banks in Switzerland and elsewhere on the continent, the British Government found ways and means of sequestrating that money that belonged to the National Union of Mineworkers? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he adopted a similar system, he could get at the drug barons' money? If he wanted to adopt an even stronger method, he could tell all the banks that the Government intend to stop the tax relief that they give them every year.
    Mr. Major: I am fascinated by those post hoc revelations. On money-laundering, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 strengthened considerably the powers of enforcement agencies and introduced a provision for financial institutions to report suspicious transactions to the police. The United Kingdom is participating fully in the financial action task force that has been established, with representatives from a number of countries, specifically to deal with this problem.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the Florida allegations are serious and must be pursued rigorously, it would be unfair—particularly as he has confirmed that supervision of the BCCI is correct so far as he can tell—to criticise on a worldwide basis this successful international bank, which apparently has helped millions of people in the Third world?
    Mr. Major: As my hon. Friend will know, senior representatives of that bank are facing trial in the United States. It would be unwise of me to comment.
    Dr. Marek: The Chancellor will accept that this is a most serious affair in that it could besmirch the good name of the City and the whole financial industry in this country. Will he assess the amount of man and woman power that should be available to Customs and other officers in the Bank of England to assure the public that there is no cause for alarm, that this is an isolated incident and that it will not recur in the City or anywhere else in this country?
    Mr. Major: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that this is a serious matter, and I hope and believe that it is an isolated incident. The Bank of England has sufficient staff working on the proposition. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the successful year that Customs and Excise has had in combating and grabbing hold of illegal drug imports.

    European Monetary Union
    Mr. Day: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the Delors plan for a three-stage advance towards the full integration of European Community economic and monetary policies.
    Mr. Major: I have revceived a number of representations.
    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current arguments surrounding the Delors plan, particularly in the area of economic sovereignty, do not, as is often thought, offer us a choice between the Prime Minister's vision of a free market in Europe and a federal Europe, but rather offer the prospect of a single unitary European state about which both federalists and free marketeers should be equally alarmed?
    Mr. Major: I share that view and believe that that danger exists with the full stages, 1 to 3, of the Delors proposals. I recollect that the House was almost united in rejecting those proposals some time ago.

    Budget
    Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what submissions he has received in respect of his 1990 Budget.
    Mr. Lilley: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from a variey of individuals and organisations.
    Mr. Grant: Has the Minister received representations about the growing gap between rich and poor, and the now poorer underclass in inner cities—o have to live in cardbord boxes and scrounge in rubbish bins for something to eat? Will he guarantee to the House that he will not reduce personal income tax but will increase public expenditure to ensure that those people have a reasonable chance of survival?
    Mr. Lilley: I certainly cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement on tax matters. Had the tax rates and allowances in real terms that we inherited from the Labour Government been retained, people would be worse off at every level of income. Under this Government, the rise in real living standards, even of a married couple on half average earnings with two children, has been 25 per cent., whereas under the Labour Government it was only 4 per cent.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Dr. Reid: Following her speech last night when she outlined plans to ensure maintenance payments by absent fathers, may I welcome the move but inform the Prime Minister that the question being asked this morning by many people is: who will benefit financially, the Chancellor or the children? Will the Prime Minister clear up the matter by giving a pledge today that every pound saved by the Exchequer from the enforcement of the new regulations will be committed to child welfare?
    The Prime Minister: Both the mothers and the children will benefit. A scheme is being worked out and my right hon. Friends will come forward with it in due course.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: If the governor of the Bundesbank was being serious and was not merely seeking to tease his own Minister of Finance when earlier this week he called for the establishment of a European central bank, totally free from all political control, will my right hon. Friend reiterate that that would be overwhelmingly rejected by people of all political persuasions in this country and, one would hope, by everyone throughout Europe who subscribes to the concept of parliamentary democracy?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree entirely with what he said. I believe that this hon. House does, too, judging from the debate. It was clear that all parts of the House totally and utterly rejected stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report, which would mean a central bank that took powers out of the hands of the House, not only on monetary policy but on budgetary policy, too.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to confirm that the poll tax bills that people will receive will be much bigger than the bills which the Government promised? Does not the gap between promise and reality show that the Government are guilty of incompetence and deception?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Government set the level of reasonable spending for the coming year at 11 per cent, above the reasonable spending for this year. If local authorities spend above that, the community charge will go up. If there are very high community charges, it would be as well to look for the fault to Labour local authorities.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is trying to deceive yet again—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will rephrase that.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister just cannot stop herself trying to misrepresent the position. Does she not yet understand that local authorities, Conservative as well as Labour, are telling her repeatedly, as are some of her hon. Friends, that the poll tax system is absurd and dishonest?
    The Prime Minister: The poll tax system will reveal to the electorate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] The adult community charge—the new system for contributing to local authority expenditure—will be very much fairer, will make local councils accountable to their electorate and will demonstrate which are the extravagant authorities and which are the careful spenders. It is because Labour authorities are extravagant that Labour Members oppose the community charge.
    Mr. Kinnock: If that is even partly true, will the Prime Minister tell us why she thinks that so many of her hon. Friends will have such difficulty supporting her tonight?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps they should reserve their firepower for extravagant Labour local authorities.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since time immemorial young couples have always had a job rearing and educating their children? Can it be right, just and fair for those couples to pay, through their taxes, for other people's children because fathers walk away from their financial responsibilities? May I say—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) has been away for some time. We all want to hear him.
    Mr. Dickens: May I say to the Prime Minister that Conservative Members and most of the general public who care about children very much welcome the statement that she made last night and give her our support?
    The Prime Minister: May I thank my hon. Friend, and welcome him back in his customary vigorous form? He will know that we believe that people who have a responsibility for the maintenance of children should not be allowed to escape that responsibility. We propose to make the arrangements for collecting maintenance more effective than they are now.
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kennedy: May I congratulate the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] May I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on at last getting the title of the poll tax correct? Does she share the distinct sense of irony felt by Opposition Members who represent Scottish constituencies in that, although we are to witness yet another Conservative Back-Bench revolt on the issue, only three Conservative Members who are likely to withhold their support or vote against her in the Lobby tonight bothered to vote against precisely the same legislation on Scotland when it was pushed through this place? Does not that reality and the fact that Scottish Office Ministers have been warning their colleagues on the Back Benches of the "dire consequences" in Scotland for them of the poll tax highlight not only the fraudulent nature of the tax but the failure of so-called Governments in Scotland under her rump of a party?
    The Prime Minister: The community charge is by far the fairest way of paying for a very small proportion of local authority expenditure. The taxpayer pays by far the greater part, the business taxpayer pays the next greatest part and all the rebates and transitional reliefs are paid for by the taxpayer. I wonder why Opposition Members who criticise the community charge have no alternative to put
    in its place.
    Mr. Janman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the abolition of the dock labour scheme the port of Tilbury has attracted 14 new shipping services, has refurbished its cruise line terminal and is expecting that business to increase next year and is recruiting youngsters from the area for the first time in many years? The productivity record of the container division has recently been broken, with 230 containers being loaded off one ship in one eight-hour shift. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the chief executive, his management team and all the men and women who work in the port on their success, and does she agree that the facts that I have given the House prove that the Government were absolutely right to abolish the dock labour scheme?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly accept my hon. Friend's invitation and congratulate those in the port of Tilbury. When we abolished the restrictive practices under the dock labour scheme, it was evident that ports would begin to flourish and that the surrounding areas and companies would benefit. That is now happening. The Opposition accepted and supported the dock labour scheme and opposed its abolition, but it is because we abolished it that there is now extra prosperity.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Prime Minister aware that in Scotland an estimated 1 million people are in serious arrears with poll tax payments, of whom 500,000 have made no payment at all? As even today's Financial Times describes the poll tax as a fiscal monstrosity, and as 40 or more English Tories are set to rebel in the poll tax vote tonight, will the Prime Minister do the decent thing and

    407
    abolish that iniquitous tax, which is unjust, unworkable and unwanted by the vast majority of people in this country?
    The Prime Minister: The community charge is much fairer than domestic rating revaluation. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in Scotland domestic rating revaluation after seven years caused immense problems. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the revaluation for England has taken place after 17 years. The community charge is much fairer than the proposed alternative, which would involve two taxes, including a local income tax. Once the community charge is working properly, people will know that it is a much better and fairer tax than the one which it replaces.
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shaw: At a time when eastern Europe is moving away from Socialism, centralisation and unelected government, does my right hon. Friend consider that her Government should do all in their power to oppose yesterday's proposals by Mr. Jacques Delors for more centralised bureaucratic power in the European Commission, which would do nothing to further the free enterprise system that should become the Europe of the 1990s?
    The Prime Minister: I note my hon. Friend's views. I have read Mr. Delors' speech. I made the same point as my hon. Friend in my speech in Bruges some time ago. We do not want more bureaucratic control, especially as eastern Europe is trying to get away from it. We want more free trade and the dismantling of barriers. The House made clear its view that it would not accept stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report. It is a great pity that the Commission is trying to take more powers unto itself, and away from democratically elected Parliaments.
    Mr. Maxton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Prime Minister aware that Lothian health board is seeking sponsorship from private companies to carry out open-heart surgery in its hospitals and that it has said that if it does not find the sponsorship, the operations will not take place? If she considers that proposal to be as obscene as I do, will she today ensure that the Scottish health boards are properly financed so that no Scottish person's life depends upon the whims of a private company? Is not that sponsorship proposal just one more move towards a Health Service that fulfills her Victorian ideals, whereby the rich pay for their health but the poor rely on charity?
    The Prime Minister: There are far more open-heart operations now than there were 10 years ago. The amount spent on the Health Service in Scotland is more than 30 per cent, higher, after inflation, than it was 10 years ago. If people wish to raise more money—and there will always be room for more expenditure because of the swift progress of medical research—the hon. Gentleman should welcome that as it would assist the work of the Health Service.
    Mr. Waller: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Waller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most industrial companies that provide employment in the north and midlands greatly welcome the revalued uniform business rate? It will not only protect them from high-spending Labour authorities but provide a much more equitable basis for payment. Is my right hon. Friend aware that their only complaint is that the phasing-in period will prevent them from gaining the full benefits for a considerable time?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The business rate should be welcomed by all who believe in helping the north to get more jobs, keep their business costs down and ensure that they are not the prey of extravagant local authorities. Over five years, the north and midlands will benefit to the extent of £900 million. It is right that the south should have a transition period in which to pay that amount.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Social Security Bill.
TUESDAY 23 JANUARY—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement.
Motion on the code of practice for trade union ballots for industrial action.
WEDNESDAY 24 JANUARY—Opposition Day (3rd Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The Failure of the Government's Schools Policies". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "The Problems and Needs of Disabled People". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motions on Welsh revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 25 JANUARY—Motions on Scottish housing support grant orders and revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motions to take note of EC document on shipping and dangerous goods and on merchant shipping regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 26 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 29 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Employment Bill.
[Relevant documents:
Wednesday 24 January 1990:
Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1990–91 (HC 53)
Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (HC 54)
Welsh Non-Domestic Rating (County Share and District Share) Report (HC 55)
Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (HC 56)
Thursday 25 January 1990
(1) Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order
Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order
Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order Opposition Prayer (EDM 241)
Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989
Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1990
(2) Relevant European Community Document 7074/89 Shipping (Dangerous Cargoes)
Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 15-xxix (1988–89), para 1
Negative Instruments
Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collision Regulations) Opposition Prayer (EDM 276)
Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation Regulations) Opposition Prayer (EDM 277)]
Dr. Cunningham: I thank the Leader of the House for arranging for us to have the opportunity to discuss the important Scottish housing support grant measures at a reasonable time next Thursday afternoon. I ask him to ensure that that good work is not undone by making it clear that the Government will not make any statements next Thursday, thus pushing that business into Thursday evening.
Is it yet possible for the Leader of the House to tell us when the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to introduce his Budget? It would be greatly for the convenience of all hon. Members if we could have an early decision on that date. I am sure that the fixing of the date will not be unconnected with the pending by-election in Mid-Staffordshire.
When will we have an opportunity to debate the Government's public expenditure White Paper? Given the complete inadequacy of the important finance provisions in that White Paper, the House should have the opportunity soon to debate them.
I am sure that hon. Members of all parties welcome the Prime Minister's belated recognition that, after a decade of her Administrations, lone parent families face serious financial difficulties. The Opposition will also welcome and support measures to ensure that absent fathers make proper, responsible contributions, as they should, to the maintenance of their children. However, is not the plight of lone-parent families, especially women with children, made much worse by the persistent policies of the Government of freezing child benefit, undermining the availability of housing benefit and forcing up mortgage rates to impossible levels, which affects especially women who are unable to go out to work?
Given all those important problems which are faced by lone parents—the overwhelming number of whom are women—will the Leader of the House find an early opportunity, in Government time, to debate those important matters?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the latter matter, the hon. Gentleman should recall that the Government's policies have been designed to raise the total economic prosperity of the country and to ensure that the resources that are generated by prosperity go increasingly to those whose needs are greatest, including those to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. If the matter is as serious as he makes it appear, I am surprised that he has not chosen the topic for debate on the Opposition day next week.
I shall do my best to ensure that next Thursday, when we debate the Scottish orders, we avoid making a statement that is likely to curtail that time. The fact that it happens to be Burns night allows me, I hope, to add that
"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft a-gley."
I have taken the precaution of ensuring that the Welsh orders are debated on the preceding day.
I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the request for information about the date of the Budget. I have it in mind to arrange a debate on the public expenditure White Paper in the relatively near future. The matter can be discussed through the usual channels.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have an important debate today. Even if I had the authority to

411
limit speeches to five minutes, I regret that many hon. Members would not be called. I ask hon. Members, especially those seeking to participate in the debate, to hold their business questions for another time.
Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend has doubtless noticed, as I did only this morning, a most deplorable practice which has become associated with the current industrial dispute. I am referring to the practice of using public property—that is, ambulances—for the propaganda purposes of one side in the dispute. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that we shall have an early opportunity to debate the question and that, preferably, we shall have a statement from our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend realises, we had a debate on the general topic only last Thursday. That is all the more reason why I should bring that particular point to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend, which I shall do.
Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that the Leader of the House has had an opportunity to consider the speeches yesterday by the President of the European Commission and by the Chancellor of the Federal German Republic. Will he give the House an opportunity to debate those speeches, which were visionary about the future development of western Europe and which stretched out a positive hand towards the developing democracies in eastern Europe?
The Leader of the House quoted from Burns poem "To a Mouse". Will he go to the other end of the animal kingdom and consider the plight of the endangered African elephant and the Government's decision to open up the market for ivory trades in Hong Kong? As that is believed to put into further jeopardy that already endangered species, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for the Prime Minister to come to the House, as it seems that she made that ill-considered decision?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot tackle at business questions all the foreign policy questions raised by the hon. Gentleman. One is always looking for an opportunity for a general foreign affairs debate. The hon. Gentleman asked about Hong Kong ivory. He must understand that Hong Kong has already imposed a total ban on imports of ivory. It has an existing 600-tonne stock of legally acquired ivory. It is in respect of that that the reservation has been entered, and it will be withdrawn after six months.
Mr. Speaker: May I draw the attention of the House to the statement that I made before Christmas to the effect that hon. Members should ask one business question rather than a series?
Mr. Bob Dunn: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Labour party has become a receiver of stolen or leaked documents? Will he arrange for an early debate so that we may discuss whether the Opposition should be allowed to use the facilities of the House to utilise the contents of those stolen or leaked documents?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall need to investigate my hon. Friend's allegation before I can decide how quickly we can have a debate on that.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Leader of the House seen reports to the effect that Manchester's Wythenshawe hospital, unable to afford their running costs, now has to rent its facilities for open-heart surgery to health authorities in other parts of the country? Patients from elsewhere are treated in Wythenshawe hospital while local patients suffering severe heart attacks and other cardiac emergencies have to wait. Is not that a scandal, and can we have a statement next week from the responsible Minister? Who can now say that accountants are not more important than consultants in today's Health Service?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that that kind of difficulty is characterised by the description "the efficiency trap". That is one of the matters that the National Health Service reforms are calculated to remedy.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had an opportunity to consider the terms of early-day motion 312 concerning the proposed closure of the Armitage Shanks Tubal works in Barrhead?
[That this House notes that a delegation from Renfrew District Council, union officials and shop stewards from the Armitage Shanks Tubal Works, Barrhead, met the Scottish Industry Minister, the honourable Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, on 14th December 1989 to discuss the proposed closure of the Tubal Works and the associated redundancies; fully supports the Minister of State's subsequent request to Blue Circle Industries plc., the owners of Armitage Shanks, that the redundancies be deferred to allow a wide ranging feasibility study of constructive alternatives; endorses the terms of reference of the study as proposed by Renfrew District Council; deplores the negative response given so far to these proposals by Blue Circle Industries; and urges Blue Circle Industries pic now to take a constructive and truthful approach to the future of employment at Barrhead.]
Is it not deplorable that the owner of the factory, Blue Circle Industries, has been so negative about the universally supported suggestion, endorsed by the Government, that the redundancies should be deferred to allow a wide-ranging feasibility study of constructive alternatives? Does my right hon. and learned Friend hold out any hope of a debate in prime time in the near future in which the wide-ranging questions that arise from the proposals can be discussed in the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the immediate prospect of a debate, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are concerned about the case. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office has written to the company asking for the planned redundancies to be delayed pending the results of the new feasibility study. It is for Armitage Shanks to decide on a proper course of action. It is encouraging that the company has committed the sum of £1·7 million to immediate investment in the ceramics side of the Barrhead investment, and I hope that in time that will lead to fresh employment opportunities.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Will the Leader of the House assure us that a statement will be made next week concerning the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Lord Dervaird from the Bench at the Court of Session? Is he aware that the matter gives rise to important points of principle concerning civil liberties and

413
the legal process in Scotland? The civil liberties issue—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware—is whether a person who is a practising homosexual within the law should be protected in his office of employment. If that was not the case with Lord Dervaird, we are entitled to a statement on the reason for his resignation.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that the advice given by the Lord Advocate to Lord President Hope, it appears that he has dragged Lord President Hope from a judgmental position to an inquisitorial position that should have been adopted by the Lord Advocate, the Crown Office and the procurator fiscal. Important questions of principle will have to be raised and answered, and it would be far better for the Government to come clean now than for people to believe that there has been a cover-up.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have nothing but contempt for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. The conduct of Scottish judges is entirely and properly a matter for the Lord President of the Court of Session and not for any member of the Government. The House knows that Lord Dervaird resigned last month for personal reasons. The reasons for his resignation are entirely a matter for him.
Sir Hector Monro: Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will enjoy his Burns supper in the Cafeteria, but will he bear in mind that the majority of Scots Members would rather be enjoying that and St. Andrew's night with their constituents, so will he try to keep those two nights of the year clear of Scottish business?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I admire and respect my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the proper celebration of matters Scottish, but if the House proceeds to consider the matters expeditiously, there should be time enough for celebrations as well.
Mr. Jack Ashley: May I raise a subject that I know is very unpopular with some hon. Members? Is the Leader of the House aware that, notwithstanding the splendid work of hospitals and hospices, the right to die of people in chronic and incurable pain is now increasingly discussed in public and it should be discussed in the House of Commons? May we debate this issue as soon as possible, preferably next week, so that hon. Members with views on both sides of this highly controversial subject can express their views in Parliament?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is not a matter on which the Government have any plans for debate in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough in the business of the House to know that there are many other opportunities that he may take to bring this matter before the House.
Mr. John Butcher: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that even those of us who hold the Federal Republic of Germany in affection and respect have been disconcerted to read the reported remarks of Chancellor Kohl recently in which he said that German territorial ambitions on Poland still exist? Is that
414
not the most foolhardy thing to say, even if it was for domestic consumption, at a time when events in central Europe are so fluid and flexible? May we have a debate on central and eastern Europe as the other place had recently?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the matter that is for me to answer—the possibility of a debate on that topic—we had an extensive debate on eastern Europe not many weeks ago. It is a matter of continuing importance, and I shall bear in mind the possibility of another opportunity.
Mr. William Ross: May we expect a statement next week on whether the Government have sought clarification from the Government of the Irish Republic about all the circumstances surrounding the shooting of a citizen of the United Kingdom by the Irish police during a bank robbery in county Kildare last Friday? Given that it now appears that the police opened fire first and that all the persons wounded were hit by police bullets, will the Government raise this matter through the Anglo-Irish Conference? Will the Government demand a full investigation by the Irish police, followed by a judicial inquiry, to establish whether unnecessary force was used and will a further statement be made to the House once the investigations are completed and the report is to hand?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise the prospect of a statement on that matter, but I can promise that I shall bring the point raised by the hon. Gentleman to the specific attention of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Michael Latham: Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment use his Question Time next Wednesday—a question has been tabled to him—to announce that he is appointing an inquiry to look into all the aspects of the pollution of Rutland water last summer, which led to the deaths of significant numbers of dogs and sheep and about which there is still grave public concern because it is far from clear that a wide-ranging inquiry into all the circumstances, if necessary apportioning blame, is now taking place?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend will have observed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment appeared to be taking an alert and proper interest in his question. I shall remind him of it at the end of a triumphant day's debate.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I bring the Leader of the House back to the matter of the deplorable decision by the British Government to allow Hong Kong to dispose of 600 tonnes of elephant ivory in the Crown colony? Is he aware that possibly up to 90 per cent, of that ivory, which he previously described as "legal", was illegally obtained in the first instance, coming -, from the poaching of African elephants?
Will the Leader of the House please consider this matter carefully? He said last week that we could have the opportunity of a debate, so will he let us have that debate so that we can explain to the Foreign Secretary that he got it completely wrong and that he should not have allowed political considerations to overwhelm the expert information that he has received from the various animal conservation groups and, indeed, from the Department of the Environment itself?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am aware of the seriousness with which the hon. Member addresses himself to that topic. He could perhaps contrive to have a debate on it, perhaps on the Adjournment. On the substance of the matter, both Hong Kong and the United Kingdom are committed to the conservation of the African elephant and to the CITES agreement. The ivory stock has already been imported. There is a total ban on further imports into Hong Kong.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, nationalised industries are responsible to the House through the appropriate Secretary of State. British Rail is engaged in acquiring large numbers of houses. Not only the people who sell or hope to sell to British Rail but those who live next door to houses that have already been acquired have a growing interest in the criteria being used, the numbers acquired and what British Rail intends to do with houses that it has acquired. May we have an early debate on the matter before the process, which is taking a long time, is completed?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that the acquisition of property of this kind raises sensitive questions for the ordinary citizen. I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate on the matter, but I shall remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport of my hon. Friend's interest in it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a former and, indeed, famous Solicitor-General, does the Leader of the House appreciate how rare it has become for a Law Officer to attend a Standing Committee? This morning the Solicitor-General attended the complex proceedings of the Standing Committee on the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill and was most courteous and generous. Understandably, he had to take away with him many questions put to him. Is it right on so complex a Bill that in its second session the Committee sat until 7.30 pm, whereas in its third and fourth sessions, two weeks after it was announced, the Committee sat until after 10 pm, even though there had been no filibustering? Is that sensible from the point of view of the legislative process?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: From the point of view of the legislative process, it is sensible for the Standing Committee to determine and sit for whatever hours are reasonably necessary to complete its business. I cannot say more about the matter within the rules of the House.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to my ancient record of service as Solicitor-General and for his tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend. My own recollection confirms his point. During my service as Solicitor-General I was summoned to a Standing Committee only once. It was rare for a Law Officer to be summoned, and it remains rare. The hon. Gentleman will have more than excellent service from my right hon. And learned Friend.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: When will the Second Reading of the Caldey Island Bill, which was cancelled on Tuesday, take place so that 36 of my constituents can be re-enfranchised?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend knows more about Caldey Island than I do. Second Reading had to be postponed because of the petition against it. I cannot give an express undertaking about when the Bill will come before the House again.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Is the Leader of the House aware of the scandalous position which pertains to coroners' inquests in the north of Ireland? It is so bad that an inquest has not yet been held into one incident which happened in 1976. In my constituency, two incidents which occurred eight years ago have still not been the subject of an inquest. The Attorney-General has made a disquieting appeal against a decision of the Appeal Court in the North of Ireland. If it is successful, it will perpetuate that scandal. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the rules for coroners' inquests so that we can have rules similar to those which apply in England and Wales?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would not be proper for me to comment on the relationship between the judicial proceedings to which the hon. Gentleman referred and the substantive matter that he raised. I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will not be surprised to hear that I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in his comments about Burns night. I imagine that my right hon. and learned Friend consulted and was advised by the usual channels in selecting the business for next Thursday, but was he made aware that we would also be discussing Scottish business in Committee on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill? There seems to be a determination through the usual channels to keep all the Scots away from Burns suppers.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would not want to impute such an unworthy motive to any of my right hon. Friends. Scottish business in the House should be concluded by 7 pm, so there may be some time for celebration thereafter.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Is the Leader of the House aware that Trafalgar House is proposing to close one of its subsidiaries in my constituency, Redpath Dorman and Long, a steel fabrication firm that has been there for more than 60 years? Trafalgar House has said that that factory is not viable. In response, the work force has asked for access to the books to enable it to formulate a constructive alternative to closure. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement to the House next week addressing the issue of work forces' access to information?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is necessarily the right target for the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall see that it is brought to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friends.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Bearing in mind the continued national concern about health care, would it not be appropriate to have a debate soon on preventive medicine? As my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware, that would give many of us the opportunity to say that, while we appreciate that, in a free society, it is. up to individuals whether to smoke, it does not seem to be helpful for the Government to encourage smoking by instituting low levels of duty.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate on that topic, but I can draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of all my ministerial colleagues who are concerned with such matters.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the position of British citizens who die in foreign countries which refuse to issue death certificates to relatives? A former constituent of mine, Mr. Anthony Marshall, died on 4 August 1989 in Queensland, Australia, and the death certificate has still not been released by the Australian Government. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary what hon. Members can do in such situations; or perhaps as a former Foreign Secretary he has the answer himself?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is always anxious to help in any such case that is drawn to its attention and I shall bring the general topic to the attention to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for an early debate on the EC? By what authority does the European Assembly discuss, debate and vote on the ambulance men's dispute?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The European Parliament, like other parliamentary assemblies, sometimes allows itself to debate matters over which its influence is relatively limited. I remind my hon. Friend that, by legislation of this House following the Single European Act, the European Assembly is now described here and there as the European Parliament.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply to the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd)? Is he aware that much life-saving emergency equipment is being stolen from front-line ambulances in London by the management? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement today to explain how he could live with his conscience if a major incident such as those at King's Cross and Clapham were to engage London in the next few days and lives were to be lost? If Members of Parliament can have 11 per cent., why cannot ambulance men be given the same and get the dispute over?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That question should most properly be directed to those who are leading the ambulance dispute. That point was made vigorously by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health in a debate only a week ago and the case that he made then is even stronger today.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: There is a complete lack of confidence in the agricultural policies being pursued by the Government. Hon. Members are receiving representations from their constituents in agriculture about a variety of matters, including high interest rates which are hitting investment in agriculture, the disparity in the green pound, and the fact that the Government have not announced whether they will make up the hill livestock compensatory allowances. Those are all matters of legitimate public concern to our constituents. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is an early debate on them?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: While I would not express my anxiety about this in as dramatic a way as the hon. Gentleman did in expressing his multi-faceted concern, many matters are continuously under the watch of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I agree that it would be appropriate to debate those matters in the relatively near future.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate to allow the Prime Minister to mimic herself and present the nation with a visual display of what she looked like when she was fizzing with anger because the banks had withdrawn from the student top-up loan scheme?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman does not need any such special occasion.
Mr. Ron Brown: I am concerned about cheque book journalism, particularly because it encourages individuals to commit perjury. Surely we should have an early debate to discuss press abuse with a view to establishing a statutory right of reply to protect the general public above all else.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I entirely followed the hon. Gentleman's thought process—it is not always easy to do so. I hope that he will find an opportunity of expressing his thoughts more fully on a later occasion.
Mr. Greville Janner: When does the Leader of the House think that we are likely to have the opportunity to debate the National Health Service again? I ask because I have a petition from 500 of my constituents who are deeply anxious about the Government's policy on the Health Service. They are faced with growing queues for many operations, growing need in many specialties and diminishing resources to meet the growing needs of an aging population.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will continue to applaud the massive increase in resources devoted to the Health Service under the Government and give his equally urgent support to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill currently going through the House.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members who have not previously risen are now doing so and, therefore, I regret that I shall have to put a limit on business questions. They will continue until 4·10 pm and then, whatever happens, we must move on.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Bearing in mind that in Scotland Conservative support runs at 16 per cent., will the Leader of the House, when bringing forward the remainder of the Government's legislative programme, consider Robert Burn's other words:
"O wad some power the giftie gie us,
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
And foolish notion."
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is because of my confidence in that proposition that I have been delighted to see the

419
growing success of the televising of the House, which I am sure will continue to present the Government in an increasingly favourable light.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Leader of the House aware that one bank, let alone the Prime Minister, is fizzing—the Girobank in my constituency? More than a year and a half ago, in June 1988, the Government announced that they would quickly sell it off to the highest bidder. They totally failed in that task, but there is great rumour and uncertainty about Girobank's future. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate so that we can find out exactly what is happening? Will he end the uncertainty by announcing, or getting the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to announce, that the Government are cancelling the privatisation and that corporate customers and others who are worried need not worry any more because there will be investment from the Post Office?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The privatisation process has commended itself throughout the decade during which the Government have been in office. There is nothing to add to that in the light of the hon. Gentleman's point, but, as always, I shall bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is the Leader of the House aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is not alone in seeking a full and frank statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland about the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Lord Devaird and the reported activities of certain other senior members of the Scottish judiciary? If such a statement is not forthcoming, the public will suspect, rightly, yet another establishment cover-up.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The public have the good sense not to share the motivation of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The whole House will welcome the fact that the Lord President of the Court of Session took prompt action to dispel rumours about certain recent events in Scotland. As I have already said, the conduct of Scottish judges is entirely a matter for the Lord President, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has nothing to say.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House give time for the Second Reading of the Registration of Commercial Lobbying Interests Bill, particularly bearing in mind the "World in Action" programme broadcast by Granada Television last Monday? Such a debate could encompass also the report made to Parliament in 1976 by the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in public life which was never debated—a minor scandal in itself. It would then be seen that the Bill would plug a loophole and make the bribery of Members of Parliament a criminal offence, as recommended by Lord Justice Salmon.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole question of lobbyists and their relationship to right hon. and hon. Members is under investigation by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which is as it should be. It is no part of my responsibility to deal with matters that were reported three years before the expiry of the last Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman should direct his complaint against them, for there is a limit to the number of mistakes made by Labour that the present Government can clear up.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week on the question of disappearing silver? Is he aware that some years ago the Prime Minister managed to get away with a number of pieces of silver from Belton house, near Grantham, which was once in private ownership but which is now owned by the National Trust? She still has 22 pieces of that silver locked away in Downing street. Some of us are worried about whether any more silver has gone missing. The Leader of the House ought to examine the property into which he moved recently, because he might find that the Prime Minister has taken some silver from there also. Some right hon. and hon. Members are convinced that the Prime Minister has erected the pearly gates at the end of Downing street to stop people fetching that silver back.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has fallen below even his own usual standards.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When may the House debate the subject of right hon. and hon. Members' interests? Is the Leader of the House aware of a statement that I made the other day, based on my conversation with Mr. Ian Greer of Ian Greer Associates, who told me directly that, through his company, he had paid Members of Parliament for making introductions to his firm? They were using their parliamentary position to make money. That matter is not only for the Select Committee on Members' Interests but for Parliament as; a whole. It should be debated on the Floor of the House so that we can hear what every hon. and right hon. Member has to say.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House is not impressed by the way in which the hon. Gentleman continues to return to that topic on the Floor of the House. The general question of lobbyists and their relationships with right hon. and hon. Members is under investigation by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, to which any general questions should be referred. Any specific allegations made either by a right hon. or hon. Member or anyone else about a Member of Parliament would also, in the ordinary way, be investigated by that Committee. It is high time that the hon. Gentleman took advantage of those existing procedures instead of referring back to this House.
Mr. Donald Coleman: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the BBC radio programme "Face the Facts" that was broadcast this morning, which dealt with the problem confronting many steel workers who, throughout their working lives, had their lungs damaged by noxious materials and gases emanating from their workplace. Can a statement be made next week by the appropriate Minister on that matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not have the advantage of having listened to that broadcast, but if it raised a serious question of industrial health, as the hon. Gentleman describes, I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the future of electricity generation in the United Kingdom by both nuclear and coal-fired stations? Is he aware that 200 employees of GEC Alsthom in my constituency and a further 20 in Manchester have been given notice of redundancy because

421
of cancelled orders? Future policy should be declared as a matter of urgency so that those redundancies and others may be prevented.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a specific debate on the general subject or on the examples given by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), but I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

BILLS PRESENTED
  POLL TAX (RESTORATION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY)
  Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Ms. Dawn Primarolo and Mr. Eddie Loyden, presented a Bill to amend the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in order to protect an individual's privacy: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February. [Bill 57.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) (DISABLED PERSONS)
  Mr. Eddie Loyden, supported by Mr. Allan Roberts, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Ms. Dawn Primarolo and Mr. Harry Cohen, presented a Bill to amend the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 to require local authorities to publish annual reports on the steps they have taken to meet the information needs of disabled persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February. [Bill 58.]

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the six motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) (No. 2) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Non-Domestic Rates and Community Charges (Timetable) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 2436) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Standard Community Charge (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 2437) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 2462) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Electricity Act 1989 (Fees) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Sackville.]

  Points of Order
  4.11pm
  Mr. Cecil Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your attention, and to the attention of the House, the fact that this afternoon, in the Manchester Crown court, criminal charges which had been laid against Mr. Kevin Taylor were withdrawn at the request of the prose—cution, who accepted that the Greater Manchester police had misled the judge and the jury during the course of the four-and-a-half-months trial. Mr. Taylor was a friend of a certain Mr. Stalker. Therefore, I request that you, Mr. Speaker, consider whether this is a fit and proper subject to be debated in the House at an early date.
  Mr. Speaker: I am surprised that the hon. Member did not raise that issue with the Leader of the House, as he has the authority to decide whether it should be debated.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that we are here to represent our constituents and not special interest groups, especially when we serve on a Standing Committee. I do not know whether you are aware that a meeting was held before the Committee stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill started at which the Confederation of Health Service Employees decided which Labour Member should represent that union on the Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who is here today, is complaining that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was picked instead of him to represent the union. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Workington will be partial in Committee as he is sponsored by the union and apparently it pays his election expenses.
  Mr. Speaker: Those are not matters for me. As long as it is declared in the Register of Members' Interests it is perfectly legitimate to represent the interests of a union.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said the other day, Members of Parliament who are sponsored by trade unions receive nothing from the union. At election time a portion of their election expenses is paid to the constituency party and not to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Speaker: We cannot have a debate on such matters now.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that these motions must be disposed of by 10 o'clock. Therefore, I propose to allow a general debate on the five motions on the Order Paper. As a large number of right hon. and hon. Members want to take part in the debate I urge hon. Members to limit speeches to five minutes, or it will be difficult to include everyone who wishes to speak in the debate. I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes—the only authority that the Chair has—between 6 o'clock and 8 o'clock, but I ask right hon. and hon. Members who are called to speak before that time to bear the time limit in mind.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder how you will conduct this debate. On other occasions it is relatively easy to call one hon. Member on the Government side and one from the Opposition, but, according to various press reports—I do not know whether they are true—a substantial number of Tory Members oppose the Government on this issue. How will you choose one Member who is for the measure and one who is against?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has vast experience of these matters; perhaps he should have come to have a private word with me about it. It is not easy.
  4.14 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
  That the Population Report (England) (House of Commons Paper No. 48), a copy of which was laid before this House on 1lth January, be approved.
  I understand that it will be convenient for us also to discuss the following:
  That the Revenue Support Grant Report (England) 1990–91 (House of Commons Paper No. 47), a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.
  That the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) (House of Commons Paper No. 49), a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.
  That the Revenue Support Grant Transition Report (England) (House of Commons Paper No. 50), a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.
  That the Special Grant Report (House of Commons Paper No. 128), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.
  The reports that we are debating form the basis for local government grant settlements for next year. They are similar, although not identical, to the proposals that I reported to the House in an oral statement last November. They are different in two respects. First, we now take account of actual rather than notional capital allocations; secondly, we take account of the number of community charge payers registered with their local authorities, rather than guessing at a figure gauged from the work of the registrar general.
  When I announced these decisions last week, I also announced that we intended to pay 25 per cent, of local government grant in the first two——
  Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should not the Secretary of State be addressing the Chair rather than turning his back on you?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We have barely started.
  Mr. Patten: I announced that we would be paying 25 per cent, of the grant to local authorities in the first two months of the year. That does not fundamentally alter the architecture of the settlement, but it brings forward our grants to local authorities. It provides them with about £2·4 billion in the first two months of the year, about £800 million more than they were anticipating, and is worth about £180 million to them in, for example, increased interest payments.
  These debates are a fairly familiar way of beginning the new year in the local government calendar, but my guess is that their nature will change somewhat in the future, for two reasons. First, whatever our views of the new system of financing local government, I think that there is little doubt that local government spending will involve more clarity in future than it has in the past. Secondly, I believe that it will involve more accountability than in the past. I think that one of the reasons for the fuss that we have experienced in the past few weeks is precisely that greater clarity and accountability.
  Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to explain something, for the sake of clarity? If the £248 figure that he announced last week for the community charge in Birmingham is correct, why does Sir Richard Knowles, the council's Labour leader, predict the hugely inflated figure of over £420—nearly double that? My constituents in Yardley are appalled. Will my right hon. Friend supply me with figures under the eight element headings for both this year and next year, explaining where the appalling under-budgeting and discrepancies lie?
  Mr. Patten: Birmingham is one of the authorities that will do best under the new system, in relation to both standard spending assessments and aggregate external finance. If there are reasons for the kind of increase to which my hon. Friend refers, one of them is the fact that Birmingham is apparently considering a 20 per cent, increase in expenditure next year. If it increases expenditure by that amount, the pain for the community charge payer will be considerable, and I very much hope that it will have second thoughts.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: Birmingham is not facing anything like that kind of increase, and if I am called to speak in the debate I shall explain the position in detail.
  The Secretary of State said that there would be greater clarity and he talked about the debate being part of the local government calendar. Is he aware that something else is part of the local government calendar? I telephoned a Government Department about this at lunchtime. When, in the past, the Secretary of State has made statements in the House about poll tax figures nationally—the last; occasion on which he did that was 6 November—the Government, to their credit in the last three years, always deposited in the Library, in answer to a parliamentary question, exemplifications of those figures, gainers and losers by households. As yet, that has not been done following the 6 November figure. Hon. Members simply receive holding answers. It is not as though we have not asked for the details.
  How can we conduct this debate in a sense of reality and with clarity when we do not have the Government's exemplifications of the poll tax figures following the

  425
  6 November statement, less than a week after the Secretary of State's announcement of these instruments and without an oral statement? When will those figures be available?
  Mr. Patten: The final figures on gainers and losers will be available only when local authorities have made their budgets. I have not so far detected among hon. Members the suggestion that we have been providing too little information about the local government settlement. Indeed, a complaint that we have heard time and again is that we have been providing too much information every time we go out to consultation or there is a new set of exemplifications.
  Mr. John Townend: My right hon. Friend said that much more information was being provided. I supported the community charge on the basis that it would be fairer and simpler. Will he explain—I have written to his Department about this and my local authority has written to his Department but has not received an answer—why the standard spending assessment which affects the grant for Hull is £131·70 and for my constituency is £77? I hope that he will not say that it is due to social conditions. I can understand that from the point of view of the county council, with education and social services, but the sort of services with which district councils are concerned—refuse collection, planning, rate collection and so on—do not vary that much. Will he explain the difference?
  Mr. Patten: I shall deal later with the whole issue of the move from grant-related expenditure assessments to standard spending assessments. I shall then answer my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware—[Interruption.]—that, whatever Opposition Members may say, my constituents have already had their rates doubled in two years, and they now face a further probably doubling under the new process, with a community charge of nearly £500, despite unprecedented support from central Government? Will my right hon. Friend condemn Labour councils which behave in such a profligate way, with the encouragement of Labour Members such as those at present seated on the Opposition Front Bench below the Gangway?
  Mr. Patten: I totally accept what my hon. Friend says about the consequences of high spending by Labour local authorities—indeed, by any local authorities. My view, given what I said about greater accountability and greater clarity in the new system, is that those matters will have more effect in getting voters to prevent higher spending by local authorities than any amount of ministerial rhetoric. That is an important reason why we should not have these sort of debates indefinitely into the future.
  Mr. James Pawsey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the courtesy that he showed me at two successive meetings. But he will accept that the SSAs are working to the marked disadvantage of many shire counties, with that disadvantage being reflected in the high community charge that will have to be paid by my constituents. It seems that the way in which the
  426
  SSAs are being calculated is fundamentally incorrect, and flawed, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with that.
  Mr. Patten: I assure my hon. Friend that I will address the question of SSAs later. He would be disappointed if I did not. Perhaps questions about SSAs could wait until later in my speech.
  Sir Alan Glyn rose—
  —
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Sir Alan Glyn: We are debating five motions. Will my right hon. Friend consider making more concessions, first, on SSAs, and secondly, on removal of the safety nets? I represent an area where it is estimated that the charge will be over £500. If my right hon. Friend would make those two concessions, there would be a considerable difference.
  Mr. Patten: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted at the enthusiasm that his recent honour has brought from the Opposition, as well as from the Government side.
  As my hon. Friend knows, there is an increase in the SSA for the district council in the area that he represents, though it is not as large as he and the council would like. Taking the aggregate external finance, both the contribution from the business pool and the contribution from grants to his county and its district, there is a substantial increase of over 20 per cent. Therefore, I find it difficult to accept the community charge figure that has been mentioned for Windsor, because, for example, it would suggest an increase in spending of over 20 per cent. I am sure that local charge payers would not like that.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend. He knows that I am no friend either to the charge or to rate capping, but in view of what some Labour authorities seem to be threatening, is there not a case for capping in this transitional year?
  Mr. Patten: Again, I do not wish to disappoint my hon. Friend or other hon. Friends. I assure him that I intend coming to that question with enthusiasm later in my remarks.
  Mr. John Battle rose——
  Mr. Patten: May I make the point that, after this intervention, I had better make progress? I want to finish my speech before my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities replies to the debate.
  Mr. Battle: My question is about more information. The standard spending assessment of Leeds has been reduced by £3·5 million, according to the figures that appeared in the original consultative paper. When the Department of the Environment was asked to provide details of the reduction, the reply that Leeds received was that the details of the calculation could be supplied only after the debate. Would it not have been better if we had had the reasons and the details before the debate so that we could have made a proper judgment? What have the Government to hide?
  Mr. Patten: I do not suggest that I do not believe the hon. Gentleman, but I find it difficult to believe that answer, because we have been providing an inordinate amount of information about the reasons for particular SSAs. I think that I am right in saying that the SSA for

  427
  Leeds will be more than 7 per cent, above its existing GRE. I shall be content to see the hon. Gentleman and the leader of his council at more or less any convenient time to discuss the reasons for the existing SSA.
  Sir Peter Hordern: Can my right hon. Friend come to the case of low-spending local authorities, such as West Sussex county council, which spend considerably less than the standard spending assessment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if those local authorities were to spend as the Government think they should, they would spend even further below the SSA? What may be done about that?
  Mr. Patten: I shall deal with that point when I deal with the transitional relief scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson)—who may or may not be present in the Chamber—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) have raised that important point, which I want to address, with me. It will not be debated until we consider the transitional relief scheme orders later this month.
  I shall deal with the two simple issues that are at the core of the debate—first, how we should control local government spending and, secondly, how we raise money for local government in a way that combines efficiency and fairness. Those are not particularly original questions, but they have dominated the debate on the relations between local government and the Government over the past 10 or, arguably, 15 years. They are arguments with which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who was Secretary of State for the Environment in the late 1970s, will be familiar, although he and I may reach different conclusions about the answer.
  None of us doubts that local authorities undertake vital functions and play an important part in the democratic life of our country. None of us doubts that many local authorities—alas, not all—conduct those functions very efficiently and that many act more efficiently than was once the case, but, however many accolades one showers on the heads of local government, it is not reasonable to argue that there should be one rule for financial control on central Government and the rest of the public sector but completely different rules for local authorities. I do not know how one could possibly put that argument.
  The argument that has provoked most of the row over the past 10 or 15 years is perfectly simple. Year after year, local authorities say that the Government are not providing them with enough money. They say that they need more money and that they intend to spend more money regardless of the burden on taxpayers or ratepayers. The Government say that they need to constrain local government spending and that local authorities should cut their coats according to their cloth.
  That has been the argument, but what has been the record? It is astonishing that, whatever rows we have in the House, whatever the rebellions, whatever the arguments and whatever the petal-soft diplomacy of the Whips, the position is exactly the same year after year: the real level of local authority expenditure, on the whole, increases more rapidly than Government expenditure.
  Let me give hon. Members the figures for the past five years; they are chosen on what I hope is a directly comparable basis and omit matters such as the transfer of responsibility for polytechnics. Government expenditure has increased by 2·4 per cent, and total net current
  428
  expenditure of local authorities has increased by 9·4 per cent. Although the argument is that the Government are attempting unjustifiably to squeeze local authorities until the pips squeak—there are not many signs of pips around town and county halls in this country—local government has taken a larger proportion of total public expenditure year after year.
  Mr. Martin Redmond: It is true that local authorities have had to increase rates, but they have done so to make up the deficit on the rate support grant, which has been reduced by one third since 1979.
  Mr. Patten: The issue at the centre of much of the argument is not how money is raised but how it is spent. Two new propositions enter the argument this year. Local authorities say that the reason for high community charges will be not their spending decisions but something inherent in the community charge or the change from GREs to SSAs. Virtually all the spending increases being suggested by local authorities for next year would mean astronomical increases in domestic rates if we were not going over to the community charge system. It is levels of spending that, above all, determine the level of community charge.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend realise that current spending by Lancashire county council would mean an extra 82p on the old rate?
  Mr. Patten: I have seen astonishing figures for the amount by which Lancashire county council apparently intends to increase its spending next year. I hope that it will have second thoughts, but I will return to that point later.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend touches on an important point. If Lancashire county council were setting its rates today, it would have to increase them by 31·4 per cent., because it has increased its expenditure during the past 12 months by 16 per cent. That must surely increase the community charge to be paid by Lancashire ratepayers by £70 or £80. Much of that is unnecessary and casts a burden of hardship on many sections of the community that cannot afford to pay it.
  Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend. As he suggested, the main reason for increases in community charges will be large increases in spending. It is important for the Government to emphasise that point during the next few months. There has been a great deal of dispute about the figures during recent weeks. We are allowing for £32·8 billion of local authority expenditure next year, which represents an increase of 11 per cent, over what we were prepared to provide this year. Is that future unfair because of some meanness with the figure this year? It is difficult to argue that it is because this year's figure is 9·9 per cent, higher than the provision for last year, which itself was 7·3 per cent, higher than the figure for the year before.
  There has been a consistent run of high figures for increases in total provision. Even with that 9·9 per cent, increase in provision for this year, all local authorities tell us that, on average, they are intending to budget over that provision by 7 per cent. That is 7 per cent, on top of the 9·9 per cent, increase in provision; that represents an additional £1·9 billion. In those circumstances, it may not

  429
  surprise my right hon. and hon. Friends to know that about three quarters of the contingency reserve this year has gone in meeting overspending by local government.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The Secretary of State must be aware that all local authorities—including all those under Conservative control—have to meet nationally negotiated pay deals for teachers, policemen and firemen. Those are key elements in the contingency fund point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. The local authorities have to pay higher interest rates. All those charges are falling not just on what ghe describes as profligate Labour authorities, but on the Conservative authorities. The complaints from local government come from all parties.
  Mr. Patten: I am coming directly to that point. It was not the Government who negotiated the 8·8 per cent, pay settlement with NALGO last year—it was the local authorities. Presumably they realised the consequences for their charge payers. The basis of the local authorities' case is that whatever the level of overspending, whatever the outturn of spending in one year, that should be taken as the base line for increases in spending for the next year.
  The logic of that argument is that local authority public expenditure would never be within control; that it would increase every year as a proportion of public expenditure; and that it would increase every year as a proportion of the gross national product. Taken to its extreme, the logic of the argument is that eventually local authorities would consume the entire gross national product. I do not think that that is an ambition in the breasts of most district treasurers, but I cannot say the same for county treasurers.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that central Government have placed huge and costly additional burdens on local government, not least in education, and that education is one of the largest elements of local government expenditure? Will he seriously consider transferring the cost of teachers' salaries to central Government, and to taxpayers nationally? That would make the new system much more acceptable.
  Mr. Patten: As I am sure my hon. Friend would be the first to point out, as well as giving local authorities new responsibilities, we have taken some burdens off them. Many of those who now own their council homes are, I am sure, particularly grateful for that. We have also given local authorities the opportunities to become more efficient through compulsory competitive tendering, which I know has given so much encouragement to the Opposition.
  I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The best figures to compare year on year are the total amounts of the so-called aggregate external finance going into local government—the total amounts from business ratepayers, revenue support grant and special grants. The external finance going into local government next year will be £23·1 billion, which represents an 8·5 per cent, increase over this year. This year we have seen an 8·9 per cent, increase over last year's amount. On top of that, £1·85 billion goes to pay for the cost of community charge benefits and income support in England and a further £300 million to pay for the cost of the transitional relief scheme. That should
  430
  mean that, with spending at the levels that we believe are reasonable, the community charge payer would have to meet only about £1 of every £4 of local government spending, which is a reasonable level.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Secretary of State address the question that the Prime Minister dodged this afternoon—why so many English Conservative Members who were happy to vote for the poll tax in Scotland are in open revolt against these measures, despite the concessions that the right hon. Gentleman parades? Might that be because, when it comes to Scottish legislation, those Members vote whichever way the Whips tell them, regardless of the issue or the views of the Scottish people?
  Mr. Patten: I do not believe that. I am content to leave that issue to the judgment of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who I am sure will reach the right decisions in the Division Lobby this evening.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Patten: After my hon. Friend's intervention, I want to proceed with my speech, or I will be speaking until the end of the debate.
  Mr. Jessel: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Before he leaves the point about local authority expenditure, may I ask him whether he is aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and I deplore the extravagance of the Liberal-controlled Richmond upon Thames borough council? That council is constructing a new town hall in Twickenham which it calls a civic centre, at a cost of £12 million, which is certain to increase the community charge for residents throughout the borough. Will my right hon. Friend send for details of this reckless piece of civic extravagance and conceit?
  Mr. Patten: That is precisely the type of extravagance on which I hope my hon. Friend's constituents will make their views extremely clear.
  Local authorities say that, because we are not providing them with enough money, the community charge will be higher next year than we have suggested it need be. The argument comes down to their proposition that the £278, which we have said should represent a reasonable level of community charge on average across the country, will be exceeded by £50 or £60—some say that on average it will go up to £340; others say that it will go up to £350.
  My point is simple: the difference to the country between a community charge of £278 and a community charge of £340 is £2·2 billion of public expenditure. The basic local authority case is that, in addition to the £1·8 billion extra that we are putting into local government this year through external finance, we should put in another £2·2 billion, making a £4 billion increase overall. I cannot believe that anyone really thinks that that would represent a sensible prioritisation of public expenditure or that it would be sensible for the management of the economy.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Mr. Brian Wilson rose——
  Mr. Michael Welsh rose——
  Mr. Patten: I want to move on, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) because I like him.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman has totally disarmed me. I put it to him in a helpful way that surely the Government's calculation that local authorities will increase their spending by only about 3·8 per cent. next year, when it is known that inflation is about 8 per cent., lies at the centre of the problem for local authorities.
  Mr. Patten: I am afraid that either I have been extremely poor in putting my argument across or the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I have set out in detail the figures for local standard spending and aggregate external finance—the 8·5 per cent. increase. The hon. Gentleman's figure of 3·8 per cent. is valid only if one assumes that whatever is the outturn of local government expenditure for one year should be taken as the base line for the next. As I have said consistently, that is a recipe for local government taking an increasing share of public expenditure.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Patten: This is absolutely the last time that I shall give way.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend,. Does not the discrepancy partially arise because local authorities are expected to chip in the same amount from balances this coming year as they did last year and that many of the local authorities depleted their balances so they are not able to do it this coming year? Were local authorities advised in early discussions of the consequences of dipping into their balances this year?
  Mr Patten: Local authorities have been constantly advised about the consequences of dipping into their balances and of boosting them immediately thereafter. The House knows that the pattern of balances tends to bear some relationship to the electoral cycle. It would be preposterous if whatever an authority decided to do about balances meant that in the following year the taxpayer met the difference. In other words, if a local authority draws down balances one year to boost spending, I do not see why the taxpayer should increase spending the next year by that amount just because of the local authority's behaviour.
  I want to come to three issues that allegedly blur the question of accountability. Reference has been made to the first by several of my hon. Friends—the issue of charge capping. Under legislation, we have power to charge-cap, just as we previously had power to rate-cap. Many people argue that it would be wrong to charge-cap because they think that it is wrong to interrupt the transmission mechanism between what a local authority spends and the purse or wallet of the community charge payer. I understand that argument particularly well, but if some of the horrendously high figures for the community charge bandied about are set next year, we will have no hesitation in capping the authorities concerned.
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks: My right hon. Friend has dealt with the issue at the heart of the matter. Is he aware that many of my constituents have lived year after year with double figure increases in rates? Many of them say that if we achieve our objectives
  432
  with the community charge, it will be fair, but that if we let the likes of Labour-controlled Wolverhampton council continue to get away with murder, not to live within budgets and to set a figure in excess of £400 when we have given a guideline of £268, the Government will be getting away with murder as well.
  We must not do what we did with council house sales. We left it too long before we took action and under the authorities that did not push through council house sales, people were left waiting for years. If local authorities do not see sense after April, will my right hon. Friend take action immediately and cap them from day one?
  Mr. Patten: That is helpful advice to which I listened keenly. I shall now move on to the second issue.
  Mr. David Blunkett: Will the Secretary of State tell the House and the nation how what he has just described as a necessary measure to hold back poll tax charging squares with what he himself described on 6 November 1989 as a poll tax which would put the community in charge?
  Mr. Patten: It will put the community in charge. However, the community may need a year of our assistance in some cases before it can make its votes plain in the ballot box.
  Mr. John Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Patten: No. I like the hon. Gentleman, but not as much as I like his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West.
  Sir Hugh Rossi: Until accountability at the election box begins to work, constituents such as mine still need the protection of central Government from councils such as Haringey, which will have a community charge of about £650 a head.
  Mr. Patten: I can understand my hon. Friend's considerable concern and I hope that Haringey council will note what I said.
  Mr. Wilson rose——
  Mr. Fraser rose——
  Mr. Patten: I shall give way a little later.
  The second issue that has caused some concern is the transitional relief scheme. A number of my hon. Friends and a number of other commentators——
  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for various Whips and the chairman of the 1922 Committee to go round various Conservative Members to try to persuade them to vote for the Government tonight?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I call Mr. Patten.
  Mr. Patten: Some people say that the transitional relief scheme in some way blurs accountability. They have suggested that we should cover any losses in the transitional relief scheme, whatever the level of overspending by a local authority. That is neither true nor reasonable, as it would lead to the Treasury, in effect, meeting the costs of overspending by local authorities and it might encourage some to spend up. My hon. Friend the

  433
  Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and others have referred to the particular problems that are posed where local authorities have been spending below their grant-related expenditure and are now spending below their SSA.
  That is especially difficult. Many of the ramifications are not easy to work out, but I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that we shall try to find a way through the problems by the time that we debate the order on the transitional relief scheme in a few weeks' time. If we have not been able to do so, we shall have to explain ourselves extremely convincingly to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. Fraser: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as a result of a mistake by the Inland Revenue, Lambeth borough council has to repay £1 million to the London residuary body? As a result, the poll tax will rise by £30 per person in Lambeth. Lambeth will receive £4 million of transitional relief, whereas Wandsworth will receive £24 million. Would it not be fair at least to increase the transitional relief by £11 million to compensate for the Inland Revenue's mistake and to treat a Labour and a Tory borough even-handedly?
  Mr. Patten: I have gathered from what has been said in my left ear that the facts may not be quite as the hon. Gentleman described. I shall ask my hon. Friend to respond to the hon. Gentleman's point in his winding-up speech. I wish that that was the only increase in spending that Lambeth ratepayers or chargepayers were having to meet in the coming year.
  The third issue that has caused particular concern to many of my hon. Friends and which is alleged to blur accountability is the safety net.
  Mr. Skinner: What about SSAs?
  Mr. Patten: I shall come to that.
  My hon. Friends will know that, with the ending of resource equalisation, we have ended the hidden subsidies from high rateable value areas to low rateable value areas. We originally proposed that authorities that lost as a result should have their losses phased in over four years, with the cost being met by local authorities that were substantial gainers from the ending of resource equalisation. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends argued that we should be more generous and we decided, as we announced last autumn, that, after the first year, all the gains would come to local authorities that were benefiting from the new arrangements straight away and that the losers would have their losses met by the Treasury to the tune of about £850 million over the remaining three years. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said that we should go still further and meet the cost of the safety net in the first year as well, at a cost of £650 million.
  I want to face the issue squarely. One cannot bring much in the way of scientific judgment to the matter; it is wholly a matter of political judgment and of one's views of priorities. When I considered the other areas in which we need to spend money next year—and in which we shall spend more money—I could not press the case for spending £650 million extra on parts of the country that will benefit from the changes that we are making.
  I apologise to my hon. Friends for putting it as bluntly as that when some of them would doubtless have liked me
  434
  to put it more mellifluously, but that is a fact. It is not unreasonable that people should wait a year for half their gains when the gains coming to many local authorities will be so coinsiderable in year two. Expenditure of £650 million on the safety net in year one would not be justified in comparison with many other areas in which all of us want to see additional spending.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: The people of Wolverhampton will not appreciate that statement. The Secretary of State is not prepared to respond on the £47 surcharge that the Government are imposing on the people of Wolverhampton. Why did the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) not support her constituents and ask the Government to remove that surcharge?
  The Secretary of State talks about equity and fairness. He is suggesting that Wolverhampton should spend £56 per head of its population—£10 million—below the Government's own assessment of the city's needs. That is on the Government's own figures. Will the Secretary of State tell me whether that is fair?
  Mr. Patten: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what is especially fair to Wolverhampton—perhaps some of my hon. Friends may think that it is fairer than some Wolverhampton councillors deserve: Wolverhampton is to gain £88 per head out of the new system and will contribute about half that sum to the safety net in the first year. The best thing that the hon. Gentleman can do for community charge payers in Wolverhampton is to go back to Wolverhampton and tell his council to sort itself out.
  Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned the consequences of the move from grant-related expenditure assessments to standard spending assessments.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about the uniform business rate?
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend asks about the UBR——
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And the phasing?
  Mr. Patten: I hope that the House will find it acceptable if the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) deals with the uniform business rate, the revaluation and the phasing that was agreed by the House under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, because I must finish my remarks at some point this evening——
  Mr. Wilson: You are doing well.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) for his commendation.
  We are moving from a system of GREAs to a system of SSAs—I apologise for all the initials—on the ground that the new system is much simpler than its predecessor, although this is another illustration of the fact that all things are relative. For many years, the GREAs were widely condemned for being much too complicated, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House argued that we should move to a very much simpler system. Some suggested that we should go over to a system based entirely on population—that we should distribute all our grant on a population basis.

  435
  I do not think that that would be a fair basis for the distribution of all grant. It is reasonable to take some account of need, but as soon as one starts to try to define need and develop a methodology, one finds oneself in a situation in which some people lose and others gain—in other words, a situation such as that in which I find myself at the moment. Excluding the parish councils, there are 426 local authorities in England, and the more deputations I have received concerning SSAs, the more I have realised that there are at least 424 special cases—424 because neither the constituency of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wirral, West nor my own of Bath is allowed to count.
  It is true that the SSAs probably take a greater account than GREs of additional educational need in inner London and in some inner-city areas, but the ending of resource equalisation means that counties in the south-east, for example, will do rather better out of the new system. We arrived at the SSA system after an inordinate amount of consultation and discussion with local authorities and the local authority associations and it is perhaps understandable if my Department does not view with unbridled enthusiasm the prospect of another round of consultation. I want to make it clear to my right hon. and hon. Friends however, that the SSA methodology is not cast in stone. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] If my hon. Friends, the local authorities in their constituencies or the local authority associations wish to come to us with fresh evidence in support of a new methodology for SSAs, we shall be quite prepared to consider changes that we can put in place for next year.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: For which year?
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Lady knows that we cannot do it by next year because we have already made the settlement.
  I want to make it clear——
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Patten: All right, but this is the last time.
  Mr. Bruce: My right hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to many overspending local authorities. If he runs his finger down the SSA column, he will find in table 2 that Dorset—in particular my constituency of Dorset, South—has the lowest SSAs in the country. Can he explain why, although he assured my constituents that the new system would he very much fairer and that they would be receiving more grant, education in Dorset, which must have among the lowest resources in the country, is to lose £6 million in grant? Yet the Government say that we are already underspending. Clearly, the SSA system is not fair to the community charge payers of Dorset.
  Mr. Patten: I believe that I am right in saying that the move from GREAs to SSAs will mean an increase of about 7 per cent. overall in Dorset and that there will be a rather larger increase of about 11 per cent. in the total aggregate external finance going to Dorset next year. I am quite prepared to look at new evidence brought by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members concerning the SSAs.
  Mr. Bowen Wells rose——
  Mr. Ralph Howell rose——
  Hon. Members: Give way!
  Mr. Patten: If Opposition Members will allow me, I shall take two final interventions but no more.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes rose——
  Mr. Patten: No, not a third.
  Mr. Wells: I am deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving us the assurance that he will look again at the method of calculating the SSAs. Is not the difficulty with the present method that on the one hand my right hon. Friend claims that the calculation of the SSAs is an objective assessment of what each council should be spending but on the other hand he is forced by Government policies and the needs of inner cities and other areas to alter their SSAs? That being so, the SSA cannot be an objective assessment of what each council needs to spend. That surely invalidates any rhetoric to the effect that councils are overspending on that objective assessment. Is not that what my right hon. Friend needs to alter?
  Mr. Patten: I am accustomed to agreeing with my hon. Friend on completely uncontroversial matters such a s overseas development, but, with respect, I do not think that what he says necessarily follows. Any attempt to introduce the concept of need into a distribution methodology can create problems and one has to try to be as scientific about it as possible. One could produce methodologies that were plainly unfair. We think that this one is broadly fair and that we have got things broadly right, but we are quite prepared to look at the evidence again and to make adjustments.
  Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Patten: No, I shall give way for the very last time to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell).
  Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend——
  Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not help our proceedings if all those Conservative Members who were told that everything was going to be wonderful, who passed that message on to the constituents and who now feel that they have been swindled, rose at the same time?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Howell: May I ask my right hon. Friend to stop bothering his head with SSAs, or whatever they are, and recognise that the scheme was flawed from the start and that nothing can repair it? Will he scrap the whole idea and replace it with a 6 per cent. charge on VAT, which everybody would pay and which would be totally fair?
  Mr. Patten: I am not absolutely convinced that my hon. Friend's methodology for increasing VAT by 6 per cent. would necessarily commend itself to his electors, to mine or, for that matter, to anybody else's.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Patronage Secretary continually to intimidate and harass the Secretary of State by instructing him very audibly not to give way to his hon. Friends who are concerned about

  437
  the inequity of the poll tax for their constituents? Should not the Secretary of State have the right to listen to the worries of his Back Benchers?
  Mr. Patten: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is true".] Well, I have plainly blighted my career, because I have given way about 20 times. However, I do not want to give way any more, because we are——
  Mr. Dykes rose,——
  Mr. Patten: No, no, no—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Harrow has a very good settlement.
  The reason I am not intending to give way is because none of us can wait for the opportunity, in response to the few remarks that I have made, of hearing the Opposition's alternative to our proposals. We know very well that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)I has one of the most creative minds in politics. We also know that he was so creative that halfway through the last general election campaign he sank the Labour party's then proposals on local government finance. We are looking forward to the hon. Gentleman bringing forward his new proposals on local government finance. Until he does so, we shall greet the Opposition's contributions to these debates with the genial contempt that they deserve.
  I believe that the debate is about the sensible control of public expenditure. It is about priorities for public expenditure and priorities for managing the economy. I very much hope that, bearing those things in mind, my right hon. and hon. Friends will join us in the Division Lobby at 10 o'clock tonight and for some time to come.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Bryan Gould: The House will not need reminding that Opposition Members have conducted a long campaign against the poll tax. We have opposed it on the principle of what the Government have put forward. I am glad that that opposition has been shared not only by Labour Members but, as we have heard demonstrated this afternoon, by hon. Members of other parties, including the Conservative party.
  Those who have taken that principled stand have done so because we object to the proposals first, on the grounds that they are costly and complicated; secondly, that they constitute a threat to the unity and cohesion of family life; and thirdly, that they are an obstacle to the full exercise of the rights of citizenship, which gives cause for legitimate concerns on the grounds of civil rights. Fourthly, and most important of all, we have objected to the proposals on the simple, straightforward and fundamental ground that, because they are not in any sense related to the ability to pay, they are grossly unfair and damaging.
  Mr. Roger King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: In a moment.
  Today, while we shall certainly adhere to, and intend to continue to press, that campaign on the grounds of principle—and I expect many hon. Members of all parties also to adhere to that position—we have reached a new stage in the debate. We are no longer simply discussing questions of principle. The true significance of the reports that we are debating today is that they now allow us to
  438
  look at the nuts and bolts and at the hard practical consequences of what will happen in terms of pounds and pence for individual local authorities and, even more importantly, for individual taxpayers when the bills start plopping through the letter boxes on 1 April.
  We are now moving to a new phase in the debate, but our objections in principle are maintained and, I believe, will be strengthened by what we are now discovering about the practicalities. However, there is now a further opportunity for those who may never have objected in principle to the Government's proposals—who may, indeed, have endorsed the Government's proposals in principle, perhaps because they understood them or perhaps because they did not fully understand them. For whatever reason, those who may have endorsed the principle, now have an opportunity to make a new judgment about the practical consequences.
  Mr. Roger King: I listened with care and attention to the hon. Gentleman's four points, the fourth of which related to the ability to pay. Some of us have discovered what is afoot in the town hall in Birmingham, where councillors have worked out that the community charge arrangements feature the concept of the ability to pay. Of its 683,000 adults, the city treasurer has calculated that 300,000 will get a rebate. We believe that it is because of that that the Labour controlling authority is putting up the rate unnecessarily to cash in on the rebate system.
  Mr. Gould: I shall happily take up the case of Birmingham a little later, but I was interested to hear the slight nuance of an attack on the principle of rebates, which is a chilling prospect for any authority and for any individual taxpayer should the hon. Gentleman's view ever prevail.
  We must now make—and when I say "we", I mean that the whole House and every individual hon. Member has to make—a judgment about the practical consequences of the new measures. I am delighted to see that at 5·17 in the afternoon, our Benches, and especially the Conservative Benches, are still full. It shows an almost unprecedented interest from the Conservative party in the detail of local government finance.
  Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: By all means.
  Mr. Dykes: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Bearing in mind his reputation for holding long-term consistent views on various policies, such as Europe, I advise him that another reason why the Conservative Benches are extremely well populated is not only the importance of the subject, but because we are fascinated to learn his proposed alternatives to these proposals.
  Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to my consistency. I shall take up his point immediately, because I am glad to have the opportunity of responding to it. I can tell him that we are making very good progress with the work that we have undertaken to prepare our alternative. There will hardly be a more pressing problem for us to face than the total unacceptability of the provisions that the Government are putting in place. We have absolutely no intention of

  439
  repeating the mistakes that are now so clearly demonstrated by Conservative Members and of hurrying the process simply because——
  Mr. Spencer Batiste rose—
  Mr. Gould: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will at least allow me to answer his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) first.
  I want to put this point clearly. We have every confidence that in the coming months we shall reach a conclusion that we shall be able to bring forward with confidence. That conclusion will offer us a fair and effective alternative to the poll tax. When we have that alternative, and, more importantly, when we return to government to implement it, we shall have a debate on those proposals. I hope that at least some Conservative Members who are present today will be present then when we explain the legislative effect of our proposals.
  In the meantime, let us be perfectly clear. Our function this afternoon is to debate the important detail of the Government's proposals, which will be of immense importance to the constituents of every hon. Member in the House. I hope that we shall not have a volume of irrelevant interventions on Labour policy on this or that matter—[Laughter.] That would divert attention from matters of great seriousness. Every Conservative Member who is laughing and trying to disrupt the debate reveals only the desperation and embarrassment felt on their Benches about the debate and the scrutiny of the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Chris Patten: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what happened to the last alternative and how long he expects the next one to last?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are debating a specific motion.
  Mr. Gould: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I said, when we have our proposals, we shall be happy to debate them.
  Mr. Batiste: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: No. I want to make some progress. I shall give way in a moment.
  Both Opposition and Conservative Members have an obligation to reach a new judgment on the basis of the facts, as presented in the reports. Unfortunately, that jugdment cannot be made on the basis of anything new or of substance put forward by the Secretary of State or in the reports. The facts remain substantially unchanged. Since 6 November the process of consultation has produced virtually nothing of substance by way of change.
  Mr. Batiste: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: I shall give way shortly, but I want to make some progress. I do not want to take an hour, as the Secretary of State did.
  Bringing forward the grant is welcome but it is merely a recognition of the transitional problems that local authorities will face. Perhaps the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities can help us when he replies to the debate. It is hard to understand how bringing forward £800 million-worth of grants by two months is worth anything like £180 million worth on interest rates.
  440
  The only possible explanation is that there will be some. as yet undisclosed, increase in interest rates. I suspect that he will not wish to enlighten us about that.
  Mr. Chris Patten: We have plenty of other things to disagree about, so we need not disagree about this. The local authority associations would not dispute the figures that we have given. I am prepared to show the hon. Gentleman the detailed calculations by which we arrived at them.
  Mr. Gould: I shall be interested to hear the detailed explanation. On the face of it, £800 million over two months does not produce an income of £180 million.
  The Secretary of State deserves some sympathy from the Opposition. He faces a predicament. As on previous occasions, he revealed in his speech a certain lack of warmth towards his proposals. That is not surprising. He is not the parent of these proposals. They are not his baby. He inherited them and has little power to change them. When he first came to office, he made a brave attempt to change them by introducing a safety net and transitional relief. We must accept that the Secretary of State has reached the end of the road. He cannot, or he is unwilling to, achieve any more and he said as much when he conceded that he was unwilling to find any more money.
  There is nothing that the House can do, save to vote tonight to force the Treasury's hand. This is our last chance. We can still come to the aid of the Secretary of State, who clearly lost the battle in Cabinet, by voting against the reports.
  Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman repeatedly asks me and my hon. Friends to make a judgment about these proposals. He will agree that, by definition, there is no such thing as a popular tax. Many of us support the proposals, because after extensive consultation lasting many years, we have concluded that they are the least undesirable among many options. May we make our judgment this afternoon on the clear understanding that the hon. Gentleman has no alternative to offer that is less undesirable than the one before us today, and that he is unlikely to produce one before the next election?
  Mr. Gould: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman intervenes to such poor effect. He is trying to divert attention from an important and central difficulty which the House faces and on which, as he conceded, he must make a judgment.
  The Secretary of State has a real dilemma. Not only has he lost the battle in Cabinet, but each time he talks about the safety net or transitional relief, each time he talks approvingly of the extent to which the central purse has been opened to help local authorities in their spending plans and about the need to cap the community charge or poll tax, indeed every time that he makes such a move—and he would love to move further—he undermines arid destroys the only original case for introducing the poll tax. The poll tax had only one merit, or claimed merit—that it was simple, that everyone paid it and that it imposed the burden of accountability on those who received services and obliged such people to pay for them. Every move that the Secretary of State makes is a move away from the central simplicity of the poll tax. By every such expression of opinion, he demonstrates what little confidence he has in his proposals.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that the community charge will enormously benefit the vast majority of single pensioners? He said that it had only one merit. Is not that another one?
  Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman should note that at least 1 million single pensioners will be worse off under the proposals.
  The Secretary of State has attempted to find an escape route from his difficulties. He has taken refuge in facts and figures that are unreliable. The reports are based on total expenditure, as the Secretary of State described, of £32·8 billion. Everyone in local government accepts that that figure is based on a Government assumption, not on actual spending. The Secretary of State does not dispute that. The reasons for that are instructive. First, the figure based on his assumption takes no account of spending from balances and special funds, which, as some of his hon. Friends have said, had to be made to meet local authorities' spending commitments. The local authority associations estimate that that factor alone accounts for a £1·6 billion shortfall in the figure that local authorities need in order to stand still.
  We then pass to the inflation rate of about 4 per cent. that has been used in making the calculation. Yet everybody, even the Secretary of State, knows that inflation is running at 7·7 per cent. and that it may well rise even further in the year at which we are looking. The local authority associations calculate that that factor means a further £900 million shortfall, leaving local authorities, even under the Secretary of State's total standard spending assessment, £2·5 billion short. That is to take no account of yet a further factor based on the further spending commitments that do not appear yet to have been taken into account.
  My hon. Friends have mentioned the pay rises for fire fighters, police and teachers, but there are further commitments in the pipeline arising from the Education Reform Act 1988, the "Care in the Community" White Paper and the Environmental Protection Bill, none of which has yet been taken into account. Yet the Secretary of State assumes that local authorities will, somehow or other, be able to freeze their spending in real terms.
  Mr. Chris Patten: I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying about balances, because it is an important point. Is it the Opposition's policy that, if a council uses its balances this year in order to increase its current expenditure, next year the taxpayer should find a similar amount so that the council's current expenditure does not have to fall by that amount of balance? If so, it will be of interest to the shadow Chancellor.
  Mr. Gould: With great respect, the Secretary of State misunderstands my point. When we consider, as the Secretary of State invites us to do, percentage increases on levels of past spending—however strong or weak the case for doing so may be—there is no point for the purposes of that calculation in saying that spending came from this or that source, or this or that justified quarter. The fact is that that spending was undertaken. That is the level of spending. Therefore, anyone, including the Secretary of State, who wants to come to the House to say that the level of spending has been permitted to rise by a certain percentage, has to make that judgment on the basis of the actual figure rather than an assumed figure.
  442
  If the Secretary of State wishes to say that they should not have made that spending, by all means let him say so, but that is irrelevant to the question of what percentage increase he has now allowed over the actual level of spending. There is no way that he can duck that. He cannot talk in terms of percentage figures while at the same time basing his judgment on an invented figure. That is the essence of his difficulties.
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: While my hon. Friend is dealing with matters that the Government have clearly not taken into consideration in the calculation of the standard spending allowance, let me add another to his list—the police precept. Avon county council, an alliance and Tory-controlled council, budgeting at the moment on a standstill budget which will produce a £500 poll tax, was allowed £34·3 million for its precept under the standard spending assessment. Its current expenditure is £38·8 million and the Home Office has just agreed an increased budget of 13 per cent. for the Avon and Somerset constabulary. That too has not been included in the calculation. The Government are forcing up local government expenditure.
  Mr. Gould: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for demonstrating how futile it is to pretend that percentage increases can be based on assumed starting points. The list is long and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, East (Mr. Leighton) said, we could add interest rates as well.
  Mr. David Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: No, I want to make some progress.
  Those factors mean that the Government's assumed total standard spending is a substantial under-estimate. No one disputes that. It cannot be used with any confidence as the basis for calculating the impact of the Government's poll tax. Nevertheless, those areas are carried over in the most damaging way conceivable, in particular, into the so-called benchmark of accountability—us, or perhaps I should say infamous, £278 so-called community charge for standard spending.
  Not only does that figure reflect all the errors that we have detailed in the assumptions that are at the basis of the total standard spending, as many hon. Members understand very well—the £278 is a direct function of that figure; it is in no sense some detailed and careful totting up of individual spending commitments, as is sometimes assumed—not only is the £278 figure flawed as a consequence of the mistakes made in calculating the total standard spending, but that mistake is exacerbated by further errors.
  For example, when we look at the level of collection of the poll tax, the assumption made by the Government is that 100 per cent. will be collected. Yet everybody understands, and all the evidence is, that district treasurers and finance departments throughout Britain are naturally and properly budgeting on the assumption that they will collect no better than 95 per cent., and some may be lucky to achieve that.
  Every shortfall in income and every increase in spending will have an immediate, huge and disproportionate effect on the level of the poll tax because there is no other way in which that shortfall or increased commitment can be made up. For every £1 of increased spending that

  443
  is not accounted for, or every £1 of shortfall in revenue, the poll tax will go up by £4. That means that the £278 figure, to which so much attention has been paid, is, as I said when we first heard of it on 6 November, an invention, a mirage, a fairy tale. It bears no relation to reality and no one believes it.
  In case anyone needs a demonstration of that, I need do no more than turn to the Conservative controlled Association of District Councils. The chairman of that local authority association, Councillor Roy Thomason, who is himself a Conservative, in a statement issued yesterday, said:
  "The total spending envisaged by Government remains at an artificially low figure. It does not allow for the actual level of inflation"
  or
  "the fact that many authorities took money from their balances to pay for their spending last year".
  He concludes by saying:
  "According to the information currently available to us"—
  we must bear in mind that these are mostly Conservative-controlled district councils—
  "we estimate the community charge across England is going to average about £340."
  In the Municipal Journal of 12 January we are told:
  "A 'straw poll' at a recent meeting of district treasurers showed that only one out of 246 authorities represented expected to levy a charge 'at or below' the notional figure".
  It went on to say that Conservative councillor Watson
  from Horsham prepared a report showing that
  "120 districts were expecting to exceed Government guidelines by between £76 and £100 per head. A further 65 were expecting overshoot by between £51 and £75 … Only nine were expecting to keep their excess to £50. And, in one instance, a district"—
  Unnamed—
  "was expecting to overshoot by more than £150 per head."
  No wonder Councillor Watson concluded that the Government's notional figures
  "appear to have scant regard for the realities of life at the sharp end."
  That is testimony from people involved in local government, experts in these matters and mostly members of the Conservative party. The real weight of their evidence is that many Conservative Members know that the evidence is accurate because they see it mirrored in their own experience in their own localities——
  Mr. Richard Tracey: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will know that the Association of Labour Authorities n London has been consulting various Labour-controlled boroughs, suggesting that they should go for the highest possible community charge and thereafter blame the Government. Does he agree that the public automatically assume that the highest community charges will come from Labour-controlled authorities?
  Mr. Gould: I totally reject that calumny.
  The Association of County Councils may be rather more to the taste of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). That Conservative-controlled association has today published its comment on the Government's reports and figures. It raises the same range of objections to the accuracy of those figures as did the ADC. Under a heading,
  "The unrealistic nature of the assumed £278 average community charge",
  the association states:
  "The wide publication by the Government of assumed community charge figures for individual areas is bound to have raised false expectations."
  444
  We also have the testimony of the much-respected Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. It has done a study which shows that if we put together the omission on inflation and accounted for a modest increase in real spending of 1·5 per cent. and allowing for a proportion of 5 per cent. of those registered adults failing to pay the community charge, this would produce an average community charge of about £344, compared with the £278 quoted in the exemplifications. The institute states:
  "local authorities could only deliver an average community charge of £278 per adult by making very substantial cuts in the volume of spending—typically of the order of 8 per cent. to 10 per cent."
  I am glad that the House is taking notice of the overwhelming evidence which comes from local authorities of all types and colours of political control. During the debate hon. Members will no doubt testify to the experience of their own local authorities. I mention in passing—because it has been drawn to my attention in the past couple of hours—the position in Conservative-controlled Kensington and Chelsea. In a by-election a short time ago the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) maintained that the poll tax would be about £122 per head. We now find him complaining that the poll tax bill will be at least £400. I have no doubt that Conservative Members will have similar horrific stories to tell.
  I can speak for some Labour-controlled local authorities. For example, Birmingham, Wakefield and a range of other authorities have told us in telephone conversations today that for them the £278 figure is simply an invention—an absolute fiction.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Mr. Gould: I shall give way for the last time.
  Mr. Banks: If he has the opportunity I should like my hon. Friend to address the calumny perpetrated by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) in suggesting that Labour authorities in London were being advised by the Association of London Authorities to go for the highest possible poll tax. My borough, the London borough of Newham, faces the prospect of a £503 poll tax which it realises is totally unacceptable to the poor people of Newham who will be forced to pay it. It knows that it must therefore consider making massive cuts. If the hon. Member for Surbiton thinks that we are so irresponsible that we want to penalise our own supporters, he is a bigger fool than he looks.
  Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend offers weighty substance to my rejection of the calumny perpetrated a few moments
  ago.
  Mr. Tracey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is documentary evidence for what I said. It has been discussed by the Labour group on Southwark council and, it is likely, elsewhere too.
  Mr. Gould: On the central question of the veracity and reliability of the £278 figure, I have produced irrefutable evidence of its rejection by everyone who has considered it. In his recent television interview with David Frost, even the Secretary of State appeared to have some doubts. He said:
  "the figures may fetch up higher."

  445
  Why does it matter if the figure is an illusion? It matters because it is part of a propaganda battle in which a central Government—who have taken control of virtually every aspect of local government finance—will try to use that figure to show that when bills substantially in excess of £278 plop though letter boxes it has nothing to do with them. The practical consequence is that illusions have been created and expectations raised that will be shattered when the bills arrive. That is why, with that dreadful realisation, many Conservative Members are understandably concerned about what is being done in their name.
  The practical consequences go further. The same mistakes that vitiate the £278 figure also affect the notional poll tax figure, on the basis of which the transitional relief is to be calculated. The transitional relief is meant to assure every poll tax payer that he or she will not be more than £3 a week worse off. The use of an inaccurate base figure means that undoubtedly many taxpayers will be more than £3 a week worse off, but will not qualify for transitional relief. There will be others who, having qualified for transitional relief, will still be more than £3 a week worse off. That is the practical consequence of the con-trick being perpetrated on the taxpayers of this country.
  The Secretary of State rightly said that he was not going to deal with the national non-domestic rate which he would leave to his hon. Friend the Minister when he wound up. However, the reports set the figure for that rate—the poundage—and, therefore, we are entitled to say briefly that our objections to the national non-domestic rate follow the pattern of our objections to the poll tax. We object to this rate in principle because we see it as a further measure of unwelcome centralisation of the Government and a further attack on the autonomy and independence of local government. It breaks the link between those who receive services and those who pay for them. There is a complete and flat contradiction in the case for the non-domestic rate of the very principle which was said to commend the poll tax.
  Mr. Chris Patten: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the uniform business rate. Will he confirm that the Opposition support the revaluation,?
  Mr. Gould: There is no dispute on that matter. I would go further and congratulate the Government on undertaking that revaluation, which is long overdue.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton rose——
  Mr. Gould: I shall not give way, because I am about to conclude.
  One interesting fact about the proposals by the Secretary of State is that, as far as I can tell, the inflation rate at which he thought it appropriate to set the total standard spending for the poll tax, 4 per cent., is different from the inflation rate he has used to calculate the revenue to be obtained from the national non-domestic rate. It is extraordinary that a Government who are said to pride themselves on the accuracy of their book-keeping should, in the same set of proposals, operate on inflation rates that differ by almost 100 per cent.
  There are other practical problems about the incidence and impact of the national non-domestic rate. The latest Inland Revenue analaysis of 20 December shows that the combined effect of the revaluation and the new business
  446
  tax will mean that 252,000, or 15·5 per cent., of businesses will face an increase in their bills of more than 100 per cent., and 246,000, or 15·2 per cent., of businesses will face increases of between 50 and 100 per cent. Therefore, nearly a third of all businesses in England and Wales will face business tax increases in excess of 50 per cent.
  The Government's only defence is to point to the transitional arrangements, which purport to limit any increase to 20 per cent. in any one year, over a five-year period. Even that obscures the fact that the 20 per cent. increase is to be calculated cumulatively and takes no account of inflation, which must also be added. As a result, instead of a 20 per cent. increase from one year to the next, the maximum increase—at an inflation rate optimistically of only 6 per cent.—will be 26 per cent. in the first year, 59 per cent. in the second, and 100 per cent. in the third.
  Mr. Chris Patten: Did the hon. Gentleman criticise Haringey when it increased its business rate by 56 per cent. last year?
  Mr. Gould: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman wanting to divert attention from the central weaknesses of his own position, but we are debating his own proposals.
  Just as with the poll tax we had the testimony of Conservative and non-Labour local authorities, so today we received a letter from Maidstone borough council—which I imagine many right hon. and hon. Members received—concerning the business rate. Maidstone, which is certainly not a Labour-controlled council, states:
  "This council notes that the recently announced revaluations for non-domestic ratepayers will result in vast rate rises for the majority of local businesses, on average around 69% and in many cases in excess of 100%. This represents the withdrawal by the Government of over £8m. from the local economy".
  The council goes on to express its concern and dissatisfaction.
  Mr. Max Madden: Will my hon. Friend comment on how the Government can square their claims that the uniform business rate will benefit the north when figures released this week show that, as a result of the poll tax and uniform business rate, Yorkshire and Humberside will lose more than £300 million per year? Does not that explode the myth that both innovations will greatly benefit the north?
  Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend is right. The Local Government Information Unit has produced excellent research material to demonstrate that point.
  A huge proportion of small and new businesses—particularly those using new technology, which are at the leading edge of economic advance and on which we need to rely for our future prosperity—face massive rate increases. Even on the basis of the Government's own assertions, the Government should display a decent sense of embarrassment. Year after year they have been saying that businesses were being crippled by rate increases. The situation now is that the Government themselves are imposing increases, of more than 100 per cent. in some cases, on the very type of businesses whose interests they claim to represent.
  This evening, we are presented with a last chance to do something about the Government's iniquitous measure. We are opposed, both in principle and in practice, to the Government's proposals. Whatever views we may hold on the principle, we have an opportunity to modify it, by

  447
  voting down the reports. Unfortunately that would not mean the end of poll tax but—and I hope that this is of interest to Conservative Members—the Secretary of State would be obliged to return to the House with more acceptable proposals, having been strengthened in his battle with his own Cabinet colleagues.
  We shall vote in the Lobby against the revenue support grant and revenue support grant distribution order reports. I hope and believe that the House will unite in attempting to improve the prospects for millions of people who are terrified by what they face. I hope that the House will unite by joining us in the Lobby this evening.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: One of the joys of being a member of an Administration led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is that it introduces many reforms and resolves problems that have existed for a long time. Every reform is unpopular and meets with resentment and opposition. People often fear that a reform will work against their interests. If we look back at some great reforms—those made in industrial relations are among them—it can be seen that complaints faded away when they were put into practice. Many of the trade union leaders who objected most strongly to industrial relations reforms acknowledge that responsible trade union leaders can now exercise more power because they are free from the control of Left-wing loonies, district committees, and so-called mass meetings—although they are not mass meetings in any normal sense.
  Under a reform such as the community charge, some people will gain, while others will lose. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) understandably pointed out that some ratepayers will pay more in future, but he surely accepts that the average business or commercial enterprise in Britain will not pay a penny more because of the change, and in future will be protected from the violent inflationary increases imposed by some local councils in the past. For business and commerce generally, the uniform rate represents a good deal and a great step forward.
  One of the problems of reforming legislation is that the large number of complaints it prompts are met by concessions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is under huge pressure to make concessions to all kinds of organisations which want to see a return almost to the status quo. It is like this House passing legislation to abolish alcohol but then excluding five categories of consumers—including, as always, farmers—and allowing drinking between 5 o'clock and 7 o'clock in Scotland. If changes are repeatedly made, the principle behind the new tax will be destroyed.
  Some of the concessions made by my right hon. Friend will mean that Southend borough council, which has under different parties operated extremely efficiently and is a low spender, will have to charge its ratepayers an extra £67 per person because the benefits that it hoped to enjoy are being undermined by the transitional relief arrangements. The benefits offered by the poll tax that a low-spending council such as Southend should enjoy are being held back because of the concessions made to other areas. To that extent, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will exercise great caution before
  448
  making further concessions to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are concerned about the effects of the reforms.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to consider also two other matters. The effects of the new business rate on certain shops in London will be horrific. Shops in some parts of the country will gain but those in London—and even some shops in Southend, where the increase in the general business rate will be hardly anything—will be hit badly. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will reconsider whether the 20 per cent., 26 per cent. or 29 per cent. rate could be lower.
  As to rebates, I find it difficult to explain to constituents who are married or who are living together why the £8,000 saving that is allowed in respect of a single person is applied also to a couple. That seems very strange, particularly when compared with the situation of a mother and daughter living together—who are treated differently from a husband and wife living together.
  I assure my hon. Friends, who understandably have deep worries about the proposals, that if by any chance the orders are voted down tonight, there would be resentment in Scotland of a kind that we have not seen for a long time, and it would be fully justified.
  I get the impression that people in Scotland are not just concerned about cash spending. They think that hon. Members in England are not concerned about their welfare, and that they do not show the same attitude towards Scotland as they show to their own country and their own contituencies.
  The community charge has been working in Scotland for some time, and the Scots face exactly the same problems that we are worried may arise in England during the next year. If right hon. and hon. Members who voted for the community charge in Scotland—not one Conservative Member voted against it, although there were three Conservative abstentions—vote against its being applied in England because they are worried about its implications, it could undermine the basis of the Union.
  We live in the United Kingdom, and we have a genuine: obligation to treat every part of the country in the same way. Hon. Members may say that we have learnt from the way that the charge is working in Scotland, and we now have the figures for our constituencies. However, that would give credence to the belief that Scotland was used as a scapegoat to try out the measure before it was introduced in England, and that is not the case. The Secretary of State for Scotland—who works so hard for that country—thought that it might be helpful if the new charge was introduced there after the rate revaluation.
  The Conservative party believes in the United Kingdom, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends. who want to maintain that unity, will realise that we are not simply discussing whether one area will pay £50 more and another area £60 less, or what the Gallup polls will say next week. Something more significant is at stake.
  If a party that almost unanimously supported a measure to apply the charge in Scotland undermines the charge in England, without a great deal of discussion and thought, the party would let down democracy throughout the United Kingdom, and we all believe in democracy.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I think that what the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has just said is that, if one makes a ghastly mistake once, one should make it again. People in Scotland would be delighted to see the charge removed in England, and would hope that its removal in Scotland would follow.
  It is not the merits of the poll tax that are at issue tonight, but the arrangements that the Government have made to bring it in. There are better alternatives to poll tax. Frankly, even the rating system begins to look attractive when compared to some of its deficiencies. A proper local income tax would be a better alternative.
  The poll tax is unfair to individuals, and that unfairness will be multiplied by the deficiencies that have been shown up during the debate. Average earners will pay the same amount as the Duke of Westminster, Richard Branson or the Prime Minister and her husband. That is absurdly unfair.
  Worse than that—the Government have pegged relief for the worst-hit individuals and households at a wholly imaginary level of what the poll tax might be. The Government have set that level, and the promise that initially individuals and households will not pay more than £3 a week will not be realised because there will be a huge gap, throughout the country, not just in Labour-controlled areas, between what the Government say the poll tax will be, and what it actually will be.
  The standard spending assessment is the fundamental reason for that gap. What an extraordinary title—it suggests that an official from the Department of the Environment has gone round the country, interviewing everybody, to work out which services are needed, and how much it would cost to administer them in each area. Of course that has not happened. A few statistics have been thrown around by the Department. They cover only a handful of the services that local authorities provide at the moment. Some averaging out has been done, and a figure has been plucked out of the air, after a grossly simplified exercise that bears no relation to the real costs of administering those services.
  Among the extraordinary features included in the arrangements is an assessment that clearing snow will cost more in Brent than it will in Cumbria.
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): The hon. Gentleman is sadly out of date. That is not correct and if he reflects on the figures he will see that it is not the case. Many recommendations have been made about a different way to deal with snow clearance in highway maintenance, and they were accepted. Will the hon. Gentleman please look at the new figures, rather than figures that are some eight weeks out of date?
  Mr. Beith: I know that the Government got the same figures completely wrong for Northumberland. They have revised the snow clearance figure and we are glad of that, but it is absurd that they got it so wrong in the first place.
  What is more important in relation to the figures, is that inflation is not running at 4 or 5 per cent., but at twice the level that the Government had assumed when they first devised the figures. Each 1 per cent. by which they mistake the inflation figure adds £9 to the poll tax paid by an individual.
  450
  Each poll tax payer in Northumberland will pay £80 more than the Government's original forecast, before rebates, because of the failure to allow for the real level of inflation, and how it affects council services, and because of other mistakes and miscalculations in the measurement of spending. Those factors will push up the poll tax in areas such as Berwick.
  Local authorities cannot prevent that unless they sack teachers or fail to honour the pay awards for the education, police and fire services. When local authorities study the figures, as they have done in Berwick, they are completely mystified. For example, Teesdale has a higher standard spending assessment than Berwick although, in nearly every way, the two authorities are exactly comparable—for example, in the size of population and its sparsity, and in other rural characteristics.
  In many cases the figures are clearly absurd. The East Yorkshire borough council's figures are out of line with all comparable surrounding authorities.
  How can the Government insist that everyone in local government has got it wrong and that they have got it right? The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has criticised the figures. The Select Committee on the Treasury has pointed out that the figures are dubious, although they are the only figures that it can use. Conservative local authorities, Conservative councillors throughout the country and the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils—of which I am the vice-president, a post which carries no salary or fee—says:
  "The Association emphatically rejects the proposition that the DOE's notional figures for Community Charge, based on their assumptions, represent what the charges would be, if authorities continued to provide services at the present level."
  That body includes members from all political parties, although it is dominated by the Conservative party, and it knows that the figures are wrong.
  Local authorities cannot meet the poll tax figures put forward by the Government without cuts, which is not what the electorate wants. One is bound to ask whether that is incompetence on the part of the Government, or a cynical device to limit the amount of relief that they have to pay, under the transitional relief scheme. Or is it a confidence trick? Are they advertising a product at a price at which no one can offer it? If that happened in the marketplace, the Government would attack and criticise it, but that is what they have done. They have said to poll tax payers in Britain, "It's all right, you only have to pay so much." However, they must know, because of all the representations that they have received, that their prophecies will not be fulfilled anywhere in the country.
  Are the Government asking local authorities to sack teachers or not to honour the police pay agreement and not to pay their own staff the nationally negotiated rates? Only the most drastic cuts will enable many local authorities to meet the poll charge figures that have been put forward.
  Mr. David Hunt: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is arguing that there should be no controls at all on local government spending. Perhaps he could clarify that. Surely there must be some protection for individual charge payers, as there has been for individual ratepayers in the past. Why, for instance, does the hon. Gentleman think that the Liberal-controlled Isle of Wight council

  451
  decided in 1986–87 to increase spending by 20 per cent.—far more than the rate of inflation? It has never justified that increase.
  Mr. Beith: The mechanism for controlling local government spending is called the ballot box. It enables voters to vote out councils that pursue policies that they do not like. That is supposed to be the essence of what the Government are doing, but the system that they have devised does not achieve their aim. I might add that the electors of the Isle of Wight showed confidence in what their council had done by voting it back into office after it had improved the quality of its services.
  The safety net provisions have added to the confusion. People whose local authorities provide a lower level of service—many of them not well off—must, in the first year, contribute money to keep the poll tax down in other authorities with higher levels of service. That is evident in Northumberland and other areas.
  The Secretary of State opened his speech by saying that it would be clear to everyone that the level of poll tax reflects the spending policy of local councils. Will anyone seriously be able to say that after today's debate? The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that it is not true. The level of poll tax will reflect Government decisions on standard spending assessments; it will reflect safety net provisions; and it will reflect the endless mistakes and miscalculations on the part of the Department of the Environment.
  Mr. Chris Patten: Name one.
  Mr. Beith: The Secretary of State was not in the Chamber a moment ago when I did name one. His hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities rose—to point out that the mistake about snow clearance had been corrected. Another obvious mistake was the one related to inflation: the present inflation rate is very much higher than it was when the calculations were made.
  The Government's published poll tax figures are a cynical exercise in pretending that local public services could be run at much lower cost if the Secretary of State himself controlled every local authority in the country. Conservative-controlled councils and Conservative councillors around the country tell him that that is not so, and we all know that it is not so. The right hon. Gentleman has left the councils with a choice between a squalid collapse of the services on which our children's education, our environment and our law and order depend, and castigation by him for overspending.
  Unless Conservative Members realise the folly of it all this evening, a grossly unfair tax will be made even more unfair by the way in which it is being brought in. That has already done irreparable damage to the future of the Tory party in Scotland; it will do the same in England, as I believe at least some Conservative Members have come to recognise.
  6.12 pm
  Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) certainly found a brilliant solution to Labour's policy-making difficulties: to have no policy at all, and to say magnanimously that if and when he had a policy we would be allowed to discuss it. That strikes me as marvellous technique, and I recommend it to some of his shadow Cabinet colleagues.
  452
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the debate in a masterly way, and I think that the whole House will agree that any deficiencies that Government policy may contain should not be laid at his door. He and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government had a very ugly and unwelcome baby planted on their doorstep, which was certainly not their fault, and they have already done their best to make it slightly more acceptable.
  I want to stick to the general point, but perhaps I could illustrate it by means of a local example. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities has told me, Buckinghamshire, being a rich county, has done very well out of the new system, obtaining an increase of some 30 per cent. in its external finance. The capital guidelines, however, show us something very different. Buckinghamshire has much the same population as Cambridgeshire and is growing in much the same way; its capital expenditure in the current year is only a little less than Cambridgeshire's. According to the guidelines, however, Buckinghamshire is one of the six counties that will experience a reduction—the biggest, in fact, of 24 percent.—while Cambridgeshire will receive an increase of 55 per cent.
  As a result, while the present position is one of approximate parity, next year Cambridgeshire will receive nearly two and a half times as much as Buckinghamshire. Already, serious cuts have had to be made, particularly in education spending. I realise that the Department of the Environment is only the umbrella Department, but it is nevertheless the Department holding the umbrella. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has spoken of the importance of his capital projects, and of giving more to places with higher populations. Those criteria certainly apply to Buckinghamshire, but, while general LEA expenditure is rising by 38 per cent., that of Buckinghamshire is falling by 42 per cent. Such examples demonstrate, surely, that there is little reason in the system.
  On Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill, I opposed the whole system, and voted for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). Since then, along with many of my hon. Friends, I have stayed away from debates on subsidiary legislation: we thought that we would let the Government get on with it. We have now reached what could be described as the final coping stone—hardly a triumphal arch, but the last bit of a stone wall into which we shall all be walking, bumping our heads and barking our shins, for some time ahead. In those circumstances, I felt that today's debate required different considerations.
  My hon. Friends and I opposed the original legislation——
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: In England.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: In England. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I abstained on every part of the Scottish legislation.
  My hon. Friends and I opposed the original legislation on four main grounds. The first was the obvious ground that the tax is wholly unfair. That is obvious from its name, apart from anything else: a Government who were doing something fair and sensible would not need to come up with an Orwellian euphamism line "community charge"; they would simply say, A poll tax is a poll tax is a poll tax," as Gertrude Stein might have said.

  453
  Secondly, it is wholly illogical to impose a property tax on businesses and do away with such a tax on individuals. If there is a justification for a property tax on businesses, there must presumably be one for a property tax on individuals. Thirdly, the tax is extremely expensive; fourthly, it is very difficult to collect.
  Those are the four grounds of principle. There is a fifth ground that affects only Conservative Members—the political unpopularity of the measure, and the fact that it is potentially disastrous. I understand that that is giving particular concern to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), and I agree that the tax is very dangerous for the Conservative party. I disagree with him and his supporters, however, in that I believe that its unpopularity flows from the four dangers and disadvantages that I have already mentioned. They are not separate from it, or an excrescence on the face of it; this tax is innately wrong, and its unpopularity stems from that—although, no doubt, adjustments can and should be made.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend and his associates to our colours, although I wish that they had enlisted a little earlier, as we could have done with their help on Second Reading and in the debate on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East. My right hon. Friend's conversion is especially significant because he was in the Department of the Environment at quite a significant moment, and was very much involved in the proposals. In fact, I have a feeling that he even announced some of them himself.
  That important conversion leads me to suspect that my right hon. Friend is not the only one to be converted. I cannot help thinking that, now that he is the chairman of the Conservative party, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has also changed his mind, although for understandable reasons he cannot express his views very openly. I believe that almost every Conservative Member has been similarly converted. After all, the tax was thought up at a time when it was believed that the Labour party was completely unelectable and that the electoral consequences were therefore of no importance. In my view, the election of the Labour party is still highly unlikely, but no one can say that it is impossible. The terms of political trade have changed fundamentally, which makes the imposition of this tax a political disaster as well as something that is entirely wrong in every other way.
  I believe that new Government thinking is necessary. That is not unheard of: we have had 12 or 13 different systems of local government finance since 1979, so one more would not make any difference. The only common feature of the systems so far is that each has been worse than the last. There are now grounds for optimism. Because the present one is so bad, the next one must be better.
  I urge on my right hon. Friend some new thinking. For all those reasons, some of my hon. Friends and I will be unable to support him tonight.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Bernie Grant: My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) made a number of general points with which I agree and which I shall reiterate. The Government's proposals on total standard
  454
  spending represent their assumption of what local authorities should spend to provide what they consider to be an adequate level of service.
  We learned today from the Secretary of State that he has not taken account of the needs element in the new system. The old needs element has been done away with because, according to the Secretary of State, it is not scientific or objective and it is difficult to quantify. Local authorities have been saying for some time that the needs element is indeed difficult to quantify, but that since it exists, it should be taken account of properly.
  Ingenious formulae were devised by civil servants to try to represent the needs element in the old system of financing local government. But the Secretary of State has now done away with that element, and the Government say that they will not take account in any scientific way of what local authorities, particularly those in inner cities, need to reflect in their spending because of the situation they face.
  That situation, it must be remembered, has been brought about by the Government. Their policies have caused problems for local authorities, such as unemployment, cuts in the housing programme and changes in social security benefits. Those actions by the Government have forced local authorities, particularly inner-city ones, to recognise that the needs of their residents cannot be met in the normal run-of-the-mill way of financing.
  The Government have created the needs, but they now refuse to recognise them in the new formula. That is why the Government are in difficulty in squaring the situation between SSAs and the actual expenditure of local authorities, because that expenditure would be based on needs of which the Government will not take account.
  In the Government's figures for so-called aggregate external finance—being special grants, revenue support grant, uniform business rate and so on—we find that for 1991, the amount is put at about £23·1 billion, of which the business rate will contribute £10·5 billion, while the revenue support grant will contribute only £9·5 billion. In other words, the uniform business rate will be contributing more than the Government's revenue support grant towards local government expenditure.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: Why not?
  Mr. Grant: The answer to the hon. Lady's question is that business people will be contributing more than the Government's major contribution towards the cost of local government services.
  Mrs. Currie: Where does the hon. Gentleman think the Government get their money? Most of it comes from business.
  Mr. Grant: The Government get their money from business in a number of ways, including taxes. I suspect that business people will feel injured when they discover that the Government are extracting even more from them, when the Government should themselves be responsible for that aspect of financing local government. The Government have, in effect, conned business people into paying even more towards local government finance.
  The Government proportion of local government finance has been reducing steadily throughout the last decade. In 1980–81, the Government were reponsible for about 60 per cent. of local government revenue finance. In 1990–91 they will be responsible for 38 per cent. a decrease

  455
  of over 22 per cent. in a mere 10 years. In other words, the Government have cut their support for that sector, have forced businesses to increase their share of local government finance and have forced ordinary ratepayers in local authority regions to increase their share of it.
  for total standard spending, the Government argue that £32·8 billion is more that adequate to pay for all the services that local authorities provide. The Secretary of State argued today that there had been an increase of 11 per cent. over the level of Government provision for 1989–90. But the Government are not taking into account what local authorities are spending in the current year.
  Officers from central and local government estimate that the real amount needed to continue present local authority policies and service levels in 1990–91, including a realistic assumption of inflation at 7 per cent., is about £35·3 billion. That is £2·5 billion more than the Government provision, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham said. If the realistic figure of £35·3 billion were used, the average poll tax would rise to £348, an increase of £70 on the Government's figure of £278.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham spoke of the changes in the spending assessment having a pound-for-pound effect on the amount of revenue support grant that an individual authority will receive. Where actual expenditure differs from standard spending assessment, that difference will be wholly reflected in the poll tax to be levied, and my hon. Friend mentioned a ration of 1:4.
  Once a local authority is over the threshold of the SSA, local people will be forced to finance the expenditure of the local council. The Government will accuse any local authority which levies a poll tax in excess of £278 of being profligate, whereas the main reasons for levying such a poll tax will be that the level of Government provision is inadequate and its distribution is arbitrary.
  Being a Haringey Member, I wish to discuss the effect of the new scheme on that area. It has been estimated that Haringey council will have the highest possible poll tax, in the region of £550. A reason used by the Government to justify the introduction of the uniform business rate was that it would protect business from high spending and so-called profligate local authorities. Haringey would undoubtedly be included by the Government in that classification.
  In 1990–91, the London borough of Haringey will collect about £57 million in rates from local businesses and others. But Haringey council will receive only £41·3 million from the national pot. That will hardly protect local non-domestic ratepayers from so-called greedy Haringey. How can Haringey be more accountable, which is said to be the object of the scheme, when it will receive less than three quarters of the business rate that it collects?
  The Government determine rateable values and fix the rate in the pound which must be levied. In 1991, Haringey will lose about £20 million as a result of the switch from rates to the national business rate. In the consultation paper which was issued in November 1989, the Department of the Environment indicated that Haringey would have a standard spending assessment of £171 million approximately and would receive revenue support grant of £111 million——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
  Mr. Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought you indicated that I had two minutes.
  Mr. Speaker: The limit is 10 minutes. When the lights on the digital clock stop flashing, the hon. Gentleman must sit down.
  6.29 pm
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: I have voted consistently for the reform of local government finance, and I intend to support the Government tonight. It is a great pity that many Opposition Members, whose constituencies, like mine, stand to be substantial gainers from the reform, have absented themselves. They will not stand up and say that the reform is good, so some of us on this side have to do so.
  The new system of community charge and business rate is a major improvement over the old system, which gave far too much power to local government to soak local businesses without redress. That happened a great deal in my area. It gave far too little power to ratepayers, who in some areas were a minority of voters, to control the actions of spendthrift local councils like the incompetent arid inefficient idiots who are currently running Derbyshire county council.
  When it comes to the community charge, in my area of the Derbyshire, South constituency the population has been growing steadily for some years and a large proportion of the people are in newly rated properties. As a result many will benefit considerably from the community charge; I am pleased that that will be the case.
  The current domestic rate per hereditament in Derbyshire is £503 on average, 20 per cent. higher than the average domestic rate for comparable county councils. It is considerably more, for example, than the rate in wonderful Wandsworth, which stands at £327. The rate that my constituents have to pay per property is as high as the deprived inner-London average. By no stretch of the imagination can we say that Derbyshire is a deprived area except in so far as its unemployment is higher than unemployment in London. One reason is that for so long our rates have been very high.
  The main gainers will be single elderly people. I have many people like that who live in bungalows and who are currently paying £900 or £1,000 in rates. The main losers will be families where there are several working adults, living perhaps in a terraced house. I can live with that. I can explain that to my local people and I believe that it is widely understood and accepted.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: How would my hon. Friend explain to my constituent, a lady of 72, who has a total income of £2,000 a year and about £13,000 capital, that she should pay exactly the same as the most wealthy person in north Norfolk?
  Mrs. Currie: First, rebates are available for many groups; secondly, with all due respect to my hon. Friend, in my area anyone with £13,000 capital in the bank would not be regarded as poor.
  The message that has to go to many people in areas like mine is one that we have been trying to put across for a long time. Recently I spoke to a business club in Derby. Some business men who are not in my area but who will face high charges asked what they could do. The answer is to ask how many of them turned out last May to vote in the county council elections and support sensible policies.

  457
  How many people did not bother to vote but stayed at home out of pique or for whatever reason? They find themselves once again with a Labour county council which is one of the most high-spending councils in the country. The message to people like that in my area, as in many other Labour areas, has to be, "If you do not come out and support sensible policies at elections, don't be surprised if you do not like the rate or the community charge that is set; if you did not vote, then don't moan, because that is the way the system works." In my view that is right.
  Coming to the real gainers, business people throughout Derbyshire think that the change to the national business rate is super. They are delighted. In my area the business rate has been so high that valuations would have to go up nine times for people to pay as much. That is the break-even point for business—nine times. Most of the factories, warehouses, workshops and shops will see their valuations increase only by two, three or four times. They are set to be big gainers.
  I accept entirely that it is right and proper that if we cap the losers we should cap the gainers. If my right hon. Friend ever feels like uncapping the gainers, we will be delighted. We recognise in Derbyshire that it is not just a question of politics, as the Secretary of State said. If we were to do as the Confederation of British Industry suggested—cap the losers but not the gainers—that would put £2 billion extra into the economy all at once. I understand that that would be inflationary. It seems to me odd that that is called for by the Opposition, who never normally listen to the CBI, at a time when they are saying that taxes and income tax should not be cut. Two billion pounds is the equivalent of a 1·5 per cent. cut in income tax. If it is inflationary to do that, it is inflationary also to do what the CBI suggests.
  In Derbyshire my business people have given a sigh of relief and a loud call of welcome for the suggested change. We have a small number of losers. Some supermarkets in the out-of-town shopping centres, which were extremely conservatively rated in 1973, will have to pay more. Sainsbury's will be out of pocket. On the whole the supermarkets are doing very well these days and it seems right and proper that they should support the local economy.
  The new system will be a big improvement. For my local business people to be on a level footing with the rest of the country is the best news that any of them could have. We do not want subsidies, regional aid or Government grants. We just want a fair crack of the whip, the same as everybody else. I hear colleagues talking about how rates in their areas will go up. Our rates will come down to their levels. Businesses in my area have been paying five to 10 times as much as businesses elsewhere.
  I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friends, but it is in Derbyshire that we have the unemployment and derelict sites. We will be able to get cracking on redeveloping our areas and leading the country's resurgence in manufacturing business once again. I am delighted to welcome the reform and I look forward to seeing it in operation as soon as possible.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I have made enough speeches about the principle of the poll tax in the past few years, so I shall confine myself to my own constituency. I want to explain, and also complain bitterly about, why Birmingham will be forced to levy a poll tax of about £410. We have been told that the average poll tax bill should be £278. The poll tax surcharge, which is called the safety net but which is not a safety net when one has to pay it, will be £69. That puts the charge up to £347. Birmingham is not a high-spending authority. In fact, it spends bang on Government guidelines. Some of us have complained that spending on social services and education has been on the low side. In 1989–90 we are spending £3 million more than the grant-related expenditure assessment of £624 million. Therefore, our expenditure is very close to the Government guideline.
  The people of Birmingham will be affected by the Government's underestimate of the rate of inflation and their failure to take account of realistic pay awards. The average pay award for teachers will be 7·5 per cent. The Government's failure will cost Birmingham an extra £6 million. Changes to the debt repayment arrangement and accounting changes to the transport supplementary grant will cost the city £20 million on top of Government assessments.
  How is the poll tax figure of £278 reached? Without Government grants, the city would have to levy a poll tax of £1,060 for the standard spending assessment. The joint boards add an extra £88, making a total of £1,148. If the Government grant of £870 is removed, that leaves the average figure of £278. The cost of the safety net is £69, making a total of £347. Inflation and pay awards will add an extra £9; changes to the debt repayment and transport grant add an extra £28; and other items, including the capital programme for the national exhibition centre, overspending by the police and fire brigade and growth, with which I will deal in a moment, add an extra £26, making a total of £410.
  Growth is forecast to be 2·4 per cent. or, to be precise, £17 million. Growth in social services will be £2·4 million and in education £8·4 million. There is nothing in Birmingham's SSA to take account of nursery education. We have more places in nursery classes per head of pre-school children than any Tory authority in the country—we are not even the best among Labour authorities—but there is no grant for nursery education provision.
  More cash must be spent on social services. Community care is a key element of local government, yet the Government have placed an impost on it. There is no question but that community care will become more expensive. Its purpose is not to save money but to improve the lives of people who can better live in the community.
  On Thursday 4 January, Birmingham city council held a seminar at Council house to explain to interested parties the consequences of the community care costs. My city council is rubbished by Tory Members, yet not one of the six Conservative Members of Parliament for Birmingham attended that seminar. That demonstrates their interest in care in the community.
  Mr. Roger King: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have various other commitments. I sent a letter to the

  459
  authority explaining that I could not attend the meeting, which was held at an inconvenient time. It knows well that the best time for such meetings is Mondays and Fridays.
  Mr. Rooker: Yes, but Thursday 4 January was during the recess and the invitations were sent out in November. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) was quoted in one of the midlands newspapers last Sunday as speaking with all the authority of a former number-plate salesman who will not be able to sell the Government's poll tax numbers to the citizens of Birmingham.
  Mr. Tim Devlin rose—
  Mr. Rooker: I will not give way again because of the time limit.
  Assuming a 10 per cent. increase next year, revenue from rates in my constituency would amount to £18 million. Assuming a figure of £410, revenue from the poll tax in my constituency will amount to £29 million. My constituents will be required to pay £11 million more in poll tax than they would have paid in rates. Those figures are irrefutable; I have checked the rateable values of 7,000 dwellings—about 20 per cent. of my constituency. Assuming that half the households were on half rebate, they would still pay £8·5 million more in poll tax than they would have paid in rates. Birmingham will collect the same amount of money—the poll tax is designed only to replace domestic rates. Who will pay £11 million less because of the additional £11 million that my constituents will pay?
  The massive dislocation that that will cause to family incomes and finances does not bear thinking about. The Government have said that no one should pay more than £3 extra, which is ludicrous. For a single person in Birmingham to benefit from the transitional payments, he would currently be paying a rate bill of £92—a rateable value of £36. Nowhere in Birmingham has such a rateable value. Other households will not benefit unless their current rates are £340—a rateable value of £133. Average rates in Birmingham are £500, so few people will benefit.
  The figures are fiddled. They do not take account of the reality of expenditure, of the population or of the ability to pay, which, as the Secretary of State knows, is Labour Members' central objection.
  There must be accountability through the ballot box and annual elections. We in Birmingham would like annual elections again, and there should be annual elections in the shires and in London for a quarter or a third of the councils. That would be one way of achieving true local government accountability. If the Secretary of State wants to improve local government accountability, he should arrange for annual elections for all councils and return to the big cities the missing year of no election resulting from the abolition of county councils.
  I want to draw the House's attention to early-day motion 258 on Tory-controlled Mid-Suffolk district council. It has complained bitterly to the Minister and asked its Member of Parliament to take action. It makes exactly the same complaints as Labour Members and Labour-controlled authorities—that the Government have not taken account of the use of balances to cushion the rate levy and have not taken sufficient account of the realistic rate of inflation. Inner-city and rural areas and Tory and Labour-controlled authorities are complaining justifiably about how the Government have introduced the poll tax.
  460
  I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said about this being the Government's last chance to think again. I ask Conservative Members to do the sensible thing tonight—to vote against the reports and to get a more sensible arrangement for the immediate future.
  Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was it in order for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) for being absent from a meeting when all but eight Labour Members have absented themselves from this important debate?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. What the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said certainly was not out of order.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on at least one point. If there is to be accountability in local government, we should again closely reconsider annual elections for quarters or thirds of local authorities. That may be a good path to take. If we are to have such accountability, those who authorise spending should be called upon to pay the bills. If they can pass the bills on to someone else, such as the taxpayer or that lovely creature the Government, who distribute largesse at no cost to anyone, there will be no pressure on voters to consider the cost of the proposals for which they are voting. The hon. Member for Perry Barr will probably agree that voters should know what proposals will cost when they vote. On that basis, he should support the community charge, although I shall return to some of the problems that may arise from that in a moment.
  I declare an interest as a director of several public companies, which are listed in the Register of Members' Interests—
  Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman has only 10 minutes to list them.
  Mr. Tebbit: It was just as well that the hon. Gentleman was in order.
  Some of those companies are favourably affected by the introduction of the new business rate and others are unfavourably affected. That has given me an especially good overview of how the national business rate will operate. As I think the House knows, in general it will increase the burden on businesses in the south and decrease the burden on businesses in the north. It will increase the burden on service industries such as retailing, and decrease it on manufacturing. In effect, it will do precisely some of those things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) has always asked the Government to do. It will help to close the north-south divide. I am surprised that he is so critical of the measure. Many of us are in favour of proposals in theory, but when we realise how they will work out we often quibble about them. Perhaps my right hon. Friend is suffering from that.
  In the domestic area, it is a little more difficult to consider the question of gainers and losers. In some respects, we have moved away from what some of us thoght to be the purity of the concept of the community charge. Why have we done so? Every step taken has been

  461
  an endeavour to make it easier for those who will be adversely affected. To some extent, that has blunted the effect of the principle upon which we are all agreed—that those who vote for expenditure should pay for that expenditure.
  Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituents who consistently voted for low expenditure over the years complain that they are now being called upon again to help pay for the high expenditure of other local authorities. My right hon. and hon. Friends have made proper and laudable efforts to ease the impact of the community charge, and especially to do something for those many people who live in low-rated areas and who, until now, have paid a relatively small part of the cost of local government services.
  I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will take into account the fact that, if the community charge were not introduced, there would have to be a rating revaluation. I venture to suggest that, had that happened, different hon. Members would be complaining, but that there would no fewer of them. We should make up our minds that this is the system of local government for the future. At the very least, it is no more unfair than the old rating system, which was absolutely absurd and should have been swept away years ago. We should put some of the blame for the excessively high community charge figures where it belongs.
  I received a letter today from a constituent who, as a local employer, attended a meeting in the London borough of Waltham Forest to discuss the proposed community charge for that area. I remind those hon. Members who are not familiar with my borough that it has the distinction of being second only to the borough in which the Leader of the Opposition lives for the highest ever rate rise in one year. It chose the year of the general election to increase its rates by more than 60 per cent. Politically speaking, the local Conservatives probably felt that that was a monstrous own goal for the Labour party.
  After a 60 per cent. increase in one year, what can the local electors expect other than a high community charge bill? The authority has been a consistent overspender, yet its services are far worse than they were under the previous administration. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) is familiar with that local authority because he once served there as a Conservative councillor. At that time the rates were well under control—not because there was a rating system rather than a community charge system, but because it was a well-managed authority that maintained a good level of services and a low level of expenditure.
  My constituent said that at the meeting one of those present questioned council expenditure and specifically asked what steps, if any, were being taken to reduce the financial burden on both non-domestic and domestic ratepayers. The answer was none. When there are complaints about the level of the community charge in my borough, the blame should fall upon those who flatly refuse to take any measure to cut expenditure in what has been a grossly extravagant council. Only recently, I was told by a senior member of the town hall staff that, in his opinion as a long-serving local government officer, the community charge in my borough could be reduced by
  462
  £100 if a sensible administration were in force. That would make the proposed community charge figure very different.
  I have no hesitation in supporting the Government tonight in carrying through the final stage of the implementation of the community charge. Of course it will be uncomfortable in places, but I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends to remember that we would also have faced an uncomfortable time with revaluation, which would have shifted the burden in what would have seemed to those who had received arbitrary benefit over the years to be an arbitrary increase in their share of the expenditure.
  I hope that tonight my right hon. and hon. Friends, whatever their misgivings about some of the detail, will accept what was said by the hon. Member for Perry Barr—that we want accountability in local government. It is my view that that accountability comes only when those who call for expenditure are called upon to pay for it.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: By now the Secretary of State must be in no doubt that the Government's attempts to simplify the standard spending assessments for local authorities, and their selective was of calculating the safety net grant, will be disastrous for many local authorities. What my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said earlier in a whisper needs repeating in a louder voice—that the SSA has made an ASS of the Government.
  The provision of the safety net grant is supposed to protect local authorities such as Tameside from changes in grant between this year and next. Instead, the reverse is likely as a result of direct actions by the Government and Ministers. Although local authorities are facing inflation that is currently running at 8·5 per cent. and rising, the Government have decided that Tameside's spending will increase by only 4·8 per cent. That decision alone will affect the safety net grant by £4·7 million, or £29 per adult.
  As a result of Government legislation, local authorities face many new responsibilities such as implementing local management of schools, the national curriculum and others that have been spelt out by hon. Members. Nevertheless, the Government have chosen to ignore that when calculating council's spending figures for next year. In Tameside, that will result in an underpayment in grant of £10 per adult. As the Secretary of State has decided that the first £25 per adult loss in grant is not to be protected, that will cost Tameside poll tax payers £25 per adult, or £4 million, in lost grant.
  I wish to illustrate another glaring injustice in my local authority. Tameside recently made a one-off contribution of £2·5 million to the housing revenue account to pay off debt. Hon. Members must agree that it is outrageous that that exceptional payment has been included in the Government's calculations, and so deducted from the safety net grant, not only for next year, but for the next three years. That will amount to £7 million over that period.
  All these factors mean that the residents in my local authority area face a poll tax bill of £358 instead of £278. Each adult will have to pay £70 more. Next year new legislative requirements will force the council to spend an additional £1·5 million on debt repayment. On top of that, the poll tax is expected to cost £1·3 million to collect—more than the cost under the previous rating system.

  463
  Those two factors will add £17 per adult to the poll tax, without any benefit to the residents. What will happen in 1992, when the safety net grant is no longer available, is clear: the poll tax payers will have to bear the full burden. If the Government believe that the ratepayers will blame all this on local councils, I assure them that that is wishful thinking. We will ensure that the focus of attention is those Members who join the Government tonight in the Division Lobby. That is a promise.
  Changes in the formulae used to assess spending needs will cost my local borough about £5 million of its rate support grant. As I am sure the Minister of State knows—when Ministers go to my area, they recognise this fact—my borough is already greatly underfunded and this is a direct result of the policies of this uncaring Government, although Ministers may not agree with that. It is a deprived borough, which needs assistance and better treatment than it gets from the Government. Last year, for example, the Government thought that Tameside should spend £19 million on social services. Under the new rules, this has been slashed by 13 per cent., to £16·6 million. Furthermore, Tameside is suddenly expected to make large cuts of £2·1 million in the so-called minor services—community protection, recreation and the like—and £1 million in education. Once again, the Government are completely out of touch with reality.
  Our population is aging rapidly. We need more spending on social services to care for our elderly—not less—yet the Government expect authorities such as Tameside to make cuts of £2·4 million. Such cuts will affect the most vulnerable in our society. Tameside will be forced to restrict the free use by voluntary groups of minibuses which have been specially adapted for the disabled and the handicapped. Meals-on-wheels charges will have to be increased above the inflation rate. The standards of provision of home help services, of which Tameside is proud, will deteriorate.
  These are the inescapable effects of the Government's proposals. Councils throughout the country are forced against their will and the collective will of the people whom they represent to take central Government decisions, not local government decisions. So much for setting the people free. The issues which I have highlighted may be considered by many hon. Members to be parochial, but they are real and worrying to the people whom I represent, and I make no apology to the House for raising them.
  On a different note, I wish to draw attention to the concern which is widely felt in the sporting world about the Government's decision to include sports clubs in the uniform business rate. The outcome for many clubs could be catastrophic, with many forced into bankruptcy and others forced to raise membership subscriptions to a level that it will be impossible for the less-well-off to afford. Clubs are faced with one more example of the Government's disregard for the future of sport.
  It was hoped that, in view of the increasing worry which was expressed across the board about the decline of sport in our schools and the poor standard of fitness among our nation's children, the Government might have thought twice before further jeopardising the 150,000 voluntary clubs that provide sporting opportunities for thousands of people. Such voluntary clubs are non-profit-making and make no demand on the public purse, yet, following the Local Government Finance Act 1988, they are facing higher bills and increased rate charges.
  464
  Although local authorities have been urged to give discretionary rate relief to such clubs, senior finance officers throughout the land say that there is little hope of it being granted. The general secretary of the Central Council of Physical Recreation told me today that his initial optimism on receiving the news from the Minister for Sport that sports clubs would get a better deal, following the announcement on 12 September by the Minister of State, has completely evaporated. The Minister failed to tell the CCPR that local authorities would not have the cash to release the kind of money that was necessary and that was expected by sports clubs.
  Unfortunately, sport does not come high on local authorities' lists of priorities, as it is clearly in direct competition with many other demands, such as housing and social service provision. I can fully understand the dilemmas faced in choosing priorities, but those choices are made much more difficult by Government legislation that continually burdens them with extra duties while reducing their resources.
  If hon. Members want clear evidence of the effect of the uniform business rate on sport, I suggest that they look at this evening's Evening Standard, where they will get plenty of evidence. When I was a Northern Ireland Minister, I introduced a rates order which gave mandatory rate relief of 65 per cent. to sporting clubs in the Province. I hoped that that would merely be a start which would be followed by the rest of the United Kingdom and, 10 years on, be improved upon. Alas, under these proposals, local sporting clubs and associations cannot expect anything like that kind of relief. Charities rightly receive mandatory 80 per cent. rate relief, and I believe that sports clubs should have the same.
  If no relief is forthcoming, many clubs will be forced to close. Some increases in rateable values will exceed a staggering 1,600 per cent. Faced with the detrimental effects of compulsory competitive tendering, the selling off of playing fields and the implications of local management of schools for dual-purpose facilities, it is vital that we preserve these voluntary facilities before this country's once world-renowned sporting prowess passes into mythology. The Government have clearly got their rating policy wrong. They should scrap it and think again.
  7.6 pm
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: Mr. Deputy Speaker—I mean, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wrote the words down on my notes, rather than made them up.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I thought that I made a better impression on the House.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I was carried away with the impression, Madam Deputy Speaker. In fact, I was speechless, which is rare for me.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is in the Chamber, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for my meetings with them and their help. I am not saying that more help will not come—we await with great interest the wind-up speech and any extra help that it will give. As always, I am an optimist, and I feel that our views could influence that speech greatly.
  I supported the Government on the introduction of the community charge and I still support the principle. Past revolutions were based on the words, "No taxation

  465
  without representation." The rates position is "representation without taxation"; only one in two, one in three or, as in Brent, one in four of those who vote pay rates. Some people vote to spend other people's money. That is political immorality. I support the community charge principle on the basis of accountability.
  The slant of emphasis that I gave to the community charge changed following a conversation that I had with some colleagues, and this shows the importance of not just being in the Chamber but of speaking to one's colleagues. One evening in the Smoking Room, I was approached by a fellow Back Bencher who represents a northern seat. He asked whether three or four people could see me one evening and eat together so that he could show me what the community charge on low-rated properties would mean. I said, "Certainly. Why not tonight?" I am always a man who likes to move quickly, so we met that evening. They showed me figures, which I checked on a computer the following day. The figures were horrific. I had not seen such figures before, including during the eight months when I have been a local government Minister in the Department of the Environment, where I inherited the system and passed it on.
  In certain northern seats, instead of what we said as a party—which was that those in households of fewer than 2·1 people would he better off—we now know that approximately 1 million people in single occupancy will be worse off. In low-rated properties in the north which were built before 1939, 60 or 70 per cent. will be worse off and in some cases, 80 per cent. will be worse off.
  That was the beginning of my road to Damascus and the realisation of that fact was the blinding light. It seemed to me wrong and politically disastrous that people who looked forward to a system under which they would be better off would be worse off. I know that I have changed my mind on the issue, but if the leader of the Gadarene swine had changed his mind before jumping over the cliff, many of his followers would have lived. All of us make a reassessment of the situation from time to time, and I make no apology for that. People can say that at least I am open-minded, even if my brains may have fallen out on the way. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should listen to me, because it is good for him. Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have respect for him.
  I shall give an example, as a northerner. Let us suppose that there is one big house and that the owner pays rates of £1,400. Let us also suppose that there are four small houses with rates of £150. Let us suppose that it is then decided to raise that £2,000 by dividing it among the five houses, so each house will pay £400. The man from the big house who gains so much may feel guilty about it and may vote Liberal. The other four will be worse off and will be horrified that £400 is being taken from each house rather than £150. I respect what has been done. I paid tribute earlier to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the way in which he dealt with the issue in a brilliant speech this afternoon. As I listened to it, I had to hold on to my seat so that I was not carried away. His speech was fair and generous to right hon. and hon. Members of all parties, and ideal for the House of Commons.
  The problem is the £3 maximum loss, and Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends have referred to
  466
  that. I am pleased that the most that people will lose is £3, but that presumes that their authorities are spending only at the norm. What came out yesterday from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy is that the figure will be £1·25 a week in community charge more than that. If that is right, people will lose £4·25, which is a lot of money to an old-age pensioner. Some people live in a Labour authority which is spending more than normal—an example of that is Brent, which is a wasteful, spendthrift authority, where people could be £7·75 worse off.
  It is no good telling people in my constituency to vote Conservative. Already 19 out of 21 councillors in my constituency are Conservative because the voters have such pride in their Member of Parliament. How can I get 23 out of 21 Conservative councillors? We have done all that we can. We are regularly evangelists in the rest of Brent and I am sorry that the hon. Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) are not with us this evening. Perhaps we shall win a landslide.
  I am worried that we shall create a new poor. Twice as many people will require help, yet we came in as a Government who wanted to end or lessen dependency. We are recycling money, which is politically disastrous and morally wrong. When the two are linked, I can speak with confidence that comes from both lungs.
  The safety net arrangements were not proposed in the 1986 Green Paper. I was a Northern Ireland Minister at the time and listened to the proposals, which came to me like golden pennies and I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who is now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was right at that time. It was said that the community charge would come in over 10 to 12 years, that inflation would ease it, that one tenth or one twelfth of rates would be taken up by the community charge each year, and that it would be eased in generally. The safety net proposals came up during my eight months at the Northern Ireland Office, and I thought then that it would help people.
  It was only later, after discussions last June when I became involved, that it came to me that the safety net arrangements went against the basis of accountability. For four years we have been giving warnings about accountability and yet we now propose to move money from careful authorities to spendthrift authorities, such as Brent, and to destroy that principle. When the bills go out in April and people see that £70 or £75 is to be transferred to other authorities, we shall find it difficult to sell that change because people will say that they thought that we stood for accountability.
  I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend announced in October that he would take away the safety net in the second, third and fourth years. However, I hope, even at this late hour, that he will end it this year. In the London boroughs, voters will not go to the polls for four years after the poll this year. It is of no help for those of us who represent London constituencies that the safety net will be taken away in the second, third and fourth years.
  Other hon. Members have mentioned capping. We must have capping to protect our people in spendthrift Labour areas, or people will leave and the inner city will come out and destroy other areas. If my right hon. Friend proposes to cap at 25 per cent. above the norm—that is £347·50—or at 50 per cent. above the norm—that is £417—he should say so now, so that people can live content

  467
  and will at least know that help is coming. They will know that those riding off into the sunset will be there to help to some extent. Something should be done immediately after the community charge is introduced to assess the political effect of the charge and its effect on local authority finance.
  I have learnt much from this. The Government started out with good intentions. Ministers have passed through and civil servants have passed through, so no one guides the legislation through from beginning to end. Eventually, as the old saying goes, a camel is a horse invented by a committee.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must call the right hon. Gentleman to order. It hurts me more than it hurts him, but I must point out that he has spoken for 10 minutes and that I am governed by Standing Orders.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: Some of us might have preferred the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) to grasp the basic injustice of the poll tax a little earlier, but it is right that I should pay tribute to his courage in accepting that he was wrong. There is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents.
  Traditionally, this is the time of year for many gloomy predictions about next year's rate levies. It has been normal for borough treasurers—or directors of finance, as we now have to call them—to make our flesh creep as part of the exercise in getting budgets through. However, Ministers will make a serious mistake if they believe that what is happening now throughout the country is another example of that trend.
  Ministers may discount what local authorities say because they are interested parties, and they may discount what local authority associations say for the same reason, but they cannot ignore the cool, analytical judgment of a body such as the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which has been known for years for its careful analysis of problems. It is hard to argue with its judgment, to which other hon. Members have referred, that the Government appear to expect the local authorities to struggle with the additional burdens placed on them by central Government and with the problem of inflation with an increase over last year's spending levels of about 3 per cent. In the real world, we know that retail prices are about 8 per cent. higher and that pay awards are nudging double figures.
  I find it hard to dispute CIPFA's suggestion that a sensible estimate of what the impact of inflation will be, a reasonable assessment of the extra burden of new Government policies and a prudent judgment about what will he lost through evasion and avoidance suggests an average poll tax figure not of £278 but of £344 for the country as a whole.
  The institute's final assessment is that local authorities could deliver an average community charge of £278 only by making substantial cuts—cuts of 8 per cent. to 10 per cent. CIPFA says—this is important—
  "Even if local authorities wanted to cut spending on such a scale it is doubtful that they could do so, so the most probable outcome is higher community charges … than those indicated by the DOE."
  My own local authority, Greenwich, appears to have done just as badly out of the much vaunted standard spending assessment as it did out of the late and unlamented grant-related expenditure assessment system. The Government have given Greenwich a standard
  468
  spending assessment of £153 million, an increase of 16·4 per cent. over its grant-related expenditure assessment. At first glance, that looks generous, but if one excludes education responsibilities, which will be taken over for the first time on 1 April, one finds that for the remaining services the increase is 7·7 per cent, as compared with a national increase of 11 per cent., so Greenwich seems to have missed out compared with some local authorities.
  Some inner-London boroughs have education SSAs representing as much as 98 per cent. of their Government-assumed spending, but in the case of Greenwich it is 81·8 per cent. and the discrepancy will have to be made good by the poll tax payers.
  The worst impact of the SSA on Greenwich will be in social services, for which Greenwich has a lower SSA per head of population than any other London borough. The figure for Greenwich is £118·66 and the gap between that figure and the next lowest—£153·02 in Lewisham—is substantial. Yet neither the Department of the Environment nor the Department of Social Security has made any suggestion that Greenwich is massively overspending on social services. I would argue that the reverse is true: there are obvious and worrying deficiencies in the council's social service provision.
  Let us look at the "other services" block of SSA. For inner-London boroughs generally, the SSA is up 19·5 per cent. on the GREA, but for Greenwich the figure is down by 2·6 per cent. The reasons would appear to be artificially low population figures, a low estimate of social deprivation based on the 1981 census, which is now very out of date, and a low assessment of numbers in private rented housing, again based on out-of-date information. All those errors will have an impact on the likely poll tax in Greenwich.
  In the exemplifications before us, the Government have assumed that, allowing for the safety netting, Greenwich poll tax payers will face a charge next year or £252, compared with an average rate bill of £290 per head. That looks like a very good deal, but the longer-term trend is far from encouraging. After the safety net has gone, the Government estimate a poll tax for Greenwich of £537, the second highest in the country. Figures based on the council's current budget show a poll tax not of £252 but of £495, rising to £768 when the safety net is phased out. That is simply not acceptable, even to those who run Greenwich council. The council is now engaged in a programme of last-minute and hasty cuts to try to reduce spending by about 10 per cent, but that will still leave us with a poll tax of about £350—£100 above the Government's prediction and £60 per head above the present rate bills.
  The need to cut spending is forcing the council's political leadership to reveal its priorities—and they are very strange priorities. The council seems to be protecting the new, trendy, fashionable services introduced after 1982 and targeting for cuts the basic bread-and-butter services on which many ordinary people depend. For example, there is no proposal to reduce the grant of £105,000 to subsidise entertainment at the Albany, even though that institution is not in the borough, but essential staff in the parks department are to be cut by 18 per cent., library hours are to be reduced and spending on children's playgrounds cut.
  The council proposes to close long-established community centres with a long history of service to the community, but donations amounting to almost £80,000 a year are being continued in respect of groups such as the

  469
  Greenwich mural workshop, Emergency Exit Arts, and a group called—equally unbelievably—"Fooled Again Puppets". Those organisations are to continue to have council help when basic services are being cut. The total sum of those contributions—£80,000—is the cost of running one of the community centres now threatened with closure.
  The council is also considering cuts in road sweeping services and increased meals-on-wheels charges, while it continues to publish its own newspaper at a cost of about £300,000 a year.
  The Government may succeed in forcing cuts on what they regard as profligate local authorities through the poll tax system—particularly if they use capping—but they may not be the right sort of cuts. The crudity of the system does not allow that to be prevented.
  The Government's main claim for the poll tax has never been that it is fair and just. There is no way in which they could make a case along those lines. Their case for the poll tax has always been based on the argument that it introduces a better level of accountability and makes it easier for local electors to judge the financial performance of their councils. The botched settlement before us tonight leaves even that claim in ruins. The mysteries of the standard spending assessment and the safety net and the Government's totally unrealistic estimate of councils' need to spend make it quite impossible for high poll tax charges to be placed at the door of those responsible. Councillors will blame Ministers and Ministers will blame councillors. Tonight's debate underlines the fact that the poll tax is not only inherently unjust in principle but a bureaucratic nightmare in practice.
  As we get nearer to the moment at which the bills start dropping through the letterbox, I believe that more and more people will come to accept that the fairest way of paying for local services is the way recommended by Layfield 14 years ago—a local income tax. The sooner that that is accepted, the sooner we shall have a sensible system of local government accountability.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Derek Conway: We are regularly told that the electors are very unhappy with the community charge. That is good. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities will reflect on that fact in his reply. I do not see why any of my electors should be particularly happy about paying the community charge, or their national taxes for that matter. When I entered the Tory party at the age of 15, one of my motivations was to get taxation—both national and local—reduced. I am glad if my constituents are unhappy about the community charge.
  The question must be whether the community charge is fair, and I believe that it is, although I suggest that the levels are unacceptable. My county council is controlled by an alliance of the Labour and Liberal parties, and I do not believe for one moment that the charge that it levies will be good or acceptable. People write saying, "I shall never vote Conservative again." They are entitled to have a good moan and get if off their chest, but the price of vengeance will be high because they will find that in the county of Shropshire the re-election of a bungling alliance of Labour
  470
  and Liberal councillors will only serve to increase the charge that they will have to pay. Their vengeance will not taste sweet.
  I know that this is not a Second Reading debate and that we must therefore be cautious and not be tempted into discussing the principle of the community charge. Undoubtedly, the mechanics are not only unpopular but extremely confusing. I do not know how many of my hon. Friends have ploughed through the reports. I got as far as the second one and could not make head or tail of it. From now on, I shall leave my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to explain these matters to me.
  I appreciate the fact that, under the standard spending assessments system, there is one bit of good news for counties such as Shropshire. Extra weighting has been given to the population sparsity factor. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is in his place. He has one of the largest constituencies in the country and that extra weighting will no doubt be as welcome in his constituency, which lies to the south of mine, as it will be to the 117 villages that lie around the county town that I have the pleasure to represent.
  The Department of the Environment's computer is positively lethal, although hon. Members who have served on local councils will know that there is nothing new in that. About 16 years ago, when I first became a councillor, we were suffering under a Government made up—like Shropshire county council—of Labour and Liberal politicians. That Lib-Lab Government used to issue their rate support grants, but then we had a series of clawbacks. First, we had the primary clawback and then, just as the council's budget was settling down, they suddenly realised that the figures were wrong and we had a secondary clawback. The complexities of the system of local government finance cannot therefore be laid at the door of the present Secretary of State for the Environment and those who preceded him, in bringing about the community charge. Complex local government settlements are nothing new to those of us who have experience of local councils.
  The one encouraging thing is that councils are now getting £2·3 billion in advance. When I was a councillor, we used to complain about the lateness of the settlement, yet now, when councils are getting that huge sum of nearly £2·5 billion in advance, there has been not an ounce of gratitude from any side about it. Perhaps that shows my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities that there is, indeed, little gratitude in politics.
  The safety net is undoubtedly unpopular. It is unpopular in my constituency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) expressed the feelings of many who did not realise the unfairness and the imbalance of it, but at least it will be for only a short period. The concession that the Government made in the autumn of last year, to phase out half the safety net this year, is welcome but costly to the taxpayer.
  In my constituency, in addition to the £251 assumption that the Government published, which included £4 for the safety net, there will be an extra £30 for the increased spending by Shropshire county council and another £12 for the parish precepts. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent city areas forget that those of us who have large rural constituencies have an additional charge that is levied by the parish councils.
  Mr Christopher Gill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point. Hon. Members who

  471
  represent urban constituencies might be interested to know that many parishes pay only a matter of pence in precepts at the moment but, as my hon. Friend has just pointed out, in The Wrekin district council of Shropshire it is possible that community charge payers will pay £12 instead of a matter of pence.
  Mr. Conway: My hon. Friend is quite right. I hope that parish councillors around the country will remember that we in Parliament will be watching the levels of increase to ensure that they do not try to confuse electors with the new system. In addition, my borough council is allowing for a 5 per cent. collection deficit, which amounts to £16 per head. Therefore, straight away the local electors will be paying £62 per head more than the Government assumption. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it is for the councils to decide, so the Government should not be defensive about this. In fact, my county spends about 90 per cent. of the money raised on local government services. Its budget, as planned, could be £28 million up on last year, which is a 14 per cent. increase, considerably above the rate of inflation and, I would argue, quite unnecessary.
  I agree absolutely with the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who is clearly not of my party, but who is right to say that we need to look at the frequency of elections. I advised my hon. Friend the Minister that I shall support the Government enthusiastically about the community charge tonight, with no apologies at all, but that we need to look at the frequency of elections for county councils in shire areas because they are not accountable enough on the basis of being elected every four years. That interval does not give the electorate enough of a chance to get at them, which is the whole point of the community charge.
  Of course, my constituents can always say, "That's it, Conway, you're out," and they can vote for somebody else. They can turn away from the £250 that my right hon. Friend's Department has calculated that they should be paying in community charge and can turn instead to the one alternative that was published by the Labour party, which would cost my constituents £623 per head, nearly three times as much. That is the alternative.
  Mr. Rooker: No, it is not true.
  Mr. Conway: That is the alternative.
  Mr. Rooker rose—
  Mr. Conway: I would give way to the hon. Gentleman if his party published a policy that we could debate.
  We are talking about a fairer system that will undoubtedly bring back voter power because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) rightly told the House, those who vote for expenditure will pay for expenditure.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the plight of my constituents over the level of the community charge because, as I live in the constituency and am married to one of my constituents, I shall hear regularly about the cost of the community charge.
  People in the county of Shropshire have a simple option. They can kick out the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition at the next opportunity because it is forcing up the community charge. I shall make absolutely certain in my area that the blame for the level of the community
  472
  charge will rest fairly and squarely with the bungling opposition parties that control the local councils. But they will not be there for long.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: This debate is the last occasion on which the Government can take action to try at least to salvage something from the disastrous poll tax and to prevent some of the difficulties that will be encountered by so many people who are ratepayers at present and who will be poll tax payers from 1 April this year.
  One thing is quite clear. Because of the basic unfairness of the Bill that went through Parliament and despite our repeated protestations and attempts at the time to amend the Government's failure to take ability to pay into account, unfortunately whatever the Government do at this stage, they will not be able to overcome the main difficulties of implementing the poll tax.
  I hope that the Conservative Members who trooped through the Lobbies last year to support the legislation but who now recognise its implications will at least recognise that if the Government are to do anything to ease the burdens and to assist some of the people who will be penalised, it is no good those hon. Members abstaining tonight. They must vote with Labour and the other Opposition parties against the proposals.
  I recognise clearly that the only way in which we shall be able to end the poll tax and the unfairness of the system is by electing a Government who are committed to replacing it with a system that is based on fairness. I am sure that that will be a major factor at the next election, when it comes.
  The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) referred to accountability and to annual elections. I have always believed that borough councils should be elected annually and I would support any move to make councils more accountable by making them frequently elected and thus more answerable to the electorate. The borough council that I represent already elects one third of its council three years out of four, and in the fourth year the county council elections are held. Therefore, it is accountable.
  I should like to say a few words about my local authority because I had experience both as finance chairman of the council and as leader of the council before being elected to the House. Our budgets were never a case of spending for the sake of spending because we used to spend a lot of time trying to achieve a budget that was both fair and reasonable. We tried to achieve a budget that would provide the services that we needed while being fair to the people who had to meet the bills. The expenditure could be roughly divided into three—one third for interest and debt payments; another third for salaries and wages; and the final third for the items that could be adjusted. However, there was not much room for adjustment once one began to analyse those items.
  The Minister should recognise that at present two thirds of the expenditure of many councils is for debt and interest payments, and salaries and wages. He should also recognise that the Government are responsible for the level of pay increases that the local authorities have had to make. The Government are also responsible for the level of

  473
  interest rates, yet they have used the figure of 4 per cent. for inflation in the figures that we are debating. What nonsense.
  The Government have moved to a system of standard spending assessments. Of course the old system of grant-related expenditure assessments was unfair and even the Department of the Environment could not explain it. The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that the new system was "simpler". Indeed, he used that word time after time, but the one thing that he did not say—that he could not say—was that the new system is fairer; he could not say that, because it is unfair. Although I welcome any moves towards something that is simpler, if the system is changed, it is much more important that it is changed to something that is fairer. That has not happened, and the Government should think again on that important matter.
  I turn now to another important issue that affects Burnley. The Association of District Councils has assessed the total spending of authorities at £32·8 billion. That figure has been used several times. The Association of District Councils, which is not Labour-controlled, says that that is an understatement of about £1·6 billion. The Secretary of State says that it may be £2 billion. Whichever figure is right, we all know that many local authorities supplement their spending from balances. Lancashire county council and Burnley borough council have both done so. Some £800,000 has been spent from balances this year by Burnley council.
  The Secretary of State challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to say whether spending commitments will have to be met in future if there are no balances to meet them. It was implicit in his comment that the expenditure of local authorities is not necessary. From whatever source it comes, local authorities deem their expenditure necessary. If the Secretary of State is saying that this year's expenditure from balances cannot be repeated next year and must be met by poll tax demands higher than the Government's figures, what services would he cut? Would he close nursery schools or old people's homes? Would he stop grants to citizens' advice bureaux? Would he cut grants for running sports facilities, arts centres and leisure centres? Those are all important services. If he is saying that the level of expenditure of local authorities as a whole or individually is wrong, he must say what should be cut or where additional income should come from. Of course, he cannot do that.
  I represent a deprived area. The Government recognise that it is deprived because they have designated it under the inner-area programme. Additional resources have been announced during the past few days. If anything, we are not spending enough money on the problems of dereliction and poverty in my area. Under the present system we cannot spend more because we must take into account what we can ask ratepayers, whether domestic, commercial or industrial, to pay. The Government have got it wrong.
  In Burnley, the population figure that the Government have used to calculate the grant, taking into account the non-domestic rate, is the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys figure of 61,000. The population is now 67,000 because we have the highest electoral roll for many years. In some ways the poll tax has encouraged people to
  474
  register, rather than the reverse. The Government have not taken into account the higher population figure in calculating the standard spending figures. They should have done so, because that figure will continue.
  We shall receive relief as a low rateable value property area but the transitional payments, low-rate relief and other help will be phased out. We must tell people what their poll tax bills will be without the safeguards, safety nets and transitional payments which are given to con people that the poll tax is not as bad as it is. The population figures used should be re-examined carefully.
  I shall conclude by making a few remarks about low rateable value areas. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) knows north-east Lancashire well. He comes from a Labour background. He is aware of the low rateable values in the area. He knows that the ratepayers of Burnley, Nelson, Colne, Accrington and Rawtenstall will suffer considerably because they will face a massive increase because of the poll tax. Even with safety net protection and relief for low rateable value properties, people will pay heavily from year one and in year two it will be worse. Year three will be even worse and year four will be worse still. The Government must think again.
  I hope that Conservative Members who have any doubts and any fairness at all will vote with us against the proposals. This is the last chance that we have to say to the Government, "You have got it wrong."
  7.44 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: For more than 25 years I have advocated reform of the ludicrous old rating system. I have done so because I have always thought it outrageous that the whole cost of local government expenditure was borne by only one third of the electorate. It was not borne by the richest by any manner of means. Therefore, I have no difficulty in supporting the reform brought in, at last, by this Government, after it had been sunk by previous Governments, both Labour and Conservative.
  Those who are dissatisfied and complain about the proposed system should have an alternative system to propose. The reform that I advocated for 25 years was that the cost of teachers' salaries should be borne by the Exchequer. When they opened their rate demands, people always found that the largest item of expenditure was education. The largest item of education expenditure was always teachers' salaries—which now cost about £7 billion a year.
  Even under the Education Act 1944, the Secretary of State has a statutory obligation to maintain the supply of teachers. It is absurd to propose that teachers' salaries are negotiated anything but nationally. The idea that they can be negotiated by Hogsnorton borough council is ludicrous. I hope that the Government will not lose sight of that in future as a possible solution to some of the problems. If they did so, inevitably some irresponsible councils would simply take advantage and spend money like water in place of education expenditure. That is why I am wholly in agreement with my colleagues who say that we should not reject the idea of community charge capping. I was glad that, in the Secretary of State's remarkable speech, he seemed to respond to that sympathetically.
  Cambridgeshire has been unfairly treated for many years. I remember that, when I first represented my area,

  475
  Cambridgeshire Members of Parliament had to rebel against the Government. I do not refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) but to Lord Pym and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). We had to do something that we did not like doing. Unusually for us, we rebelled simply because the Government persistently refused to recognise the problems of Cambridgeshire, which is the fastest growing county in Britain. Many problems arise from that fact. They may be problems of success, but population is the problem in Cambridgeshire.
  When Ministers considered the SSAs—as they are now—for last year, I found that they still had not taken Cambridgeshire's population problems into account. We had to tackle the Minister and we had a good argument about it along with local authority officials and councillors. I am grateful for the way in which he responded, and I am happy to say that a change has taken place. The SSA for Cambridgeshire county council is now 8·5 per cent. higher than the grant-related expenditure for 1989–90. It is £2·3 million more than the figure originally proposed in November last year.
  The SSAs for the Cambridgeshire districts range from 11·6 per cent. for the city of Cambridge, to 52·3 per cent. for east Cambridgeshire district council. It is right that I should publicly thank the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for that. It is up to the district councils in Cambridgeshire to respond by conducting their affairs prudently and wisely. I am satisfied that they will do so, although I have grave doubts about Cambridge city council where I am a ratepayer, and Peterborough city council, both of which are in alien hands. We hope that all councils will respond properly. In addition, the Government treated our credit approvals favourably.
  Only the area cost adjustment is outstanding. Like many south-eastern areas, Cambridgeshire has high labour and high industrial costs. However, we were suprised to find that we did not get an area cost adjustment. We were even more surprised and appalled when we noted that Oxfordshire did. Why on earth should Oxfordshire of all places have an area cost adjustment and Cambridgeshire not? I defy my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to give a reason for that. He has said that the matter has only been dealt with in a rough and ready arbitrary way. In a letter to me he said that the case is somewhat technical and that the results of the new earnings survey were not robust enough to apply county by county. I ask him only to give me an assurance that perhaps next year the matter will be looked at in much greater detail and Cambridgeshire put on the same basis as Oxfordshire.
  We in Cambridgeshire have had our rows and we have had to rebel. But in all my time in Parliament, no Minister has responded so carefully and sympathetically and taken so much trouble in dealing with all our complaints as my hon. Friend. He may not have pleased everybody, but he has seen them. On this occasion I shall support the Government because of the concessions that have been made for Cambridgeshire, but I hope that those who are doubtful will show a little gratitude to my hon. Friend for what he has done.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The 10-minute limit on speeches has now ended, but it would be helpful if all hon. Members speaking from now on would impose a voluntary time limit on their speeches.
  7.51 pm
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I shall endeavour so to do, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), have highlighted the fact that the Government have simply not met the objectives that they set when they began on this sorry course, the introduction of the poll tax. The poll tax, as Conservative Members have demonstrated today, is far from achieving the Government's initial main aim of accountability. As the tax has been adjusted to try to match one anomaly here and another there, it has achieved less and less accountability rather than more.
  Many Conservative Members do not seem to be content with the idea that accountability begins with the ballot box. Many Conservative Members wanted to use the tax to attack those who voted through the ballot box for councils that Conservative Members did not approve of.
  The poll tax is no simpler than the system that preceded it. No hon. Member or anyone trying to administer the poll tax believes that there is any sense in the nature of the administration or that administratively it will be more simple or more fair. In addition, it is costing infinitely more than the system that it replaces.
  More and more problems are arising each week. The Government talk about wanting to encourage young people to stay on at school, but a 19-year-old at a sixth form college rather than at a polytechnic or a university is not classed as a student and so is not entitled to a rebate. Therefore, a 19-year-old in full-time education in a school will not be entitled to the same rebate as a brother or sister of 20 who happens to be in higher education.
  That is the sort of anomaly that the Government keep tripping over which highlights the sort of problems that accompany the poll tax. That is because the tax has never sought to be a fair tax for services received.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Armstrong: I will not give way because I have given a commitment to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  From the beginning, the Government have had specific aims in mind, and their main aim has been to attack local government. In doing so, they have brought upon themselves enormous problems. They cannot even meet their own objectives. The further down the road they go, the more problems appear and the more difficulties they get into. They are discovering that the poll tax does not simply attack Labour-controlled local government; it undermines any commitment that the Government might have had toward local democracy. That is one of the major problems that the tax is now bringing. It never set out to be fair, and that is why no Conservative Members can find an element of fairness when they look at their position. Having set out to be so unfair, it is not surprising that Cambridgeshire, Brent, or wherever, ends up with problems. The problem is the tax and the way in which it has been implemented.
  Let me illustrate my point with Durham. Durham is a Labour-controlled authority. It is solidly Labour, but even

  477
  so we won a further seven seats in the county council elections in 1989 and we won a seat in my constituency which the Labour party has never held in the history of that county council. Durham is not known as a high spender. It has never been castigated by the Government for high spending. Yet if Durham were to spend within the SSA as most recently presented—an exact account of which the Government cannot give me—there would, in real terms, be an increase of less than 3·2 per cent. over this year's figure. That would mean a cut in services.
  If Durham stuck to the SSA, the cut would be equivalent to closing down the social services department or the police and fire services. We are talking not about cutting a little spending here and there, but about substantial amounts, and that is if the council manages to collect all the poll tax that is due to it. There has always been a reasonably good collection under the rating system, but now we shall be collecting for more than twice that number, so the default rate is likely to be higher and the implications will be greater than ever before.
  We are left with enormous problems. There are problems of collection, but most of all there are problems with delivering the service. When the original SSAs came out at the end of November or the beginning of December, I calculated that overall in the northern authorities we would lose about 15 per cent. for education spending. I was corrected by the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science. She said that it would be about 12·9 per cent. But even if I am wrong and she is right, a cut of 12·9 per cent. in education spending at a time of teacher shortages—
  Mr. Richard Holt: Not in Durham.
  Ms. Armstrong: Even Durham has problems in recruiting science and language teachers in order to deliver the national curriculum. I was there last week talking about that. [Interruption.] Hon. Members seem to think that I am making these things up, but I am not. There are teacher supply problems in every authority throughout the country. Even in Durham we have to implement the national curriculum. In Durham we have been asked to take specific action by Her Majesty's inspectors following their latest report.
  If authorities are to stick to what the Government say, there will be the equivalent of a 12 per cent. cut in education. The Minister knows that that is nonsense and will leave an authority totally unable to meet its statutory responsibilities. He has the opportunity this evening to demonstrate that he cares more about the lives and opportunities of people in this country than he does about sticking by something which he knew from the beginning was wrong. I hope that he is big enough and magnanimous enough to take that opportunity.
  8 pm
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I shall certainly abide by your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker, as if the 10-minute rule were in force.
  This is the first of these debates in which I have had a sporting chance of understanding what is happening, because the revenue support grant distribution report is quite the clearest that I have ever seen. That has to be an
  478
  improvement for people inside, as well as outside, the House who wish to understand what the new system is and how it works.
  What happens to county councils is much more important than what happens to district councils, because of the effect on the ratepayer. A besetting sin of the Government has been to increase more and more the duties of local authorities, particularly of county councils, without transferring proportionate resources to them. For example, the changes in the national education curriculum have resulted in a massively increased need for new books and computers. Some of the need for new computers arises because often we can no longer get spare parts for the first generation of computers purchased. That is not reflected in changes in the cost of living index. These massive changes in expenditure were knowingly brought about by the Government when they changed the curriculum.
  The golden rule should always be, "If you can't afford it, don't do it." That should apply as much to Government as it does to private individuals. We have seen expensive changes made in the respective responsibilities of district health authorities and county councils. Those health authorities started with joint funding and are ending up with unique funding by the county councils. Those changes are not embraced by a figure of 6 per cent. or by looking at the cost of living index. They represent a quantum change.
  The counties which were traditionally low spenders were caught by rate capping, so that they had to run down their capital assets because they had no alternative. If a road surface is allowed to remain broken up for more than a certain time, the road's understructure suffers damage which will be much more expensive to repair than it would be to maintain the road surface in the first place. But councils such as Devon had knowingly to permit this to happen to many of the lanes because it was not allowed to spend the necessary money to keep them in good repair.
  In Devon there are still a large number of schools with outside lavatories which can freeze over in winter. I am not talking just about discomfort but about the fact that, when frozen, the lavatories will not work. There is a backlog of capital expenditure which has never been spent.
  There was an era when architects believed that, owing to a change of Government, water no longer flowed downhill. We had an era of flat, rather than pitched, roofs. They saved money originally, but the rooks have now come home to roost in the form of maintenance costs which were never incurred when we had pitched roofs, when the worst that happened was for a slate or two to come adrift after a storm.
  We can get away with this for a certain number of years, but then we have to raid our reserves. If the formula is applied not to expenditure, but to the previous year's revenue, such realities are totally ignored. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) is the present Secretary of State for Education and Science; a series of Secretaries of State for Education and Science have imposed frightening new costs on education authorities. Although it has been said that teachers' pay is negotiated nationally, that is not so for supply teachers. The more teachers who have to go to committee meetings or training courses, the greater the need for supply teachers. In some counties, such as—I regret—Devon, financial constraints on the local education authority have resulted not only in teachers being paid a miserable rate per hour but in their not being paid at all for those hours

  479
  in between classes when they were not teaching as supply teachers. They often have to travel long distances, uncompensated.
  Is it not utterly incongruous that we are moving to individual taxation in terms of national tax, so that husbands and wives will have their own allowances and be taxed separately, yet for the community charge, a couple have only half the capital exemptions? They each have half of the £8,000—a total of £8,000 between the two of them—compared with the £8,000 for an individual. It is utterly incomprehensible that the Government are quite rightly moving in one direction in terms of central Government taxation, but defy the logic of that when they bring in a new taxation system for local government. If £8,000 was the right capital limit for income support when that was introduced, it cannot still be the right limit, without valorisation, for the tapering of community charge.
  When I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister about this matter, I was more than surprised to receive an interim reply saying that my letter had been passed from him to the Department of Social Security because his Department did not accept responsibility for the £8,000 limit.
  Mr. David Hunt: I was unaware of that letter. The £8,000 limit, which I thought was increased from £6,000 for income support, is consistent with social security policy. If we were to make any move it would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. That is probably why my hon. Friend received the interim reply and I shall ensure that he receives a much fuller reply as soon as possible.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have received a full reply, but it is utterly unconvincing. There is no essential reason why community charge—based on a poll tax system abated by rebates—should have the same limit as income support. There is no logical reason for that. Income support is related to the many different circumstances of a person, as are family credits, but the community charge is not. Therefore, there is no essential, self-evident reason why the figure at which the taper starts should be the same for both.
  When the community charge was voted by the then Government, it was understood that grants to enable students to pay it would be increased by 20 per cent. of the national average community charge. Students would then have the same incentive as others to encourage economical local government and to punish extravagant local government. However, that got lost in the wash.
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science asking what has happened to the proposal to add that 20 per cent. to student grants, but I am still waiting for a reply—which I thought someone would take the trouble to see that I received before this debate. The question of where the money is to come from that will allow students to pay the charge has, at this moment in time, received no answer.
  The points that I have raised are not trivial but are very serious. Taken together, they constitute the basic reason why I shall not be able to vote with the Government tonight.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: For some time, I have wanted to make a long speech on the constitutional and democratic implications of the poll tax.
  480
  I shall not do so tonight, because although the poll tax is of relevance to the revenue support grant, it is technically secondary to the main subject of tonight's debate.
  The revenue support grant is an injustice inside an injustice. If one could imagine that the initial injustice did not exist and that the poll tax was fair—which it cannot be—there would still be something very peculiar about the operation of the revenue support grant. I would only add that the poll tax is the unfairest general form of taxation that has ever been introduced into any western democracy, which is why it has serious implications for our democratic and constitutional system. However, that is for another occasion.
  On 19 December, I wrote to the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities asking him to meet a deputation from North-East Derbyshire district council. I wrote to him again on 12 January. We do not wish to discuss the poll tax or the national business rate; we specifically want to discuss the 1990–91 revenue support grant.
  On the basis of information published on 6 November, it appears that the poll tax in north-east Derbyshire will, in accordance with the Government figures, be £297—or £366 when the safety net is removed. However, because the revenue support grant will be so low, it will be impossible for north-east Derbyshire district council, which is not a profligate authority, to observe those figures—no matter how carefully it behaves. As the revenue support grant will be woefully inadequate, the poll tax will be nowhere near the figure suggested by the Government but closer to the figure of £400—unless the deputation that I hope the Minister will meet can persuade him to alter north-east Derbyshire's poll tax figure and the revenue support grant formula.
  When the Local Government Finance Bill was in Committee, the Conservative party made a party political broadcast about the benefits of poll tax and produced a rough and ready formula. It was never meant to be exact, but was intended to give a general idea of how the new arrangements would work. It was estimated that about 50 per cent. of an authority's income would come from revenue support grant—25 per cent. from the national business rate, and 25 per cent. from poll tax. The Government's standard spending assessments show a revenue support grant for north-east Derbyshire of £9 million, which is less than 20 per cent. of the amount required. Poll tax will contribute £21 million, as will the uniform business rate. Together, they will account for more than 80 per cent. of total income, which represents a dramatic change for that authority, brought about by the nonsensical rate support grant formula.
  One aspect of the formula relates to population, including inflow and outflow. During the working day, the area covered by north-east Derbyshire district council loses many people to their places of work in Chesterfield; to Markham pit, near Staveley; and to Sheffield. East Staffordshire authority, which is of comparable size to north-east Derbyshire district council, gains from that because its area experiences a net inflow of the working population. Nevertheless, east Staffordshire can raise money because of the car parking and other facilities that it must provide for people working in its area. No such revenue is available to north-east Derbyshire, whose residents will have to contribute to the costs incurred by other local authorities in the provision of certain services. What district council services are so dramatically changed

  481
  by either a net inflow or outflow of its working population? Dustbins must still be emptied, houses repaired, and other general services provided.
  The revenue support grant formula also incorporates a density and sparsity factor. A highly populated area naturally requires additional money to provide adequate services. Likewise, a sparsely populated area such as the Derbyshire dales in west Derbyshire will incur higher costs in the provision of refuse collection services, for example. North-east Derbyshire is an intricate mix of areas that are either densely or sparsely populated, so it will lose out. It still has to cope with problems of communications and congestion in respect of its sparsely populated and densely populated areas respectively. That aspect of the formula makes no sense to north-east Derbyshire or, I suspect, to many other areas.
  The revenue support grant formula also takes into account an all-age social index. Its parameters include the numbers of persons sharing a property, the number of baths and lavatories available, the number of lone-parent families, whether more than one person occupies a room, and the number of Commonwealth residents. North-east Derbyshire is divided into east and west. The "EastEnders" comprise the working population, while the west of the district is more rural and middle class. The working class areas could benefit considerably from the all-age social index, as neighbouring Bolsover does, but the social mix of the district means that they will lose entirely. That makes a nonsense of the revenue support grant formula.
  The formula's social deprivation factor is more appropriate to county councils than to district councils in terms of education and social services, yet compared with other authorities in Derbyshire, north-east Derbyshire will lose out considerably. On 12 January we were given a fresh set of figures for the special grant. Bolsover will get a low-rateable-value-area grant of £1,216,000. North-east Derbyshire and the other authorities in the area will get nothing, but the heartland of north-east Derbyshire is identical in its social characteristics to Bolsover. I am happy that Bolsover will get the money, as it obviously needs it, but at least 50 per cent. of north-east Derbyshire needs that money as well. That shows that the whole arrangement is nonsense.
  Some of the new arrangements are supposed to overcome the problem of high poll taxes for people who are relatively socially deprived.
  Socially deprived people who live in a rich area will suffer, but rich people who live in a socially deprived area will gain from a slight alleviation in the charge.
  I hope that the Minister will agree to meet the deputation from north-east Derbyshire, and that he will discuss seriously with it the technical problems, which will cause financial difficulties for authorities in my constituency. I am sure that similar problems exist in many other areas.
  8.21 pm
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Since 1981, Labour-controlled Lancashire county council has been taking those citizens who are unfortunate enough to pay rates, manufacturing and service industries, hospitals,
  482
  education colleges and the university to the cleaners. The only way to get a lower community charge is to kick out the Labour county council.
  Labour's first act on taking office in 1981 was to slap an extra 18p on the rates above the already budgeted spending. It has continued to increase that burden every year until, oddly enough, last year when there was a county election, and the council raided the reserves to keep the rates increase down. Now there is only three hours' county spending left in the kitty because the Socialists have been spending merrily since then.
  The massive rates increases that the council has imposed have placed a huge burden on our industries, which had no vote and could do nothing to protect themselves. The rates increases have also been a terrible burden on the local hospitals, which had to pay millions more—money that should have been spent on patient care. Similarly, the university had to divert funds that should have been devoted to education to feed the insatiable county council appetite.
  As long as there was no connection between demanding services and paying for them, the county council could get away with it. It was essential to change the system so that everyone paid for the services that they demanded. I am happy to say that the new system will achieve that.
  However, those on low incomes must be protected from sudden steep rises—
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No.
  People who live in small terraced houses must be protected. Many of them will be among the 9·5 million who are eligible for rebates, and others may be eligible for the transitional relief to cushion rates that was announced in the autumn.
  Although rebates apply to the whole charge, transitional relief applies only up to the amount that local councils are supposed to need to provide proper local services. Any excess is not covered. People will still have an incentive to vote for a council which will not spend charge payers' money as though there were no tomorrow, which is what is happening now in Lancashire.
  Businesses, especially manufacturing industry, in our part of the world will benefit substantially, but the new revaluation is designed to give equal treatment to everybody. It has put the fear of death into many business men, who have not yet understood transitional protection or the lower poundage. They do not all appreciate that in future the unified business rate will rise only by the rate of inflation, and we ought to stress that. That will prevent the robber barons at county hall from holding them to ransom, as they have done for the past nine years.
  Businesses in the northern and north-western areas will gain £900 million in transfers from southern England. This is the best general regional policy for the north-west since the war, and it is better than anything that Labour has ever brought in. Even so, I think it is wrong that companies in my constituency, which have had too high a rate burden for too long, will not get the whole relief at once. I have raised that matter with the Minister on several occasions, and I shall continue to do so.

  483
  Transitional relief for those in the south who are hard hit by the rises should be paid for by the Exchequer and not by stallholders in Lancaster market or small firms on Caton road.
  The Labour-controlled Lancashire county council is having a field day. It has increased its estimates three times since September, and it proposes to increase expenditure by 31·5 per cent., which is equivalent to an 82p rate under the old system, which it will gaily blame on the new community charge—fibbing as usual. The council has to refill the county coffers, which it emptied to cushion rate rises before last year's election. It also has to pay for the above-average wage settlement that it persuaded the local authorities to concede.
  Mr. David Hunt: Lancashire was in the chair.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As the Minister observes, Lancashire was in the chair at the time. On top of the 8·8 per cent., which was well above the going rate when it was conceded, the council is handing out an extra 20 to 30 per cent. on the salaries of higher paid officers. It cannot be justifiable to ask lower-income charge payers for some £15,000 extra for a pay increase for the chief executive.
  The administration at county hall has become increasingly top-heavy. The number of teachers employed in our schools has gone down, while the number of staff in the county education department has steadily increased. That was before the Education Reform Act 1988, which it might have used as an excuse for more staff. In future, the Labour group will not be able to rob industry in Lancashire to pay for its extravagant spending, and everyone will have an interest in keeping spending down since everyone will pay, and those who pay the piper call the tune.
  For those reasons, I support this long overdue measure of justice.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: What is the standard spending assessment—the SSA that has been referred to today—which is so essential to the whole tax figures for individual boroughs? It is the amount that the Government say that local councils should be spending.
  My council, Waltham Forest, is spending £30 per head less than the Government's SSA for it. Judging by that criterion, Waltham Forest must be a low or a reasonable spender, according to the Government. However, the poll tax will go through the roof—the latest estimate is £488 per head and that is with a standstill budget. That is a long way from the £297 that the Government have mentioned. Why is that? One reason is that Waltham Forest will have to put £42 for everyone who pays the tax into a safety net. That is grossly unjust. The neighbouring borough of Redbridge will pay nothing; nor will other boroughs in the surrounding area which are in a better position than Waltham Forest. The money will go to Conservative-controlled Wandsworth council to help with the Conservative election effort, and that is grossly unfair.
  There are many other reasons, and they are all factors that are outside the control of Waltham Forest council. For example, high interest rates will add £1·1 million. Inflation is 7 per cent. this year and is forecast at 8 per cent. for next year, but the Government have only allowed for 4 per cent. That adds another £5·5 million. The police
  484
  precept is £2·5 million, the cost of setting up and running the poll tax is £1·7 million and budgeting for non-payment will mean another £3·5 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) pointed out, the Government have said that every penny will be collected. That is ludicrous—every local authority accountant knows, as many other people do, that there will be bad debts.
  Thus we have a total of £14·3 million to cover factors outside the council's control—and, for every £1 million, £6 can be added to the individual's poll tax bill. On top of that, there is the cost of the Government's new legislation—the Children Act 1989, the Education Reform Act 1988 and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Presumably the Government want local authorities to implement their laws, but that will add another £1 million. To arrive at the Government's figure of £297, the authority would have to cut services by £32 million. Even its Conservative members are discussing cuts of only £11 million, and that would require major education and social service closures. If they had their way, the poll tax bill would still be £420 per person, far above the Government's assessment.
  The poll tax is a redistribution of money from the poor to the rich. Let us compare the results of the rating system in Leyton with the poll tax figure of £450—and, as I have said, the latest estimate is £488. Two adults will pay 79 per cent. more, and three will face an increase of 169 per cent. In Chingford, in the same borough, the increases—although large—are much smaller than those in poor areas such as Leyton. Few of my constituents will qualify for transitional relief, which is granted to those paying £3 more than they paid in rates—according to the Government's unreal poll tax figure of £297.
  The Secretary of State could not even justify SSAs in his speech; he said that they were not cast in stone and could be changed next year. That is not surprising, when we consider some of the facts. Tory Gloucester, for instance, receives £5·3 million for under-fives, but provides no services for them. It receives its grant on the same basis as councils that do provide such services. Similarly, seaside resorts contain many old-age pensioners but provide no direct services for them, as such services are provided privately. They are treated in the same way as boroughs that provide old people's homes, home helps, day centres and so on.
  SSAs are ludicrous. I have just put out a press release in which I have observed that the SSAs are making an ASS of the Government—and that is the truth.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Timothy Wood: I shall be supporting the Government tonight. In debates such as this, it is all too easy to lose sight of the problems and inequities that have existed for years in the domestic rating system. Over the years, I have attended a multitude of conferences and meetings at which pleas have been made for an end to that system. In Hertfordshire and the other home counties, huge levels of rates have been paid, suggesting a level of disposable income far beyond the reality.
  I must confess that the huge differences between payments per adult in Stevenage and those in other parts of the country staggered me. The treatment of different areas has involved massive injustices, and there have also been great injustices on an individual basis. It has been

  485
  said many times before—but there is nothing wrong with repeating it—that single elderly people have, typically, been severely disadvantaged. In contrast, many young adults—who are the main users of subsidised local authority sport and leisure facilities—have not been required to pay anything.
  Mr. Pawsey: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that there is not a single Liberal Member in the Chamber? I find that staggering, and I am sure that he will as well. Is it not disgraceful that there is not a single Liberal Member present to comment on a debate that touches every constituency?
  Mr. Wood: I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only have we seen hardly any Liberal Member apart from the one Liberal contributor to the debate, but we have seen large expanses of green Bench owing to the sparse attendance of Opposition Members in general.
  I am convinced that sweeping away the domestic rating system, together with the paraphernalia of penalties and so forth, will dramatically improve both accountability and equity. Having said that, however, I do not wish to give the impression that some great Utopia has arrived in local government finance. Further improvements can and should be made in the standard spending assessments, and I welcome my right hon. Friend's willingness to consider further the methodology by which such assessments are set.
  First, the formulae used to define SSAs run to excessive and spurious numbers of significant figures. I remember complaining about exactly the same features of grant-related expenditure assessment. For example, page 7 of the relevant report informs us that the number of students aged over 16 is multiplied by £2,315·54. To that figure is added £33·42 multiplied by an "additional needs" factor, and to that is added £347·33 multiplied by a "scarcity" factor. The result is taken with another table for 11 to 15-year-olds and multiplied by "area cost adjustment for education"; that result is then scaled to a control total given in annex B of the report.
  As a science graduate in mathematics, I see no satisfactory justification for the pseudo-accuracy implied in some of those figures. Furthermore, I am convinced that such spurious accuracy confuses both local councils and hon. Members. I had hoped that the introduction of the SSA would lead to a simplification and clarification of the figures in comparison with GREA. Some of the frustration and discontent that such assessments sometimes reveal is a result of the opacity of the calculations.
  Secondly, greater clarity in the tabulations presented to Parliament would be helpful. I suggest, for example, that to give the SSA per capita in each local authority area would aid ready comparison. I have observed during the debate that some people have obviously made the appropriate calculations and presented them, but it would surely be easier to assess the expenditure that was relevant to a particular area if the figures were readily to hand.
  Thirdly, and perhaps most important, I believe that the SSA figures contain anomalies. I shall tolerate that this year, but I feel that rectification will be necessary in due course. My constituency contains three local authorities: Stevenage, North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire. For some reason, North Hertfordshire is given the highest
  486
  per capita SSA. I live in that district, and I know it well. I do not believe that its per capita needs are greater than those of Stevenage or much greater than those of East Hertfordshire.
  I also know both the borough of Stevenage and Bracknell district very well. They are both new town areas; I have been leader of one, and I now represent the other. Bracknell has the higher per capita SSA, but I am convinced that Stevenage's per capita needs are greater than those of Bracknell.
  Perhaps most extreme is the amazingly high standard spending assessment per capita for the borough of Slough. I can see no justification for the Slough borough spending needs to be set at double the per capita figure for such areas as Bracknell and Stevenage. It appears that Slough borough shares my view, as council spending is significantly less than the standard spending assessment.
  Mr. Wilshire: Slough is next to the borough which I represent. Does my hon. Friend share my view that when a borough such as Slough, controlled by the Labour party, is able to suggest that it will be setting such low charges, it is extraordinary that a thrifty and sensibly run neighbouring authority, Spelthorne, should be faced with a charge of £400? Does he agree that that proves his point that something is sadly amiss?
  Mr. Wood: I said that there was great need for a further detailed examination of some of the anomalies that emerge from the figures. Clearly—one does this in any scientific assessment of anything—if one finds exceptions, one looks for the causes of them and assesses whether there is a factor that is playing an excessive part. That must be happening in view of some of the effects that we are seeing. I hope that during the next year some of those factors will be sorted out and that a better position will be presented.
  I press those points because Stevenage borough council spends excessively and I do not wish to defend that extravagance. But equally, I hope that a reconsideration of the SSA methodology will remove the anomalies and thus more readily enable me to criticise the council for not doing what it should in giving value for money.
  In relation to safety nets, I welcome the response of the Government to the representations that were made in the autumn. A great political error would have been made if safety net contributions had been made by local authorities for a period of four years. One of the principal objectives of the community charge is to improve local accountability. Just one year of safety net contribution will enable local residents to make easy comparisons of local government spending more quickly.
  I confess that there seems to be some curious safety net anomalies in the first year, even though they have been reduced since the first proposals were published. I have drawn the attention of the Minister of State to some of those. Regrettably, those anomalies seem to favour the high, rather than the low, spending authority.
  For example, in Copeland the average rate bill per adult is £191. In Kerrier, Cornwall, the figure is £194. Copeland overspends by £28 per adult, while Kerrier spends at £50 below the SSA. But Kerrier will receive a £9 safety net payment per adult and Copeland a massive £91 and a special grant of £25.
  As a result, the residents in the prudent Kerrier district will have to pay at least £216, while in high-spending Copeland the figure will be £191—no change, assuming

  487
  that spending is not increased excessively. It seems that the safety net arrangements are often over-generous to the high spenders. While this matter will automatically reduce in significance, I hope that a further look will be taken at the methodology before the figures are set for next year.
  I have raised those concerns because I want to see the new system of local government finance work with even greater effectiveness in future years. I am convinced that there will be much improved accountability. I am also convinced that the uniform business rate should boost the position of manufacturing industry in the north of England, which we wish to see. Councils will no longer be able to indulge in rash spending without regard to the local consequences.
  The measures may not bring perfection, but a giant stride forward is being made to give us better value for money in local government spending, and they deserve our support tonight.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is interesting to speak after any Conservative Member who has suddenly realised that he has been sold a pup by the Government. I recall that in the early days of this matter there were a few Conservative Members who were consistent in their opposition to the poll tax, but in the main they were those who just saw it as unfair and inequitable. The great majority of them were swept along by the Government's propaganda. Here was another way to get at the spending patterns of Labour local authorities, they thought, and they went into the Division Lobby with great glee.
  As those Conservative Members saw the proposals unwind, they realised with a degree of horror and shock—which we have taken great pleasure in witnessing today and which we witnessed in subsequent days after the original decision—that it would be a bad deal for them. Then the whingeing started. I await with interest what happens tonight. One often hears of a Tory rebellion, though often it is more mooted in the press than turning into reality in the Division Lobby.
  I suspect that the Government have a serious situation on their hands tonight. The way in which the whole of the Cabinet was reeled in to sit on the Front Bench, stoically listening, gave one food for thought. I watched the Prime Minister look at her watch—she does not often stumble into local government debates; I am sure that the way in which the new system will work is as clear to her as it is to the rest of us—as she sat there in a sort of demonstration of support for her beleagured Secretary of State, hoping to quell with one of her icy glances the rebellion on her Back Benches. I hope that she has not succeeded because, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, this is the last chance Conservative Members have to do something about the iniquitous poll tax and bring the Government up short.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor rose—
  Mr. Banks: I give way to a man who is obviously suffering badly.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is extremely kind of the hon. Gentleman. Opposition Members should appreciate why some of us will be in the same Lobby as him tonight. The reason is not because we do not like the community charge but because the SSA has been geared in such a way that it is having precisely the opposite effect to that which we
  488
  were promised it would have. Authorities such as mine, which are low-spending, well-run Conservative councils, are being penalised, and authorities run by the Labour party, which overspend and waste taxpayers' money to a huge extent, are benefiting. That is why some of us will reluctantly be walking alongside the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Banks: I wish that I had not taken pity on the hon. Gentleman, in view of the unkind remarks he made about my local authority. As I said, the hon. Gentleman has been sold a pup and he and many of his hon. Friends have suddenly realised that, especially in view of the way in which the whole system has been moved around, tinkered with, manipulated and pulled and pushed to try to meet all the objections. Those movements have made it all the more grotesque and absurd.
  But I shall be pleased to be in the same Lobby as the hon. Gentleman, and at that time he may care to tell me how he sprained his wrist. Perhaps he was picking up some of those heavy wine crates that I know he disposes around—[Interruption.] I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is a very good vintner.
  My hon. Friends and I object to the poll tax in principle, basically because it is unfair. How can anyone defend a system by which someone in a castle, and there are not many of those in London, pays the same as someone in a damp flat, of which there are many hundreds of thousands in London? That is grotesquely unfair and why we shall oppose it throughout.
  We are now confronted with a new system of local authority finance. Frankly, if that is designed to make the whole thing simpler, the Schleswig-Holstein question would now be a good candidate for an entry in "Trivial Pursuit" or would be easy meat for some readers. I say that because the new system does not make any more sense than some of the other ridiculous systems that went before it.
  How do these systems work and who devises them? There must have been an outbreak of acromania at the Department of the Environment. That source gave us GREAs—granted-related expenditure assessments—and now we have SSAs, standard spending assessments. What does it all mean and how has it been calculated? A bunch of number crunchers at the Department of the Environment in Marsham street have decided that my borough has a certain sort of need and that this is how much our standard spending assessment should be. It bears no relation to reality for Newham people and councillors. Indeed, I suggest that SSA could easily stand for "some silly sod's assessment," because it bears no relationship to what goes on in the London borough of Newham.
  Mr. Wilshire rose—
  Mr. Banks: I will not give way, because other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Wilshire: It is a good point that I wish to make.
  Mr. Banks: It will be the first one the hon. Gentleman has ever made, so I had better give way to him.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's debunking of the attempts of other people to assess what Newham needs. Can he confirm that it is Labour party

  489
  policy that Newham should simply state the figure that it wants and the Government should provide it, irrespective of whether the borough needs it?
  Mr. Banks: I am rarely consulted over Labour party policy, but were I consulted, I certainly would not argue for such a ridiculous idea. That is not what we want. We want a realistic assessment of the needs of the area, determined by councillors who know and who have to stand for election—
  Mr. Wilshire: And then have the Government pay it.
  Mr. Banks: No, not at all. The Government will always set the broad parameters. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that those parameters have been very much narrowed by the Government. In 1981 central Government used to contribute about 60 per cent. to local government expenditure; the contribution is now down to about 38 per cent. That is the essence of the problem. Local government finance has been squeezed and squeezed as the ground rules have been changed over and over again at the will of the Government.
  We cannot have properly organised, efficient local government finance when councillors do not know what the rules will be from one year to the next. That is the ridiculous rubbish trotted out from the Dispatch Box every year since 1979. As we all know, the position has not got better; indeed, it is far worse.
  I take a close interest in what the London borough of Newham does. I am proud to say that it is a Tory-free zone. We have no fears of the Dispatch Box. There is not a Tory on the local council. The Tories could not win in Newham for the simple reason that the people can see through them every day of the week. Looking through the budget papers of Newham, I notice that in the second most deprived local authority area in the whole country, according to the Department of the Environment's indices, if we just maintained our current services for next year at £220 million of expenditure, the poll tax would be £503 per person against the Government's estimate of £337. The average rate bill in Newham is £628. Therefore, with a poll tax of £503, two adults in a household will have to pay £378 more. The increase for three adults will be £881, and so it goes on.
  Newham's standard spending assessment has been reduced to £195 million. At the current rate of expenditure we will spend £25 million or about 13 per cent. over the SSA. I understand that we might be capped at that level. The old capping used to start at about 12·5 per cent. As the Secretary of State mentioned the possibility of capping, I should like the Minister to tell us how it will work. At what level will capping be triggered? What mechanisms exist for it? We do not know how the mechanism of capping will work for the poll tax.
  What really rankles is that Newham, despite its manifest problems, will still have to make a net contribution to the safety net of £21 per head. Next-door Tory Redbridge, which has far more facilities and is a more affluent area, will make only a £1 per head contribution. The Minister has had complaints from his own side, but what about the complaints from our side? How have we got into a position where a deprived local authority area is contributing more than an affluent area? Why is the money going to the London borough of
  490
  Waltham Forest? When my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) mentioned it, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who has nipped out to get a fresh pint of blood, said, "Good, that is what we want." That aside demonstrates the manipulative nature of the Government and the way they are prepared to twist the system to suit their party political purposes. That is what it is all about.
  I objected strongly to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) saying that London Labour boroughs, which must include mine, as the strongest Labour borough, would go for the highest possible poll tax and then try to blame it on the Government. We would have great difficulty trying to put the blame on the Government because part of the strategy is to shift all the blame on to local authorities. The Government strategy is to keep attacking and vilifying local authorities, and to keep taking money away from them. As the services deteriorate, people are expected to blame the local authorities when the Government are entirely responsible. We know what is going on. We are not stupid.
  We will not impose great burdens on the people who live in Newham. We will have to consider cuts of about £17 million so that we can get down to a poll tax that is at least reasonably acceptable. We do not need lectures. We are not playing politics with the people. We are trying to protect the people from the vicious, avaricious and disreputable Government who are attacking them.
  It is not just the poll tax that we face. Council tenants also face an increase of £10 a week in rents because of Government diktat. Then the Government start lecturing us about high-spending and spendthrift local councils. We do our best in Newham and we get very little assistance from the Government; indeed, we usually get a great deal of abuse.
  The poll tax, which has been dreamt up by some halfwit in the Department of the Environment, is unfair, unloved and unclear. That is a reasonably good description of the Minister and of the Government.
  8.56 pm
  Sir George Young: I want to deal head on with the question that is legitimately posed to those on the Conservative side who plan to vote against the report. We are asked what we hope to achieve, given that defeating the report would not remove the community charge but would simply deprive local government of resources. I hope to answer the question in three parts.
  Some of us have consistently opposed the policy that underpins the report. We voted against Second and Third Readings of the Bill, and we voted in favour of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). We came within 25 votes of changing Government policy. Nothing that has happened since has allayed our fears. On the contrary, those fears are now shared by more colleagues in the party who at the time were prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, but who have seen some of our predictions come true. At a time when more colleagues are voicing their unhappiness, when there is a better chance than ever of defeating a policy-related motion, it would be absurd to abandon one's opposition and support the Government. For that reason I plan to vote against the report.
  It is said that opposing the report is not a vote against the poll tax but a vote against local government, and that

  491
  the House should give local authorities the resources to carry through the reform. Conservatives voted against the RSG measures between 1974 and 1979 without being accused of being anti-local government. We did not do that because we were anti-local government. How could we? We controlled most of local government then. We did it because the RSG contained a broad political statement with which we disagreed. We took a broader view then and we are entitled to take a broader view now.
  Conservative Members who feel squeamish about voting against the RSG report should read a speech that was made against the RSG order. It says:
  "The Secretary of State"—
  which of course was a Labour Secretary of State—
  "claims that his is an equitable solution. We claim that he has abandoned equity and substituted an arbitrary decision. He claims rough justice. We say that he has abandoned any semblance of justice in what he is doing in the Rate Support Grant Order."
  The speaker continued:
  "It is no good trying to explain to them"
  our constituents—
  "an increase in rates by reference to the resources element, the domestic element, the needs element, the relevant expenditure, and so on. They say 'I still have to bear a certain percentage of the increase in rates, and what are you going to do about that?"'
  The action urged on me and my hon. Friends was to protest in the only way possible and
  "to vote against the order tonight."—[Official Report, 25 March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 60-61 and 70.]
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister led the Conservative party into the Lobby against the RSG order, having made that excellent speech. Therefore, let us not lean too hard on the argument that Conservatives should not vote against the RSG report. That argument does not hold up.
  The final reason for voting against the report is not just about money. This is the first time that we have debated the new style RSG—the new regime and structure for funding local government. A better grant system was an intergral part of the reforms, of which the poll tax was but a part.
  I shall quote from "Paying for Local Government", which was written in the optimistic prose of the present chairman of the Conservative party almost exactly four years ago. It says:
  "Effective local government must be the cornerstone of successful local government. All too often this accountability is blurred and weakened by the complexities of the national grant system."
  Amplifying that criticism, the Green Paper says:
  "Central Government grants are calculated in a complicated say that conceals the real cost of local services from the electorate."
  Looking ahead to the new system, we were promised
  "a grant system which compensates for real differences in local authorities' needs, and provides additional help in the form of a flat-rate sum per adult."
  Chapter 10 stressed the need to
  "develop a grant system which was more understandable and did not obscure the link between changes in local spending and changes in local taxation."
  The House is entitled to ask whether the report lives up to those high expectations.
  I listened to my hon. Friends say that they can live with the community charge but do not like the RSG settlement, but the reasons why they do not like it are inherent in the philosophy of the community charge—the jump in taxes for those who live in low-rated property in the north-west;
  492
  the redistribution of wealth from the less-well-off to the better-off; the problems for those who move to smaller accommodation to reduce their costs but find it not worthwhile; the increase in the number of people on benefit—that objection was voiced by my hon. Friend he Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson)—the sheer bureaucracy and expense of a tax designed to catch everybody, regardless of means; and the problems of evasion and enforcement. Those are objections not to he RSG settlement but to the principle of the community charge.
  Tonight, the House is asked to pay the bill for this reform. Despite the respect and admiration that I have for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that cheque will not have my signature on it.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: I shall try to be brief. All the fears that we had about the poll tax have been more than confirmed by the reports before us. The figures bandied about by Ministers will be meaningless to many people. We should concentrate on why the Government decided to introduce the poll tax, which has no friends of any standing in the political, industrial or economic world. It stands condemned by almost every section of society. The revaluation in Scotland panicked the Government into taking ill-thought-out measures, the evidence of which is before us tonight.
  I want to deal with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). The Government have conducted warfare against local authorities since 1979. They have made it virtually impossible for local government to fulfil the needs of people at a time when public expenditure has become more necessary for several reasons. One reason of which we are all aware in my area—and it is probably true of all the major conurbations—is the aging population, which requires more help from social services. A commitment from local authorities is necessary to relieve the worst excesses of unemployment. Changes are taking place in local government because of falling rolls. Although the population is declining, it is still the responsibility of local government to maintain excess school buildings, arid roads. That has created great problems for local authorities. I wonder whether the Prime Minister ever visits an inner city? If she did, she would realise that since the Government came to power inner cities have become impoverished to the extent that there is not a road to walk down in my constituency that is not riddled with potholes and in a state of decline and decay.
  Government policy has left local government incapable of providing for the needs of the people whom it represents. When the Liverpool city council decided to tackle the prevailing slum conditions and the badly designed post-war housing, and it began building bungalows for elderly people and pulling down the worst types of multi-storey flats, it was accused of being irresponsible. If the Government think that it is irresponsible to house people decently or to make provision for leisure centres, there is something wrong with their thinking. Those changes were necessary to benefit the local people.
  The Government know nothing about what is happening in the inner cities. If they did, they would not introduce the poll tax. In my area and those of all my hon.

  493
  Friends, it will be a question not of people not paying, but of being unable to pay, the poll tax—they will have no choice in the matter. With existing levels of poverty in our towns and cities, that is the inevitable consequence of the imposition of the poll tax for many people. The party that is supposed to represent the retention and sanctity of the family unit will be responsible for parents chasing their children from home because they cannot afford to pay the additional costs of having two or three young people living with them. The Prime Minister should accept that the responsibility for that lies at the door of the Government.
  I hope that tonight it will not simply be a question of the nitty-gritty of the poll tax that is opposed by Conservative Members. No comprehensive view has been expressed by the Tory party on the poll tax. Conservative Members are looking for minimum concessions to satisfy their constituents while they are biting on the ballot before the next general election.
  The tax is unfair and iniquitous and has no right to be introduced. If this is an honourable House—as it is supposed to be—the No Lobby will be packed and this legislation ditched in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I have had two unusual experiences this evening, one of them pleasurable. The pleasurable experience was that I agreed totally and enthusiastically with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The unpleasurable experience was that, unfortunately, I had to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), whom I have known for a long time. I used to have even more in common with him as, when we first met, I also had whiskers. We have diverged in few other respects during the past 20 years, so I am sorry to have to diverge from him this evening.
  Some Conservative Members take a principled view on the reform of local government expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has a principled objection to the basis of the change to the community charge. Other Conservative Members, who will oppose the Government in the Division Lobby, do not take the principled view against the change in the tax but object to a facet of it. I regret that some of my hon. Friends will join the principled rebels in the Division Lobby, because that is unnecessary.
  Unfortunately, there is an air of utopianism about those who oppose the change to the community charge. They seem to seek a perfect solution. As my wife continually reminds me, when she was looking for a husband she was realistic and sought the least imperfect of the available options, so she chose me. In respect of local government finance, we must choose the least imperfect of all the options. The community charge corresponds to that description. Everyone knows that the existing system is arbitrary and incomprehensible. Because of that arbitrariness and incomprehensibility, the system lacks any meaningful accountability. Most of the complaints that we have heard in the debate arise from the revelation of the arbitrariness and incomprehensibility not of the new
  494
  system but of the old. The revaluation of the rateable values of property, above all else, reveals for the first time the iniquity and inequity of the previous system.
  I shall support in the Division Lobby not the move to a perfect system but the move from an unfair system to a less unfair system. The virtue of the new system is that it has simplicity and transparency. That transparency is to some extent diluted because of the introduction of community charge benefit. One in four of all community charge payers will receive some form of benefit to cushion the effect of the change. That will cost nearly £2 billion next year. In addition, transitional relief will cost £700 million over three years and will have 6 million beneficiaries. No Conservative Member can say that the Government have not attempted to meet the criticisms of those who oppose the new system, many of whom will, alas, vote in the Division Lobby against us this evening.
  The Government are correct to keep the lid firmly down on aggregate local government expenditure, because it constitutes about one quarter of all Government expenditure. Any Government who believe in keeping tight, firm control over public spending as a macro?-economic tool must appreciate that local authorities cannot run riot with public spending, because that undermines the Government's economic policy. That tight, firm control must be the aim of any Government, even a Labour Government. Previous Labour Governments had difficulties of this kind, too. I welcome the change from the incomprehensible old system of GREA to the new standard spending assessments.
  No one can argue that the increase in SSAs for next year is unreasonable. The Government have accepted that an 11 per cent. increase in local government spending for the coming year is reasonable—that is much higher than inflation. The total amount that local government should spend, according to the Government, can increase by what I regard as a more than reasonable amount.
  There are local authorities—usually Labour—that intend to spend a good deal more than that. My council, Cheshire county council, which is responsible for 92 per cent. of all local government spending in the county, proposes to increase its spending next year not by 11 per cent. but by more than 19 per cent. In addition, it will have to find the equivalent of another 5 per cent. of its total spending because, having emptied the tills last year in advance of the county council elections in order to blow the lot on a vote-buying spree, it will have to top them up again. Next year, Cheshire county council will have to find the equivalent of a 25 per cent. increase in its income. My prophecy about the likely levels of the community charge has been undermined by that proposal.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend has been describing the overspending of Cheshire county council. Does he agree that to make the county councils more accountable, we should have elections every year rather than once every four years? Does he agree further that the time is fast approaching when the county councils should be abolished and that many of their services should be devolved to the boroughs or to central Government?
  Mr. Hamilton: I have no difficulty in agreeing with my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). The role of county councils will diminish gradually and "wither away", to use a Marxist phrase which is now out of fashion in the Labour party. As

  495
  more and more schools opt out of the local education authority system, the rationale for the county councils will ultimately disappear.
  Cheshire county council is controlled by an alliance of the Labour party and Liberal Democrat councillors. In my constituency, the Liberal Democrat councillors are now squealing about the high level of community charge that the county council will impose on us, which is the direct result of spending decisions that they themselves have taken. They are now trying to disclaim any responsibility and are trying to have the penny and the biscuit. Fortunately, they will not get away with it. In future local government elections, the electors will have a simple choice—whether they want the council to spend more or less. That will not only make local government more accountable, but will restore the importance of local government issues in local government elections. They will no longer be the equivalent of opinion polls on the standing of the Government at Westminster, but will restore interest in local government and accountability. That will transform the basis of local government, which will benefit everyone.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton pointed out, we shall not have county council elections for several years. The results of the county council elections last year will prevent the community charge from having the beneficial effects for which we all hope for at least another two or three years, not because we are stuck with this Government, but because the decisions that local government electors took last year were not based on sensible local government issues, but on national issues. In the case of a county council such as Cheshire, which intends to spend enormously above the standard spending assessment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should seriously consider charge capping. There is every reason for doing so. If the electors do not have the opportunity for several years to pass their judgment on the spending pattern of the local authority, that is the only way in which the interests of the community charge payers in Cheshire can be protected.
  I also very much welcome the change from the old business rate to the national non-domestic rate, which will especially benefit the north. I am astonished that Opposition Members object in such vocal terms to the change in the business rating system as there is no bigger boost for the north and for the midlands. Manufacturing industry especially will have enormous reductions in its charges in cities such as Liverpool and Manchester.
  I had much sympathy for the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) when I heard him earlier because he was unable to demonstrate a policy in opposition to the policy that my right hon. Friend put forward. I had thought that the Labour party policy review was intended to decide what policies the Labour party should propose, but in fact the Labour party policy review was intended to decide whether to have a policy. It seems that the Labour party has decided that it is far safer not to have a policy. I hope that the hon. Member for Dagenham will be present tomorrow for the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), when we shall be debating a motion which says that the Labour party's policy deserves scrutiny by the House. He may then be able to give some of the answers that he was unable to give us today.
  It is utter hypocrisy for the Labour party to oppose the motions tonight, as it is unable to offer an alternative and
  496
  only criticises for the sake of it. However, the day of reckoning will come for all those overspending Labour authorities because at the general election, the people will see the cynical trick that the Labour party is trying to impose on us and once again, they will restore a Conservative Government to Westminster. These motions and our policy on the community charge will contribute considerably towards that.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett: First, let me thank the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and his office for providing me with information in a Brailleable form.
  I understand from the media that he has been invited to advise the Polish Government on decentralisation and the establishment of democratic local government. I wish the Poles well. Once they have learnt about our system they may well feel that General Jaruzelski has a great deal to offer. I imagine that they will yearn for a poll tax and for water privatisation like a hole in the head. I wish the Minister luck with his advice.
  It is 11 years since the big experiment in tinkering with local government and local democracy began. Today's debate and its subjects—the standard spending assessment, the safety net and the new distribution system—are the culmination of 11 years of interference and muddle. As we have said on a number of occasions, each change has brought its own nightmare for the Ministers responsible. Ministers have asked civil servants again and again to devise new ways round the labyrinth that they have created. They have created new obstacles that have had to be overcome. They have tried to find ways of preventing local government from using ingenuity. Then they have blamed local government for using ingenuity. Then they ensured that there were low spending targets that bore no resemblance to reality, and blamed local government for not managing to meet those targets. When local government could not meet those targets, the Government cut grant and suggested that local government was to blame for not managing the impossible.
  We have come full circle since the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the introduction of the new block grant system—all the way round to the poll tax and the new standard spending assessments. Environment Ministers are facing the dilemma that every Environment Minister has faced since 1979. If they are determined to block the local democratic system and to fix the amount that local authorities should spend, they must take the consequences.
  Earlier today, we had the challenge from the Secretary of State: if local authorities do not spend near to the targets that they have been set, the Government will introduce poll tax capping. The chairman of the Conservative party advised strongly against rate capping four years ago. He was rapidly moved from his post, but since then he has undergone a resurgence, so perhaps there is hope yet for the Secretary of State for the Environment. The chairman of the Tory party advised that capping was undemocratic and intellectually unjustifiable. Of course it is, especially coming from a Government who claimed that the poll tax brought new accountability and new choice to the voter.
  The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot suggest that local electors will be able to choose the

  497
  local administration that they want and determine the amount that it spends through the new system and then, in the next breath, propose to stop that happening. Matters are made worse by the fact that the Secretary of State has so often repeated the brief that he was originally given, which said that the community charge puts the community in charge. It was a trite phrase when it was used on 6 November. Now that poll tax capping has been dreamt of so that the Government may wave a stick over local authorities, and that phrase has seemingly been forgotten, it is shown in a hypocritical and disgraceful light.
  One Conservative Member had the audacity to let the cat out of the bag when he said that capping would be necessary until democracy "started to work better". In other words, democracy is fine, so long as it yields results for the Conservative party. As the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) would put it, that is quite immoral. It is unnecessarily provocative and leads to the assumption that the Government have not only got their figures wrong, but their assumptions that the poll tax would prevent public spending and hold down spending levels by resulting in further cuts in public services have also been proved wrong.
  I challenge the Secretary of State on the figures he gave this afternoon in relation to whether central or local government has increased its spending most in recent years. Taking 1978–79 as the base level—the year the Conservative Government came in to office—and the current financial year of 1989–90, central Government spending has increased by 177 per cent. in cash terms, whereas local government spending in cash terms, even taking into account the transfer of housing benefit to local government, has increased by 146 per cent.
  Those figures come from table 4·4 of the public expenditure White Paper and they are the honest truth. Under the Conservatives, central Government have increased their spending whereas local government has had to cut its spending. Of course, it is central Government who have increased the overall general level of taxation and local government which has got the blame for what has happened at local level. As inflation has risen, as the problems of local government have increased, as grants have been cut to the tune of 5p on national income tax, local government and the rating system have been blamed for the resulting anomalies and difficulties.
  However, tonight, some Conservative Members have had the audacity to say that, if the electors of Conservative authorities are faced with large poll tax bills, it is because of a mistake in the way in which the Government have operated the safety nets, the transition, or the standard spending assessment formula. However, if Labour authorities are likely to be spending over the Government's targets, they say that that is because of profligacy and uncontrolled public spending. The Government cannot have it both ways. If Tory authorities are miles over the likely spending targets—if Conservative boroughs cannot keep down to the £278 level—and if neighbouring Labour-controlled authorities are in exactly the same position, the same reasons must, of course, apply.
  The reasons that apply tonight are simple. The system is not working properly. Indeed, it cannot work properly because it was predicated on the wrong assumptions in the first place. If a tax initially attempts to take a flat rate from
  498
  every adult, but rebates, transition, and safety nets then have to be introduced, if the standard spending assessments then have to be altered to try to help, and if there is then something called special grants, which are commonly known in the Department of the Environment as "the Pendle factor", which means "saving Conservative seats", all that adds up not only to muddle and confusion, but to an impossibility for local government which is already struggling with a variety of problems and difficulties.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Does my hon. Friend know that in Scotland many people who are entitled to a rebate are not getting it? When I wrote to the Minister, I was told that rebates were too costly to administer if they were for less than, say, £25. Many people in Scotland, including elderly and disabled people and desperately poor people, are not getting their rebate because the Government do not think that £25 is enough for them to claim. That is lamentable. The problem is that the Government are taking from the poor. Although they guaranteed to give folk their rebates, people who are entitled to them are not getting them.
  Mr. Blunkett: I appreciate the particular problems that have already been experienced in Scotland, and especially the difficulty and confusion that there has been about the rebate system.
  I advise the Secretary of State and his Minister of State that if they introduce poll tax capping this year on top of the existing administrative chaos that will result from transition, special help and the rebate system, they will create the most incredible havoc in local government, which could not possibly have been envisaged, as local authorities try to return to poll taxpayers the amount that the Government have specified, while cutting services to make that possible.
  I must make it clear that the rebate system already results in major confusion. Even in a Tory borough such as Harrogate, which is fairly well off, the Government's television advertising has resulted in 5,000 coupons being returned. The district treasurer believes that only 2,000 people will be found to be entitled to relief.
  There is already a problem in local government administration. District treasurers across the country are spelling it out. Two thirds of local councils will have to raise between £60 and £100 on top of the Government guidelines in order to maintain their present level of spending. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has already spelt out in a recent study that the Government's belief that only 15 local authorities in England will spend over £350 in the coming year is sheer mythology. At least 139 authorities, and probably many more, will spend more than £350. If the Secretary of State chooses to rate-cap authorities on the basis that they spend 25 per cent. or more above their assessment or notional figure, he will have to rate-cap in excess of a quarter of local authorities in England.
  On the figures currently available, the Secretary of State will have to rate-cap his own district council in Bath. I look forward to his going to Bath, Roman helmet in hand, to say that the figures that he dreamed up, upon which the council will be rate-capped, are right.
  Mr. Chris Patten: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that if it was left to the district council in Bath, it would have no difficulty in coming within the

  499
  figures that we have suggested. If there are problems in Bath, it will be because of the overspending by the county council, which proposes a budget increase of 15·7 per cent. next year.
  Mr. Blunkett: It is always someone else when it is a Tory council. The burghers of Bath must be seething about what is happening to them. Whatever the reason, it will be the district council that the Government will have to cap. It would have to levy that particular rate in that district. The Secretary of State should face his poll tax capping with open eyes. As we advised the then Secretary of State six years ago that rate capping would not achieve its goal, I advise this Secretary of State that poll tax capping will not achieve its goal. He will have to invent something else. That something else in the end will be that central Government will take over direction of local government spending and will fix local authority budgets. When that happens, the Government will be held accountable for massive cuts in education spending, and social service spending on care of the elderly, the disabled and the disadvantaged.
  It is interesting that, whenever the Government want to say that they have done something good, for example, in education, care of the elderly or taking care of the environment, they are happy to parade how much local government spends. When the tables are turned, and people talk about high-spending local authorities—which are responsible for the statistics that the Government wheel out on education spending, pupil-teacher ratios and spending on books and equipment in schools—it is always the Labour authorities who are to blame.
  Let us get the matter clear. Local government spending is spending on our children, our parents, the family next door and creating a decent, caring community. The poll tax was devised to prevent that and to push down public spending. When the Government do that, even in their most-favoured authorities such as Wandsworth, in which I live when I am in London, the worm will turn. When that council saw its figures, it dissociated itself from the Secretary of State's spending assumptions. Next time the Secretary of State wheels out Wandsworth, he should remember what it told him. Even with a favourable safety net, it does not agree with the Secretary of State.
  The figure of £278 is a myth. The spending assessments are compiled out of fairyland. The safety net does not work. The special grants have failed to mollify the Secretary of State's own Back Benchers. The electorate are not fools. They have woken up to what is happening. The simplified system has turned out to be a sillier system. Assessment of needs has become political gerrymandering.
  In the end, that will catch up with everyone in the Conservative party. That is why tonight it is important that those who have wavered, those who are unsure, should make a concrete decision, not simply on the spending assessments or on the safety net, but on the Government's failure to spell out what their cushioning effect will mean to the unified business rate.
  Conservative Members from the north must not delude themselves. After five years, manufacturing industry in their areas will reap the bitter fruits of the revaluation. In the end they will not benefit. The combination of redistribution of cuts in grants and the delay in implementing the revaluation will cost them dear.
  When the safety nets are off, Yorkshire and Humberside will lose £289 million, the north will lose £171
  500
  million, the east midlands will lose £41 million, the north-west, I must tell the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), will lose £113 million and inner London will lose £515 million. Far from there being automatic gains and windfalls, if hon. Members examine the figures more closely they will see what is really happening in their own back yards.
  Mr. Rooker: As my hon. Friend is appealing to Tory business men and reflecting on the back yards of Conservative Members, would he care to reflect in his final few minutes on the dwellings of Conservative Members, not one of whom will lose under the poll tax? They will march into the Lobby for massive personal gains under the poll tax at 10 o'clock tonight. The larger the property in which they live, the bigger their gain. They will vote for themselves at 10 o'clock.
  Mr. Blunkett: If they vote for themselves, they might have a lower poll tax for two years, but in two years' time they may not have a job in the House to come to. As we have seen with some Cabinet Members, that may mean for some a trebling of their salaries rather than a downturn, so there may not be the interest in that which we would expect. But perhaps tonight Conservative Members will take cognisance of what the right hon. Member for Brent, North had to say about that shining light on the "Rhodes" to Damascus that he described. Perhaps they will have in their minds the moral wrong and the political ineptitude that he described as they go through the Lobbies tonight. Perhaps they will hear in their minds his words about a "death-inducing draught". Perhaps they will take on board that immovable and ingenious phrase "the big fleece"—the big fleece that attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate, the big fleece that comes from those who, like sheep, will go into the Lobby with their tails between their legs tonight.
  The challenge to every Conservative Member is not to be frightened of the Whips, not to be worried about what will happen to them next week, but to be more concerned with what will happen to them in their localities at the local elections and in their constituencies at the general election.
  The challenge tonight is to those who care, to those who have a conscience about what is happening to those who cannot afford the poll tax. It may be that tonight cowards will flinch and their colleagues will sneer, but tomorrow the electorate will ensure that they have something to fear.
  9.30 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): Every year we have an interesting and vigorous debate about the level of support for local government. I have had the opportunity of sitting through 26 speeches. Although I cannot say that I agreed with all those made by Conservative Members, I disagreed with every one made by Opposition Members. The debate has been of a high standard. Points have been made effectively and competently and, where a divide has been exposed, it has been done clearly to enable us to make the decisions which we have to take tonight.
  Although I welcomed the kind, opening words of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), he did not follow the debate as arguments were developed on each side of the Chamber. If he looks at his speech and

  501
  some of the statistics, he will see that he made a series of statements which are not borne out by the way in which the debate has progressed.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State started the debate with a quite brilliant speech. It was so good that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whose absence is now noticed, was heard to shout, "My God, this is a seminar." I always pay close attention to what the hon. Member for Bolsover says, and I rushed to the dictionary. A seminar is defined as an opportunity for education and advancement. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has gone, but he has missed an opportunity.
  My right hon. Friend has asked me to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). Lambeth faces not a mistake involving £11 million, but an appeal result on the rateable value of county hall. That has meant that Lambeth will bear half the reduction and must pay back money which the appeal decided it should never have received. That was not the way in which the hon. Member for Norwood put it. I hope that he will accept the facts as I have presented them.
  Mr. Fraser: Does the Minister accept that, whatever caused it, that is a huge loss of income which, because of the way in which the system operates, will not be compensated for in the same way as Wandsworth or any other local authority will be compensated for a rise in expenditure of more than £25 per head per annum?
  Mr. Hunt: We shall have to consider elsewhere—between officials—the points which the hon. Gentleman has made. I was making the point that the hon. Gentleman described the incident as an error on the part of the revenue valuation office officials. I am putting that in context.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) and—
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems quite clear that a number of Labour councils, including my own of Kirklees, are intending to set as high a comunity charge rate as possible so that they can try to score party political points by blaming the Government for the high level of community charge? Does my hon. Friend agree that councils which act in such a way and penalise many people on modest and low incomes will be acting in a wholly immoral and cruel way? Will he assure me now that he will not flinch from capping those irresponsible Labour authorities?
  Mr. Hunt: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I am told by my officials that this is not a time of year when district and county council treasurers are known to underestimate the level of spending that lies ahead. What is wrong is that this year certain Labour councils made a policy decision to increase spending—as in the case of Kirklees, with an increase of about 18 per cent.—with the result that there will be a high community charge.
  Mr. John Evans: Is the Minister aware that St. Helens has suffered a £9·8 million reduction in its revenue support grant? That represents an extra payment of £65 for every poll tax payer. St. Helens
  502
  borough council, which, as the Minister knows, is not a profligate authority, faces imposing a poll tax of more than £400 per person. Is that fair on St. Helens?
  Mr. Hunt: I do not accept that from the hon. Gentleman. I ask right hon. and hon. Members who want to intervene to allow me to respond first to those right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House who attended the entire debate. I have evidence to show that Labour councils are artificially inflating the community charge that they intend to impose. I shall return to that point.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) misunderstands the figure of £32·8 billion for total standard spending. He stated, as he will discover if he reads his speech in Hansard, that that figure did not take into account balances. The hon. Gentleman should have compared spending against spending, not spending against the way in which the money is raised. The figure of £32·8 billion represents an 11 per cent. increase over the equivalent figure in this year. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clearly made the point that there has been an adequate increase in the assumed and appropriate levels of spending to produce the standard level of service.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the CIPFA report, which illustrated what the situation would be if spending were substantially increased on top of the overspending this year. The point has been echoed in speech after speech, particularly by my right hon. and hon. Friends, that CIPFA is suggesting overspending on top of overspending. In 1989–90, local authorities budgeted to increase spending by 9 per cent., making a total increase over two years of 20 per cent. The 1989–90, budgeted overspend was 4 per cent., so CIPFA is building overspending on top of overspending.
  What would have been the effect if we had accepted those figures and had continued with the existing system? I reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that there would have needed to be a domestic revaluation. If the domestic rate system had continued, on CIPFA's figures, rates would have increased this year by an average of 24 per cent.
  Mr. Gould: The Minister's 11 per cent. increase is meaningless because it is an increase on an assumed level of spending for the current year by comparison with the total standard spending of £32·8 billion for the forthcoming year. It is a comparison between two assumed levels of spending rather than a comparison with the actual level of spending, which is what local authorities must face.
  Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Dagenham ought to think again about my right hon. Friend's speech. It was a seminar to which he should have paid more attention.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham also came to the House in an irresponsible manner to give us what he described as a progress report on Labour's alternative. He said, "I'm coming to give you a progress report on where we are." The progress report was—no progress at all.
  Ms. Armstrong: Before the Minister gets himself into real trouble, will he tell the House why he assumes that any decisions taken in local government are automatically against the interests of people and that therefore the Government have to protect people? That is his attitude to local government, and how it makes its decisions. Local

  503
  government has been accountable to the electorate since the election of the Government. Why is he so against local government? Why is he right and it is wrong?
  Mr. Hunt: I think that that was a brave attempt by Durham to move to the aid of Dagenham. I shall return to that subject in a moment.
  If the hon. Member for Dagenham intends to be taken seriously then—[Interruption.] I am winding up the debate and I am responding to points that hon. Members have made. If the hon. Member for Dagenham wants to be taken seriously by the House, he should explain what has happened to the policy that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) announced at a press conference. [Interruption.] I am responding to the point that the hon. Member for Dagenham made. The Opposition may not like it, but next time the hon. Gentleman makes a progress report, would he please report progress, because we are getting impatient and so is the country?
  Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hunt: In a moment.
  We heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who pointed out the importance of making the same decision in this debate as we did when we debated the introduction of the charge in Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made an interesting speech and proposed an alternative to the charge, as did the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright). They proposed a local income tax, but I do not think that that is a proper alternative because, as I have pointed out on many occasions, it would mean having a "Chancellor of the Exchequer" in many town halls, and that is unacceptable.
  Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hunt: Just one second.
  The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) made a good speech, and I give him credit for staying in the debate for some considerable time. He said that the amount of money provided is not sufficient. He missed the point that my right hon. Friend made—that, if one considers the aggregate external finance coming in to local authorities, one sees that the figure in the coming year of £23·1 billion will mean 8·5 per cent. more financing coming in from outside than in this financial year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) made a good speech, and she reminded us of the profligacy of Derbyshire county council.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made an interesting speech on wage increases. My record is reasonably good on that issue. When the 8·8 per cent. National and Local Government Officers Association settlement was announced, on the casting vote of Lancashire, as a result of Labour forcing through an inflationary pay increase that took no account of productivity, all the employers met afterwards, and said that it was a disaster. I said that the settlement was bad news for the community charge payer. How can the hon. Gentleman now expect me to fund that increase in full? The comunity charge payers now realise the price that they will have to pay for that inflationary pay award.
  504
  I think that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) was wrong about sports clubs, which pay rates at present. Some will experience a drop in value. The hon. Gentleman's main point, however, was that some local authorities—I think that he meant Labour authorities—did not, sadly, recognise the importance of sports clubs. I have given local authorities more power to give sports clubs greater preference, and it is to that that the hon. Gentleman should address his comments.
  I listened carefully to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). I recognise that he is one of the most distinguished of my predecessors as Minister for Local Government, and that he did much to sell the principle of the community charge during the 1987 general election campaign. I commend him for that. He would have introduced the charge in a different way, but I hope that he will give us credit for having introduced a transitional relief scheme which, I believe, will provide real relief for just the people he mentioned.
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of overspending by Labour councils, will he consider the overspending by Liberal councils? One of the issues that worry us in the west of England is that of the many dwellings that will face the standard community charge. Is that taken into account in revenue support grant, or is it a bonus for the councils? If it is a bonus, will the councils be able to return it to the ratepayers in reduced community charge, or will it encourage higher spending?
  Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to recognise that the standard community charge is not included in the settlement that we are debating tonight. According to our calculations, it represents an increase of about £80 million over and above this settlement. It is concentrated in particular parts of the country, such as my hon. Friend's constituency. I have, however, set a discretion for local authorities to use the multiplier in the way that they think fit for local considerations, and they now have the power to reduce the standard charge in a number of cases. I should be happy to deal with that point, and others that I cannot cover now, by writing to the hon. Members concerned. [Interruption.] I have to do that only because of the time constraint.
  Responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), the hon. Members for Dagenham and for Newham, North-east (Mr. Leighton) sad that it was an outright calumny to suggest that Labour authorities were trying to push up the community charge level that they were now announcing in an attempt to turn people against the community charge. [Interruption.] A document has come into my hands—unfortunately, someone seems to have left it behind after a meeting in Southwark—which advises Labour councillors to consider:
  "What is more important—short term protection of people by setting low"
  community charges, which the document calls
  "poll taxes"—
  [Interruption.] This is a genuine document—
  "or longer term protection by getting rid of the poll tax?"
  It refers to
  "the highest rate you can get away with".
  I readily make this available—[Interruption.]

  505
  I say to my hon. Friends, let us turn the attack where it belongs. Let us concentrate our fire on the Opposition Benches. It is a generous settlement in the present financial climate. It will give local authorities 8·5 per cent. more in business rates and government grants. There is the most generous form of rebates and community charge rebates. We have decided to accelerate the payout to local authorities in payment of grant this year. It is a good settlement. I have no hesitation in recommending it to the House, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby tonight in voting for what I sincerely believe will be a simpler and fairer system.
  Mr. Speaker: I shall put the Question on each of the motions separately. I understand that it is desired to have a Division on motions Nos. 2 and 3. I shall put motion No. 1 first.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Population Report (England) (House of Commons Paper No. 48), a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [12 January], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motions.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
  That the Revenue Support Grant Report (England) 1990–91 (House of Commons Paper No. 47), a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because they find themselves in severe difficulties tonight, the Government have asked the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) to come to the House on his crutches and the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) also to be here, although I understand that he has not been well. Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that, in those circumstances, it would be right to nod those two Members through the Lobby, thereby helping the Government to maintain their majority? That would be preferable to the disabled being dragged through to save the Government.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the usual channels. I am sure that it could be arranged.
  The House having divided: Ayes 318, Noes 272.

  Division No. 39]

  [10.00

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Amos, Alan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Ashby, David

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Atkins, Robert

  Bowis, John

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Baldry, Tony

  Brazier, Julian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bright, Graham

  Batiste, Spencer

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

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

  506

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hague, William

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, John

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butcher, John

  Harris, David

  Butler, Chris

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Cash, William

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hill, James

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chope, Christopher

  Holt, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Hordern, Sir Peter

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cran, James

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Critchley, Julian

  Jack, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jackson, Robert

  Curry, David

  Janman, Tim

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kilfedder, James

  Dover, Den

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Eggar, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fallon, Michael

  Knowles, Michael

  Farr, Sir John

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Favell, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Latham, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lightbown, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lilley, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lord, Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fry, Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gardiner, George

  Maclean, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Madel, David

  Gow, Ian

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maples, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Marland, Paul

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Marlow, Tony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Ground, Patrick

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grylls, Michael

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  507

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Shersby, Michael

  Mellor, David

  Sims, Roger

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mills, Iain

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Speed, Keith

  Moate, Roger

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Stern, Michael

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mudd, David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stokes, Sir John

  Needham, Richard

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sumberg, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Summerson, Hugo

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Norris, Steve

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Page, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Paice, James

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Thurnham, Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Tracey, Richard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tredinnick, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Trippier, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Trotter, Neville

  Portillo, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Price, Sir David

  Viggers, Peter

  Raffan, Keith

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Redwood. John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Walden, George

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Riddick, Graham

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Ward, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Watts, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Rost, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Rowe, Andrew

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wilkinson, John

  Ryder, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shelton, Sir William

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beggs, Roy

  Allason, Rupert

  Beith, A. J.

  Allen, Graham

  Bell, Stuart

  Anderson, Donald

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Armstrong, Hilary

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

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Benyon, W.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Blair, Tony

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Blunkett, David

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Boateng, Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Battle, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Beckett, Margaret

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  508

  Bradley, Keith

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Haynes, Frank

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Buchan, Norman

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Buckley, George J.

  Henderson, Doug

  Caborn, Richard

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Home Robertson, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cartwright, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howells, Geraint

  Clay, Bob

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clelland, David

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hume, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ingram, Adam

  Cousins, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Crowther, Stan

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cummings, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Darling, Alistair

  Knox, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lamond, James

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Dewar, Donald

  Leighton, Ron

  Dicks, Terry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dixon, Don

  Lewis, Terry

  Dobson, Frank

  Litherland, Robert

  Doran, Frank

  Livingstone, Ken

  Douglas, Dick

  Livsey, Richard

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dykes, Hugh

  Loyden, Eddie

  Eadie, Alexander

  McAllion, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McCartney, Ian

  Fatchett, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Faulds, Andrew

  McFall, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McGrady, Eddie

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

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Fisher, Mark

  McKelvey, William

  Flannery, Martin

  McLeish, Henry

  Flynn, Paul

  Maclennan, Robert

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Foulkes, George

  Madden, Max

  Fraser, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mallon, Seamus

  Galloway, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Gill, Christopher

  Martlew, Eric

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mates, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Maxton, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gordon, Mildred

  Meacher, Michael

  Gorst, John

  Meale, Alan

  Gould, Bryan

  Michael, Alun

  Graham, Thomas

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Grocott, Bruce

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hardy, Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri

  509

  Morley, Elliot

  Short, Clare

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Sillars, Jim

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

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

  Mullin, Chris

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

  Murphy, Paul

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Nellist, Dave

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Snape, Peter

  O'Brien, William

  Soley, Clive

  O'Neill, Martin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Squire, Robin

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Steen, Anthony

  Parry, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pawsey, James

  Stott, Roger

  Pendry, Tom

  Strang, Gavin

  Pike, Peter L.

  Straw, Jack

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prescott, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Radice, Giles

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Randall, Stuart

  Turner, Dennis

  Rathbone, Tim

  Vaz, Keith

  Redmond, Martin

  Wall, Pat

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wallace, James

  Reid, Dr John

  Walley, Joan

  Richardson, Jo

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Robertson, George

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wilson, Brian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Winnick, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Ruddock, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Salmond, Alex

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
  That the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) (House of Commons No. 49) a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
  The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 277.

  Division No. 40]

  [10.17 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Amess, David

  Bowis, John

  Amos, Alan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bright, Graham

  Ashby, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

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

  Atkins, Robert

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Burt, Alistair

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butcher, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butler, Chris

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Butterfill, John

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Carrington, Matthew

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Cash, William

  510

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hind, Kenneth

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Holt, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Churchill, Mr

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

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

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Janman, Tim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jessel, Toby

  Curry, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Devlin, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kilfedder, James

  Dorrell, Stephen

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Eggar, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Evennett, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fallon, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Farr, Sir John

  Latham, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lightbown, David

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lilley, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Franks, Cecil

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Freeman, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fry, Peter

  Maclean, David

  Gale, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gardiner, George

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Madel, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gow, Ian

  Mans, Keith

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maples, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marland, Paul

  Gregory, Conal

  Marlow, Tony

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Grist, Ian

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Ground, Patrick

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Grylls, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hague, William

  Mellor, David

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, Iain

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hannam, John

  Mitchell, Sir David

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

  Moate, Roger

  Harris, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hayward, Robert

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Mudd, David

  Hill, James

  Neale, Gerrard

  511

  Needham, Richard

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Neubert, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Norris, Steve

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stokes, Sir John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Page, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Paice, James

  Summerson, Hugo

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Portillo, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Price, Sir David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Raffan, Keith

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Redwood, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Trippier, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Trotter, Neville

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Rost, Peter

  Walden, George

  Rowe, Andrew

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Ryder, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Watts, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wilkinson, John

  Shelton, Sir William

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shephard. Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Shersby, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Sims, Roger

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Speed, Keith

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Spicer. Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blunkett, David

  Allason, Rupert

  Boateng, Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Anderson, Donald

  Boyes, Roland

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bradley, Keith

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Barron, Kevin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Battle, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Beckett, Margaret

  Buckley, George J.

  Beggs, Roy

  Caborn, Richard

  Beith, A. J.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

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

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Benyon, W.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cartwright, John

  Blair, Tony

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  512

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Clay, Bob

  Howells, Geraint

  Clelland, David

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hume, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Ingram, Adam

  Cox, Tom

  Janner, Greville

  Crowther, Stan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Memberôn)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Darling, Alistair

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Knox, David

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lamond, James

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

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dewar, Donald

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Dicks, Terry

  Leighton, Ron

  Dixon, Don

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Dobson, Frank

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Doran, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Douglas, Dick

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Livsey, Richard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McAllion, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Faulds, Andrew

  McCartney, Ian

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

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

  McFall, John

  Fisher, Mark

  McGrady, Eddie

  Flannery, Martin

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Flynn, Paul

  McKelvey, William

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Derek

  Maclennan, Robert

  Foulkes, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fraser, John

  McWilliam, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Madden, Max

  Galloway, George

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Mallon, Seamus

  George, Bruce

  Marek, Dr John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Martlew, Eric

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mates, Michael

  Gordon, Mildred

  Maxton, John

  Gorst, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gould, Bryan

  Meacher, Michael

  Graham, Thomas

  Meale, Alan

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michael, Alun

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hardy, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morley, Elliot

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Haynes, Frank

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mullin, Chris

  Henderson, Doug

  Murphy, Paul

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Nellist, Dave

  Hinchliffe, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  O'Brien, William

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Home Robertson, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hood, Jimmy

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Parry, Robert

  513

  Pawsey, James

  Snape, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Soley, Clive

  Pike, Peter L.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Squire, Robin

  Prescott, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Stott, Roger

  Radice, Giles

  Strang, Gavin

  Randall, Stuart

  Straw, Jack

  Rathbone, Tim

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Redmond, Martin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Reid, Dr John

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Richardson, Jo

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Turner, Dennis

  Robertson, George

  Vaz, Keith

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wall, Pat

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Wallace, James

  Rogers, Allan

  Walley, Joan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wells, Bowen

  Ruddock, Joan

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Salmond, Alex

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wilson, Brian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Winnick, David

  Short, Clare

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Sillars, Jim

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

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

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Tellers for the Noes:

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

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Revenue Support Grant Transition Report (England) (House of Commons Paper No. 50), a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Special Grant Report (House of Commons Paper No. 128), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.—[Mr. Fallon.]

PETITIONS

  Human Embryos
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Conal Gregory: I have great pleasure in presenting on behalf of the constituents of York a petition signed by no fewer than 1,243 people since December. I pay tribute to Mrs. Angela Brefitt and her colleagues.
  The petitioners pray that the House
  will take immediate steps to enact legislation which forbids any procedure that involves purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding or freezing of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment, unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned; and forbids all forms of trans-species fertilisation.
  I welcome the petition. I, too, believe that we need legislation that will forbid the purchase or sale of human embryos and their use for experiments. Cloning and the creation of hybrids are reminiscent of the Hitler era and have no place in a civilised world. I am not surprised that the strongest law to date is that passed in West Germany, where people have terrible memories of experiments carried out on human beings.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Broadcasting (Deaf People)
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for this opportunity to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in support of the campaign that many people have been mounting to seek to ensure that our broadcast media provide services for the deaf. It is signed by Mr. David Buxton of Brunswick quay, Redriff road, Surrey docks, Southwark and by more than 150 other constituents of mine.
  The petition makes the three clear points made in many other petitions presented to the House. First, broadcasters are still not providing enough access to deaf television viewers, either by subtitles or by sign language. Secondly, more than 4 million viewers are affected—a significant number by any definition—and, thirdly, deaf viewers, as equal members of the viewing public, are entitled to equal access to television programmes.
  I happen to know that the first signatory of the petition is himself deaf and therefore feels as strongly as the other signatories and I feel. The petitioners pray that our
  Honourable House will ensure that legislation be passed placing an obligation on the television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people by using Teletext subtitles, sign language or other means, and to reach complete coverage by a fixed date.
  I hope that, in the context of statements made by the deputy Prime Minister and other members of the Government, we shall soon have an acceptable answer to such petitions.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Time Harmonisation
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I have a petition from 400 people in Scotland who oppose the EEC proposals to harmonise United Kingdom time with European Community time. These proposals, if implemented, would mean that in parts of Scotland the sun would rise at 10.30 am during the very short days of winter.
  Mine is the first of many petitions on this matter. It says:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House reject the European Community proposals to harmonise all of the Community into one time zone.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Brogdale Fruit Station
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: I am glad to have the opportunity tonight of raising on the Adjournment the question of the proposed closure of the Brogdale fruit station and the future of the national fruit collection.
  In the House on 14 December 1989 I said that, as the Member of Parliament for Faversham for nearly 20 years, I have never been as badly treated by Labour or Conservative Ministers of any Government as I have been on this issue. I still remain angry and bitter, as much about the way in which the decision was reached as about the decision itself. I feel that resentment not only behalf of myself, but much more on behalf of the people I represent and the many dedicated people who have been working constructively and energetically towards an exciting future for the Brogdale fruit centre, and who suddenly found all their efforts guillotined by the Government's announcement of their decision to close Brogdale and to transfer the collection to Wye college.
  I accept that there is little to be gained by recrimination, although I advise my hon. Friend the Minister that I intend to pursue further the manner in which this matter was concluded in other ways because I feel thoroughly dissatisfied with the way in which I personally was treated, together with my constituents and others.
  There is, however, a lot to be gained tonight and hope that my hon. Friend will be able to help us greatly. We can gain something of the utmost importance because if my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will now give us their positive support, we can ensure that we can establish for posterity a splendid national fruit centre on the Brogdale site—a fruit museum in the heart of the garden of England that will be a heritage centre of national and international importance and contribute to the commercial future of the British fruit industry. However, if my hon. Friend and the Government do not provide us with that assistance, posterity will curse us for our failure to see even a little further ahead.
  All that we really need from my hon. Friend at the moment is an assurance that the Government will give their encouragement to the establishment of a privately funded trust on the Brogdale site. That has real meaning because tonight I want my hon. Friend to give the assurance that there will be no grubbing of collection trees or even of trial trees in the immediate future. An assurance from the Government means that they will allow us time to assemble the resources that would secure the trust that I have mentioned. That will take time. It means that we want the Government actively to encourage the establishment of the trust.
  We attach such importance to the Brogdale centre because of the number of things that it represents. It represents a remarkable fruit collection—indeed, one of the most remarkable in the world. It also engages in variety testing. It is, in a sense, the patent office of apples and many other fruits. It is of immense importance. It also engages in fruit trials that contribute greatly to the future of British fruit.
  The national fruit trials are a unique collection of fruits, including apples, pears, cherries, plums, soft fruits,

  517
  quinces, medlars, and nuts. It is an international gene bank and a world resource of fruit varieties for plant breeders and horticulturists. It is part of Britain's agricultural and gardening heritage. The collection is a living reference library and contains 2,300 varieties of apples, some of which can be dated back to medieval and Roman times. It contains 500 varieties of pears, 300 varieties of plums and 220 varieties of cherries.
  Its location in the Faversham area is of particular importance. It is appropriate for historic as well as for horticultural reasons. The first British centre of fruit growing in the 16th century was nearby at Teynham. Here, around Sittingbourne and Faversham, Henry VIII's fruiterer, Richard Harris, created orchards of cherries, apples and pears and planted the first pippins that were subsequently distributed all round the country. For today's purposes, the Brogdale site, with its range of soils, its coastal position and its freedom from late frosts, is admirable for growing all temperate fruits. It is a site of particular significance and the decision to move this national collection away from Brogdale makes no sense at all on scientific, economic or heritage grounds. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me that the Government remain open-minded about the decision.
  I have explained why the matter is so important. I should like to ascertain from my hon. Friend why the Government have decided to close the centre. Even on financial grounds, it does not make sense. What will be the cost of moving the collection? I have seen a figure of between £300,000 and £330,000. What is the point of trying to sell this asset when it will take five, six or seven years to transfer the collection and, therefore, there can be little immediate commercial value attached to the land? What will be the lost resource value of retaining the collection there and, ultimately, of transferring it to Wye college?
  What will be the grubbing costs? What asset value has the Ministry placed on the value of the buildings, which are of crucial importance? We believe that the Government have placed an entirely disproportionate value on the buildings. They believe, perhaps, that the land has great development potential. There would be tremendous local resentment if it were assumed that the site would be the subject of major commercial development. The land is completely unsuitable for development.
  Mr. hon. Friend the Minister has probably not seen an interesting and important article in the New Scientist dated 13 January. The headline is:
  "Britain uproots the world's biggest fruit collection."
  That is an appropriate title and an important way of presenting the Government's extraordinary decision. They propose to move the world's biggest fruit collection 12 miles away to Wye college. They are doing that in spite of a proposal by local interests that would give the Government everything that they want and protect the scientific interest and the collection without the nonsense of moving the collection 12 miles away. I ask the Minister carefully to consider the New Scientist's article.
  When the Government announced their decision, Swale borough council was leading a group of dedicated experts and people ready to raise the funds necessary to create the trust that I have described. The Government's decision interrupted the negotiations. If the Government decide
  518
  —despite all the requests not to do so—to move the collection, that group will still be willing to establish the trust to create a magnificent new fruit heritage centre in Swale.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, as a contributor to the New Scientist for 21 years, I found that that article was extremely carefully researched?
  Mr. Moate: I accept absolutely what the hon. Gentleman says. Not only was it well researched: it represents the tip of the iceberg. The iceberg is a large body of expertise and well-backed knowledge that believes that Brogdale is the right site at which to keep the collection.
  If we can generate locally the resources necessary to acquire the site, does it not make sense that the collection remain where it is? Will my hon. Friend reconsider the possibility of leaving the collection exactly where it is? He will know that the local proposal has immense and widespread backing. If we can produce the financial resources to acquire the asset which will satisfy the Treasury's desire to dispose of the land within the immediate future, and if we can provide the opportunity to protect the scientific future of the site, what is the point of moving it 12 miles away?
  Does it not make much more sense to allow the new trust to be established, I hope with powerful patronage; for the scientists from Wye college, if that is what the Government want, to continue to supervise that interest while at the same time allowing the new trust to exploit all the many other opportunities that exist for education; for the public to proclaim, as I readily concede that we have never done in the past, the immense attractions and virtues of this great national fruit collection; for other experimentation; and for offering commercial growers opportunities to develop new fruits on a commercial basis?
  It would be a tragedy if we threw away that opportunity simply because of the mistaken belief that somehow the Government have to adhere to their decision. I hope that tonight my hon. Friend will be able to give me some assurance that the Government will now, despite the recent sad experience, put their weight behind a commitment to help us to create at Brogdale near Faversham a national fruit centre, privately financed and, I hope, retaining the national fruit collection.
  But if the Government do adhere to their insistence that the fruit collection must move to Wye, I hope that they will wholeheartedly enter into negotiations with the Swale borough council, take no immediate decisions that in any way prejudice the viability of either the national fruit collection or the national fruit trials, and give us time to assemble the resources to create something that is of tremendous importance to us and to the future of this vital part of our national heritage.
  I do not intend to go over the many arguments that can be deployed. I have made the point that really matters. What I really want from my hon. Friend tonight is an assurance of his support in the future for the establishment of this new trust in Kent. It will need his help. If we can have that assurance tonight we shall have achieved a great deal.
  I am not on my own. There are many throughout the country who feel passionately, as I do, that we could be making a dreadful mistake if we continue along the path that we appear to be taking at present. But we still have

  519
  time to change. This is a matter of immense importance and the attitude of my hon. Friend and his colleagues tonight could determine whether we still have on this superb site, which climatically, geologically and in every other sense is the right site, a fruit centre that is an essential part of our national heritage in the garden of England where it rightly belongs. We have tremendous support for this and we depend a great deal upon my hon. Friend to make sure that we can achieve that.
  10.48 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: As I am an hon. Member from Scotland at the other end of the country, it may seem strange that I should so passionately support the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). My interest started some 25 years ago when I was taken by Sir Gordon Fox to East Malling.
  This is a national issue. Ghillean Prance, the director of Kew, told me that it was the most important horticultural issue of the moment, and so it is.
  I am told by the former fruit trials director, John Ingram, that it would be disaster to move to Wye. I know that Wye college is upset about the criticisms that have been made of the move to Wye. None the less, this is a basic national issue of considerable interest to those in the field and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's pleas will be answered.
  10.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) have both spoken passionately about their passion for this issue. I have an equal enthusiasm for the importance of the national fruit collection. I am a keen amateur gardener and horticulturist and come to the issue not coldly but with a great deal of determination to ensure that the decisions that we take are in the best interests of the national fruit collection and its associated activities.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will thank me if I seek to be as helpful as I can when I genuinely can. When I have to disappoint him, I am sure that he would prefer it if I said frankly what the position was rather than pretended to offer openings which I was unable to provide. If the debate is a frank exchange of views it will be helpful to my hon. Friend, his constituency and me.
  We must close Brogdale. The largest part of the work at Brogdale is fruit variety trialling. Trialling, as my hon. Friend will know, is rather like Which? testing: it provides guidance to growers on the best varieties for the future. It is valuable work, and Brogdale has deservedly earned a high reputation for it. Those trials are clearly near-market in nature. We sought industry funding for them but it has not been forthcoming to support the scale of the variety trialling at Brogdale. Therefore, we have concluded that the station will have to close at the end of March this year.
  The national fruit collection is situated at Brogdale station, together with the associated plant variety rights testing. The Government have made it clear all along that the national fruit collection will not be disposed of but will be preserved for the future. That is a firm commitment which I intend to honour in its entirety. Once we had
  520
  decided on the closure of Brogdale, we had to consider where the collection should be located and how it should be managed.
  Three options emerged: first, to stay at Brogdale under the management of Swale borough council; secondly, to move to East Mailing; and, thirdly, to move to Wye college. Each of the options had strong attractions and disadvantages. We discussed the proposals with each party and considered all their suggestions carefully. I shall try to explain why we reached the final decision.
  Why not leave the collection at Brogdale? I realise that that is the central question in my hon. Friend's mind. We would have liked to do so. We did not doubt that Swale borough council would care for it properly and develop its potential as much as it could. However, once Brogdale had closed as a research station, the collection would be isolated from other scientific and horticultural expertise. We had to consider what was in the best interests of the collection. In our view, its long-term position would be best secured if it were adjacent to a centre of scientific and horticultural research. In the end, that factor outweighed the advantages of leaving the collection at Brogdale.
  My hon. Friend raised the matter of costs. I shall write to him with the detailed breakdown for which he has asked. We examined the comparative costs of leaving the collection at Brogdale and moving it, but cost was not by any means the most important factor. However, we believe that over a period the costs of moving will be counterbalanced by the savings resulting from the economies of scale.
  Mr. Dalyell: Lady Trumpington did me the courtesy of ringing me about the matter during the recess after my hostile questions. I understood her to say that she had to find money in order to make the £30 million savings required by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I thought that money was the determinant factor.
  Mr. Curry: The decision to close Brogdale was taken because of the policy to terminate Government involvement in near-market research. When we came to estimating the costs of the relative advantages of moving to one place or another, money was not the determining factor. If I have time, I shall talk about the costs later in my remarks.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham suggested that Swale had not completed its proposals before the decison was taken. Swale had submitted estimates of costs, which it knew would be compared with other options. It had close contact with my officials, who made the position clear. It also knew that my noble Friend the Minister of State was anxious not to delay the decision in the interests of securing the collection's future and ending uncertainty for the staff. We understand that Swale subsequently continued to develop plans to adopt the collection as a heritage feature and, perhaps, provide trialling facilities. There has been a certain lack of precision about the proposals up to now.
  I am more than happy to continue discussions on Swale. The borough council is to have a meeting with my officials tomorrow to discuss ideas for a site at Brogdale after the collection has moved. I am open to suggestions and will explore plans for a future museum that would entail acquisition of the site. However, any proposals must be substantive, comprehensive, and made quickly. The time scale for alternative suggestions is short.

  521
  I stress that none of the trees and bushes in the national fruit collection will be grubbed up until new plants are properly established and correctly labelled at their new home. The move will be made with great care. My hon. Friend will know that trees are regularly repropagated in the normal course of events. The collection itself has been moved before, from Wisley to Brogdale, so the proposed move will be the second in its history. The root stock has already been planted in a nursery area at Brogdale, and the grafts will be budded in August and the young trees moved to Wye when they are about two years old. The whole process will take about three years.
  What about the other work at Brogdale? Plant variety rights testing will be moved with the collection. The Government-funded fruit variety trialling will come to a close for the reasons I gave, and it is now up to the industry to decide on the work that it wants to support and where. We shall be interested to learn of Swale's plans for the trials, and we have suspended the removal of the trees until after discussion with Swale. I emphasise that only trees that have completed trialling have been removed so far. None of the trees currently the subject of trialling has been grubbed up. While substantive negotiations continue, and until we are sure that Swale has had a fair hearing for whatever case it wishes to put, no grubbing up will occur.
  We could not leave the trial trees on the site, because they belong not to us but to the owners, whose authorisation must be sought before the trees can pass into other hands.
  If not Brogdale, where? We could have established a collection at East Mailing or at Wye, and we recognised that each location had drawbacks. The disadvantage of East Mailing relates to plant variety rights testing transferred with the collection. Much of that work is undertaken for international fruit breeders, who would have been concerned if valuable new materials were to be tested on the same station at which our own breeders work. There was a risk that the United Kingdom would lose the confidence of international breeders in fruit variety rights testing, however strictly the two varieties were segregated.
  Another problem is that the collection is not entirely free from disease, which would have posed a health risk to research and development by scientists at East Mailing. I accept that Wye is not without disadvantages. First, we wanted assurances that the standard of husbandry there was capable of meeting the required level, to give us confidence that the collection would be well looked after.
  Mr. Dalyell: As to the question of disease, I have a handwritten note from the former director of national fruit trials in which he states that the health status of the collection does not seem relevant. He details the apples, pears and plums situation.
  Mr. Curry: If the collection is moved to a site where international testing is to be undertaken, our fear is that international clients will be concerned about any potential health risk. That is why we felt that a risk might be posed to the United Kingdom's international reputation in fruit variety rights testing.
  Wye has taken steps to meet the requirement for very high husbandry standards, and we believe that the changes made will prove successful. We plan to establish an expert
  522
  advisory committee—a light, not heavy, committee—to supervise the care of the collection and to ensure that all requirements are met.
  Mr. Moate: If we are successful, as I believe we will be, in establishing a trust to take over Brogdale and make it a national heritage centre for fruit, would it not make more sense for Wye college to leave the collection where it is and instead continue its scientific administration of the collection in situ?
  Mr. Curry: I appreciate the question of distance, because I was a governor of the centre for international and European studies at Wye for a number of years. An association between the collection and the centre where research is currently undertaken would be an important plus. However, if the Swale bid succeeds, the fruit collection would continue to exist. We would have a national fruit collection extablished at Wye, and the parent stock would continue to exist at Brogdale and would be developed for the slightly different purposes that my hon. Friend outlined tonight.
  It has been said that there is a frost risk at Wye. The site is certainly not a frost hole; it is part way up a slope, and it is largely protected by an established shelter belt, which could be supplemented by further wind breaks before the collection was moved.
  People who have experience of growing fruit on the site at Wye do not recall any evidence of frost damage there. Obviously there must be some risk in exceptionally severe winters, as there is at all three sites. We have decided that the risk is slight, and it should be emphasised that the trees are kept primarily not for fruiting but as a gene stock. Therefore, frost is less of a problem than it would be for a commercial grower who wants fruit which is affected by frost damage to blossom.
  I know that frost damage is important, because of my own fruit trees, which grow on an exposed slope in Essex. They tend to get damaged by frost rather more frequently than I should like.
  Balancing all these factors, Wye college offers, in our view, the best prospects for developing the scientific and educational potential of the collection.
  That is the background to our decision. It was reached after much careful consideration, and I emphasise that the Government are committed to the national fruit collection as part of the national heritage, and as a genetic resource for the future. Any sale of land at Brogdale will be conditional on a rent-back arrangement, so that land will contain the existing national fruit collection until we are absolutely certain of establishing the new collection.
  We are committed to providing financial support for the management of the collection, and to ensuring that it is properly cared for, not just as a museum piece, but as a living, growing collection.
  The move to the new home, at a cost of approximately £300,000, which will be borne entirely by the Government and includes the estimated loss in full value of the land, will be carried out with the greatest care under my Department's expert supervision. The parent trees at Brogdale will be retained until the new collection is established, or until they have a new future under any plans that my hon. Friend and his colleagues on Swale borough council will explain to us.
  I am confident that the collection will have a stable and successful future at Wye college.
  Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend has mentioned the importance of time. He has put pressure on local interests to come up with something urgently, yet that could be unreasonable. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that unreasonable pressure will not be put upon local interests and others who are concerned to create this exciting new trust? We must have Government help and understanding that it will take a little time to evolve.
  Mr. Curry: If Swale council proposes a substantive plan, and we have a clear indication that it can be followed through, I will certainly listen most carefully to what it has to say.
  Time is rather short. We gave an indication to Swale about our intentions a long time ago, and we have been in constant discussion with it on the subject. Therefore, I
  524
  shall leave the door open, but I cannot say that I will hold the door open permanently, because that would be misleading.
  If Swale can come up with a substantive proposal that can be developed within the time scale envisaged, I shall ensure that it has a fair and full hearing.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am told by Dr. Ingram that the collection is not virus-free. Infection has been acquired from past propagation, but it is not progressive. The only means of spread is by propogation. In time, varieties could be heat-treated——
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Bishops (Retirement)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list in the Official Report (a) the names of suffragan bishops and (b) the names of all assistant bishops, appointed since 20 February 1986, with date of appointment and diocese to which attached and (c) the names of suffragan and assistant bishops who have retired since 20 February 1986 with their date of retirement.

  Mr. Alison
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Suffragan bishops

  Diocese and bishop

  Suffragan see

  Bath and Wells

  The Right Revd. N. McCulloch

  Taunton

  Birmingham

  Vacant

  Aston

  Blackburn

  The Right Revd. R. J. Milner

  Burnley

  The Revd. Canon J. Nicholls1

  Lancaster

  Bristol

  The Right Revd. P. J. Firth

  Malmesbury

  Canterbury

  The Right Revd. R. H. M. Third

  Dover

  The Right Revd. D. Smith

  Maidstone

  Carlisle

  The Right Revd. G. L. Hacker

  Penrith

  Chelmsford

  The Right Revd. J. W. Roxburgh

  Barking

  The Right Revd. M. Vickers

  Colchester

  The Right Revd. C. D. Bond

  Bradwell

  Chester

  The Right Revd. R. Brown

  Birkenhead

  The Right Revd. F. P. Sargeant

  Stockport

  Chichester

  The Right Revd. I. C. Docker

  Horsham

  The Right Revd. P. J. Ball

  Lewes

  Coventry

  The Right Revd. K. A. Arnold

  Warwick

  Derby

  The Right Revd. F. Richmond

  Repton

  Durham

  The Right Revd. M. T. Ball

  Jarrow

  Ely

  The Right Revd. W. G. Roe

  Huntingdon

  Exeter

  The Right Revd. P. E. Coleman

  Crediton

  The Right Revd. R. S. Hawkins

  Plymouth

  322

  Diocese and bishop

  Suffragan see

  Gloucester

  The Right Revd. G. Walsh

  Tewkesbury

  Guildford

  The Right Revd. D. P. Wilcox

  Dorking

  Hereford

  The Right Revd. I. Griggs

  Ludlow

  Lichfield

  The Right Revd. J. Davies

  Shrewsbury

  The Right Revd. M. C. Scott-Joynt

  Stafford

  The Right Revd. C. J. Mayfield

  Wolverhampton

  Lincoln

  The Right Revd. W. Ind

  Grantham

  The Right Revd. D. Tustin

  Grimsby

  Liverpool

  The Right Revd. M. Henshall

  Warrington

  London

  The Right Revd. C. J. Klyberg

  Fulham

  The Right Revd. J. Hughes

  Kensington

  The Right Revd. J. Thompson

  Stepney

  The Right Revd. T. Butler

  Willesden

  The Right Revd. B. Masters

  Edmonton

  Manchester

  The Right Revd. C. J. F. Scott

  Hulme

  The Right Revd. D. G. Galliford

  Bolton

  The Right Revd. D. Tytler

  Middleton

  Norwich

  The Right Revd. D. Bentley

  Lynn

  The Right Revd. T. Dudley-Smith

  Thetford

  Oxford

  The Right Revd. S. Burrows

  Buckingham

  The Right Revd. A. J. Russell

  Dorchester

  The Right Revd. J. F. E. Bone

  Reading

  Peterborough

  The Right Revd. P. E. Barber

  Brixworth

  Ripon

  The Right Revd. M. J. Menin

  Knaresborough

  Rochester

  The Right Revd. D. Bartleet

  Tonbridge

  St. Albans

  The Right Revd. D. J. Farmborough

  Bedford

  The Revd. Canon R. J. N. Smith1

  Hertford

  St. E. and I.

  The Right Revd. E. Devenport

  Dunwich

  Salisbury

  The Right Revd. P. Vaughan

  Ramsbury

  The Right Revd. J. Kirkham

  Sherborne

  Sheffield

  The Right Revd. W. Persson

  Doncaster

  Southwark

  The Right Revd. W. Wood

  Croydon

  The Right Revd. P. Selby

  Kingston

  The Right Revd. A. P. Hall

  Woolwich

  Southwell

  The Right Revd. A. W. Morgan

  Sherwood

  Truro

  The Right Revd. J. R. A. Llewellin

  St. Germans

  Wakefield

  The Right Revd. T. R. Hare

  Pontefract

  323

  Diocese and bishop

  Suffragan see

  Winchester

  The Right Revd. M. J. R. Manktelow

  Basingstoke

  The Right Revd. J. F. Perry

  Southampton

  Worcester

  The Right Revd. A. C. Dumper

  Dudley

  York

  The Right Revd. D. G. Snelgrove

  Hull

  The Right Revd. C. C. Barker

  Selby

  The Right Revd. G. Bates

  Whitby

  Europe

  The Right Revd. E. Holland

  Bishop in Europe

  1 Designate.

  (b) Assistant bishops appointed since 20 February 19861

  Diocese and bishop

  Appointed

  Leicester

  The Right Revd. G. W. E. C. Ashby

  1 July 1988

  Bradford

  The Right Revd. D. R. J. Evans

  1 October 1988

  1 This list includes only full-time stipendiary Assistant Bishops for whose stipends the Commissioners have a responsibility.

  (c) Suffragan bishops who have retired since 20 February 1986

  Suffragan see and bishop

  Date

  Europe

  The Right Revd. A. W. M. Weekes

  1 April 1986

  Shrewsbury

  The Right Revd. L. L. Rees

  30 September 1986

  Colchester

  The Right Revd. R. N. Coote

  31 May 1987

  Grantham

  The Right Revd. D. G. Hawker

  4 July 1987

  Ludlow

  The Right Revd. S. M. Wood

  31 July 1987

  Dorchester

  The Right Revd. C. J. E. Meyer

  31 October 1987

  Burnley

  The Right Revd. R. C. C. Watson

  30 November 1987

  Plymouth

  The Right Revd. K. A. Newing

  30 April 1988

  Southampton

  The Right Revd. E. D. Cartwright

  31 October 1988

  Sherwood

  The Right Revd. H. R. Darby

  28 February 1989

  Reading

  The Right Revd. R. G. G. Foley

  30 June 1989

  Hertford

  The Right Revd. K. H. Pillar

  15 November 1989

  324

  (d) Assistant bishops who have retired since 20 February 19861

  Diocese and bishop

  Date

  (i) Full-time

  Peterborough

  The Right Revd. W. A. Franklin

  31 August 1986

  (ii) Part-time

  London

  The Right Revd. D. S. Arden

  14 April 1986

  Southwark/Europe

  The Right Revd. E. M. H. Capper

  1 June 1986

  London/Southwark

  The Right Revd. E. G. Knapp-Fisher

  31 December 1986

  31 January 1987

  Leicester

  The Right Revd. J. E. L. Mort

  2 October 1988

  Derby

  The Right Revd. C. A. Warren

  25 February 1989

  1 This list includes only those Assistant Bishops for whose stipends at sometime the Commissioners had a responsibility in whole or in part.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Single Market
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list which of the 300 steps necessary for the achievement of the single market in 1993 have been transported into legal form in all member states; and which have yet to be dealt with.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have been asked to reply.

  Commission Communication (Section (89) 2098 on 4 December 1989) presented to the Internal Market Council on 21 December identified the following 10 directives that have been implemented in all member states. They include a number of measures which have time derogations in limited member states. For a more detailed picture of the state of play on implementation, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of Tuesday 9 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell).

  Various Controls

  1. Duty free fuel contained in fuel tanks of commercial motor vehicles Directive 85/347.

  Veterinary and phytosanitary controls

  2. Hormone growth promoters Directive 85/358.

  3. Antibiotic residues Directive 86/469.

  —control of residues Directive 469.

  4. Control of foot and mouth disease Directive 85/511.

  5. Amendments to Directive 77/93 (plant health) Directive 85/547.

  6. Amendment of Directive 79/117 (ethylene oxide) Directive 86/355.

  Pharmaceuticals and high-technology medicines

  7. Amendment to Directive 65/65 concerning medical specialities Directive 87/21.

  Food Law

  8. Sampling and methods of analysis Directive 85/591.

  Capital Movements

  9. Operations such as transactions in securities, admission of securities and long-term commercial credits Directive 86/566.

  10. Units in collective investment undertakings for transferable securities Directive 85/583.

  Romania
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence the Government have about food supplies in Romania; what amount of food and medical aid has been sent to Romania since the revolution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We do not yet have any reliable statistics on food supplies in Romania. The Romanian authorities have requested several hundred thousand tonnes of food from western countries. A European Commission team examined these needs in Bucharest on 15 and 16 January and we expect proposals for a food aid package soon.

  Substantial quantities of urgent medical aid have already been sent to Romania from both public and private sources. The United Kingdom is providing immediate help in the form of medical equipment and literature, but figures for the total quantity are not yet available. We are now considering how best we can, in co-operation with other donors, respond to Romania's longer-term needs.

  China
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Chinese Government about the lifting of martial law in China and the continuation of martial law in Tibet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have suspended normal ministerial contacts with the Chinese Government in line with the declaration on China at the Madrid European Council. We welcome the lifting of martial law in Peking as a positive move in the right direction. We hope the Chinese Government will now take further steps to strengthen the protection of human rights throughout China, including the lifting of martial law in Tibet.

  Eastern Europe
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department is giving to those people considering travel to East European countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department's general advice to those who inquire is that there is no reason not to visit eastern European countries but that visitors should if possible avoid demonstrations and large crowds. Petrol may be in short supply.

  The Department has published a warning to travellers considering visiting Romania that many facilities, in particular medical facilities, are stretched and may not be readily available.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has entered a reservation to CITES on behalf of Hong Kong to allow the current ivory stockpile in the Crown Colony to be placed on the market.
  326
  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the House on 17 January.

TRANSPORT

  Traffic Congestion
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the costs to business of traffic congestion in the south-east.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the costs to business of traffic congestion in the south-east.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the costs to business of traffic congestion in the south-east.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the costs to business of traffic congestion in the south-east.

  Mr. Atkins
  There is no way of making accurate overall estimates of the cost to business of traffic congestion in the south-east.

  Vehicles (Energy Consumption)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what percentage of total energy consumed by transport in the United Kingdom was accounted for by commercial goods vehicles and vehicles other than private cars annually, for 1985 to 1989 inclusive;

  (2) what percentage of total energy consumed by transport in the United Kingdom was accounted for by private cars annually for 1985 to 1989 inclusive.

  Mr. Atkins
  Data for 1989 are not yet available. Estimates for 1985 to 1988 are as follows:

  Estimates of energy used by road vehicles as a percentage of all energy used in transport in the United Kingdom

  Percentage

  Vehicle

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Cars

  50·4

  51·0

  51·3

  51·4

  Goods vehicles

  22·7

  22·7

  23·1

  23·7

  Other vehicles

  6·2

  5·9

  5·4

  4·7

  Locomotives
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of total energy consumed by transport in the United Kingdom was accounted for by(a) electrically powered locomotives and (b) diesel-powered locomotives annually, for 1985 to 1989 inclusive.

  Mr. Portillo
  Data for 1989 are not yet available. Estimates for 1985 to 1988 are as follows:

  Energy used by rail as percentage of all energy used in transport in the United Kingdom

  Percentage

  Energy

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Electricity

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  Petroleum

  2·2

  2·0

  1·8

  1·7

  327
  Note: These figures will include some energy which was not used for powering locomotives.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what percentage of the total rail freight traffic was hauled annually by(a) electrically powered locomotives and (b) diesel-powered locomotives for 1985 to 1989 inclusive;

  (2) what percentage of total rail passenger traffic was hauled annually by (a) electrically powered locomotives and (b) by diesel-powered locomotives for 1985 to 1989 inclusive.

  Mr. Portillo
  This information is obtainable from table 3.7 on page 137 of the "1978–88 Transport Statistics Great Britain", a copy of which is held in the Library.

  Domestic Flights
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of total energy consumed by transport in the United Kingdom was accounted for by United Kingdom domestic flights annually for 1985 to 1989 inclusive.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  British Rail
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the objectives of his policy for the future of British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend set out the Government's objectives for British Rail in his statement to the House on 19 December.

  Road Improvements
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the trunk road improvement schemes which are due to start in England in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is too soon to provide a list. The composition of the new starts programme will depend on the completion of outstanding procedures on individual schemes and on price movements over the coming months.

  Scottish Lowland Airports
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what considerations of policy he has taken into account in deciding the timing of his forthcoming announcement of the results of his review of Scottish lowland airports policy; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to announce his decision on the review of Scottish lowland airports policy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend has said that he expects to be able to announce his decision on future policy for the Scottish lowland airports early this year. That remains the position. We recognise the need to end uncertainty over the policy, but we shall not be reaching a decision until the views expressed in the over 1,100 responses received during the consultation have been carefully considered. My right hon. Friend has written to my hon. Friend to stress that there is no question of external considerations being allowed to affect either the decision itself or its timing.

  Household Refuse
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider requiring special licences for the transportation by road or rail of partly decomposed household refuse from controlled local authority tips.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no specific guidelines. The road transport of dangerous goods, including wastes, is governed by national regulations and related approved codes of practice. All goods carried by rail are subject to BRS conditions of carriage and conditions of acceptance, which include specific conditions for dangerous goods, including wastes. The Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 will require the registration of any person, unless exempted by regulation, carrying controlled waste, including household waste, in the course of his business.

  Railway Lines
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consult outside interested parties on his proposed terms of reference for his departmental committee to establish a noise standard for new railway lines.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. The object will be to establish the standard at a level which equitably relates to the standard set by regulation for new highways.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will include outside members on his departmental committee to set a noise standard for railway lines; and whether the committee will consult outside interested parties before reaching its conclusions.

  Mr. Portillo
  Outside members will be included and there will be consultation. It will be for the committee to decide at what stage to consult outside interested parties.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why he has decided that his Department's new noise standard for railway lines should relate to the standard set for new highways, and what account he has taken of the particular characteristics and pattern of noise from railway lines.

  Mr. Portillo
  I consider it right to aim for a noise insulation standard for new railway lines which is comparable with the standard currently set by regulation for new highways in order to be even-handed. It would not be right to discriminate in favour of or against people living near new railway lines as opposed to people living near new roads. It will be for the departmental committee to consider and take account of the characteristics and pattern of noise from railway lines.

  Test Bores, Eccles
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what purpose test bores 2069, 2070 and 2071 were carried out on land at Grange farm, Eccles, under section 290(3) of the Highways Act 1980.

  Mr. Atkins
  Preliminary investigations associated with the proposed widening of the M62 between junctions 12 and 18 prior to the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity".

  Greater Manchester Relief Road
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many route options were produced by consultants in respect of the M6 to M56 section of the proposed Greater Manchester western and northern relief road.

  Mr. Atkins
  Five. All but one were eventually rejected for environmental reasons.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total length of new motorway envisaged in each section of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road, M6 to M56, M56 to M62 and M62 to M66.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:M6 to M56—6 miles
  M56 to M62; M62 to M66—It is too early in the planning process to say what lengths of new motorways are envisaged.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total length of road widening to existing roads envisaged in each section of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road, M6 to M56, M56 to M62 and M62 to M66.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:M6 to M56—None
  M56 to M62; M62 to M66—It is too early in planning process to quantify the total length of existing roads to be widened.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the consultants' brief in respect of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road includes consideration of a new motorway crossing of the Manchester ship canal.

  Mr. Atkins
  Yes.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the road widening of the M62 between junctions 12 and 18 is regarded as part of the proposed Greater Manchester western and northern relief road.

  Mr. Atkins
  We expect there to be a need for a new route on the north side of Manchester.

  Oil Spills
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline what research is being undertaken in respect of new methods to deal with oil spills; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The marine pollution control unit (MPCU) of the Department of Transport undertakes a continuing programme of counter-pollution research including new or improved methods of dealing with oil slicks. Research is currently being undertaken into the use of demulsifiers as a means of inhibiting formation of emulsions and promoting natural dispersion of oil; satellite remote sensing for the detection of oil slicks; techniques for cleaning oil from shingle beaches; the resources and methods required to clean different types of beach; and possible methods of cleaning contaminated salt marshes and mud flats.

  These projects are part of the wider overall programme of progressive research into methods of dealing with oil and chemical spills which the MPCU has been
  330
  undertaking for a number of years at an annual cost of about £1 million. This has resulted in the successful development and introduction into service of aerial dispersant spraying techniques; a mechanical recovery system; increased identification and refinement of the correct techniques to apply in dealing with oil pollution at sea and on various types of shoreline; detailed knowledge of the behaviour of oil at sea; a straw baler machine which produces straw booms for use in protecting sensitive areas of coastline; aerial surveillance; and various information systems and manuals.

  The results of the research are made available to relevant authorities in the United Kingdom and abroad as part of the United Kingdom's contribution to international co-operation in counter-pollution.

  Taxis
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will fund research on the personal security of passengers travelling in private hire cars and taxis.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Suzy Lamplugh Trust is commissioning research into the actual and perceived risks to personal security of travelling in minicabs in London which are not licensed, compared with taxis in London which are licensed: and whether minicab licensing, as practised outside London, alters the position.

  The trust has sought a contribution from the Government towards funding and I have agreed that the Department of Transport will provide half the cost of the research, up to a ceiling of £20,500. I understand that the other half of the funding will come from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the Police Foundation which are jointly seeking additional funds from the private sector for that purpose; and that the research should be completed in about a year's time.

  Hazardous Chemicals
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will take steps to end the practice of allowing barrels of hazardous chemicals to be carried on open-sided lorries;

  (2) what steps he has taken to assess the implications for regulations relating to the transport by road of hazardous wastes of the recent accident at Burton-upon-Trent in which sodium cyanide was spilt in a residential area from an open lorry.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Health and Safety Executive has been made aware of details of the incident. It will consider any change to the procedures as part of the practice of regularly reviewing the relevant regulations.

  River Thames
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any further consideration has been given to a comprehensive set of regulations governing navigation in the tidal Thames following the Marchioness disaster.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Port of London Authority has already incorporated within its general direction for navigation the main navigational measures recommended by the interim report of the marine accident investigation
  331
  branch. It is considering, with the Department the further recommendation with respect to the segregation of commercial and passenger traffic on the river.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Examination Results
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all local education authorities in England in rank order of expenditure per secondary pupil per year, starting with the highest spending authority, together with their position in the table of examination results for school leavers achieving grades A to C at GCSE in 1988 and 1989.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    The table gives the net institutional expenditure per secondary school pupil in the financial year 1987–88, and averaged examination results for the three years 1985–86 to 1987–88. The purpose of averaging is to reduce sampling error within the derived percentages. Comparable information is not yet available for 1988–89.

    Secondary schools in England: net institutional expenditure per pupil and examination achievements at GCSE1

    Numbers of leavers with five or more GCSE results atgrades A to C4 5

    Net expenditure per pupil (£ cash)2 3

    As percentage of all school leavers

    Rank

    Local education authorities

    ILEA

    2,610

    16·1

    88

    Waltham Forest

    2,345

    11·3

    95

    Brent

    2,195

    19·1

    75

    Newham

    1,880

    14·3

    93

    Croydon

    1,825

    22·7

    57

    Manchester

    1,785

    15·9

    90

    Harrow

    1,775

    38·2

    2

    Barking

    1,745

    11·8

    94

    Knowsley

    1,735

    10·0

    96

    Liverpool

    1,730

    17·9

    81

    Newcastle-upon-Tyne

    1,725

    17·4

    84

    Kingston-upon-Thames

    1,720

    34·2

    5

    Coventry

    1,705

    20·7

    68

    Barnet

    1,675

    41·5

    1

    Hillingdon

    1,675

    20·0

    70

    Hounslow

    1,675

    21·5

    63

    Wigan

    1,675

    29·4

    15

    Havering

    1,670

    23·3

    53

    North Tyneside

    1,660

    23·2

    54

    Rochdale

    1,650

    18·7

    78

    Bromley

    1,645

    32·0

    9

    Walsall

    1,645

    20·9

    67

    Sandwell

    1,630

    14·6

    92

    Salford

    1,625

    21·8

    62

    Bury

    1,615

    26·4

    31

    Redbridge

    1,600

    26·6

    28

    South Tyneside

    1,585

    18·3

    79

    Enfield

    1,580

    24·7

    45

    Wolverhampton

    1,575

    17·8

    82

    Dudley

    1,570

    22·3

    61

    Leicestershire

    1,565

    23·4

    51

    Gateshead

    1,560

    19·8

    72

    Oxfordshire

    1,560

    26·2

    34

    Cleveland

    1,545

    27·1

    26

    Nottinghamshire

    1,540

    21·6

    59

    Bexley

    1,530

    27·9

    20

    Derbyshire

    1,530

    22·5

    60

    Tameside

    1,525

    24·7

    44

    Trafford

    1,525

    31·1

    10

    Cumbria

    1,510

    26·9

    27

    St. Helens

    1,505

    23·3

    52

    Sunderland

    1,505

    18·8

    77

    Buckinghamshire

    1,505

    33·4

    6

    Stockport

    1,500

    24·9

    43

    332

    Numbers of leavers with five or more GCSE results at grades A to C4 5

    Net expenditure per pupil (£ cash)2 3

    As percentage of all school leavers

    Rank

    Doncaster

    1,500

    18·8

    76

    Wakefield

    1,495

    17·6

    83

    Birmingham

    1,490

    18·3

    80

    Hertfordshire

    1,490

    30·3

    12

    Wirral

    1,480

    25·9

    39

    Richmond-upon-Thames

    1,475

    29·6

    14

    Merton

    1,470

    23·5

    49

    Barnsley

    1,470

    17·0

    87

    Salop

    1,470

    27·7

    22

    Sefton

    1,460

    26·3

    32

    Humberside

    1,460

    21·5

    64

    Bedfordshire

    1,455

    26·0

    38

    Solihull

    1,450

    30·8

    11

    Lancashire

    1,450

    25·7

    40

    Rotherham

    1,440

    19·5

    73

    Calderdale

    1,440

    20·0

    71

    Avon

    1,435

    26·1

    35

    Bolton

    1,425

    26·1

    37

    Sutton

    1,420

    34·9

    4

    Essex

    1,420

    26·3

    33

    Staffordshire

    1,420

    23·4

    50

    Kirklees

    1,415

    25·1

    42

    Surrey

    1,415

    36·4

    3

    Bradford

    1,410

    16·1

    89

    Durham

    1,405

    21·0

    66

    Hampshire

    1,405

    27·7

    21

    Warwickshire

    1,400

    26·6

    29

    Oldham

    1,395

    15·5

    91

    Cheshire

    1,390

    28·3

    19

    Northumberland

    1,390

    29·8

    13

    East Sussex

    1,385

    27·4

    23

    Gloucestershire

    1,385

    29·1

    17

    Norfolk

    1,385

    22·8

    55

    Devon

    1,380

    24·4

    47

    North Yorkshire

    1,375

    32·8

    7

    Northamptonshire

    1,375

    22·7

    58

    Leeds

    1,370

    21·3

    65

    West Sussex

    1,360

    32·6

    8

    Somerset

    1,355

    24·5

    46

    Isle of Wight

    1,350

    17·0

    86

    Wiltshire

    1,350

    24·0

    48

    Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    1,350

    27·3

    24

    Hereford and Worcester

    1,330

    28·5

    18

    Dorset

    1,320

    27·2

    25

    Cambridgeshire

    1,315

    26·1

    36

    Suffolk

    1,305

    22·7

    56

    Kent

    1,290

    26·5

    30

    Lincolnshire

    1,280

    25·3

    41

    Ealing

    n/a

    19·1

    74

    Haringey

    n/a

    17·3

    85

    Sheffield

    n/a

    20·2

    69

    Berkshire

    n/a

    29·4

    16

    1 The figures in the table have not been adjusted to take account of variations in LEA's socio-economic circumstances.

    2 Net institutional expenditure includes the cost of salaries and wages, premises, and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

    3 The unit spending figures are based on LEA expenditure returns to the Department of the Environment for the financial year 1987–88, and pupil number returns to DES. Data for four authorities are not available.

    4 The examination data are aggregated from the results of a sample survey for the academic years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88. The surveyis based on a 10 per cent. sample of pupils in maintained and independent schools (excluding special schools) who have reached the minimum school leaving age. The percentages quoted do not reflect the achievements of pupils at O-level, CSE or GCSE after leaving school; nor their attainments in examinations leading to vocational or other qualifications at school or elsewhere.

    5 Includes grades A-C at O-level and CSE grade 1.

    333
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number of children sitting(a) GCSE and (b) A-level examinations in each local education authority in England as a percentage of the total number in the relevant year groups for 1988; and if he will list by each local education authority in England the number of children achieving (i) GCSE grades A to C, (ii) GCSE grades C to F and (iii) A-level grades A and E as a percentage of the total number of pupils in the relevant year in 1988 and 1989.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    The information is not readily available in the form requested. The table gives sampled examination results for school leavers, averaged over the academic years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88. The purpose of averaging is to reduce sampling error within the derived percentages. Comparable information is not yet available for 1988–89.

    School leavers in England: aggregated examination attempts andgraded results for the academic years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 Percentage of school leavers

    Local education authorities

    One or more examination attempts

    One or more examination results

    GCSE1

    A-level2

    GCSE grades A-C3

    GCSE grades D-G4

    A-level grades A-E

    Barking

    82·9

    10·6

    42·3

    39·2

    8·3

    Barnet

    92·0

    33·8

    66·6

    24·9

    30·7

    Bexley

    90·5

    19·5

    54·6

    35·0

    17·0

    Brent

    90·0

    16·7

    51·6

    6·3

    13·1

    Bromley

    93·7

    23·0

    59·1

    34·2

    20·3

    Croydon

    90·0

    14·6

    54·0

    35·1

    13·6

    Ealing

    88·8

    15·1

    48·6

    36·2

    12·9

    Enfield

    92·0

    21·3

    53·6

    36·9

    17·7

    Haringey

    86·1

    14·4

    46·3

    37·8

    12·4

    Harrow

    95·3

    16·9

    69·3

    25·5

    15·4

    Havering

    91·1

    15·7

    54·7

    34·9

    13·6

    Hillingdon

    92·9

    15·7

    54·0

    38·5

    13·3

    Hounslow

    87·3

    16·4

    50·9

    34·2

    13·1

    Kingston-upon-Thames

    91·3

    23·2

    61·1

    29·5

    20·1

    Merton

    86·0

    15·2

    51·2

    34·5

    13·9

    Newham

    81·0

    11·8

    47·2

    30·8

    9·0

    Redbridge

    89·1

    21·8

    53·1

    34·2

    19·7

    Richmond-upon-Thames

    92·8

    0·2

    61·1

    30·7

    0·0

    Sutton

    94·0

    26·8

    61·0

    32·8

    25·3

    Waltham Forest

    86·7

    10·3

    41·6

    40·8

    8·2

    Birmingham

    86·1

    13·2

    46·0

    39·0

    11·1

    Coventry

    90·3

    14·9

    50·2

    39·4

    12·1

    Dudley

    91·3

    11·0

    51·9

    38·8

    10·4

    Sandwell

    85·3

    8·2

    39·2

    45·5

    7·3

    Solihull

    96·9

    21·4

    60·5

    36·1

    19·7

    Walsall

    86·4

    16·0

    49·6

    36·4

    14·3

    Wolverhampton

    87·0

    12·1

    43·5

    42·0

    9·5

    Knowsley

    77·5

    5·9

    34·2

    40·7

    4·8

    Liverpool

    79·9

    14·7

    41·6

    34·8

    12·7

    St· Helens

    86·9

    15·9

    50·1

    35·6

    14·6

    Sefton

    90·6

    19·8

    55·6

    33·5

    17·4

    Wirral

    90·9

    19·9

    52·6

    36·0

    17·8

    Bolton

    90·8

    17·0

    55·9

    34·1

    15·2

    Bury

    92·0

    15·1

    60·7

    30·0

    14· 1

    Manchester

    80·4

    15·9

    44·0

    33·2

    13·8

    Oldham

    87·2

    10·5

    43·2

    42·5

    9·3

    Rochdale

    85·3

    15·0

    49·7

    33·8

    11·6

    Salford

    88·4

    14·2

    47·9

    38·5

    12·6

    Stockport

    92·2

    19·7

    58·9

    30·7

    16·8

    Tameside

    92·2

    13·3

    52·4

    38·7

    11·3

    Trafford

    95·9

    17·5

    62·0

    31·6

    16·4

    Wigan

    94·1

    16·0

    59·6

    33·3

    14·5

    Barnsley

    88·2

    10·6

    38·5

    48·8

    10·0

    Doncaster

    88·1

    15·1

    44·5

    42·3

    12·9

    Rotherham

    89·6

    14·8

    44·4

    43·8

    13·5

    Sheffield

    90·2

    12·7

    49·7

    38·7

    11·1

    Bradford

    83·6

    12·6

    42·5

    39·2

    10·6

    Calderdale

    89·9

    16·0

    46·6

    41·1

    12·9

    334

    Local education authorities

    One or more examination attempts

    One or more examination results

    GCSE1

    A-level2

    GCSE grades A-C3

    GCSE grades D-G4

    A-level grades A-E

    Kirklees

    89·9

    17·3

    50·1

    38·7

    15·0

    Leeds

    89·0

    13·6

    48·7

    39·2

    12·5

    Wakefield

    87·0

    8·5

    44·6

    41·4

    6·9

    Gateshead

    84·2

    13·1

    45·2

    38·0

    10·8

    Newcastle·upon-Tyne

    84·5

    13·4

    41·8

    41·5

    10·8

    North Tyneside

    91·3

    16·1

    50·9

    39·7

    14·0

    South Tyneside

    93·6

    11·8

    45·9

    47·0

    10·0

    Sunderland

    91·3

    10·1

    47·7

    43·5

    8·1

    ILEA

    80·3

    12·7

    44·8

    33·5

    11·0

    Avon

    93·9

    16·6

    55·6

    37·1

    14·9

    Bedfordshire

    94·7

    18·2

    55·9

    37·1

    16·1

    Berkshire

    95·7

    21·9

    57·4

    37·0

    20·3

    Buckinghamshire

    94·1

    23·7

    63·7

    29·5

    22·4

    Cambridgeshire

    94·5

    14·7

    56·5

    36·7

    13·2

    Cheshire

    93·2

    18·2

    56·2

    35·7

    16·4

    Cleveland

    89·1

    16·2

    49·8

    38·5

    14·8

    Cornwall

    92·7

    16·0

    58·5

    33·4

    14·6

    Cumbria

    92·6

    17·5

    56·1

    35·5

    16·0

    Derbyshire

    92·9

    12·9

    50·7

    41·1

    11·3

    Devon

    95·3

    12·8

    55·5

    38·5

    11·8

    Dorset

    96·1

    14·7

    59·9

    35·4

    13·3

    Durham

    90·3

    11·9

    51·4

    37·9

    10·1

    East Sussex

    91·4

    20·5

    56·0

    34·8

    18·2

    Essex

    92·7

    16·1

    57·4

    33·9

    14·5

    Gloucestershire

    94·7

    18·9

    58·6

    35·2

    16·9

    Hampshire

    94·6

    14·7

    58·6

    35·6

    13·2

    Hereford and Worcester

    92·5

    19·6

    57·5

    33·7

    18·0

    Hertfordshire

    93·2

    21·1

    61·0

    31·2

    19·1

    Humberside

    90·3

    14·4

    48·4

    40·8

    12·9

    Isle of Wight

    92·8

    15·7

    47·4

    43·0

    13·4

    Kent

    92·7

    18·4

    53·9

    38·2

    16·9

    Lancashire

    90·6

    10·9

    54·0

    35·0

    9·9

    Leicestershire

    89·4

    19·7

    48·3

    39·6

    17·1

    Lincolnshire

    93·3

    16·5

    53·5

    38·0

    14·7

    Norfolk

    87·8

    11·3

    52·1

    34·7

    10·5

    North Yorkshire

    93·4

    21·0

    59·3

    33·0

    19·4

    Northamptonshire

    91·7

    15·5

    51·3

    39·0

    13·7

    Northumberland

    93·4

    20·8

    60·0

    32·9

    19·3

    Nottinghamshire

    92·4

    14·3

    46·1

    45·5

    12·7

    Oxfordshire

    94·8

    17·4

    57·7

    36·1

    15·4

    Shropshire

    92·8

    17·2

    56·5

    35·9

    15·3

    Somerset

    95·5

    9·3

    54·2

    40·3

    8·2

    Staffordshire

    89·4

    14·0

    51·9

    36·8

    12·7

    Suffolk

    93·3

    15·6

    51·3

    40·2

    14·0

    Surrey

    95·0

    26·4

    64·3

    30·0

    24·0

    Warwickshire

    93·1

    18·6

    56·8

    35·8

    16·9

    West Sussex

    95·4

    22·0

    62·8

    32·0

    20·2

    Wiltshire

    94·7

    12·3

    52·9

    40·0

    11·3

    1 Including attempts at O-level and CSE.

    2 Including a small number of leavers with no O-level or CSE attainments recorded.

    3 Including O-level grades A-C and CSE grade 1.

    4 Including O-level grades D-E and CSE grades 2–5.

    Council of National Academic Awards
    Mr. Andrew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the terms of reference of the departmental review of the role of the Council for National Academic Awards; when he expects it to be completed; and whether he will publish the findings and any recommendations.

    Mr. Jackson
    The terms of reference are to review the justification, role and functions of the council. My right hon. Friend expects to receive the report by the summer, and to publish it.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Haynes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide further details of the costs of the Government's proposals on top-up loans for students announced in his Autumn Statement.

    Mr. Winnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide further details of the costs of the Government's proposals on top-up loans for students announced in his Autumn Statement.

    Mr. Harry Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide further details of the costs of the Government's proposals on top-up loans for students announced in his Autumn Statement.

    Mr. Benn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide further details of the costs of the Government's proposals on top-up loans for students announced in his Autumn Statement.

    Mr. Jackson
    The Government's spending plans include £109 million in 1990–91, £179 million in 1991–92 and £204 million in 1992–93 for the introduction of the top-up loans scheme from September 1990, subject to the passage of the necessary legislation. Provision for the administration costs of the loans scheme will be added when the figures are available. The loan rates will be as set out in the White Paper "Top-up loans for Students". (Cm. 520).

    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money will be allocated to Durham education authority for student loans in 1990.

    Mr. Jackson
    Student Loans Company Ltd. will provide loans directly to students. The funds will not be allocated to or through local education authorities.

    Polytechnics (North-East)
    Ms. Armstrong
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many members of the governing bodies of(a) Newcastle polytechnic, (b) Sunderland polytechnic and (c) Teesside polytechnic receive remuneration for their position; what is the amount of that remuneration: and what criteria are used to determine that remuneration.

    Mr. Jackson
    Information is not collected centrally on these matters which are within the discretion of individual higher education corporations under schedule 7 to the Education Reform Act.

    Education Support Grant
    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what allocations will be made to local education authorities under the education support grants programme for 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor
    My Department is today writing to all local education authorities in England to inform them of the level of expenditure which I have approved for each activity in the education support grants (ESG) programme for 1990–91. The programme is summarised in the following table.

    The expenditure supported by ESGs in 1990–91 will total £141 million. This is over £15 million higher than the
    336
    1989–90 programme. Of the £141 million total, £50 million will support new activities and the extension of existing activities, while £91 million will support the continuation of projects begun in earlier rounds.

    As in previous years, there has been great interest in the education support grants programme, with LEAs submitting a wide range of bids. I am pleased to say that all LEAs in England will be participating in the 1990–91 programme, which is the largest so far.

    The activities targeted on implementing the Education Reform Act include major programmes to support local management of schools (LMS) and the national curriculum. We will be supporting over £36 million of spending on LMS, helping local authorities to install management information systems in schools, to train staff for their new responsibilities, and to provide central support.

    A range of other activities will help schools get the national curriculum into place, including those on information technology in schools, English language, primary science, and mathematics, as well as the activity on the basic curriculum and assessment. Together, these activities will support some £55 million of spending.

    We shall also be allocating grant for a range of other priorities, including schemes to recruit former teachers and mature entrants into teaching, and to help schools cope better with their most difficult pupils.

    This ESG programme represents a substantial package of assistance for schools, colleges and LEAs. It will help target resources where they are most needed, and particularly on the implementation of the Education Reform Act. In total, ESGs will support over £110 million of spending in 1990–91 on activities related to the ERA.

    For the future, I want to see the ESG programme focus even more closely on our key priorities. I shall wish in particular to concentrate future support on the implementation of our main ERA reforms, especially in the areas relating to the national curriculum and local management of schools. I shall also wish to consider what more can be done to help authorities to recruit teachers in the light of experience of the programme I am announcing today. The bids for the teacher recruitment activity showed that many authorities have some way to go in developing strategies for stimulating recruitment.

    Education support grants programme 1990–91

    £1 million

    New expenditure and extensions

    Committed and continuing expenditure

    Total

    Activities related to the implementation of the Education Reform Act

    1. Local management of schools

    11·2

    25·0

    36·2

    2. Management information systems for FE

    4·0

    7·1

    11·1

    3. Training for school governors

    1·0

    4·2

    5·2

    4. Training for FE college governors

    1·9

    —

    1·9

    5. Planning and delegation to colleges

    10·1

    1·2

    1·3

    6. Basic curriculum andassessment

    9·3

    10·0

    19·3

    7. LEA inspection2

    —

    3·0

    3·0

    8. IT in schools

    9·0

    4·8

    13·8

    9. English language in the curriculum

    —

    8·2

    8·2

    337

    New expenditure and extensions

    Committed and continuing expenditure

    Total

    10. Primary science andtechnology

    —

    7·4

    7·4

    11. Maths in schools

    —

    3·2

    3·2

    Other priorities

    12. Difficult pupils

    2·3

    —

    2·3

    13. Improving school attendance

    2·3

    —

    2·3

    14. Combating vandalism and arson

    2·0

    —

    2·0

    15. Health education

    4·0

    —

    4·0

    16. Teacher recruitment

    2·0

    —

    2·0

    17. Workers educational association3

    1·0

    —

    1·0

    18. Youth leaders in inner cities

    —

    4·0

    4·0

    19. Learning by achievement

    —

    2·3

    2·3

    20. Adult literacy

    —

    1·7

    1·7

    21. Open learning

    —

    2·0

    2·0

    22. Educational guidance

    —

    1·2

    1·2

    23. Education for amulti-ethnic society

    —

    2·2

    2·2

    24. Portage (support for SEN children under five)

    —

    1·4

    1·4

    25. Social responsibility

    —

    1·3

    1·3

    26. Rural primary schools

    —

    0·7

    0·7

    Total

    50·1

    90·9

    141·0

    Grant4

    83·6

    1 New expenditure under this activity is being allocated to the inner London boroughs only.

    2 The second tranche of support for LEA inspection is included in the basic curriculum and assessment activity.

    3 The activity to support provision made by the Workers' Educational Association was a late addition to the 1990–91 ESG programme. The distribution between LEAs of the funds for this activity will be decided in due course.

    4 Grant will be paid at 60 per cent. on all activities except: Science and technology in primary schools and maths in schools, where committed expenditure will continue to be paid at the 1989–90 rate of 50 per cent.; and the Workers Educational Association, which will bepaid at 70 per cent.

    Teacher Shortages
    Mr. Pawsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what action has been taken by his Department to improve teacher recruitment;

    (2) what action his Department has taken to improve teacher numbers in shortage subjects.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Since 1986 the Department has undertaken a range of measures to improve teacher supply. These include new initial and in-service training courses; the establishment of the teaching as a career unit to undertake national advertising and publicity; taster courses for those considering a career change; support for local initiatives to attract mature new entrants and former serving teachers; and the licensed and articled teacher schemes.

    The measures have also included bursaries for initial teacher training students, and retraining courses, which have concentrated on the shortage subject areas.
    338

    Action programme on teacher shortage The table shows the principal measures taken since the introductionof our action programme on teacher shortages in 1986, and their costs to date.

    Measures

    Total Cost £ million

    (i) Bursary scheme for trainee teachers in maths, physics, CDT

    6·381

    (ii) Support for LEAs in-service training in shortage subjects in order to upgrade teachers' skills and conversion of teachers in other subjects to maths, physics and CDT

    35·500

    (iii) Support for new initiatives in higher education institutions and the Open University for new types of initial and in-service training provision, including distance learning packs and more flexible training arrangements

    6·730

    (iv) TASC (Teaching as a Career) Unit to promote teaching as a career and improve recruitment practices among local education authorities and initial teacher training institutions

    0·725

    (v) TASC advertising and publicity campaigns

    1·179

    (vi) Production of video teaching programmes by the BBC, Thames TV and Yorkshire TV for in-service use

    0·435

    (vii) Pump priming support for local initiatives to improve supply in shortage subjects

    0·050

    (viii) Taster courses for mature people and others to encourage entry or return to teaching

    0·040

    (ix) Regional conferences with the Scientific Technology Regional Organisation (SATRO) on how industry can help to alleviate shortages

    0·010

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Household Incomes
    Mr. Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the average household income is devoted to national and local taxation; and what was the comparable percentage in 1979.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    A married man with two children on average male earnings will pay approximately 36 per cent. of his earnings in taxes in 1989–90, about one percentage point more than in 1978–79. Over the same period he has enjoyed an increase in real take-home pay of 32 per cent.

    Business Investment
    Mr. Ian Bruce
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures indicating the share of gross domestic product taken by business investment.

    Mr. Major
    Business investment as a proportion of gross domestic product was 14·6 per cent. in 1988. The Industry Act forecast projected total business investment to grow by 9¼ per cent. in 1989. As a share of GDP, in 1989 business investment is likely to be one of the highest since the war.

    Mr. Marlow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures indicating the share of gross domestic product taken by business investment.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce).

    Taxation
    Miss Hoey
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the composite rate of tax for 1990–91.

    Mr. Lilley
    The composite rate of tax for 1990–91 is 22 per cent.

    Mr. Franks
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it remains his policy to achieve lower rates of direct taxation; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Lilley
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter).

    Mr. David Shaw
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his answer of 11 January, he will list those reasons which are known to the Inland Revenue other than for the sole or main purpose of avoiding or evading United Kingdom taxation, that United Kingdom-based individuals, companies and trusts enter into transactions with persons or organisations based in tax havens; and whether he will carry out studies with a view to estimating the current loss of revenue through business transactions involving tax havens.

    Mr. Lilley
    The Inland Revenue does not make judgments as to the motives of individuals, companies or trusts entering into transactions with persons or organisations based in tax havens. There is no reliable means of estimating the tax loss through avoidance and evasion in connection with tax haven transactions.

    Mr. David Shaw
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any proposals to prevent tax avoidance and tax evasion by satellite television companies entering into business transactions with connected or associated companies, individuals and trusts based in(a) Jersey, (b) the Isle of Man, (c) Guernsey, (d) the Netherlands Antilles, (e) the Cayman Islands and (f) Liechtenstein for the sole purpose of avoiding or evading the payment of taxation in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Lilley
    If my hon. Friend has evidence of tax avoidance or evasion in this field perhaps he will write to me.

    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect on the total revenue received of abolishing the upper income tax bands.

    Mr. Lilley
    The 1988 financial statement and budget report estimated the cost of abolishing higher rates above 40 per cent. at £965 million in 1988–89 and £2,070 million in 1989–90. These estimates did not include behavioural effects.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Patchett
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials in his Department are employed to advise him on the resources needed to tackle homelessness.

    Mr. Ryder
    Nine.

    Balance of Trade
    Mr. John Hughes
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for the United Kingdom visible balance of trade.
    340
    Mr. Rooker
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for the United Kingdom visible balance of trade.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    In the three months to November 1989, there was a deficit on visible trade of £5·2 billion, the smallest deficit since the three months to June 1988.

    Investment
    Mr. Jack Thompson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Treasury's forecast for the growth of total investment.

    Mr. Major
    The Autumn Statement forecast projected investment to rise by 5¼ per cent. in 1989 and 1¾ per cent. in 1990. This comes after an average growth of 7¼ per cent. a year between 1983 and 1988.

    Mr. Hanley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth in total investment since 1983.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    Total investment grew by 42 per cent. between 1983 and 1988, an annual average increase of 7¼ per cent. This is far higher than the growth range recorded under the last Labour Government, which averaged ¼ per cent. per year.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Dunnachie
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of manufacturing output in the three months to October 1989; and what it was in the preceding three months.

    Mr. Ryder
    Manufacturing output in the three months to October 1989 was unchanged from the previous three months at its highest-ever level.

    European Monetary Union
    Mr. McKelvey
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take in preparation for the proposed intergovernmental conference on European economic and monetary union at the end of the year.

    Mr. David Marshall
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take in preparation for the proposed intergovernmental conference on European economic and monetary union at the end of the year.

    Mr. Lilley
    We will be working through Ecofin to advance our proposals.

    Mr. Patrick Thompson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on European economic and monetary union.

    Mr. Lilley
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day).

    Growth
    Mr. Eadie
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for growth in 1990.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    The latest forecast for GDP growth in 1990 is 1¼ per cent., as published in the Autumn Statement.
    341
    Mr. Sillars
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to revise(a) his forecast of growth made in the Autumn Statement, and (b) the assumption upon which he then worked.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to revise(a) his forecast of growth made in the Autumn Statement, and (b) the assumption upon which he then worked.

    Mr. Andrew Welsh
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to revise(a) his forecast of growth made in the Autumn Statement, and (b) the assumption upon which he then worked.

    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to revise(a) his forecast of growth made in the Autumn Statement, and (b) the assumption upon which he then worked.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    An updated forecast of growth and the assumptions on which it is based will be published with the 1990 Budget.

    Interest Rates
    Ms. Mowlam
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer wht is the current level of United Kingdom short-term interest rates; and what is the level in West Germany.

    Mr. Ryder
    On 17 January, three-month money market rates in the United Kingdom were 15·4 per cent., compared with 8·1 per cent. in West Germany.

    Mr. Beaumont-Dark
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any representation from the Confederation of British Industry on interest rates.

    Mr. Ryder
    Yes.

    Mr. Knox
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current level of interest rates.

    Mr. Hunter
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the current level of interest rates.

    Mr. Ryder
    Bank base rates are 15 per cent.

    Mr. Dykes
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last discussed with other EEC Finance Ministers matters affecting domestic interest rate policies.

    Mr. Ryder
    The Ecofin Council met in Brussels on 18 December 1989. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented the United Kingdom. The Council discussed a range of issues of mutual interest including economic and monetary matters.

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the effect of high interest rates on small businesses.

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

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Skinner
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the balance of payments(a) for visibles and (b) for invisibles; and if he will make a statement.
    342
    Mr. Norman Lamont
    In the three months to November 1989, the visible trade deficit was £5·2 billion, the smallest deficit since the three months to June 1988. Preliminary estimates for invisibles for the third quarter of 1989, the latest period for which figures are available, show a surplus of £0·2 billion.

    Inflation
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many European countries have higher inflation rates than the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Ryder
    Four EC countries have higher inflation rates than the United Kingdom when estimates of owner-occupier housing costs are excluded so as to bring the published figures on to a more comparable basis.

    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure that he has for inflation in the United Kingdom; and what is the average inflation rate For countries that are full members of the European monetary system.

    Mr. Ryder
    Excluding mortgage interest payments United Kingdom inflation was 6·1 per cent. in November 1989. The latest, more comparable, inflation rate for members of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS was 4·4 per cent. in October 1989.

    Mr. Denzil Davies
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the growth of average earnings over the last six months on the rate of inflation.

    Mr. Major
    Excessive pay settlements primarily threaten job prospects. The Government will not bail out employers who do not control their costs.

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest inflation figure.

    Mr. Ryder
    The all-items RPI annual inflation rate in November was 7·7 per cent. The underlying rate of inflation, as measured by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments, was 6·1 per cent.

    Mr. Geraint Howells
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for inflation for the last quarter of 1990.

    Mr. Ryder
    The Autumn Statement forecast is for RPI annual inflation to fall to 5¾ per cent. by the fourth quarter of 1990.

    Medical Insurance
    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the cost of private medical insurance in a full year.

    Mr. Lilley
    About £40 million in 1990–91.

    VAT
    Mr. David Evans
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the value added tax unit for small businesses.

    Mr. Ryder
    My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to extend the headquarters unit in Customs and
    343
    Excise dealing directly with VAT policy for small businesses. It continues to seek ways of minimising the effects of VAT on small businesses.

    Autumn Statement
    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has made to the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on his Autumn Statement.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    My right hon. Friend will respond to the Committee's report in due course.

    European Community Banking
    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what work he envisages being undertaken by the joint committee and associated secretariat of central banks of the member nations of the European Community now being established.

    Mr. Ryder
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).

    G7
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Finance Ministers of the G7 countries; and what subjects were discussed.

    Mr. Ryder
    The last meeting of Finance Ministers of the Group of Seven countries was in Washington on 23 September before the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. A wide range of topics was discussed.

    Capital Gains Tax
    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the future of capital gains tax.

    Mr. Lilley
    The Government have received a number of different representations, which will be borne in mind in the run-up to the Budget.

    Share Ownership
    Mr. Knapman
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the number of shareholders in the United Kingdom has increased during the 1980s.

    Mr. Lilley
    The joint Treasury and stock exchange survey carried out in January and February 1989 estimated that approximately 9 million people own shares—20 per cent. of the adult population. This represents a threefold increase since 1979.

    Mr. Butler
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to introduce any measures to boost participation in share ownership by the small investor.

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

    Privatisation
    Mr. Sumberg
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number of revenues realised from the privatisation of nationalised industries and other public bodies over the past seven years.
    344
    Mr. Lilley
    The net proceeds from privatisation over the last seven years, that is from April 1983 to date, amount to some £26 billion.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. John Townend
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer if a nil rate corporation band was introduced on the first £5,000 of a company's profits, limited to companies registered for value added tax for less than five years and for non-registered companies.

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

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the corporation tax rate in the United Kingdom and other OECD countries.

    Mr. Lilley
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) earlier today.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Cran
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the United Kingdom economy has benefited from inward investment over the past 10 years.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    The United Kingdom economy has benefited from direct and portfolio investment inflows of £94 billion over the past 10 years. Inflows of £52 billion have occurred within the last three years, reflecting the confidence that overseas investors have in our economic policies.

    Savings (Taxation)
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for reforming the taxation of savings; and if he will make a statement.

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

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Squire
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider providing tax relief for investment in energy-saving equipment.

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

    Bank of England
    Mr. Oppenheim
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England; and what matters were discussed.

    Mr. Ryder
    My right hon. Friend meets the Governor of the Bank of England from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

    Self-Employment
    Mr. David Nicholson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any further plans to encourage self-employment.
    345
    Mr. Norman Lamont
    Self-employment has increased by over 60 per cent. since 1979 as a result of the Government's policies to encourage enterprise. These policies will ensure continued growth in the future.

    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to amend the definition of self-employed for taxation purposes.

    Mr. Lilley
    No. The Government have reviewed on a number of occasions whether there should be a statutory definition of self-employment. The existing criteria laid down by the courts seek essentially to answer the question "Are you in business on your own account?" We believe this is the right approach.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last made representations to the European Commission to have the restrictions on the movement of Irish shoppers into Northern Ireland removed.

    Mr. Major
    I assume that the right hon. Member is referring to the Irish Government's withdrawal in March 1987 of travellers' allowances from persons who have been out of the Republic for less than 48 hours. Her Majesty's Government made it clear at the time both to the European Commission and to the Irish Government that they believed these restrictions to be contrary to EC law. The United Kingdom has intervened accordingly in support of the proceedings instituted by the Commission against Ireland in the European Court of Justice. The hearing is due to take place in February.

    North-East
    Mr. Devlin
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the present state of the economy in the north-east of England.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    The Government's economic policies have created the conditions for greatly increased prosperity in the north-east. The fall in the unemployment rate over the last year has been one of the fastest in the United Kingdom.

    Stamp Duty
    Mr. Barry Field
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to raise the level of property values on which stamp duty is payable.

    Mr. French
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to abolish stamp duty on home and share purchase.

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

    Debt Repayment
    Mr. William Powell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the saving in debt interest costs of the public sector debt repayment over the last three years.

    Mr. Ryder
    In the three years to 1989–90 the Government are expected to make a net public sector debt repayment of £30·4 billion, saving nearly £3 billion a year in debt interest costs.

    European Monetary System
    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average inflation rate of countries participating in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

    Mr. Ryder
    On a more comparable basis, the average inflation rate of members of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS was 4·4 per cent. in October 1989.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was invested in manufacturing industry in the 10 years to January 1979 and the 10 years since, net of capital consumption and expressed in terms of 1985 prices.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    In the decade to the end of 1978, gross domestic fixed capital formation by the manufacturing industries is estimated to have been £95 billion at 1985 prices. In the following decade it is estimated to have been £83 billion. These figures exclude capital goods leased from financial sector lessors. Including leased assets, gross domestic fixed capital formation was £94 billion in the decade to the end of 1988. Estimates including leased assets are not available for the preceding decade, when leasing was a less important feature of investment. Estimates of net domestic fixed capital formation must be interpreted with some caution, since they depend on estimates of capital consumption, which are not directly observable and so are based on a series of assumptions. On this basis, net domestic fixed capital formation by the manufacturing industries is estimated to have been £26 billion in the decade to the end of 1978 and for the following decade, including leased assets, £3 billion (minus £2 billion excluding leased assets).

    Mr. Denzil Davies
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the increase in private non-residential fixed investment in the period 1987 to 1989 was accounted for by investment in manufacturing industry.

    Mr. Major
    1988 is the last full year for which data are available. The data for 1987 and 1988 may be found in the "United Kingdom National Accounts" 1989 edition (CSO Blue Book).

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Tony Banks
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross domestic product manufacturing investment represented in(a) 1978 and (b)

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    Manufacturing investment, in current prices, as a proportion of gross domestic product at factor cost was 4·1 per cent. in 1978 and 3·2 per cent. in 1988.

    Uniform Business Rate
    Mr. Richard Shepherd
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a forecast of the impact on the rate of inflation of the uniform business rate and revaluation for each of the standard regions.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    I have nothing to add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 12 January 1990 at column 767.

    Population and the Economy
    Mr. Andrew Bowden
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned into the interactions between the structure of the population and the state of the economy.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    Research commissioned into the state of the economy attempts to allow for all relevant influences, including demographic factors where appropriate.

    Incomes
    Sir Ian Gilmour
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will recalculate the figures given in his reply to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 2 November 1989 Official Report column 282 to show percentage annual changes in average real net incomes of (a) pensioners, (b) married men with two children, and (c) single non-retired people, taking into account increases in local authority rates, local authority and other rents, and mortgage costs.

    Mr. Major
    [holding answer 17 January 1990]: The changes in average real net incomes given in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 2 November take account of price increases as measured by the retail prices index. This includes increases in housing costs.

    Exchange Rate
    Mr. Denzil Davies
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the £ sterling has moved against(a) the yen, (b) the US dollar and (c) the deutschmark over the last 10 years.

    Mr. Major
    I refer the right hon. Member to table 13.1 of the Central Statistical Office's "Financial Statistics".

    Money Supply
    Mr. Denzil Davies
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average annual percentage increase of broad money, M4, over the last 10 years.

    Mr. Major
    The average annual percentage increases in M4 over the last 10 years are given in the following table:

    M4: Average annual percentage growth rate1

    Per cent.

    1980

    15·5

    1981

    16·2

    1982

    12·6

    1983

    13·5

    1984

    17·8

    1985

    13·2

    1986

    15·1

    1987

    14·7

    1988

    17·0

    21989

    17·8

    1 Average of quarterly annual growth rates to end Q4 1983, and monthly annual growth rates to end November 1989.

    2 To end November 1989.

    Mr. Denzil Davies
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross domestic product was accounted for in(a) 1979 and (b) 1988 by manufacturers in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) the Federal Republic of Germany, (iii) France and (iv) Italy.
    348
    Mr. Major
    GDP/GNP by kind of activity is published for Germany, France and Italy by the OECD in "National Accounts" volume II, 1975–87. For the United Kingdom, data are published by the CSO in "United Kingdom National Accounts" 1989 edition.

    Mr. Denzil Davies
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of net domestic product was accounted for by wages and salaries in(a) 1979 and (b) the latest available year.

    Mr. Major
    In 1979 wages and salaries accounted for 67 per cent. of net domestic product at factor cost. During 1988, the latest period for which the percentage can be calculated, the proportion was 64·6 per cent.

    Mr. Denzil Davies
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, for the latest available year and expressed in deutschmarks, was the per capita gross domestic product of(a) the Federal Republic of Germany, (b) France, (c) Italy and (d) the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Major
    Following is the information requested.

    GDP/GNP per capita at purchasing power parities, 1988

    Deutschmarks

    United Kingdom

    23,656

    Germany

    24,919

    France

    24,080

    Italy

    22,831

    Source: OECD, IMF.

    Endangered Species
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply of 18 December,Official Report, column 28, if he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of the consequences of being required to move from London to Southend on the retention in the Customs and Excise of those officers in the animals and birds, tropical fish and reptiles importation unit, who have accumulated the greatest expertise in discerning what creatures coming into London airport are covered by CITES regulations.

    Mr. Ryder
    The relocation review team, set up by the Board of Customs and Excise to establish those areas of headquarters work which should be moved out of London, carefully considered all the implications of their proposals, including the possibility that some experienced officers might elect not to move with their existing work. Those who wish to do so will be able to remain in London within the Customs and Excise.

    The position of those HQ staff dealing with endangered species controls has been reviewed in the light of a number of representations. However, we remain satisfied that any necessary staffing changes as a result of relocation can be managed without impairing Customs' enforcement of the CITES controls.

    Government Expenditure
    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown of Government expenditure(a) within the standard regions of England and (b) in Scotland during the financial year 1988–89.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    Apart from expenditure which is the responsibility of territorial Departments, all
    349
    Government expenditure is both planned and controlled on a national basis. Information on expenditure broken down by standard regions within England is thus not available on a consistent basis. For figures giving Government expenditure by territory in 1988–89, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 19 December at column 179–90 to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs).

    Living Standards
    Mr. John Marshall
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much living standards rose during the 1980s.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    Living standards in the 1980s have risen to their highest-ever levels. For example, the real take-home pay of a married man—with two children—on average male earnings has gone up by over 26 per cent. since 1979–80.

    Weekly Earnings
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the increase in real weekly earnings of full-time adult male manual workers in manufacturing industry in the decade ending April 1989, and the best estimate he can make for non-manuals employed in the private sector; and if he will provide similar figures for females.

    Mr. Nicholls
    I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 13 December 1989 (Official Report, columns 658–59) for the figures for male and female manual employees in manufacturing. The figures for male and female non-manuals in the private sector are 43 per cent. and 48 per cent. respectively.

    Wage Increases
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the industry and occupational groups which have been awarded wage increases exceeding 10 per cent. in the year ended April 1989.

    Mr. Nicholls
    I have been asked to reply.

    Pay is a matter for employers and employees to determine. My Department does not hold comprehensive information about pay settlement levels.

    Business Rates
    Mr. Richard Shepherd
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the actual percentage increase in business rates payable will be for businesses with rateable values of(a) over £15,000 and (b) under £15,000 for 1990–91 over 1989–90.

    Mr. Chope
    I have been asked to reply.

    The information is not available in the form requested. However, for properties with new rateable values of £15,000 or more in Greater London and £10,000 or more elsewhere (the thresholds defining large properties under the business rate transitional scheme) the average percentage increase in rates bills in 1990–91 over 1989–90 is expected to be 8·8 per cent. The equivalent percentage for properties with rateable values below those thresholds is 4·4 per cent. Both these figures allow for the effect of inflation between the two years.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Eastern Europe
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial aid is being provided to(a) Poland, (b) Czechoslovakia, (c) Hungary, (d) Bulgaria, (e) Romania and (f) other central and east European countries.

    Mrs. Chalker
    We have established a £50 million know-how fund for Poland, and a £25 million fund for Hungary. We are also providing additional assistance for Poland: £15 million is being made available for a project in the agricultural sector, and a £64 million contribution has been made to the international stabilisation fund for Poland. We are also making a substantial contribution to the European Community and multilateral programmes for Poland and Hungary. Bilateral financial assistance is not available for other eastern European countries, but we hope they will qualify for such help in due course.

    Central America
    Mr. Macdonald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on overseas aid for central America.

    Mrs. Chalker
    We have technical co-operation programmes for all central American countries apart from Nicaragua. In addition we are providing financial aid to Belize and Honduras. The Commonwealth Development Corporation invests in Belize, Costa Rica and Honduras. Project support can be provided from the aid and trade provision in appropriate cases. Relief aid can and has been provided in response to natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes. We of course also contribute a share of the funds provided to the region through a variety of multilateral programmes including those of the United Nations agencies, the World Bank, the Inter American Development bank and the European Community.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Contempt of Court
    Mr. Bob Cryer
    To ask the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to provide compensation for persons sent to prison for contempt who successfully appeal against the decision; and if he will make a statement.

    The Attorney-General
    The Government have no plans to do so.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Attorney-General approximately how long applicants for legal aid have to wait for an appeal hearing and decisions against the original refusal of the application.

    The Attorney-General
    The average time between the receipt of a legal aid applicant's appeal against refusal and the appeal hearing in England and Wales is 28 working days. It takes, on average, a further three working days for the result of the appeal to be sent to the applicant.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Public Rights of Way
    Mr. Kilfedder
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will consider advising district councils to display clear signs at or close to public rights of way so as to ensure that the public are aware of their existence; and if he will arrange for the publication of a rights of way map for the whole of Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    The signposting of public paths is an important aspect of the creation of public access to the countryside. Under the Access to the Countryside (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 the responsibility for asserting and creating public footpaths lies with district councils.

    The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland encourages councils to undertake this work by offering advice and substantial grant aid not only towards the cost of creating public footpaths but also towards the cost of erecting signs and providing information to the public.

    The legislation requires councils to compile and preserve maps of public rights of way. The Department has no present plans to produce a map showing public rights of way for the whole of Northern Ireland.

    Replacement Dwellings
    Mr. Kilfedder
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make it his policy in relation to the granting of planning permission for a replacement dwelling to take action to ensure that the new dwelling is not placed closer to the sea shore or to a river or inland lough than the dwelling which it is intended to replace.

    Mr. Needham
    No. Each application for planning permission is determined on its merits and the Department of the Environment's policy is that the replacement should be located as close as possible to the site of the original building. Factors such as siting, location and design, particularly where the site is close to natural features, are taken fully into consideration.

    Green Currency
    Mr. McGrady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what action has been taken as a result of the meeting with a deputation from the Ulster Farmers Union to discuss the devaluation of the green pound in order to improve support levels and alleviate the disparity in green currency rates between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland;

    (2) what discussions have taken place about the devaluation of the green pound in order to improve support levels and alleviate the disparity in green currency rates between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    It is usual for discussions on green rate changes to be included in the European Communities' price fixing process. That process will start at the January meeting of European Community Agriculture Ministers.

    We maintain close links with the Ulster Farmers Union and have regular discussions on green currency rates and other issues of concern.

    European Single Market
    Mr. McGrady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance is being given to industries, firms and entrepreneurs in South Down to help them take advantage of the internal market in 1992.

    Mr. Needham
    The Government fully recognise that the advent of the single European market will present both opportunities and threats to businesses in Northern Ireland. The Department of Economic Development, together with the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit, have undertaken a campaign to raise awareness of 1992 throughout the business community in Northern Ireland. In addition, a range of specific initiatives has been developed and LEDU, in co-operation with the IDB and the industrial science division of the Department of Economic Development has recently launched a European information centre which will assist and advise businesses about a range of EC activities. Businesses and individuals in South Down have benefited to no lesser degree than elsewhere from this campaign.

    Departmental Relocation
    Mr. McGrady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to decentralise Government Departments to the constituency of South Down.

    Mr. Cope
    There are currently no such plans.

    Chlorofluorocarbons
    Mr. McGrady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken by the Department of Economic Development actively to encourage industries to reduce the use of CFC gases.

    Mr. Needham
    The industrial science division of the Department has been working with Northern Ireland companies wishing to replace CFC gases in their products and processes in evaluating suitable alternatives. In addition, any company seeking the advice of health and safety inspectors and fire officers concerning the use of CFCs or plant or equipment using CFCs, is encouraged to use a more environmentally acceptable alternative.

    Private Nursing Homes
    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce closer monitoring of the welfare of residents in private nursing and residential homes.

    Mr. Needham
    [holding answer 16 January 1990]: We plan to bring forward proposals for a registered homes order later this year to consolidate and update the existing Northern Ireland legislation on the registration and inspection of private and voluntary residential and nursing homes. A policy paper on care in the community to be issued shortly by the Department of Health and Social Services will also address improvements in monitoring the quality of community care services, including those provided by the private sector.

    Firearms (Certificates)
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) murders, (b) other deaths, (c) muggings, (d) woundings and (e) attacks on the security forces in which firearms were used have occurred in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years where the firearms (i) were being used by the person legally holding them, and (ii) were stolen from civilians.

    Mr. Cope
    [holding answer 9 January 1990]: Statistics are not collated in the form requested, and the information could he provided only at disproportionate cost.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Audit Policy
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how, and in consultation with what bodies, he formulates audit policy;

    (2) if he will list the governmental, non-governmental bodies, committees or institutes which make the audit policy in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Redwood
    The audit of company accounts is carried out under the Companies Act 1985 which is to be amended by the Companies Act 1989 to reflect both European Community obligations and certain domestic considerations. Significant changes to this legislative framework are usually the subject of wide consultation. In addition, audit standards and guidelines are promulgated by the members of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies on the basis of proposals developed by its auditing practices committee. The professional accountancy bodies also issue technical guidance to their members.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, at any time since June 1979, he has communicated concerns about the standards of auditing to any leader of the accountancy profession.

    Mr. Redwood
    As I explained in the reply I gave on 11 December at column 461 to a question by the hon. Member, my Department normally refers specific complaints about auditors' conduct of statutory audit to the relevant professional body. Last year my Department also took up with the accountancy bodies a number of general issues about the conduct of audit which had come to our notice.

    Inspectors' Reports
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the unpublished inspectors' reports which, since June 1979, his Department has given to outside private interest organisations.

    Mr. Redwood
    No. Unpublished reports have been disclosed where appropriate under the Companies Act 1948 (as amended), under part XIV of the Companies Act 1985 and under the Financial Services Act 1986.

    Accountancy
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions he takes to promote the accountancy profession.
    354
    Mr. Redwood
    My Department seeks to promote all United Kingdom business, including accountancy, by fostering a climate of enterprise and prosperity in which business and commerce can flourish.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers he has to regulate the accountancy profession.

    Mr. Redwood
    I have no powers to regulate the accountancy profession as such, although there are statutory provisions for the regulation of certain types of accountancy work, for example company audit, in-solvency and the provision of investment advice.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate whether major accountancy firms indulge in price fixing.

    Mr. Redwood
    No, I have no reason to make such a request. If the hon. Member has evidence to cause concern, he should provide it directly to the Director General of Fair Trading.

    Peat Marwick McLintock
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in light of the banning of a Peat Marwick McLintock partner from practising by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States of America, he has any plans to examine the firm's standards of work in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Redwood
    No.

    Batteries and Accumulators
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many alkaline manganese batteries containing more than 0·10 per cent. of mercury by weight were sold in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years.

    Mr. Forth
    Sales of alkaline manganese batteries in the United Kingdom during the last three years have averaged 200 million units per year (based on an estimate for 1989). The mercury content of such batteries is being reduced in accordance with a European battery industry reduction programme which began in 1986:

    1986 from 1 per cent. to 0·5 per cent.

    1988 from 0·5 per cent. to 0·3 per cent.

    1990 from 0·3 per cent. to 0·1 per cent.

    1992 from 0·1 per cent. to 0·025 per cent.

    During 1987 and 1988 all these batteries contained more than 0·1 per cent. of mercury by weight but during 1989 batteries containing less than 0·1 per cent. were introduced to the United Kingdom market and by the end of 1990 all alkaline manganese batteries supplied to the trade are expected to be below this level.

    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the percentage of batteries and accumulators sold within the United Kingdom that are marked to indicate whether the battery or accumulator must be disposed of separately, can be recycled, or may be disposed of with household refuse.

    Mr. Forth
    The information is not available. There is at present no requirement for batteries and accumulators to
    355
    be so marked, but a modified draft directive covering certain of these products and containing proposals for their labelling has recently been published by the European Commission. Negotiations have yet to begin on the final form of the directive.

    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has undertaken to promote the marketing of batteries and accumulators containing smaller quantities of dangerous substances or less polluting substances.

    Mr. Forth
    Encouraging the production of batteries and accumulators containing lower levels of substances such as lead, mercury and cadmium is one of the objectives of a modified draft directive recently published by the European Commission. Negotiations have yet to begin on the final form of the directive, but it would not be sensible for the Government to act independently and in advance of its completion. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom primary battery industry has made good progress in voluntarily reducing the levels of mercury in many of its products.

    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that consumers are fully informed about the dangers of uncontrolled disposal of spent batteries and accumulators;

    (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that consumers are fully informed about the dangers of uncontrolled disposal of spent batteries and accumulators.

    Mr. Forth
    Consumer information programmes are proposed in a modified draft directive on batteries and accumulators containing dangerous substances recently published by the European Commission. Negotiations have yet to begin on the final form of the directive, but it would not be sensible for the Government to act independently in advance of its completion.

    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to inform consumers of the method of removing batteries and accumulators which are built into appliances.

    Mr. Forth
    The removability of batteries from appliances is one of the issues covered in a modified draft directive on batteries and accumulators containing dangerous substances recently published by the European Commission. Negotiations have yet to begin on the final 356
    form of the directive, but it would not be sensible for the Government to act independently in advance of its completion.

    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to set up a deposit system for batteries and accumulators.

    Mr. Forth
    None. Deposit systems are mooted as a possible means of encouraging the return, for recycling or controlled disposal, of spent batteries and accumulators containing dangerous substances in a modified draft directive recently published by the European Commission. Negotiations have yet to begin on the final form of the directive.

    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department has taken to reduce the heavy metal content in batteries and accumulators.

    Mr. Forth
    Reductions in heavy metal content are among the objectives of a modified draft directive on batteries and accumulators containing dangerous substances recently published by the European Commission. Negotiations have yet to begin on the final form of the directive, the environmental aims of which the Government welcome.

    South African Offshore Industry
    Mr. Caborn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the British Government have ever given grants or loans to enable South Africa to study the potential growth of the South African offshore industry.

    Mr. Redwood
    No.

    Export Credits Guarantee Department
    Mr. Caborn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the overall extent of Export Credits Guarantee Department insured credit in pounds sterling supporting United Kingdom exports for the Mossel Bay oil from gas project in South Africa and for how long does Exports Credits Guarantee Department cover last.

    Mr. Redwood
    It has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose information about ECGD support for individual cases unless the buyer and exporter wish it to be public.

    British Shipbuilders
    Mr. Trotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on British Shipbuilders' external financing limit for 1989–90.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    British Shipbuilders' external finance limit for 1989–90 was provisionally set at £3 million as recorded in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–90 to 1991–92" published in January 1989. I have now set a revised external finance limit for 1989–90 of £35 million to meet the costs associated with the disposal and closure of British Shipbuilders' subsidiaries over this year. This increase is being charged to the Reserve and is within the estimate for the planning total in the Autumn Statement.

    Post Office
    Mr. David Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry what financial and efficiency targets he has set for the Post Office in 1990.

    Mr. Forth
    The Secretary of State, in agreement with the Treasury, has set the Post Office a target to achieve an annual average 6·4 per cent. return on mean capital employed over the three years 1989–90 to 1991–92. The profit used when calculating the return will be struck after interest (excluding interest on past surpluses) but before tax. The Post Office, in agreement with the Secretary of State, has set corresponding targets of 6·4 per cent. for the letters business, 5·8 per cent. for the parcels business and 7 per cent. for the counters business.

    At the Post Office's request, the form of the target has been changed from a return on turnover to a return on capital employed, in line with usual practice in the private sector.

    The targets are calculated from the following expected returns in each of the three years:

    1989–90 per cent.

    1990–91 per cent.

    1991–92 per cent.

    Post Office

    2·4

    6·3

    10·6

    Letters

    1·0

    6·3

    11·8

    Parcels

    2·5

    5·0

    10·0

    Counters

    6·0

    7·0

    8·0

    The returns in the last year of the period are approximately equivalent to the real rate of return of 8 per cent. of capital employed which the Government announced in March 1989 that public sector industries should aim to achieve on their investment. The Government accept that the Post Office should work up to profitability consistent with the new rate of return over the target period.

    The Secretary of State has agreed that the Post Office does not need to set an efficiency target for parcels, which operates in a competitive market, although he will monitor published tariffs for parcels sent between private people, a market in which parcels is dominant. The Post Office, in agreement with the Secretary of State, has sent the following real unit cost (RUC) targets for the letters and counters businesses.
    358

    Cumulative reduction by 1991–2 over 1988–9

    Letters—1 per cent.

    Counters—2 per cent.

    The financial and efficiency targets for the counters business are set for the business as a whole in accordance with the principles of the 1978 White Paper on the nationalised industries (Cmnd. 7131). They are not intended to set a level for prices charged by counters to its individual clients, which are subject to agreements achieved through bilateral commercial negotiations by the parties concerned in the light of the particular circumstances.

    Vietnam
    Mr. Mullin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the number of contracts between British and Vietnamese companies for which export credits guarantee cover has(a) been applied and (b) granted during each of the last three years.

    Mr. Redwood
    [holding answer 15 January 1990]: Since 1982 Export Credits Guarantee Department cover For business with Vietnam has been available only For contracts where payment is to be made on terms of cash against documents out of an irrevocable letter of credit confirmed before shipment by a bank in the United Kingdom. On this basis exports insured in 1987 totalled £30,000 and in 1988, £20,000. No business was covered in 1989.

    During the past three years only one inquiry for cover on a potential contract on extended credit terms has resulted in a formal application being submitted to ECGD. The United Kingdom company concerned has been advised that ECGD is not prepared to offer cover.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Pollution (Rivers Don and Rother)
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what fines were levied on companies and individuals responsible for polluting(a) the river Don and (b) the river Rother, over the last 10 years.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    Detailed information on prosecutions and fines for water pollution offences is not held centrally. However, I understand from the National Rivers Authority (NRA) that prosecutions it has brought since its formation on 1 September 1989 in respect of polluting discharges to the Don and Rother systems have resulted in the following fine:

    Name of offender:

    Yorkshire Water plc

    Watercourse:

    Ewden Brook

    Fine Imposed:

    £1,000

    Prior to 1 September last year, the regional water authorities were primarily responsible for enforcement of water pollution controls. From the records kept by the Yorkshire Water Authority (YWA) the NRA has been able to provide the following details of prosecutions brought by the YWA in respect of pollution of the Don and Rother systems:

    359

    (a) Prosecutions for Pollution of the Don and its Tributaries (brought by the former Yorkshire Water Authority)

    Name of offender

    Date of offence

    Watercourse

    Fine(s) imposed (£s)

    National Coal Board

    8 June 1979

    Went Beck

    100

    Doncaster Coalite

    10 June 1979

    Thistle Goit Dyke

    300

    HSB Fuel Recovery Services

    24 March 1980

    Owston Common Drain

    500

    Prosper DeMulder

    4 August 1980

    River Don

    550

    National Coal Board

    25 February 1981

    River Don

    200

    A. Ogden and Sons

    5 October 1981

    River Dearne

    200

    McErlaine Plant

    20 October 1980

    River Dearne

    250

    National Coal Board

    22 February 1982

    Knoll Beck

    200

    British Tissues

    14 May 1982

    River Don

    1,500

    Hatfield Aggregates

    25 June 1984

    Tributary of River Dearne

    500

    Eaton and Booth

    16 May 1984

    River Loxley

    50

    Coatlite Fuels and Chemicals

    19 August 1984

    Grimethorpe Dike

    1,200

    D. C. Cook

    20 July 1984

    Knoll Beck

    400

    Rigby Metals

    24 July 1985

    River Dearne

    500

    D. C. Cook

    9 October 1985

    Tributary of River Dearne

    250

    23 October 1985

    Tributary of River Dearne

    750

    Firma Chrome

    11 February 1986

    River Sheaf

    500

    National Coal Board

    8 July 1987

    Howell Beck

    250

    S. H. Brook

    4 February 1987

    Tributary of River Dearne

    200

    9 December 1986

    Tributary of River Dearne

    200

    16 November 1986

    Tributary of River Dearne

    200

    R. E. Dyson

    3 June 1988

    Load Brook

    250

    4 June 1988

    Load Brook

    150

    Dale Farm Dairy Products

    16 August 1988

    Roundwood Brook

    500

    17 August 1988

    Roundwood Brook

    500

    G. R. Stein Refractories

    10 May 1989

    River Loxley

    500

    British Coal

    26 May 1989

    River Dearne

    1,000

    South Yorkshire County Council

    13 March 1979

    Firsby Brook

    200

    National Coal Board

    28 February 1980

    Blackingmill Dike

    200

    British Coal

    1 June 1989

    Woodlands Lake

    600

    Dale Farm Dairy Products

    26 August 1988

    Roundwood Brook

    500

    9 September 1988

    Roundwood Brook

    500

    7 September 1988

    Roundwood Brook

    500

    5 September 1988

    Roundwood Brook

    500

    (b) Prosecutions for Pollution of the Rother and its Tributaries (brought by the former Yorkshire Water Authority):

    Name of offender

    Date of offence

    Watercourse

    Fine(s) imposed (£s)

    British Steel Orgreave

    15 April 1981

    River Rother

    200

    8 May 1981

    River Rother

    200

    8 June 1981

    River Rother

    200

    Glass Bulbs Ltd.

    4 November 1981

    River Rother

    150

    J. M. Whitaker/W. Rogers

    7 June 1982

    River Drone

    300

    14 July 1982

    River Drone

    300

    Northern Mining Strip

    28 March 1983

    River Rother

    125

    Bradway Farms

    20 September 1984

    River Drone

    750

    1 November 1985

    River Drone

    1,000

    15 November 1985

    River Drone

    1,000

    25 June 1987

    River Drone

    1,500

    Transorganics Ltd.

    28 February 1985

    Hooton Brook

    1800

    Raymin Northern Ltd.

    31 July 1986

    River Drone

    200

    Chesterfield Cylinders

    16 August 1988

    River Rother

    1,000

    23 August 1988

    River Rother

    1,000

    British Steel Orgreave

    5 July 1988

    Handsworth Brook

    1,000

    Coalite Fuels and Chemicals

    3 April 1989

    River Doe Lea

    1,500

    1 2 offences

    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the companies currently given deemed consent to pollute(a) the river Don and (b) the river Rother, stating what pollutants they are empowered to discharge; and on what scale.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    I understand from the National Rivers Authority that the following two companies have deemed consents originally issued under the terms of part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, to discharge minewater:

    (a) into the river Don and its tributaries—British Coal Corporation.

    360

    (b) into the river Rother and its tributaries—British Coal Corporation; Moorside Mining Company Limited.

    Deemed consents were issued under transitional provisions for bringing many discharges which had not required consent under earlier legislation into the regulatory control system for the first time. As they are progressively reviewed by the National Rivers Authority, deemed consents are being revoked and where appropriate, replaced by a full, conditional consent granted under the Water Act 1989.
    361
    The particulars of these consents are held on the register maintained by the Yorkshire region of the National Rivers Authority which is available for inspection by the public during normal office hours.

    Nuclear Waste Disposal
    Ms. Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications of the findings of the European Commission's PAGIS study into the suitability of British geology for high-level radioactive waste disposal for the search by Nirex to establish a deep disposal facility for intermediate-level and low-level radioactive wastes.

    Mr. Trippier
    Nirex is not responsible for heat generating or high-level radioactive waste. However, it takes note of the results of studies such as PAGIS. The PAGIS report pointed out the long-term containment benefits that would stem from excavating a repository in hard rock with sedimentary cover as advocated by Nirex.

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects Nirex to report on the results of its site investigation work at Dounreay and Sellafield.

    Mr. Trippier
    At present Nirex is awaiting the result of planning applications for the drilling of boreholes at both Dounreay and Sellafield. If permission is granted, Nirex will need to carry out a drilling programme of 18 months, alongside other detailed site investigation work, before any report is expected.

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish an outline timetable relating to the commissioning of a repository for radioactive waste.

    Mr. Trippier
    I understand that Nirex has a target date of 2005 for the commissioning of a deep repository. This assumes some eight years to excavate and contruct the repository. Therefore between 1990 and 1997 Nirex will have to undertake the necessary site investigations and obtain planning permission to construct a repository. There will be a public inquiry.

    Council Homes, Corby
    Mr. William Powell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many council house properties were sold by(a) Corby district council and (b) the New Towns Commission in the Corby district since April 1979;

    (2) which local authorities have sold 30 per cent. or more of their council house stock since April 1979.

    Mr. Chope
    Between April 1979 and June 1989 Corby district council has reported the sale of 5,338 dwellings and the New Towns Commission sales of 12 dwellings in Corby. Corby district council has not yet submitted the return for September 1989.

    In England 61 authorities have reported sales of 30 per cent. or more of their council house stock between April 1979 and September 1989. These authorities are listed below. In addition three authorities have recently transferred their complete stock to housing associations: Chiltern (in December 1988), Sevenoaks (March 1989) and Newbury (December 1989).

    I have today laid a table in the Library giving available information on local authority sales up to September 1989.
    362
    It shows year-by-year information for each authority since 1984–85 together with cumulative figures since April 1979 and the proportion of their stock sold since April 1979.

    Authorities reporting sales of 30 per cent. or more of their stock between April 1979 and September 1989

    Arun

    Aylesbury Vale

    Bournemouth

    Bracknell Forest

    Breckland

    Bromley

    Bromsgrove

    Broxbourne

    Broxtowe

    Castle Point

    Cherwell

    City of London

    Corby

    Crawley

    Dacorum

    Daventry

    Dover

    East Hampshire

    East Hertfordshire

    Eastleigh

    Eden

    Epping Forest

    Fareham

    Fenland

    Forest Heath

    Fylde

    Gelding

    Havant

    Havering

    Huntingdonshire

    Kingswood

    Knowsley

    Melton

    Mendip

    Poole

    Ribble Valley

    Rochester upon Medway

    Rochford

    Rushcliffe

    Sedgemoor

    South Herefordshire

    South Lakeland

    South Northamptonshire

    Spelthorne

    Surrey Heath

    Tandridge

    Teignbridge

    Test Valley

    Torbay

    Torridge

    Wandsworth

    Wansdyke

    Wealden

    Welwyn Hatfield

    West Devon

    West Oxfordshire

    Weymouth and Portland

    Woking

    Woodspring

    Wychavon

    Wycombe

    Housing for Teachers
    Mr. Allen McKay
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to increase the supply of affordable housing for teachers.

    Mr. Chope
    Government policy aims to ensure that decent housing is within the reach of those in greatest need
    363
    irrespective of their background or employment. It is open to local authorities to provide help for key workers who have difficulty in finding such accommodation.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Rooker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the estimates of the distributional impact of the community charge on household finance using the figures he published on 6 November 1989.

    Mr. Chope
    I will publish estimates based on the assumed community charges announced on 11 January shortly.

    Mr. Cleland
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his best estimate of the number of local authorities which he estimates will set poll tax at a level of £278; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Chope
    [holding answer 15 January 1990]: If authorities spend in line with our assumptions, the community charge will be at or below £278 in 238 out of 366 areas in England.

    Mr. Shersby
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of grant loss results from the revised standard spending assessment for the London borough of Hillingdon; and on what basis the figures have changed since the assessment made by his Department in November 1989.

    Mr. Chope
    [holding answer 17 January 1990]: The standard spending assessment (SSA) for Hillingdon published on 11 January is lower overall than that published on 6 November 1989 primarily because of reductions in its highway maintenance and capital financing SSA elements.

    The reduction in the estimated revenue support grant entitlement for Hillingdon for 1990–91 (before safety net adjustments) flowing from the reports laid on 11 January as compared with our 6 November proposals is £2·638 million. This is attributable to changes in our figures for adult population as well as to changes in SSA.

    Mr. Shersby
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the level of the community charge for the London borough of Hillingdon based on the figures published by him on 11 January with the benefit of the safety net; by how much this figure exceeds the Government's estimate of £278 for a standard level of service; what is his estimate of overspending by Hillingdon per adult; what he expects the final level of community charge will be; and if he will make a statement on the basis on which the above figures were calculated.

    Mr. Chope
    [holding answer 17 January 1990]: The figures placed in the Library on 11 January show an assumed 1990–91 community charge of £359 in Hillingdon. Hillingdon's assumed spending is £121 per community charge payer higher than its standard spending assessment.

    The final level of community charges will depend on budget decisions made by local authorities. The spending assumptions underlying the 11 January figures are set out in the transition report (England) laid on that date.
    364
    Mr. Marlow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the main factors which determine the levels of community charge to be raised by different authorities spending at their SSA level.

    Mr. Chope
    [holding answer 17 January 1990]: Revenue support grant is distributed so that if each notifiable authority were to spend at the level of its standard spending assessment then, subject to qualifications set out in the distribution report (England), all charging authorities could set the same personal community charge—the community charge for standard spending.

    The community charge for standard spending in 1990–91 will be £277·94.

    Waste Paper (Recycling)
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements currently exist for the recycling of waste paper disposed of by Government and parliamentary offices.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    Each Government Department makes its own arrangements for the disposal of waste in the light of local circumstances and security and other considerations. The Government are currently reviewing the arrangements made for the disposal of waste by Departments with a view to maximising the proportion of waste which is recycled. In the case of Department of the Environment headquarters buildings in Westminster and Lambeth, waste paper and cardboard are collected for recycling by contractors.

    English House Condition Survey
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish by(a) tenure, (b) income and (c) age of head of household, the following information gathered for the English house condition survey: the number of homes with rising damp, penetrating damp, slight mould growth, serious mould growth; excessive draughts, the number of houses with seriously defective, defective, just acceptable, satisfactory and unknown dampness and provide written material used in instructing surveyors on how to interpret these categories and on how to decide whether a dwelling was unfit for human habitation under the Housing Act 1955 for reason of dampness or other reason and to tabulate slight and serious mould growth by main types of exterior wall;

    (2) if he will publish by (a) tenure, (b) income, (c) age of head of household, (d) employment status, (e) age of dwelling, (f) type of heating system and (g) main fuel type, where applicable, the following information gathered in the interview survey for the English house condition survey (i) questions 19a, 19c, 19d, 19f, (ii) questions 21 to 23c, (iii) questions 24 to 26b, (iv) questions 28 to 42, (v) question 44 and (vi) question 48.

    Mr. Chope
    Information on these topics will be included in a supplementary report on the English house condition survey which will be published later this year.

    Rented Accommodation
    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he intends to take to establish a free market in rented accommodation.
    365
    Mr. Chope
    Part I of the Housing Act 1988 deregulated new lettings by private landlords as from 15 January 1989. We shall be evaluating its impact in due course, but initial indications are encouraging—in particular the estimated 7,000 extra homes for rent being provided under the business expansion scheme. At this stage we see no case for further measures.

    Housing Act Ballot
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the ballot held under part IV of the Housing Act 1988 by the Milton Keynes development corporation; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Chope
    I understand from the Milton Keynes development corporation that no ballot has taken place under part IV of the Housing Act 1988.

    Nature Conservancy Council
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many scientists are employed by the Nature Conservancy Council in England, Scotland and Wales and by individual location.

    Mr. Trippier
    I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that the following number of scientific staff were employed on 16 January in scientific posts at the following locations:

    Permanent

    Limited period appointments

    Totals

    England

    Peterborough

    67

    66

    133

    Wye

    12

    11

    23

    Newbury

    11

    4

    15

    Taunton

    13

    9

    22

    Norwich

    12

    8

    20

    Shrewsbury

    16

    5

    21

    Newcastle

    12

    7

    19

    Bowness-on-Windermere

    12

    9

    21

    TOTAL

    274

    Scotland

    Edinburgh

    23·5

    26

    49·5

    Balloch

    12

    5

    17

    Aberdeen

    10

    11

    21

    Inverness

    l4

    12

    26

    TOTAL

    113·5

    Wales

    Bangor

    13

    10

    23

    Aberystwyth

    8

    9

    17

    Cardiff

    6

    5

    11

    TOTAL

    51

    OVERALL TOTALS

    241·5

    197

    438·5

    These figures include officers based at sub-regional offices. Staff with scientific backgrounds also occupy some administrative and other non-scientific posts.

    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of research projects and related expenditure undertaken by the Nature 366
    Conservancy Council into the effects on the marine ecology of British waters of commercial fish farming, broken down into England, Scotland and Wales.

    Mr. Trippier
    The Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) has commissioned the following research projects related to the effects on marine ecology of commercial fish farming. All were carried out in Scottish waters.

    Financial year and title of project

    NCC expenditure1 £

    1982–83

    Impact of marine fish farming in Scotland

    4,981

    1983–84

    Survey of Mariculture sites in the Western Isles

    8,710

    1987–88

    The reduction of the impact of fish farming on the nature marine environment

    8,955

    1987–88

    Impact of fish farmed salmon on native stocks

    3,900

    In addition, the NCC contributed to the following projects, funded by other bodies in Scotland:

    Financial year/title and other contributors

    NCC expenditure1 £

    1985–89

    Highlands and Islands Development Board Study on 'Impact of Fish Farming'

    15,000

    1986–88

    Shetland Islands Council and Shetland Salmon Producers' Association 'Shetland Fish-Farming impact survey'

    29,630

    1 These figures exclude project management costs (permanent staff salaries and related expenses).

    Homelessness
    Mr. Leighton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the new money for homelessness will go to the London borough of Newham.

    Mr. Chope
    The Government have invited bids from local authorities in London and the south-east, including the borough of Newham, and after assessment appropriate supplementary credit approvals will be given.

    Right to Buy
    Mr. Dunn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses have been sold by each local authority in Kent under right-to-buy legislation for each year since 1979; and what proportion of total local authority stock in percentage terms these represent.

    Mr. Chope
    A table giving the latest reported information for each local authority based on returns to September 1989 was placed in the Library on 18 January 1990. This gives sales for each year from 1985–86 to 1988–89 and for the first six months of 1989–90. A table giving figures for 1979–80 to 1984–85 was placed in the Library on 15 May 1987.

    CFCs
    Mr. Dunn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities operate schemes and facilities to recover chlorofluorocarbon gas from abandoned or dumped refrigerators; what steps he intends to take to encourage the provision of facilities to recover chlorofluorocarbon gas; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Trippier
    A number of local authorities have pilot schemes for the removal and recycling of the chlorofluorocarbons from the coolant systems of refrigeration equipment that has been delivered to them for disposal. My Department will shortly be conducting a survey of the recycling activities of local authorities and this should establish the full extent of such work. An intensive study of the problems associated with the use and disposal of CFCs has been commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry from Coopers and Lybrand; decisions on the need for further Government action will be taken in the light of this study.

    Water
    Mr. Bermingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures are being taken to ensure improvement in standards of equipment for monitoring water quality; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    I understand that the National Rivers Authority and certain water undertakers have committed significant funds to support research and development of equipment for monitoring water quality. The work, which is co-ordinated by the Water Research Centre, involves the specification of performance standards for monitoring equipment as well as the development of new monitoring systems.

    Nuclear Discharges
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on discharges into the sea and into the air as a result of nuclear power generation.

    Mr. Trippier
    Radioactive waste may be discharged from nuclear power stations only if an authorisation has been issued under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 jointly by Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Authorisations impose strict conditions and activity limits and are issued only after careful assessment is made of the environmental impact of proposed disposals to ensure that doses to the public are below the maximum permissible limits as recommended by the International Committee on Radiological Protection. Operators are required to use best practicable means to limit discharges of radioactivity. They are also required to monitor discharges, details of which are published annually both by the generating industry and this Department. The premises concerned are subject to scrutiny by inspectors to ensure compliance with the terms of the authorisation.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Dobson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take action to extend to council tenants the grants payable for energy efficiency under the Local Government and Housing Act.
    368
    Mr. Michael Spicer
    There are no plans to extend the private sector home renovation grant provisions in the 1989 Act to council tenants. Local authorities are able to fund energy efficiency measures for their own stock from within their housing investment programme allocations. In addition, the Secretary of State for Energy has introduced provisions in the Social Security Bill for a grant scheme to assist low income households in the council and private sectors with basic insulation measures through community insulation services.

    QEII Conference Centre Agency
    Mr. Tim Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific financial, efficiency and quality of service targets he has approved for the QEII Conference Centre Agency for the current year and for the longer term.

    Mr. Chris Patten
    [holding answer 15 January 1990]: Financial targets presently approved for the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre are to achieve an operating surplus of £53,000 in 1989–90, £200,000 in 1990–91 and £320,000 in 1991–92 before interest, depreciation and rate charges are levied. Targets covering the period up to 1994–95 will be set when the five-year corporate plan is approved later this year.

    The centre's efficiency will be measured broadly by the extent of increases in its occupancy level. This currently stands at 56 per cent. and specific targets will be set within the corporate plan.

    No specific quality of service target has yet been set but one of the centre's fundamental objectives is continually to improve the standards of service offered to clients. These are monitored through analysis of both client/delegate questionnaires and the volume of bookings, particularly those representing repeat business.

    National Housing Forum
    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he plans to discuss with the National Housing Forum its statement about the need to build 3 million homes by the end of the century.

    Mr. Chope
    [holding answer 15 January 1990]: My right hon. Friend has not received any request to meet the National Housing Forum.

    Landfill Gas
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to promote energy from landfill gas; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    [holding answer 15 January 1990]: Government policy is that all renewable energy sources should be exploited where economically and environmentally acceptable. The Government through the Department of Energy are funding a major programme of research into landfill gas with a contract value over £1 million. This includes work to optimise the extraction of gas from landfill sites and increase the understanding of the biological processes which generate gas. There are 30 such schemes currently operating in the United Kingdom and over 30 at the construction or planning stage.

    Water
    Mr. Bermingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current strength of the new drinking water inspectorate; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    The chief inspector of the drinking water inspectorate has been appointed and seven other professional and administrative staff are already in post. A number of professional posts are being advertised.

  WALES

    Economic Activity (North Wales)
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what studies he has made of changes in the levels of economic activity in north Wales over the period 1979–89.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    Since 1979 Ministers at the Welsh Office have taken, and will continue to take, a close personal interest in the economic development of all areas of north Wales, working with the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Wales Tourist Board. The most recent exercise aimed at sustaining the improvement in the economy of north Wales resulted in the publication on 6 December 1989 of the document "A55—The Road to Opportunity".

    Health Provision (South Glamorgan)
    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next proposes to meet the South Glamorgan county council to discuss health provision.

    Mr. Grist
    We have no plans at present to meet the South Glamorgan county council to discuss health provision.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in(a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    On 14 December 1989, the numbers of unemployment claimants in the Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 4,604, 13,475, 87,161 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.

    The hon. Gentleman may like to note, however, that since he first asked me this question on 6 July 1987 the unadjusted unemployment figures for the Newport district, Gwent and Wales have fallen by 47 per cent., 47 per cent. and 43 per cent. respectively.

    Drinking Water
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage by volume of drinking water in Wales that is treated by adding(a) chlorine and (b) ozone.

    Mr. Grist
    I am informed by Dwr Cymru that the information is as follows:(a) over 99 per cent.; (b) none.

    Education Authorities
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all local education authorities in Wales in rank order of expenditure per secondary pupil per year, starting with the highest spending authority, together with their position in the table of examination results for school leavers achieving grades A to C at GCSE in 1988 and 1989.

    Mr. Wyn Roberts
    The information in respect of 1987–88 is shown in the following table:

    Expenditure per secondary school pupil (£) (1987–88 financial year)

    Examination result position (1987–88 academic year)1

    West Glamorgan

    1,713

    6

    Gwent

    1,535

    7

    Powys

    1,534

    1

    Dyfed

    1,470

    5

    Gwynedd

    1,469

    2

    Clwyd

    1,431

    3

    Mid Glamorgan

    1,426

    8

    South Glamorgan

    1,402

    4

    Examination information for 1988–89 is not yet available.

    1 Ranked in order of the percentage of the 1988 school leavers achieving one or more grades A-C at GCSE, A-C at 'O' level or CSE grade 1.

    Examinations
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of children sitting(a) GCSE and (b) A-level examinations in each local education authority in Wales as a percentage of the total number in the relevant year groups for 1988; and if he will list by each local education authority in Wales the total number of children achieving (i) GCSE grades A to C, (ii) GCSE grades C to F and (iii) A-level grades A to E as a percentage of the total number of pupils in the relevant year in 1988 and 1989.

    Mr. Wyn Roberts
    I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

    Household Refuse Tips
    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what guidelines he has issued to Welsh district councils on the treatment of methane seepage from household refuse tips;

    (2) what guidelines he has issued to Welsh district councils on the minimum distance required between new housebuilding areas and existing methane-generating household refuse tips (a) with and (b) without methane collection;

    (3) what guidelines he has issued to Welsh district councils on the minimum time lapse required before building can be allowed in safety on household refuse tips;

    (4) what guidelines he has issued to Welsh local authorities on the extraction of methane from household refuse tips.

    Mr. Grist
    Technical guidelines on the monitoring and control of landfill gas are provided in waste management paper No. 27, "The Control of Landfill Gas", which was published by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in 1989, and Welsh Office circular 38/39 which gives advice to local planning authorities about the use of their planning
    371
    powers in relation to landfill sites which may be generating harmful gases. While not specifying a particular time-lapse before development may commence in safety, circular 38/89 advises local planning authorities to exercise due caution in granting permission for development or redevelopment on or near landfill sites. It advises that planning permission should not be granted unless reliable arrangements can be made to overcome the danger of migrating gas.

    The circular also refers to the provisions of article 18 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 which requires a local planning authority to consult the waste disposal authority before granting planning permission for development within 250 m of land which is (or has been at any time in the 30 years before the relevant application) used for the deposit of waste, and which has been notified to the planning authority by the waste disposal authority. Copies of the circular 38/39 and waste management paper No. 27 have been placed in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what guidelines he has issued to Welsh district councils on the environmental and public safety parameters for the removal of the contents of 10 to 20-year-old household refuse tips;

    (2) whether he will ask Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to review the guidelines for the safe excavation and transportation of decayed household refuse tip material of five to 20 years' vintage.

    Mr. Grist
    No guidelines have been issued by my right hon. Friend. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is available to provide waste disposal authorities with advice.

    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last reviewed the guidelines on the good management of large household refuse landfill tips.

    Mr. Grist
    Guidance on landfill practice was given in waste management paper No. 26, published in 1986. Guidance on licensing waste disposal facilities, first published in waste management paper No. 4 in 1976, was revised in a new edition of this paper published in 1988. Copies are in the Library of the House.

    Traffic (Pembroke)
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning traffic on St. Daniel's Hill, Pembroke; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Wyn Roberts
    None. This is a matter for Dyfed county council as the local highway authority.

    A44 (Cardiganshire)
    Mr. Geraint Howells
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the major improvement scheme on the Cardiganshire section of the A44 trunk road from Aberystwyth to Eisteddfa Curig is due to begin.

    Mr. Wyn Roberts
    A scheme costing nearly £1 million is programmed to start at Capel Bangor in the summer.

    Classrooms
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state in total, and by education authority for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools (i) the number of demountable classrooms in use and (ii) their average age; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Wyn Roberts
    Information on the number and age of demountable classrooms in use in primary and secondary schools in Wales is not held centrally.

    Business Rates
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 725, what is the total amount payable under the new uniform business rate in each case.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    The amount payable for each hereditament depends upon both the non-domestic rating multiplier and its rateable value, subject in each case to the operation of the transitional arrangements for non-domestic ratepayers. Rateable values for individual hereditaments are contained in local non-domestic rating lists—they are not held centrally. The calculation of 1990–91 rates bills, having regard to rateable values, the multiplier, the transitional arrangements, and 1989–90 rates bills, is a matter for the relevant charging authority.

    PCBs
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the safety of the open hearth incinerator at the Rechem plant at Pontypool as a method of toxic waste disposal; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Grist
    [holding answer Monday 15 January]: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has monitored the operation of the Rechem plant since it began operating. Independent assessments of the efficiency of destruction of one of the most stable groups of organic chemicals handled at the site, the PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), indicate that a minimum efficiency of 99·9999 per cent. was, and continues to be, achieved. No other toxic waste disposal site is known which exceeds this performance.

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details in parts per billion of the polychlorinated biphenyl levels in foliage readings taken close to the Rechem incinerator at Pontypool from 1979 to the latest available date.

    Mr. Grist
    [holding answer 15 January 1990]: PCBs were detected in samples taken from the New Inn area as follows, values in parts per billion:

    1986—Her Majesty's industrial air pollution inspectorate Five samples—11·1, 14·8, 19·0, 9·4 and 13·0.

    1989—Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution Two samples—221 and 68.

    1989—Welsh Office One sample—15

    For the results of sampling commissioned by other agencies, in particular Torfaen borough council and Rechem plc, the hon. Gentleman should approach the organisations concerned.

  ENERGY

    Wind Energy
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what studies his Department has commissioned to identify suitable sites within the United Kingdom for harnessing wind energy; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Morrison
    My Department has commissioned two studies to estimate the potential number of sites. One study covers the whole of the United Kingdom and the other is making a detailed examination of the north of Scotland where the wind conditions are particularly attractive.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the next review of priorities renewable energy research and development will take place.

    Mr. Peter Morrison
    Energy Paper No. 55, "Renewable Energy in the UK: The Way Forward", published in June 1988, laid out proposals for the development of renewable energy technologies. These are reviewed annually.

    Landfill Sites
    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the contribution that may be made by electricity generated from methane from household refuse landfill sites to the non-fossil fuel obligation.

    Mr. Baldry
    How they meet their respective obligations under the non-fossil fuel obligation will be a matter for the public electricity suppliers, subject to their duty under the Electricity Act 1989 to satisfy the Secretary of State or the Director General of Electricity Supply that they have made appropriate arrangements.

    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last reviewed the use of methane from household refuse tips as a source of energy.

    Mr. Peter Morrison
    My Department is supporting a wide range of R and D with a contract value of over £1 million for work on methane from landfill sites. This includes work to optimise the extraction of gas from landfill sites and increase our understanding of the processes that lead to methane generation. We last reviewed our estimates of the contribution that such methane could make to United Kingdom energy supplies in October 1989. The figures, which are necessarily subject to considerable uncertainty, are given in the United Kingdom study for the intergovernmental panel on

    Number of projects at end of September each year

    Number of draughtproofing jobs completed in January to September period each year

    Number of loft insulation jobs completed in January to September period each year

    Number of participant workers/trainees at end of September each year

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1987

    1988

    1989

    East Midlands

    35

    35

    28

    7,054

    1—

    7,884

    351

    1—

    50

    505

    520

    271

    London

    34

    33

    12

    5,562

    1—

    941

    501

    1—

    39

    617

    610

    31

    North East

    25

    26

    18

    11,365

    1—

    7,789

    509

    1—

    202

    493

    508

    253

    North West

    48

    55

    45

    12,082

    1—

    16,770

    467

    1—

    148

    1,051

    1,240

    672

    Scotland

    61

    73

    71

    22,125

    1—

    26,785

    3,061

    1—

    1,374

    978

    1,122

    755

    South East

    47

    48

    23

    4,934

    1—

    3,910

    954

    1—

    192

    566

    523

    121

    South West

    34

    29

    16

    7,640

    1—

    3,303

    1,274

    1—

    372

    534

    461

    190

    374
    climate change. This report, "An Evaluation of Energy Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Measures to Ameliorate Them", was lodged in the Library of the House last November and will be published shortly as an energy paper.

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Dobson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 19 December,Official Report, column 117, to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) if he will give the number of projects of the building research energy conservation unit which are (a) completed and (b) under way for the domestic sector alone.

    Mr. Wakeham
    The numbers of projects under the energy efficiency demonstration and R and D schemes in the domestic sector which were managed by the building research establishment unit since 1979 are as follows:

    (a) Projects completed—37

    (b) Projects under way—27

    Mr. Dobson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 310, if he will give details of the initiative taken with the building societies in pursuit of a voluntary approach to energy audits.

    Mr. Wakeham
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced an initiative on 9 June 1988 between the Energy Efficiency Office (EEO) and the Building Societies Association to help building societies promote energy efficiency to their customers. A letter giving details was sent at that time to all hon. Members.

    The initiative involved the publication of a leaflet by the EEO and the Building Societies Association for building societies to make available to their borrowers. The leaflet gives basic information on energy efficiency measures and finance, and invites recipients to send for "Your Home Energy Survey", a detailed information pack from the EEO which includes a home energy checklist to assist householders in carrying out a simple audit of energy efficiency measures in their homes.

    Mr. Dobson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give for the nine month periods ended September 1987, September 1988 and September 1989, for each region, the numbers of(a) community insulation projects or schemes, (b) draught-proofing jobs completed under community insulation, (c) loft insulation jobs completed under community insulation and (d) trainees and participant workers.

    Mr. Wakeham
    The following table gives the information that is available in respect of community insulation projects for the periods requested:
    375

    Number of projects at end of September each year

    Number of draughtproofing jobs completed in January to September period each year

    Number of loft insulation jobs completed in January to September period each year

    Number of participant workers/trainees at end of September each year

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1987

    1988

    1989

    Wales

    47

    46

    35

    11,201

    1—

    10,328

    675

    1—

    139

    1,047

    1,001

    338

    West Midlands

    50

    56

    26

    8,822

    1—

    8,723

    812

    1—

    178

    775

    875

    314

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    34

    36

    24

    12,668

    1—

    10,951

    1,216

    1—

    585

    679

    724

    351

    Total

    415

    437

    298

    103,453

    127,428

    97,384

    9,820

    11,429

    3,279

    7,245

    7,584

    3,296

    1 Data could only be supplied at disproportionate cost.

    PowerGen
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current status of PowerGen.

    Mr. Baldry
    PowerGen is currently a division of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Child Pornography
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the production and distribution of child pornography; what action is being taken to provide extra resources to police forces to deal with this problem; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Mellor
    We have received a number of representations drawing attention to the abhorrent trade in child pornography. The deployment of police resources to particular tasks is an operational matter for chief officers. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has increased the obscene publications branch from 12 to 18 officers specifically to deal with child pornography. Other officers of the Metropolitan police and other forces also deal with it in the course of other duties.

    The Protection of Children Act 1978 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1988) makes it an offence to produce, possess or show indecent photographs, films or video recordings of children under 16, or to advertise their distribution or showing. The police can obtain warrants to enter and search premises and remove any indecent material. Maximum penalties for child pornography range up to three years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.

    There are already strong measures against child pornography, but we are ready to consider proposals for making them more effective.

    War Crimes
    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce the Government's intentions in respect of legislation to enable the prosecution of alleged Nazi war criminals living in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. John Patten
    I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 16 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) at column 171.

    Emergency Control Centres
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report the names of local authorities that do not currently meet guidelines laid down in his Department's circulars for emergency control centres.

    Mr. John Patten
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from him on 18 December 1989 at columns 18–19.

    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has a target date for all local authorities to comply with his Department's emergency plans, including the provision of emergency control centres.

    Mr. John Patten
    No. The requirements for local authorities to make plans and to establish emergency control centres for civil defence purposes are contained in the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations which came into force in 1983. Progress in meeting these statutory requirements is monitored through the Government's planned programme for implementation of the regulations. As part of this monitoring scheme, targets for related activities are agreed annually with individual local authorities, taking into account the state of their preparedness at the time; priorities which are set on a national basis after consultation with the local authority associations; and the financial provision made centrally for grant in support of the civil defence functions. A report on progress up to October 1988 was published in January 1989 and a copy is in the Library. Advances on the position shown in that report are now being considered in the light of more recent information provided by local authorities.

    Blundeston Prison
    Mr. David Porter
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the disturbances which occurred inside Blundeston prison, Suffolk, on 11 and 12 January.

    Mr. Mellor
    During the evening of 11 January a demonstration by prisoners in one wing spread quickly to two other wings. Damage was caused to fittings, furniture and windows and prison officers had to withdraw from two wings and the upper part of the third wing for a time, for their own safety. Police were deployed outside the prison, the other emergency services attended and staff from other prisons were sent in support in accordance with contingency plans and were held in readiness but not deployed. No inmates escaped. Prison staff regained
    377
    control of two wings in about two hours and complete control had been restored by midnight, without injury to staff or inmates or structural damage.

    The regional director for the south-east region of the prison service is examining the cause of this demonstration, which is not immediately evident. Meanwhile, although no accommodation was lost, 24 inmates have been transferred to other prisons in the region for control reasons and work is almost complete on repairing the damage.

    This was an unpleasant incident and I should like to pay tribute to the professional way in which it was handled by local management and staff and to the other services concerned for their full and ready assistance.

    Risley
    Mr. Bermingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the Dunbar report into the Risley incident; if he will place a copy of the report or a summary of findings in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Mellor
    A summary including the list of recommendations resulting from the inquiry has already been placed in the Library, and action taken as indicated in the reply of my right hon. Friend the Member for Whitney (Mr. Hurd) to a question from the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) on 25 July 1989 at columns 607–08.

    Ambulance Services
    Mr. Robin Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his most up-to-date information on which police authorities are involved in providing ambulance services; and what is the number of man hours provided by each police authority.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    The readily available information is that up to 12 January police forces had provided approximately the number of man hours shown in the table in assisting the ambulance service in their areas. Derbyshire ceased providing assistance on 3 January.

    Approximate number of man hours

    Man hours

    Bedfordshire

    23,900

    Cheshire

    1,500

    Derbyshire

    7,000

    Dorset

    14,800

    Essex

    2,000

    Hampshire

    8,500

    Hertfordshire

    40,000

    Lincolnshire

    2,900

    Northumbria

    27,600

    South Yorkshire

    38,500

    Staffordshire

    9,800

    Surrey

    1,700

    Thames Valley

    1,000

    Warwickshire

    1,300

    West Mercia

    14,500

    West Midlands

    54,500

    West Yorkshire

    29,200

    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 if he will call for a report from the acting chief 378
    constable of the West Midlands as to the cost per police man hour of deploying the police on ambulance duties within the West Midlands police district.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    I understand that in the West Midlands the basic cost per officer per hour is about £16·60. Additionally charges for vehicle running costs, accommodation and overheads will be made.

    Street Lighting
    Mr. Stern
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the recommended types of street lighting for use in areas of social stress in cities.

    Mr. John Patten
    No. It is for highway authorities to satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of street lighting in their areas. However, we are anxious to know more about the link between street lighting and crime, and with the fear of crime, which is why we have contracted Southampton university to conduct a major study into these links in Wandsworth. Interim results from this study are expected to be available during April.

    Nottinghamshire Police
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant the latest request for Nottinghamshire county police authority for extra numbers of policemen.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 23 November 1989 at column 12 that he had approved 26 of the 63 police posts for which the Nottinghamshire police authority applied with effect from 1 April 1990.

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Mrs. Mahon
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last discussed the Birmingham pub bombings case with the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. John Patten
    My right hon. and learned Friend has not discussed this case with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

    Shops Act
    Mr. Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to issue new guidelines to local authorities on the Shops Act.

    Mr. Mellor
    No.

    National Television Licence Record Office
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the work of the national television licence record office at Bristol; and why a letter sent to the centre on 20 November by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish was still not replied to by 11 January.

    Mr. Mellor
    I understand that NTVLRO dispatched a reply to the hon. Member on 9 January, and told him this when he telephoned on 10 January. The break for Christmas and the new year did cause some delay in
    379
    responding, and NTVLRO regrets that the customary interim reply had not been sent in this instance. Its procedures are being reviewed to deal with this.

    Immigrants
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the payment made in each year since the Act was brought into effect to local authorities in Wales under sectoion 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 relating to expenditure for Commonwealth immigrants by local authorities.

    Mr. John Patten
    The amount of grant paid to local authorities in Wales from the financial year 1983–84 onwards (the first year in which grant was claimed) is given in the table. The figures represent 75 per cent. of total section 11 expenditure in each year, the remainder being paid by the local authorities.

    Financial Year

    Grant (£)

    1983–84

    63,551

    1984–85

    118,702

    1985–86

    156,583

    1986–87

    210,200

    1987–88

    227,039

    1988–89

    252,802

    Police Efficiency
    Mr. Dunnachie
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss improvements in police efficiency.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Improvements in police efficiency is a subject which underlies all my right hon. and learned Friend's discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers, but he has no plans for a meeting on that subject specifically.

    Crime, London
    Mr. Leighton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what factors he ascribes the fall in the overall London crime rate and the rise in the London borough of Newham crime rate.

    Mr. John Patten
    Comparing the 12 months ending September 1989—the latest period for which figures are available—with the 12 months ending September 1988, shows an 0·8 per cent. increase in all recorded crime for London and a 1·6 per cent. increase for Newham. Only in respect of household burglary do the figures for the London borough of Newham show a notable increase while those for the rest of London show a fall.

    Car Phones
    Mr. David Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers have been prosecuted for using hand-held car phones while driving in each year since such phones have been available.

    Mr. John Patten
    The available information relates to proceedings at magistrates' courts for all offences of careless driving and so on and is published annually in table 5 of "Offences relating to motor vehicles, England and Wales Supplementary tables". Information is not collected centrally about the circumstances of these alleged offences.

    Police Authority Land, South Yorkshire
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the locations of the proposed deals with supermarket chains to build on sites owned by the South Yorkshire police authority, in return for providing a free police station.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    I understand that no such schemes have been agreed. South Yorkshire police authority has, however, discussed informally with property developers in Sheffield and Doncaster the possibility of providing, at the developers' expense, a small amount of accommodation for police use.

    Firearms
    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for the most convenient recent period for which figures are available, the source of firearms recovered after their use in criminal activities, showing those(a) stolen from legitimate United Kingdom licence holders, (b) obtained abroad and illegally imported, (c) stolen from the armed services, (d) unlicensed weapons kept as war souvenirs, and (e) firearms legitimately owned by the criminal who possessed a firearms certificate or shotgun certificate relating to the weapon.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Canada
    Mr. Cryer
    Q.87. To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to Canada.

    The Prime Minister
    I have at present no plans to visit Canada.

    AIDS
    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the contribution of the Department of Social Security to the Government's strategy against AIDS and HIV.

    The Prime Minister
    Ministers in the Department of Social Security have carefully considered the implications of AIDS and HIV for the relevant benefits in consultation with the Department of Health.

    AIDS sufferers will benefit from the large number of measures recently announced as part of a package of benefit changes intended to improve the help available to disabled people. In particular, many who are in the advanced stages of the illness will benefit from the removal of the six-month qualifying period for attendance allowance for people with terminal illness. This also means that the income support disability premium may be paid sooner. This premium provides extra help to long-term sick or disabled people, currently £13·70 and increasing above normal uprating to £15·40 in April.

    In addition to these measures, AIDS sufferers benefit particularly from the special disregard of payments from the Macfarlane Trust.

    Whales
    Mr. Parry
    To ask the Prime Minister if she discussed the killing of whales in the Antarctic by the Japanese at her recent meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister
    The Japanese Government are well aware of the feelings of the British people about Japan's whaling activities, as was evident from my talks with Prime Minister Kaifu on 12 January.

    Japan
    Mr. Parry
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on her recent meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister
    On 12 January I had talks with the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Kaifu, followed by a working lunch. We discussed bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and Japan, which are excellent, and a range of international issues, including East-West affairs, western assistance to eastern Europe, and developments in China and elsewhere in Asia.

    Noise
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received in relation to noise pollution.

    The Prime Minister
    During the last 12 months I have received a number of letters concerning noise. In the main these have been concerned with noisy neighbours, noisy parties, construction noise and the use of motorcycles off the public highway.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Prime Minister whether an ability to understand and speak the Welsh language is a factor taken into consideration before any recommendation is made for appointment of Lord Lieutenants for the Welsh-speaking counties of Wales.

    The Prime Minister
    Yes, among other factors.

    Trinity college, Cambridge
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Prime Minister what considerations she will take into account before making recommendations for the post of Master of Trinity college, Cambridge; what consultations she proposes to undertake; and if she will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister
    Recommendations made to the Crown for this appointment, as in other cases, will take account of a range of qualities including intellect, experience and personality, following widely based and confidential consultations.

    Ministers (Commercial Interests)
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will publish the advice given to Ministers of the Crown on their private commercial and business interests.

    The Prime Minister
    The general principle was set out by the then Secretary of the Cabinet in a memorandum to the royal commission on standards of conduct in public life in 1975, a copy of which is in the Library.

    EH101 Helicopter
    Mr. Rogers
    To ask the Prime Minister if the progress of the anti-submarine warfare version of the EH101 helicopter programme is under regular review by and reporting to the Cabinet Office efficiency unit.

    The Prime Minister
    No. The efficiency unit works with all Departments to help secure improvements in the management of the public service, but individual programmes and projects are the responsibility of departmental Ministers.

    Engagements
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.

    Mr. Stern
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.

    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.

    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.

    Mr. Riddick
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.

    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.

    Mrs. Maureen Hicks
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.

    Mr. Rooker
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.

    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.

    Mr. French
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 January.

    The Prime Minister
    This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Government Achievements
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the achievements of Her Majesty's Government during 1989.

    The Prime Minister
    Economic growth has continued, although at a slower pace than recently, as domestic demand growth has slowed. The actions taken by the Government to reduce the growth of domestic demand and to bear down on inflation are clearly having their intended effect. Investment continued to rise. Business investment, in particular, grew strongly and reached a new record level as a share of GDP. Net start-ups of new businesses—as measured by VAT registrations—set a new record.

    The economy has continued to create new jobs; unemployment has continued to fall and is now around two thirds of the average EC level.
    383
    The Government have maintained sound public finances and by the end of the current financial year will have repaid £30 billion of debt in just three years, saving nearly £3 billion a year in interest payments.

    The Government have increased spending on priority programmes while maintaining a downward trend over time in the ratio of public spending to GDP. In 1988–89, the ratio was under 40 per cent. for the first time in over 20 years.

    The Government have made further progress in the drive to improve value for money in public expenditure—for example, in the Civil Service, implementing the next steps initiative.

    The Government have continued the programme of tax reform whose aim has been to create a climate in which businesses thrive and individual initiative is rewarded. The 1989 Budget increased incentives for share ownership, reformed the life assurance tax regime and simplified that for pensions. Employees' national insurance contributions were reformed and reduced. The differential between leaded and unleaded petrol was increased, encouraging the use of unleaded petrol whose market share has grown to nearly 30 per cent., compared with under 2 per cent. a year ago.

    The privatisation programme has continued with the successful sale of the water industry. As a result of this policy and tax reliefs designed to encourage shareholding, 22 per cent. of the adult population own shares.

    The new employment service brings together benefit payment and job placement functions. It has helped hundreds of thousands of unemployed people into training and jobs.

    Employment training is now offering high-quality training for employment to over 210,000 previously unemployed people. The new youth training programme has been launched as a locally delivered high-quality training programme to equip our young people for the challenges of the 1990s and beyond. Compacts between schools and local employers are being established throughout the country. The Training Agency was established to be responsible for the implementation of these and other training and enterprise programmes.

    Training and enterprise councils (TECs) will give local employers responsibility for the design and delivery of training to meet the needs of local industry and commerce. Alredy 50 TECs, covering more than half the working population, have been established and are receiving development funding.

    The Dock Work Act 1989 has removed from the statute book the 40-year-old dock labour scheme which has sustained restrictive practices and surplus labour in our ports, thus reducing their efficiency and discouraging investment.

    The Employment Act 1989 promotes equality of opportunity for women in employment, removes unnecessary restrictions on young people at work, and paves the way for the removal of the weight of industrial training board bureaucracy from major sectors of British industry.

    The enterprise initiative continues to attract strong interest from small and medium-sized businesses. A total of 40,000 applications have been received since January 1988, with demands spread throughout the United Kingdom and across both manufacturing and service sectors.
    384
    The Government have continued to promote innovation in industry. The market for telecommunications has been liberalised further, notably by the decision to license three consortia to operate personal communications networks, a new form of mobile telephone service that will be based on radio technology.

    The Companies Act 1989 has introduced a number of improvements to the regulation of and law on companies, financial services, merger control and insolvency.

    The White Paper, "Opening Markets: New Policy on Restrictive Trade Practices" set out the Government's plans for dealing more effectively with anti-competitive agreements.

    The DTI environmental programme was launched in May to provide information, advice and encouragement to business to help it successfully address emerging environmental challenges and opportunities.

    The Electricity Act 1989 provides for the reorganisation and privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England, Wales and Scotland. Substantial progress has been made in reorganising the industry and the Government intend that the CEGB and the area boards will be reconstructed as Companies Act companies at the end of March 1990.

    Government policies on taxation and licensing have ensured that 1989 was another successful year for the United Kingdom continental shelf. Drilling activity in 1989 matched the record levels in 1988.

    The Energy Efficiency Office's programme secures recurrent annual savings now worth over £500 million per year. In 1989 it introduced a major best practice programme, to advance and spread good practice in energy efficiency. The Electricity Act 1989 will give further impetus to energy efficiency, both from competition in generation and from the requirement on suppliers to provide customers with specific guidance on this subject.

    The Government have acted to ensure that Britain's growing transport needs are met safely, efficiently and with proper respect for the environment.

    Agreement in principle has been achieved on key elements of a liberalised internal market in aviation in the European Community. The Government have intensified aviation security, and have brought forward the Aviation and Marine Security Bill. The Government have approved investment by the Civil Aviation Authority in a new en-route air traffic control centre that will greatly increase capacity.

    The Government have agreed external financing limits which will allow British Rail to undertake 75 per cent. more investment in real terms over the next three years than in the previous three years, and London Regional Transport 70 per cent. more. The go-ahead was announced for the extension of the Jubilee line into docklands.

    The White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" announced plans to more than double the road programme in England to over £12 billion. The emphasis will be on widening existing routes so as to deliver extra capacity quickly and with minimum environmental effect. Planned investment in road construction over the next three years is 50 per cent. higher in real terms than in the previous three years. "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s" set out the major investment programme for Welsh roads. In Scotland it has been announced that provision for new construction and improvements of motorways and

    385
    trunk roads will by 1992–93 be substantially above the current level, while expenditure on maintenance and construction together will also be significantly higher.

    The Green Paper "New Roads by New Means" set out proposals for the private financing of new roads additional to the publicly financed road programme. The Government have announced a range of proposals for tackling traffic congestion in London.

    The Government have taken important steps to improve transport safety, through the publication of the White Paper "The Road User and the Law", hard-hitting campaigns to improve road safety and the establishment of the marine accident investigation branch.

    The Government have responded promptly and introduced comprehensive measures to deal with several outbreaks of food-borne illness and contamination incidents in order to protect consumers throughout the country. A Food Safety Bill has now been introduced in Parliament to ensure that our food safety laws keep pace with the revolution that is taking place in the way in which food is produced, stored and prepared.

    The Government have made further progress in achieving a better balance between agricultural production and the environment notably through new powers to introduce nitrate sensitive areas and the introduction of new capital grants favouring the environment.

    At the EC Council of Fisheries Ministers in December, the Government secured the best possible deal under the common fisheries policy for British fishermen consistent with conservation.

    The outcome of the European Community's farm price review fully reflected the decision taken on stabilisers during the previous year leading to further downward pressure on prices and expenditure. The Community also reached agreement on the reviews of its regimes for beef and sheepmeat and of the provisions for farm structures.

    The Government have maintained and reinforced our commitment to environmental protection both at the national and international level. Internationally, the Government have taken a leading part in efforts to respond to global problems such as ozone depletion and climate change. On 8 November at the United Nations I announced that £100 million of aid has been earmarked over the next three years to help preserve tropical forests. The Government's agreement with Brazil to provide help, especially for the rain forests was the first ever of its kind. Domestically, the Environmental Protection Bill has been introduced which provides for a system of integrated pollution control, reform of the law relating to the regulation of waste disposal, measures to deal with litter, and improvement of the existing system of air pollution control operated by local authorities.

    The Water Act 1989 paved the way for the separation of the service and supply functions from the regulatory responsibilities within the water industry. A strong new environmental and economic regulatory framework is provided by two new public sector bodies—the National Rivers Authority and the Directorate General of Water Services. Privatisation has brought the prospect of a better-organised, more efficient industry and will enable the 10 new water service companies to use private sector resources to tackle their essential tasks. The Water Act, for the first time, makes it a specific criminal offence to supply water which is unfit for human consumption. Regulations
    386
    set strict new standards for drinking water quality which include, and in some cases go further than, the standards required by the EC drinking water directive.

    The main provisions of the Housing Act 1988 were implemented during 1989; new private lettings were deregulated, housing association finance has been reformed to allow increased use of private money, powers had been provided to create housing action trusts, and council tenants have been given the right to choose a new landlord.

    The Government established Scottish Homes as a vehicle for improving choice and quality in Scottish housing. Housing for Wales became fully operational in April. In both Wales and Scotland the Government launched the flexi-ownership scheme on an experimental basis to allow tenants to buy their homes at about the same outlay as their rent.

    The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 reforms the law on local government capital and housing finance and permits improved targeting of public expenditure on the renovation of the housing stock in the public and private sectors. The Act also reinforces the rules on conduct of local authority business, gives local authorities new powers to promote economic development, and regulates their interests in companies.

    During the year substantial progress was made in regenerating the inner cities. The Bristol development corporation was established at the start of the year. Private investment in all urban development corporation areas in 1989 exceeded £7·3 billion and city grant has attracted a further £1 billion to inner-city areas. The total Government commitment to the Action for Cities programmes, launched in March 1988, will be nearly £3·5 billion this financial year.

    The Football Spectators Act 1989 was passed. It will provide the means to counter the menace of football hooliganism both at home and abroad. The new national football intelligence unit has been established.

    The Government's commitment to the National Health Service has been firmly maintained. Resources have continued to expand. An additional £2·6 billion will be made available for 1990–91 representing a real terms increase of 5·5 per cent. More doctors and more nurses are working in the National Health Service and the number of patient treatments has continued to rise. The Government seek to use these resources more effectively and provide patients with even better services with the widest possible choice. Proposals have been put to Parliament for improving the management of health services and also to allow the growing numbers of elderly and physically and mentally disabled people to live in the community with appropriate support. Legislation was introduced to respond to scientific advance in embryology and the treatment of infertility.

    In addition to launching the European Year of Information on Cancer last January, the Government have given support to a number of health promotion and prevention schemes. The Human Organ and Transplant Act 1989 prohibits commercial dealing with human organs for transplants and regulates the transplant of organs between persons who are not genetically related.

    The Children Act 1989 provides a comprehensive reform of the law and court jurisdiction on the care and upbringing of children, family services and the protection of children from abuse.
    387
    The Government have continued to commit greater resources than ever before to social security. In 1989–90 spending will have been 3·2 per cent. higher in real terms than in the previous year, and over one third higher than in 1978–79. We have announced further increases in benefit rates from April 1990 which will bring expenditure on social security to over £1 billion a week for the first time ever, and give greater help to less well-off families, disabled people and carers.

    The DSS computerisation programme—one of the largest in the world—is now being steadily introduced into local offices. This, together with the reform and simplification of benefits themselves, is bringing about important improvements in the service the DSS provides to the public. For example, clearance times for income support claims in 1988–89 were on average 22 per cent. better than those for its predecessor, supplementary benefit, in 1987–88.

    The Government have continued to implement policies to improve all aspects of the education system in England and Wales and have made important progress in carrying through the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988. In particular, the national curriculum has begun to be introduced together with arrangements for examinations and assessment in support of it. In higher education the new funding arrangements are beginning to promote greater efficiency and relevance to economic success.

    The Government are continuing to create a climate in which the arts will flourish, supported by both the public and private sectors. The Government's three-year programme of funding has been reviewed and increased by 24 per cent. in the next three years. Commercial and individual sponsorship of the arts has continued to rise.

    The number of police posts in England and Wales increased by 1,136 during the year, bringing the total to 126,574. The number of civilians supporting the police increased by around 1,300 to 43,600. These increases have been accompanied by action to ensure that the police use their resources effectively.

    The Government introduced the Courts and Legal Services Bill to extend choice and improve services to the individual. It will help clients more often to have the advocate of their choice and it will hasten the conveyancing process.

    The Government have given high priority to tackling drug misuse through measures to reduce both the supply of and the demand for drugs. Reciprocal agreements or arrangements to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking have been concluded with eight further countries and we have introduced legislation to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the United Nations convention against the illicit traffic in drugs.

    Legislation has been passed to strengthen the country's defences against terrorism, to reform section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and to place the Security Service on a statutory footing. New laws to enhance the controls over the use of firearms have been brought into force. The number of safer cities projects has increased from one to 12. Over £850,000 in grant aid has been approved to fund a number of crime prevention initiatives.

    In 1989, work began on six new prison establishments which will provide over 3,000 additional places. Nearly £100 million was spent on major building work at existing establishments, including work on 11 new house blocks which will provide 1,100 new places early in 1990. A new prison for 350 inmates at Banstead in Surrey was brought
    388
    into use in only 18 months. Work also began on a seven-year programme which will provide integral sanitation in over 6,500 cells in existing establishments.

    In Wales, the economy has continued to grow strongly. Inward investment has continued at a very high level with a number of major projects secured in 1989, including Toyota's £140 million engine plant at Deeside, and Bosch's £100 million project at Miskin. Output of the production and construction industries rose by 4·1 per cent. in the year to the second quarter of 1989. The Welsh Development Agency's budget for 1989–90 is the highest ever in real terms, enabling massive programmes of land reclamation and factory building. We have also announced a two-year extension of the highly successful valleys programme. All this has helped to bring about a fall in unemployment in the year to November 1989 of 30,500 (to 86,400) and 2·4 percentage points (to 6·9 per cent.).

    Inward investment in Scotland continued strongly. Major investments in 1989 include an expansion by Compaq at Erskine and Stirling, Seiko Instrument's announcement to establish a manufacturing facility in Livingston and the development by Russell Corporation of its Livingston production centre.

    In Northern Ireland the Government have continued their efforts to find an agreed basis on which greater responsibility can be devolved to the elected representatives of the people of the Province.

    The security forces have continued with dedication and professionalism to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland within the rule of law. The Government have successfully completed a review of the workings of the Anglo-Irish Inter-governmental Conference.

    A new Fair Employment Act was approved by Parliament and with it was established a Fair Employment Commission and a new Fair Employment Tribunal. The strong new powers now in force will ensure the basic right of all those in employment or seeking work to be treated fairly irrespective of the community from which they come.

    Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff have been returned to the private sector.

    The Education Reform (NI) Order 1989, which was recently approved by Parliament, provides for reform of the education system to improve standards and promote integrated education.

    The Government announced their decision to support a new Northern Ireland Community Relations Council. This independent body will encourage and support those organisations working to improve relations between the different communities in Northern Ireland.

    In foreign affairs, the historic changes now taking place in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe vindicate the policies of sure defence and strong support for human rights which the Government have consistently maintained. The Government have provided substantial financial and practical help for economic and political reform in eastern Europe, both bilaterally and through the European Community and have indeed taken a leading part in formulating Europe's response to these developments. The Government have also continued to give support to the reform policies of President Gorbachev, who paid a very successful visit to the United Kingdom in the course of the year.

    At the same time, the Government have continued to assure Britain's sound defence, by maintaining the strength of our conventional forces and providing for the

    389
    modernisation of our independent nuclear deterrent with Trident. The Government played a full part in devising NATO's comprehensive concept for arms control and defence which was agreed at the NATO summit in May. We have also taken an active and constructive part in the negotiations for reductions in conventional forces in Europe and the elimination of chemical weapons.

    Within the European Community, the Government have ensured that Britain remains a leading proponent of completion of the European single market by 1992, as well as being foremost among member states in implementing agreed single market directives.

    Significant measures agreed in 1989 included the second banking directive and agreement on a merger control regulation. At the same time the Government have given enthusiastic support to implementation of the first phase of the Delors report on economic and monetary union, while representing strongly the concern felt in all parts of the House about some of the proposals for stages two and three, which would undermine the powers of national Parliaments.

    The Government have taken an active part, too, in resolving international disputes. In particular we have contributed to the successful implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia. We have used our influence to encourage peaceful change in South Africa, welcoming the steps which have already been taken by President De Klerk. The Government declared their full support for the action taken by the United States to enable the democratically elected Government of Panama to take office.

    The Government have announced measures to reassure the people of Hong Kong about their future and to give them confidence to remain there. The Government have also worked for a durable and humane solution to the problem of Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong, which recognises that for those who are not genuine refugees, there is no alternative to repatriation to Vietnam.

    The Government have maintained a substantial and effective aid programme geared to the promotion of economic and social progress and the alleviation of poverty in developing countries. The Government have provided swift and generous humanitarian assistance and taken the lead in trying to resolve and respond to Ethiopia's problems. We have continued to provide widespread support for countries undergoing economic policy reform, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, including $100 million for programme aid in Nigeria. We have played a major role in the successful outcome of the ninth replenishment of the International Development Association and the Lomé IV renegotiation. We will be providing nearly £620 million for the former and some £1·3 billion for the latter, Britain's largest-ever single aid commitment.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Pensioners (Merseyside)
    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people over pensionable age on Merseyside are reliant on state pension alone; and what percentage this represents of all Merseysiders over pensionable age.
    390
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I regret that information is not available on a geographical basis in the form requested. Few individuals are reliant solely on their state pension as the majority of people in that situation would be entitled to income support and housing benefit.

    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people over pensionable age on Merseyside receive disability-related benefits; which benefits they receive; and what percentage of all Merseysiders over pensionable age receive disability-related benefits.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I regret that information is not available in the form requested.

    Fraud Staff
    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual amount of expenses paid to his Department's fraud staff; and if he will break down the figure into payments for car allowance, overnight accommodation and other categories.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    Central records are maintained of expenses paid to all departmental staff but do not identify those staff employed on fraud work. I regret that the required information could therefore be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what surveillance equipment is used by his Department's fraud staff; and in which areas such equipment is held.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    Equipment comprising binoculars, radios, cameras and video cameras is held by teams of fraud investigators employed in the Department's headquarters and regional offices who investigate serious organised fraud against social security payments systems. Radios, photographic cameras and binoculars are sometimes used in the investigation of benefit fraud, but limited to occasions where they are necessary effectively to conduct a fraud drive.

    Benefit Rules
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the claimants affected by the introduction on 10 December of the new benefits rule on claimants earning more than £43 a week he estimates are(a) married/cohabiting women, (b) lone parents, (c) disabled, (d) men aged 50 to 54 years, (e) men aged 55 to 59 years, (f) women aged 50 to 54 years, (g) women aged 55 to 59 years, (h) claimants with intermittent work patterns due to chronic illness or disability and (i) claimants from ethnic minorities.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I regret that this information is not available in the form requested.

    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what grounds he rejected the recommendations of the Social Security Advisory Committee which opposed the introduction of the new benefit rules for claimants earning more than £43 in a week.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the regulations which brought
    391
    this measure into effect was presented to Parliament on 17 November 1989, prior to the regulations coming into force. The response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was published with the report (Cm. 923), which is available in the Library.

    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to raise the de minimis figure of £12 weekly, following his introduction on 10 December of the new benefit rule on claimants earning more than £43 a week.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The £12 de minimis level was first introduced on 10 December 1989. It is too early to assess its effects and we have no plans to raise the level at present.

    Income Support
    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of persons on income support who have debts in excess of £100; and if he will indicate what proportion of the debts of income support claimants is on average down to (i) rent arrears, (ii) fuel debts, and (iii) other specified causes.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I regret that the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether he has any plans to introduce a de minimis level on the application for the full extent normal rule for unemployment benefit; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) whether he has any plans to introduce an upper weekly earnings limit for unemployment benefit; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    Both these measures were introduced with effect from 10 December 1989 by the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1989 (SI

    Northern

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    EastMidlands

    London and South East

    SouthWest

    Wales

    WestMidlands.

    NorthWest

    Scotland

    National

    (a) Total in job club at 1 April 1989

    1,938

    2,444

    2,133

    5,527

    1,420

    1,653

    2,461

    4,667

    4,530

    26,773

    (b) Total number joining job club 1 April 1989 to 24 November 1989

    6,956

    8,990

    7,902

    21,176

    4,569

    5,429

    8,545

    16,037

    13,762

    93,366

    (c) Total number leaving job club 1 April 1989 to 24 November 1989

    6,887

    8,632

    7,445

    20,196

    4,376

    5,354

    8,266

    15,561

    13,994

    90,711

    (d) Job entries

    3,488

    5,113

    4,573

    9,140

    2,495

    3,134

    4,418

    8,615

    8,050

    49,026

    (e) Employment training

    702

    903

    782

    1,835

    412

    584

    925

    1,289

    1,318

    8,750

    (f) Other positive outcomes1

    258

    329

    444

    1,360

    241

    168

    405

    882

    641

    4,728

    (g) Total positive outcomes2

    4,448

    6,345

    5,799

    12,335

    3,148

    3,886

    5,748

    10,786

    10,009

    62,504

    1 Other positive outcomes include training other than employment training, full-time education and self employment

    2 Total positive outcomes is the total of lines (d), (e) and (f).

    Health and Safety Executive
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 13 December,Official Report, column 661, what percentage of Health and Safety Executive staff, in the years specified, were trainees.

    Mr. Nicholls
    Only two grades of staff in the Health and Safety Executive are designated as training grades: factory inspectors class II (for their first two years) and assistant
    392
    1989/2122), and the Social Security (Computation of Earnings) Amendment Regulations 1989 (SI 1989–2123), which were laid before Parliament on 17 November 1989. Copies of these instruments are available in the Library.

    Youth Training Scheme
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16 and 17-year-olds are currently denied benefit for not taking up YTS training in the Durham area.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 18 December at column 69.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Job Clubs
    Ms. Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each region and for Great Britain as a whole how many people(a) were members of job clubs on 1 April 1989, (b) have joined job clubs since 1 April 1989 to the latest possible date and (c) have left job clubs since 1 April 1989 to the latest possible date; what were their destinations showing how many entered jobs; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Tim Eggar
    On 1 April 1989, 26,773 people were members of job clubs. The other figures requested and the required breakdowns are given in the following table.

    I am very encouraged by the continuing success of job clubs. Over 350,000 people have participated in the programme since it started five years ago. More than 200,000 people have found jobs and over 50,000 have achieved other positive outcomes.

    The programme will continue to have an important role in helping longer-term unemployed people and we are taking steps to strengthen it further by introducing pilot projects to establish ways of providing effective help to people not at present able to benefit from job clubs, notably those with severe literacy or language problems.

    agricultural inspectors (first three years). The number of "trainee" inspectors in these grades expressed as a percentage of the total number of factory and agricultural inspectors in post in HSE are as follows (1 April figures):

    Per cent.

    1984

    0·0

    1985

    6·4

    1986

    11·8

    1987

    14·9

    1988

    12·0

    393

    Per cent.

    1989

    12·7

    11990

    14·9

    1 January.

    Apart from this a wide range of training is provided (internally or externally) both for new recruits and for more experienced staff, in the various occupational groups employed by HSE.

    Unofficial Strikes
    Mr. Leighton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how statistics are kept on the number of days lost through unofficial strikes.

    Mr. Nicholls
    Separate statistics on unofficial strikes ceased to be published as a regular series in 1981. However, a limited amount of information from a special exercise was included in the Government's Green Paper "Unofficial Action and the Law", a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

    Jobcentres, Basingstoke and St. Albans
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the highest and lowest rates of pay for jobs advertised in jobcentres at(a) Basingstoke and (b) St. Albans, listing the number of vacancies advertised in each office.

    Mr. Eggar
    On 11 January the highest rate of pay for a job displayed at the Basingstoke jobcentre was £250 per week and the lowest £76 per week. There were 925 full-time and 260 part-time job vacancy cards displayed. The highest rate of pay for jobs displayed at the St. Albans jobcentre was £187 per week and the lowest £97 per week. There were 277 full-time job and 68 part-time vacancy cards displayed.

    Trade Union Members
    Mr. John Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many copies of the booklets "Guide for Trade Union Members" and "Short Guide for Trade Union Members" have been printed by the office of the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members; and to whom they have been distributed.

    Mr. Nicholls
    I am advised by the independent Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members that 55,000 copies of the "Guide for Trade Union Members" have been printed and 50,510 have been distributed to date, while 260,000 copies of the "Short Guide for Trade Union Members" have been printed and 237,400 have been distributed to date. Copies have been distributed to various members of the public, trade unions, law centre offices, colleges of further education, universities, Conservative trade unionists, solicitors, citizens advice bureaux, libraries (including House of Commons), and Department of Employment group offices and journalists. In addition, copies have been distributed to the French and German embassies, Industrial Society, Labour Relations Agency (Northern Ireland), Conservative party central office, Social and Liberal Democratic party Whips' office, Institute of Personnel Management and the Newspaper Society.
    394
    Mr. John Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff are employed at the office of the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members; and what are their salaries.

    Mr. Nicholls
    I am advised by the independent Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members that four staff are employed at her office; their respective salaries are £21,098, £14,549, £10,747, and £8,305.

    Mr. John Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of providing accommodation for the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members; and if the accommodation is leasehold or freehold.

    Mr. Nicholls
    I am advised by the independent Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members that the initial cost of providing accommodation for the commissioner was £9,073·50. The accommodation is leasehold.

    Mr. John Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of providing office furniture and equipment for the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members.

    Mr. Nicholls
    I am advised by the independent Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members that the initial cost of furnishing and equipping the commissioner's office was £13,122·00

    Earnings
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the increase in output per head in(a) the manufacturing and (b) the non-manufacturing sectors since June 1979 together with percentage increases between April 1979 and April 1989 in the real earnings of (i) full-time adult male workers in manufacturing and (ii) full-time adult male non-manual workers in the private sector, less manufacturing.

    Mr. Nicholls
    The increases in output per head in manufacturing and non-manufacturing between the second quarter of 1979 and the second quarter of 1989 were 48 per cent. and 12 per cent. respectively.

    The real increase in the weekly earnings of full-time adult males in manufacturing between April 1979 and April 1989 was 23 per cent. Figures are not readily available for the private sector less manufacturing and would involve disproportionate cost to compile.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, further to his written reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, dated 11 December 1989,Official Report, column 467–68, concerning increases in weekly and hourly earnings of certain full-time adult male workers, whether he will provide similar information for (a) public sector manual workers, (b) public sector non-manual workers, (c) manufacturing non-manual workers and (d) other private sector non-manual workers.

    Mr. Nicholls
    The available information is provided in the following table. Figures for item(d) are not readily available and would involve disproportionate cost to compile. The "public sector" and "manufacturing" are not. mutually exclusive groupings and are thus not directly comparable.
    395

    Percentage increase in weekly and hourly earnings of full-time adult male employees1

    per cent.

    Manual

    Non-manual

    Public sector

    Public sector

    Manufacturing

    April of each year

    Weekly earnings

    Hourly earnings

    Weekly earnings

    Hourly earnings

    Weekly earnings

    Hourly earnings

    19802

    23·2

    26·1

    27·2

    27·4

    23·0

    23·3

    19812

    11·0

    13·2

    17·5

    16·9

    11·7

    13·7

    19822

    9·4

    9·4

    8·6

    10·2

    12·1

    11·2

    19833

    6·8

    8·9

    7·8

    8·3

    8·2

    8·4

    1984

    5·9

    5·4

    6·7

    6·3

    10·7

    10·4

    1985

    5·1

    4·8

    5·6

    5·4

    8·7

    8·2

    1986

    7·3

    6·9

    8·0

    8·0

    10·2

    10·1

    1987

    4·5

    4·6

    6·7

    6·3

    7·0

    6·7

    1988

    8·5

    7·8

    9·2

    9·3

    9·8

    8·9

    1989

    4·9

    4·7

    8·3

    8·7

    10·3

    10·3

    1 Average gross weekly and hourly earnings, not affected by absence for those on adult rates; manufacturing as defined in the 1980 SIC (butsee notes 2 and 3.

    2 Males aged 21 and over on all rates; 1968 SIC definition of manufacturing.

    3 Males aged 21 and over on all rates; 1980 SIC definition of manufacturing.

    Disabled Young People
    Mr. Hannam
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for ensuring that young people with disabilities are not placed in unsuitable employment or training once the protection of section 119a of the Factories Act 1961 has been removed;

    (2) when he will bring into effect, by commencement order, the repeal of the requirement under section 119a of the Factories Act 1961 to notify the careers service when employing a young person.

    Mr. Nicholls
    Following publication of a consultation paper a working group has been set up to consider responses and propose new arrangements to ensure that all young people with disabilities, including those not covered by the Factories Act, are not placed in unsuitable employment or training. The commencement order to repeal the requirement under section 119a of the Factories Act 1961 to notify the careers service when employing a young person will be brought in when alternative arrangements have been made.

    Mines and Quarries
    Mr. Flannery
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions, improvement notices, or prohibition notices relating to the control of noise at work in the years 1981 to 1989 have been initiated by the mines and quarries inspectorate; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Nicholls
    I refer the honourable member to the answers given to him on 26 October 1989(Official Report columns 597 to 599).

    Sheltered Placement Scheme
    Mr. Dunn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what expenditure levels were reached in the application of the sheltered placement scheme for each year since the scheme started; what is the budget for 1990–91 and what change, in cash, real and percentage terms it reflects; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Nicholls
    The information is not available in the form requested. Claims for expenditure are made for the 396
    combined expenditure on workshops and sheltered placements. This expenditure, together with an estimate for the current year, is shown in the table. These figures do not include the grants and loans to Remploy Ltd. I will write to the hon. Member when the budget for 1990–91 has been settled.

    Year

    Cash prices (£000s)

    1985–86

    21,488

    1986–87

    24,679

    1987–88

    27,670

    1988–89

    29,599

    11989–90

    35,451

    1 Estimate.

    Tourism
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount of his Department's investment in tourism over each of the past 10 years by year; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Nicholls
    Responsibility for tourism matters in England and Great Britain as a whole passed from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the Secretary of State for Employment in 1985. The totals of the grant-in-aid paid to the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board over the period were as follows:

    £ million

    1979–80

    23·1

    1980–81

    25·7

    1981–82

    28·9

    1982–83

    33·1

    1983–84

    31·9

    1984–85

    34·9

    1985–86

    33·8

    1986–87

    40·2

    1987–88

    45·3

    1988–89

    49·5

    Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many agreements have been made with employers to operate the job interview guarantee scheme in each of the 20 pilot areas; how many unemployed
    397
    people have taken part in the scheme in each area; and, of these, how many secured full-time employment with their sponsoring employer.

    Mr. Eggar
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 10 January 1990 [Official Report, column 675–76.].

    Local Offices
    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobcentres and how many unemployment benefit offices are earmarked for closure under his plan to transfer the employment service to agency status; how many jobs are likely to be lost and at what grades; and what targets the new agency will be required to achieve.

    Mr. Nicholls
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) on 1 December 1989 (Official Report, columns 461–62). It is the intention that the employment service (ES) should be launched as an executive agency in April 1990, and will establish a new network of offices, bringing together the full range of employment service activities under one roof wherever possible.

    Plans are being developed for this new network and when decisions have been taken the local Member of Parliament will be informed.

    Targets for the employment service in 1990–91 have not yet been finalised and will be published later.

    Mr. Ashley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that the new and remodelled employment service offices will be fully accessible to people with disabilities, following the launch of the employment service as an executive agency in April.

    Mr. Nicholls
    The employment service continually reviews its obligations under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which requires buildings to which the public are admitted to be provided with facilities that meet the needs of disabled members of the public.

    All new and remodelled employment service offices will be planned to a nationally agreed framework and standards. The design guide will include a section specifically on the requirements of people with disabilities. This will he based on the provisions for people with disabilities already in operation throughout the employment service and will carry forward the recommendations of a recent working group report on employment service local office design. These included:
    single reception point for all visitors that is fully accessible to people with disabilities;
    signs to be easily visible to all (eg. people in wheelchairs);
    hearing loops to be considered where necessary with the signs for these facilities prominently displayed;
    the need to provide appropriate seating for people with disabilities is also to be considered.

    Trials at three pilot employment service offices include new vacancy display boards designed to be more accessible to people in wheelchairs.

    Jobstart
    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,398
    excluding their £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 1989 and 12 January 1990 a total of 63 people were accepted on to the programme.

    The breakdown of the number of people on the programme and their average hours and wages by area is as follows:

    Area

    Participants

    Average hourly wage £

    Average hours

    Dudley and Sandwell

    15

    2·18

    19·7

    Leeds

    27

    2·20

    18·7

    London South

    1

    2·00

    20·0

    Lothian and Borders

    20

    2·30

    16·2

    Fifty one people are still in receipt of the allowance. It is not possible to provide information on whether those who have left the programme are in employment.

    Action Credit Scheme
    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employement how many people have taken part in the action credit scheme in each of the three pilot areas; how many ceased claiming income support to start full-time work; how many ceased claiming income support to start part-time work; how many failed to secure employment after the three-month job search period; and whether he has any plans to extend the scheme.

    Mr. Nicholls
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 12 January 1990, (Official Report, column 786).

    Fraud Staff
    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employement what is the annual amount of expenses paid to his Department's fraud staff; and if he will break down the figure into payments for car allowance, overnight accommodation and other categories.

    Mr. Eggar
    In the year April 1988 to March 1989 the total amount of expenses paid to 1,300 fraud staff, which includes investigators and administrative support staff, from this Department was £2,202,428.

    This payment consisted of:

    £

    Overnight accommodation and car allowances

    1,867,307

    Overtime and travelling time

    53,402

    Equipment (cameras, computers, furniture etc.)

    281,719

    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what surveillance equipment is used by his Department's fraud staff; and in which areas such equipment is held.

    Mr. Eggar
    The surveillance equipment used by my Department's fraud investigators is as follows:

    Binoculars

    Cameras

    Radios

    Video Cameras

    399
    This Department does not collate centrally information on the surveillance equipment held by areas.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Hannam
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the most recent figures for the number of firms(a) satisfying quota obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, (b) issued with quota exemption permits and (c) not meeting their quota obligations and without quota exemption permits.

    Mr. Nicholls
    [holding answer 16 January 1990]: On 1 June 1989, the latest date for which information is available, the number of firms (a) satisfying quota obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 was 7,276, (b) issued with quota permits was 18,530 and (c) not meeting their quota obligations and without permits was 6,170.

    Wage Increases
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the effect on employment of double-digit wage increases in the financial sector; and what is the basis of this estimate.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    I have been asked to reply.

    I do not have an estimate of the effect of high wage increases in the financial sector on its own, but excessive wage increases in any sector of the economy will be harmful to jobs.

  HEALTH

    Hospitals, Trent
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for the last 12 months by hospital within the Trent regional health authority(a) hospitals that have been on red alert and (b) the duration of the alert.

    Mr. Freeman
    This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the Trent regional health authority for the information he seeks.

    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for the Trent regional health authority, the number of hospitals(a) opened and (b) closed in each year since 1980.

    Mr. Freeman
    The information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may like to write to the chairman of Trent regional health authority for the information he seeks.

    Hamlets Way Residential Unit
    Ms. Gordon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health why the Hamlets Way residential unit, at 199 Hamlets way, London E.3, has been designated part III accommodation by his Department; and how many such hostels have been so designated.

    Mr. Freeman
    The designation of residential establishments managed by local authorities is a matter for the authority concerned and information is not collected centrally. I understand that the Tower Hamlets Way hostel 400
    is treated as a local authority-managed residential care home for income support purposes but this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Department of Health advised local authorities of the changes in the arrangements for paying income support to people in hostels in LAC(89)13 issued in September 1989. A copy of this circular is in the Library.

    Ambulance Dispute
    Mr. Winnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the dispute involving ambulance crews.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    Duncan Nichol, the NHS chief executive, has written to the trade unions confirming that he would be willing to hold further talks when there is some indication of a significant change in their position.

    Elderly and Handicapped People
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention to bring forward proposals to amend the existing legal responsibilities of local authorities towards vulnerable elderly or handicapped people.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    We have no plans to amend the existing legal responsibilities of local authorities towards these groups other than those announced in the White Paper "Caring for People" and set out in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

    Self-governing Hospitals
    Mr. Wareing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in respect of feasibility studies being carried out by hospitals considering self-governing status.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    We have received a small number of representations on this subject. The Department of Health and health authorities are undertaking a wide range of projects designed to inform the implementation of the Government's proposals to improve the Health Service, including the setting up of National Health Service hospital trusts.

    Drinking Water
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on studies on the morbidity rates of populations subjected to drinking water which has been chlorinated.

    Mr. Freeman
    Adequate disinfection by chlorination has had a marked effect in reducing morbidity rates from water-borne infectious diseases. However, this treatment leads to the production of chlorination by-products, some of which have been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals when administered in large doses for long periods. Numerous studies of chlorinated water and disease rates, particularly cancer morbidity and mortality have been published, and the Department sought advice from its independent expert advisory committee on the medical aspects of the contamination of air, soil and water. It said:"We have found no sound reason to conclude that the consumption of the by-products of chlorination in drinking water which has been treated and chlorinated according to current practices, increases the risk of cancer in humans.

    401
    The effective disinfection of water supplies is clearly of great importance in maintaining public health. In our opinion, modification of chlorination processes which have proved effective over many years, or the replacement of chlorination by other disinfectants, is not required by the available data on cancer epidemiology, animal carcinogenicity, and mutagenicity in relation to chlorination by-products in drinking water."

    This advice was conveyed to water authorities and water companies in England and Wales in DoE/Welsh Office letter WP 12/1986, and republished in annex 1 of "Guidance on Safeguarding the Quality of Public Water Supplies" (HMSO, 1989). Relevant epidemiological and other research is kept under review.

    Post-menopausal Women
    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there are any National Health Service-funded studies to estimate the cost to the National Health Service of treating osteoporosis, heart attacks and strokes in post-menopausal women; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    The Department has recently commissioned an economic evaluation of hormone replacement therapy which will look at its costs and benefits in relation to osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. We are also considering the funding of three further projects on osteoporosis and related problems. Comprehensive information about research funded by the National Health Service is not collected centrally.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Roger King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce hospital waiting lists.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    The Government's aim is to reduce the time patients have to wait for treatment, because this, rather than the number waiting at any moment, is a key measure of service in the NHS.

    In 1986 the Government launched the waiting list initiative to tackle the problem of excessive waiting time. Health authorities and their clinical staff have introduced many improvements both in management—to ensure the most efficient use of resources—and in clinical practice—for example by the greater use of new techniques and day surgery.

    The waiting list initiative has been backed by a waiting list fund. The Government have invested £119 million over four years in the waiting list fund to tackle particular problems of long waiting times. By April 1990 the fund will have enabled well over 300,000 additional inpatients and day cases and 200,000 additional outpatients to be treated. Many thousands more will be treated in 1990–91.

    In early 1989 a management team, led by Mr. John Yates of Inter Authority Comparisons and Consultancy, went into the 22 districts with the longest waiting times in the country to find out why the lists there were so long and to suggest how they could be shortened. Part of the waiting list fund was earmarked to finance the team's recommendations, where additional resources, and extra treatments, proved necessary.

    In the first six months of the team's work the number of patients waiting over a year in the 43 specialties studied reduced by 26 per cent., and further reductions are expected. The team will continue its work in 1990–91 when, backed up by £12 million of the £33 million fund for next
    402
    year, it will be examining the 100 longest specialty waiting lists with most patients waiting over one year for treatment.

    Amniocentesis Tests
    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women received an amniocentesis test in the 15th, 16th and 17th weeks of pregnancy.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    This information is not held centrally.

    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy to commission research on the rate of spontaneous abortion and the rate of miscarriage associated with the amniocentesis test;

    (2) what figures he has on the number of premature births associated with the amniocentesis test.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    A report by the Royal College of Physicians on pre-natal diagnosis and genetic screening published in September 1989 said that there is still some uncertainty about the exact risk to pregnancy from amniocentesis largely because the risk is so low and extremely difficulty to measure. The report noted that studies suggest a 1 per cent. excess risk of spontaneous abortion following amniocentesis and a slight increased incidence of mild respiratory problems in the newborn. The commissioning of further research would be a matter for the Medical Research Council which is responsible for biomedical research.

    Miscarriages
    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of miscarriages by the week of pregnancy in which they occurred from the 15th week to term.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    This information is not held centrally.

    Selective Reduction of Pregnancy
    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State Health how many National Health Service hospitals and private clinics practise selective reduction of pregnancy; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    We know of two hospitals where selective termination of pregnancy has recently been performed. The names of the hospitals are not released for reasons of maintaining confidentiality.

    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the practice of selective reduction of pregnancy; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    Selective termination of pregnancy should be performed only if the requirements of the Abortion Act 1967 are fulfilled.

    Conductive Education
    Mr. Bowis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further steps he is taking to encourage conductive education.

    Mr. Freeman
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Disabled gave my
    403
    hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) on 15 December at columns 848–49. The Department is playing an active role in discussions with the Hungarian Government and in the other measures needed to bring conductive edcuation to this country, including support for the Foundation for Conductive Education, Birmingham.

    Abortion
    Ms. Richardson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the laws on abortion in each western European country; and if he will give details of the gestational periods equivalent to British gestational calculations during which abortion is permitted in each of those countries with the specific permitted grounds for abortion within each of these periods.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 11 January at column 716. The survey referred to also covers the law and practice on abortion. I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested as soon as the report is ready.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health upon what date he expects to be able to publish the results of the recent study into post abortion stress disorder.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    In view of the large amount of data to be analysed the contract for the joint Royal College of General Practitioners/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists study "Attitudes to Pregnancy" was recently extended to 31 December 1990. The final report is expected to be submitted to the Department shortly after that date.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any application for a product licence has yet been received in connection with the abortifacient drug RU486.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    It is not usual practice to disclose information about whether or not an application for a product licence has been received or the progress of any such application for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

    Trust Funds
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be able to write to the hon. Member for Don Valley as promised in his answer of 16 November 1989,Official Report, columns 421–22, relating to trust funds.

    Mr. Freeman
    I have written to the hon. Member today.

    AIDS
    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out in the Official Report the terms in which his Chief Medical Officer stated recently that the outcome for HIV carriers is likely to be the same irrespective of cause; and what consideration he has given to its relevance to the claim for financial help for people who acquired the virus from blood transfusions equal to
    404
    that given to people with haemophilia who contracted the virus after the injection of contaminated blood products under the National Health Service.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    There is no known difference in the proportion of people developing AIDS at any given time interval following infection when comparing the different routes of transmission of sexual intercourse, and receipt of infected blood or blood products. This issue has been explored in a number of scientific articles including the Journal of the American Medical Association (3 February 1989, pp 725–727) and AIDS 1988, 2 (supplement 1, S57–63). Apparent differences may be due to the effect of age on the rate of progression to AIDS. The ex-gratia payments given to provide help for haemophiliacs with HIV and their families recognised their wholly exceptional circumstances. Haemophiliacs were already suffering from a disability which affected their employment prospects, insurance and mortgage status. Also the hereditary nature of haemophilia means that more than one member of the family may be infected with HIV.

    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will be replying to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, of 23 December 1989, on people who have acquired AIDS from blood transfusions under the National Health Service.

    Mr. Freeman
    My right hon. and learned Friend has now written to the right hon. Member.

    Population Statistics
    Mr. Andrew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what projections he has of the total numbers and percentage of the United Kingdom population who will be(a) over 60 years old and (b) over 75 years old in the years 2000, 2010 and 2020; and what is the total number and percentage of the United Kingdom population who are currently 50 years of age or older.

    Mr. Freeman
    The most recent (1988-based) projections of the Government Actuary are as follows:

    Thousands

    Aged 60 and over

    Aged 75 and over

    Year

    Number

    Per cent.

    Number

    Per cent.

    1990

    11,884

    20·7

    3,985

    6·9

    2000

    12,017

    20·3

    4,369

    7·4

    2010

    13,214

    22·1

    4,461

    7·4

    2020

    14,400

    23·7

    4,730

    7·8

    At mid-1988 the United Kingdom population aged 50 or older was estimated to be 17,878,000 or 31·3 per cent.

    Lead
    Mr. Bermingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will outline current research into the long-term effects of the ingestion of small amounts of lead on children in respect of neurological damage; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) what studies are being made of the permanency of effects of the ingestion of small amounts of lead on children; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Freeman
    The Department is aware of recent research, published in the United States, which attributes
    405
    neurobehavioural deficits in teenagers to their markedly elevated exposure to lead during childhood. The Medical Research Council (MRC) is the main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom. The MRC receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. It is not currently funding any research into the long-term effects of the ingestion of small amounts of lead on children in respect of neurological damage. However, the council continues to keep this area under review. It is always willing to look at any sound proposals for research. Other research may be in hand elsewhere, but will not be known of until it is published.

    Research on the neuropsychological effects of lead in children was reviewed by the Medical Research Council advisory group which reported in June 1988. The group's conclusions were:
    "The Group's earlier report in 1983 suggested that any effects of lead at the exposure levels seen in the United Kingdom are very small and cannot be detected with any certainty. This conclusion is still largely applicable, but the evidence for an association between body lead burden and IQ is now stronger.
    While observed statistical associations detailed in this review are consistent with the hypothesis that low level lead exposure has a small negative effect on the performance of children in ability and attainment tests, the limitations of epidemiological studies in drawing causal inferences are such that it is not possible to conclude that exposure to lead at current urban levels is definitely harmful. In view of these conclusions, it would be prudent to continue to reduce the environmental lead to which children are exposed."

    Since 1974 it has been the policy of successive Governments to contain and reduce exposure to lead wherever practicable. Successful measures have been taken to reduce lead exposure through petrol, water, air, food, industrial emissions, paint, cosmetics, ceramic glazes and toys. Monitoring programmes have shown a continuing fall in blood lead levels in children and adults.

    Mr. Bermingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there are any proposals for regulatory action in respect of the ingestion of small amounts of lead; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Freeman
    There are currently no such proposals. Regulations already in force limit the levels of lead found in the environment, foodstuffs and consumer products. The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 set a statutory maximum allowable concentration of 50 microgrammes of lead per litre of drinking water. The Lead in Food Regulations provide a maximum permitted general limit of lead content of food of 1·0 milligrammes per kilogramme of food, with individual limits on specified foods.

    The Pencils and Graphic Instruments (Safety) Regulations 1974 limit the amount of lead in paint and in the lead or colouring materials of pencils or crayons, although under the terms of a voluntary agreement, the industry has already phased out lead in domestic paints. The Glazed Ceramic Ware (Safety) Regulations 1988 specify leaching limits of heavy metals from crockery, and similar regulations apply to cooking utensils. The lead content of toys is limited under the Toy (Safety) Regulations of 1974 and 1989.

    There are also programmes to reduce lead levels in the atmosphere, and to reduce or eliminate lead exposure through industrial emissions, cosmetics and petrol.

    Defibrillators
    Mr. Robin Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of defibrillators provided for ambulances out of health authority funds.

    Mr. Freeman
    This information is not held centrally.

    Hospice Funding
    Mr. Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will be in a position to give the amounts of Government funding to St. Ann's hospices at Heald green, Cheshire, and Little Hulton, Greater Manchester.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    We shall shortly be notifying health authorities of the allocations they will receive from the additional £8 million we have made available for 1990–91 to enable them to increase the contributions they already make to voluntary hospices and similar organisations. The funding of individual projects is a matter for discussions between the authorities and the organisations concerned.

    Welfare Milk Scheme
    Mr. Bermingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to monitor negotiations between the constituent parts of the milk industry with respect to the apportionment between them of costs incurred as a result of current proposals for the welfare milk scheme discount; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Freeman
    Regulations introducing a revised reimbursement price structure for the supply of liquid welfare milk reflect the size and value of the purchase. The regulations assist the milk industry voluntarily to use its well-established price negotiating procedures to share the costs equitably throughout all sectors of the trade. It would not be appropriate to monitor these commercial transactions centrally.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 9 January,Official Report, column 572, if he will make a statement on the nature and scope of his new research programme into the vertical transmissibility of BSE.

    Mr. Maclean
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 18 December 1989,Official Report, Col.30. This is a long-term research project and I have nothing further to add to my previous answer.

    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what compensation is paid in respect of cattle first identified as bovine spongiform encephalopathy sufferers in markets and abbatoirs; to whom such compensation is paid; and on how many occasions during each of the last four years such compensation has been paid.

    Mr. Maclean
    Compensation is paid in all cases to the owners of cattle slaughtered at the Ministry's behest in accordance with statutory requirements. Details of
    407
    individual payments are not held centrally. Animals which have been moved for slaughter from a farm before BSE is suspected are valued as barren animals and no allowance is made for any loss of condition due to BSE or other cause. Such valuation is usually lower than if the same animal had been valued as a BSE suspect on the farm.

    Mr. Batiste
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any evidence of cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy occurring in animals too young to have been exposed to infected feed.

    Mr. Gummer
    No. I am not aware of a single case of BSE in an animal too young to have been exposed to feed containing ruminant protein material. Cases can be expected to occur for several years to come; this is not because the infection is spreading or because of a new source of infection, but because of the long period that can elapse before the symptoms emerge.

    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is carrying out tests on offal from cattle thought to be free of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to establish whether the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent is present in the tissue; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Gummer
    Such tests would not be expected to yield a positive result in more than a tiny number of cases. It is a much better approach to ensure that the offal which might carry the BSE agent in apparently healthy animals do not enter the human food chain at all.

    Beef
    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take in the light of the United States Government's ban on the consumption of British beef by United States forces stationed in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Maclean
    There is no ban. Legislation has been passed in the United States which would introduce subsidies on American meat supplied to United States bases in the Community. As a result those bases could be exclusively supplied with American meat. The European Commission has taken up this matter with the United States authorities.

    North Sea
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library the letter sent to him by Norway on behalf of the three Nordic signatories calling for an urgent meeting of the scientific and technical working committee on prior justification procedures, following his announcement of three licences for dumping in the North sea.

    Mr. Gummer
    I have not yet received such a letter, but will place a copy in the Library should I do so.

    Knacker Industry
    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department intends to support an amendment to the proposed regulation by the European Commission that bans the uplifting of dead 408
    stock from farms by licensed knackermen, which would allow the United Kingdom to have the authority to determine its own means of disposal of dead and casualty animals and to continue with the existing national sterilising arrangements.

    Mr. Maclean
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 17 January 1990,Official Report, 17 January, column 292.

    Coastal Protection Schemes
    Mr. Robert Hicks
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the criteria governing approval of applications by local authorities of coastal protection schemes, and the scales of financial grant available; what changes have been made since 1983 in these criteria and whether further changes are envisaged; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Curry
    The criteria for approval of a proposed coastal protection scheme are that the work will be technically appropriate, cost-effective and environmentally sympathetic, and that any objections to the proposed scheme have been either withdrawn or resolved.

    Grant is available at up to 70 per cent. of the costs of individual coastal protection schemes; until October 1987 the maximum grant rate was 79 per cent. Criteria for approval are unchanged since 1983.

    No further changes are envisaged other than minor adjustments arising as a consequence of the new local government finance arrangements.

    Waste Dumping
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 11 January,Official Report, column 748, whether he will suspend the licences granted to Fisons, Sterling Organics and Orsynthetics pending a reassessment of the basis of the objections raised by the Government of Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, West Germany and Norway; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Gummer
    I am determined that the disposal of industrial waste at sea shall be terminated. More than half the licences in force in 1987 have already been withdrawn.

    International agreements provide for a continuation of sea disposal of our wastes until acceptable means of land disposal are available. Indeed, to replace sea disposal by the use of environmentally unacceptable means of land disposal would break the terms of the North sea declaration.

    Information recently received by the Ministry indicates that an acceptable means of disposal other than sea dumping is now available for the Fisons waste. The company has therefore been advised that its licence will not be renewed when it expires in February.

    I do not propose to suspend the remaining licences. Either production would have to stop or an environmentally unacceptable means of land disposal used. Cessation of production would not only hit employment, it would damage the interests of those many people who need drugs such as paracetemol.

    Food Safety
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer of 11 January to the hon. Member for South Shields,Official Report, column 738, concerning the Food Safety Bill, if he will list the individual local authorities with which discussions were held with officials from his Ministry; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Gummer
    Pursuant to my reply to the hon. Member for South Shields of 11 January (Official Report, column 738), there were no discussions held between officials and individual local authorities on the resource implications of the Food Safety Bill. The individual officers of local authorities who were present at meetings were representing one or other of the organisations listed in my reply, not their employers.

    Illegal Fishing
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning alleged illegal fishing by Spanish trawlers following publication of a letter on this subject in Fishing News, 27 October 1989; and if he will draw the European Community Commissioner's attention to these allegations.

    Mr. Curry
    I have received no representations about illegal fishing by Spanish trawlers following publication of the letter in the Fishing News of 27 October 1989. Enforcement of Community legislation is for the member state concerned. But if I receive information about alleged illegal activities by other fishermen, I will of course pass this on to the EC Commission.

    Wheat
    Dr. Michael Clark
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current average prices per tonne for (i) milling wheat and (ii) feed wheat prices in(a) France, Denmark and Holland, (b) Germany, (c) Spain and (d) the United Kingdom; and what steps are being taken to ensure that efficient British cereal growers obtain similar prices to their Continental counterparts.

    Mr. Curry
    The national average of market prices provided by the Commission of the European Communities for the week ending Saturday 6 January 1990, converted to £ sterling using spot rate values for 5 January, are set out in the table:

    Breadmaking Wheat

    Feed wheat

    Country

    National currency per tonne

    £ per tonne

    National currency per tonne

    £ per tonne

    France

    1,275

    135

    1,296

    137

    Denmark

    1,437

    134

    n/a

    n/a

    Netherlands

    434

    139

    434

    139

    Germany

    392

    142

    384

    139

    Spain

    26,170

    146

    n/a

    n/a

    United Kingdom

    121

    121

    118

    118

    I am considering the Commission's proposals for the 1990 price review, which include provision for devaluation of the green pound.

    Soft Fruit
    Mr. Andrew Welsh
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect he estimates the import of soft fruits in bulk will have on the Scottish and United Kingdom soft fruit industries.

    Mr. Curry
    The United Kingdom food industry has for a number of years drawn on both home and imported sources for its supplies of semi-processed soft fruit. I am confident that growers of soft fruit both north and south of the border can face fair competition. In this context my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, and I met growers' representatives on 16 January and agreed with them the steps to be taken to ensure that the EC Commission implements its recent commitment given within the framework of the extension of the generalised system of preference to Poland and Hungary. The Commission undertook to ensure that the prices agreed annually with our suppliers in eastern Europe are respected by those suppliers in their trade with the Community.

    Rabies
    Mr. Thurnham
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals have been kept in quarantine for rabies in each of the last five years; and how many have developed the disease.

    Mr. Maclean
    The information is not available in the form requested. The number of import licences issued during the past five years was:

    Number

    1985

    7,628

    1986

    7,547

    1987

    8,829

    1988

    9,091

    1989

    10,010

    No animals developed rabies in quarantine in this period.

    End-of-Lay Hens
    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he takes to ensure the humane handling of end-of-lay hens being removed from battery cages; if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Maclean
    My Department is currently spending £0·8 million each year in research related to the development of more humane handling systems, including studies on broken bones. Additional work is being planned in this subject. We have proposed amendments to the Battery Hens Regulations 1987 and enouraged the industry in the production of its guide to handling end-of-lay hens which has now been sent to producers. Systems for keeping egg-laying hens are similar within Europe and we have therefore asked the Commission to ensure that the problem is tackled in the review of the battery hens directive.

  SCOTLAND

    Cochlear Implants
    Mr. Dewar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many cochlear implants were carried out in Scotland in the last year or for the latest period for which figures are available; and how many centres provided by the National Health Service in Scotland are offering cochlear implants for the profoundly deaf apart from the unit at Ayr county hospital;

    (2) if he will consult voluntary organisations representing the profoundly deaf about the cochlear implant programme and its availability in Scotland;

    (3) what information he has about the number of patients presently on waiting lists for a cochlear implant; and how many people there are in Scotland who might benefit from such treatment;

    (4) what representations he has had from the Ayrshire and Arran health board about the funding of a centre for cochlear implants;

    (5) what sums he has made available for a cochlear implant programme for 1990–91 and the two succeeding years; whether he has any plans to ask health boards in Scotland to submit bids for funding to develop a cochlear implant programme locally; and if he will make a statement;

    (6) whether his Department will be represented at the seminar arranged in March by the Department of Health to discuss the development and provision of cochlear implants.

    Mr. Rifkind
    My hon. Friend the Minister for Health in Scotland announced on 11 January that funding would be made available for a cochlear implant programme in Scotland. Decisions as to the level of funding and location of the programme are currently being considered. I would be glad to have the benefit of any views which voluntary organisations representing the profoundly deaf may wish to offer.

    To date four cochlear implants have been carried out in Scotland, all at Crosshouse hospital, Kilmarnock, the first one in March 1989. A request for funding of a centre there was received from Ayrshire and Arran health board earlier this week. No other centre in Scotland offers a service, as

    Farm Development Scheme

    Livestock Development Scheme

    Fish Farming

    Infrastructure

    Crofter Housing

    Total

    Shetland

    189

    274

    3

    6

    9

    481

    Orkney

    520

    496

    5

    2

    2

    1,025

    Argyll and Inverness

    236

    263

    3

    4

    —

    506

    Skye

    170

    337

    10

    2

    1

    520

    Clyde Islands

    127

    89

    2

    —

    —

    218

    1,242

    1,459

    23

    14

    12

    2,750

    Grant is normally paid on approved cost or actual cost, whichever is the lower, provided that the Department is satisfied after inspection that the cost incurred is not excessive in relation to the works actually undertaken. Details of claims which have had to be restricted are not held centrally.
    412
    far as I am aware. Information is not centrally available on the numbers on the waiting list for an implant. nor on the numbers who might benefit.

    My Department will be represented at the seminar being held in March by the Department of Health to discuss cochlear implants.

    Agriculture Development Programme
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applicants there have been for the agriculture development programme; and how many applications have been refused.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    At 12 January 1990, 2,750 applications had been approved. About 100 applications are still under consideration and more may be submitted before the closing date for applications of 28 February 1990. One hundred and sixty-five applications have been refused or were withdrawn prior to approval. A number of the applications which were refused or withdrawn because they failed to meet ADP criteria—mainly the requirement that breeding stock numbers should not increase during the period of the plan—were revised by the applicants, resubmitted and subsequently approved.

    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total budget of the agriculture development programme; and how much he envisages being taken up.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The ADP submission to the European Commission envisaged public expenditure on the programme of about £38 million. It is not possible to indicate the precise level of expenditure over the programme period to March 1993 since the programme is still open for applications and eventual grant payments do not necessarily match exactly the level of expenditure envisaged when applications are approved.

    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many individual schemes are now operational under the agriculture development programme; how many have subsequently had their total grant allocation cut by his Department; and if he will detail this by geographical area.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The total number of applications approved at 12 January 1990 is 2,750. This is broken down by type of measure and island group in the table:

    Croft Houses
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland grants were made for croft houses by year over the past 10 years; what was the expenditure in total; and what was the average grant on individual croft houses.
    413
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The information is set out in the table:

    Number of grants made1

    Expenditure2

    New house

    Improved house

    Total

    New house £

    Improved house £

    Total £

    1979

    148

    47

    195

    4590,000

    525,000

    615,000

    1980

    192

    63

    255

    698,000

    35,000

    733,000

    1981

    147

    54

    201

    558,000

    28,000

    586,000

    1982

    133

    43

    176

    522,000

    24,000

    546,000

    1983

    77

    36

    113

    314,000

    20,000

    334,000

    1984

    132

    67

    199

    665,000

    58,000

    723,000

    1985

    143

    66

    209

    836,000

    82,000

    918,000

    1986

    113

    53

    166

    709,000

    45,000

    754,000

    1987

    119

    59

    178

    882,000

    81,000

    963,000

    1988

    95

    113

    208

    —

    —

    33,316,000

    1 Number of grants made for new houses or improvements completed.

    2 Actual expenditure in year.

    3 No split available for grant only. Total includes loans for houses.

    4 The maximum grant available for new houses was £4,000 from 1979, £6,500 from 1982 and £8,700 from 1986

    5 The maximum grant available for house improvements was £750 from 1979 and £1,500 from 1986.

    In general new house construction attracted the maximum grant. The average grant for house improvement was £700.

    Fish Farms
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many referrals there have been to his consultative committee on fish farm applications; and how many applications have been refused.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    There have been no referrals made to the advisory committee to date. Representatives from the relevant statutory bodies have been invited to serve on the committee. The necessary arrangements for referral of applications for a sea bed licence where a statutory consultee maintains its objection are now operational.

    Tourism
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list his Department's total expenditure on tourism in each of the past 10 years.

    Mr. Lang
    The information is as follows:

    Financial year

    Expenditure £ million (Cash)

    1979–80

    7·9

    1980–81

    9·8

    1981–82

    11·2

    1982–83

    12·9

    1983–84

    16·7

    1984–85

    18·5

    1985–86

    18·0

    1986–87

    21·5

    1987–88

    17·3

    1988–89

    18·7

    Notes:

    1. The figures are in respect of expenditure on the promotion of tourism by the Scottish Tourist Board, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency.

    2. The figures include expenditure by the Scottish Development Agency for the period 1984–85 to 1988–89 covering loan and equity finance for tourism projects which meet its normal investment criteria and tourist projects under schemes for urban and rural development. Expenditure details for earlier years are not readily available. In
    414
    addition, a number of feasibility studies, land engineering and property development projects funded by the agency may have tourism benefits.

    3. Provision by the Highlands and Islands Development Board is through its marketing and projects programmes and under its section 8 assistance scheme; the figures do not include salary and administration costs incurred by the board.

    4. Total expenditure by the Scottish Tourist Board is provided, including salary and administration costs, in performing its statutory functions of promoting Scotland as a tourist destination, both within the United Kingdom and overseas, and encouraging investment in tourism infrastructure.

    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received the Scottish tourist board's review of training within the industry; and whether he plans to publish the findings.

    Mr. Lang
    The review was commissioned by the Scottish tourism co-ordinating group which will consider arrangements for publicising its findings at its meeting on 19 January.

    Rural Enterprise Programme
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the areas of the Highlands and Islands which will be eligible for the rural enterprise programme; what are the funding arrangements underpinning the programme; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The whole of the Highlands and Islands Development Board area is eligible for support under the rural enterprise programme. The intention is to target assistance on the areas in greatest need and to concentrate action on a limited number of localities at any one time to ensure that the resources available are applied to best effect.

    Subject to the European Commission making a contribution as part of its funding of the rural development programme for the Highlands and Islands, the Government have agreed in principle to provide £8·5 million over the period 1990–91 to 1992–93. Funding in the years beyond 1992–93 will be decided in the annual public expenditure negotiations.

    The programme is intended to boost the rural economy by helping farmers and crofters in the selected areas embark on new economic ventures in addition to their

    415
    traditional activities. Final details have still to be settled, including the selection of areas in which the programme will operate initially.

    Crofting Estates
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has made any decision on the future of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland's crofting estates; and what representations he has received on the issue.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The future of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland's crofting estates is currently under review. My noble Friend the Minister of State has had some discussions with the Crofters Commission and with the Scottish Crofters Union but as yet no proposals for change have been put forward and none will be undertaken before full consultation has taken place with all interested bodies.

    Highlands and Islands Development Board
    Mr. Dewar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing(a) the Government's contribution to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, (b) the Highlands and Islands Development Board's income from other sources and (c) the Highlands and Islands Development Board's total expenditure for every year from 1979–80 to 1988–89 in cash terms and at constant 1988–89 prices.

    Mr. Rifkind
    The information is as follows:

    Highlands and Islands Development Board Expenditure 1979–80 to 1988–89 (£ million at cash and 1988–89 prices)

    Grant-in-Aid

    Receipts

    Total expenditure

    Year

    Cash

    1988–89

    Cash

    1988–89

    Cash

    1988–89

    prices

    prices

    prices

    1979–80

    17·4

    32·7

    4·0

    7·5

    21·4

    40·2

    1980–81

    20·0

    31·7

    3·7

    5·9

    23·7

    37·6

    1981–82

    22·9

    33·1

    4·4

    6·3

    27·3

    39·4

    1982–83

    27·5

    37·1

    5·2

    7·0

    32·7

    44·1

    1983–84

    31·3

    40·4

    6·8

    8·8

    38·1

    49·2

    1984–85

    34·6

    42·5

    7·5

    9·2

    42·1

    51·7

    1985–86

    30·4

    35·4

    9·3

    10·7

    39·7

    46·1

    1986–87

    26·3

    29·8

    9·2

    10·3

    35·4

    40·1

    1987–88

    26·2

    28·1

    11·7

    12·5

    37·9

    40·6

    1988–89

    31·5

    31·5

    10·5

    10·5

    42·0

    42·0

    Regional Aid
    Mr. Dewar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing expenditure on regional preferential assistance to industry in Scotland for each year from 1976–77 to 1988–89 at constant 1988–89 prices.

    Mr. Rifkind
    The information requested is given in the table:

    Gross expenditure on regional preferential assistance at constant1988–89 prices

    £ million

    1976–77

    592·5

    1977–78

    365·2

    1978–79

    349·4

    1979–80

    269·9

    1980–81

    314·9

    1981–82

    339·9

    416

    £ million

    1982–83

    499·2

    1983–84

    295·3

    1984–85

    230·3

    1985–86

    229·9

    1986–87

    273·9

    1987–88

    164·4

    1988–89

    151·2

    Note: Includes gross expenditure in Scotland on regional selective assistance, regional development grants, regional enterprise grants, Scottish Development Agency expenditure on land and factory building in assisted areas and Highlands and Islands Development Board expenditure on grants and land and factory building. The figures also include a number of forms of assistance in the years up to 1982 which have been discontinued.

    Training
    Mr. Dewar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were on(a) employment training schemes and (b) YTS schemes in Scotland at the latest date for which figures are available.

    Mr. Rifkind
    On 12 January 1990 there were 25,623 participants in employment training and at the end of December there were 46,074 young people on YTS in Scotland.

    Rural Legal Partnerships
    Mr. Kirkwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research has been undertaken to assess the impact of the changes proposed in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill on the viability of legal partnerships in rural areas.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    [holding answer 15 January 1990]: No such research has been commissioned, but two research projects funded by my Department have some relevance. One, which is nearing completion, has examined factors influencing the market for conveyancing services in Scotland with particular emphasis on advertising and fee charging practices. The sample used in the survey was drawn up using the Department of Employment's travel-to-work areas to represent three types of market, namely cities, medium-sized towns, and rural areas plus small towns. The second project, due to start soon, will compare fees charged for conveyancing before and after the abolition of scale fees in 1985. A similar sampling method will be used.

  DEFENCE

    Death and Injury Compensation
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state(a) the total deaths and (b) the total injuries in the armed services in (i) 1988 and (ii) 1989; how many of the service men or their next of kin will receive no Ministry of Defence compensation; what is the average compensation his Department will pay per person in relation to (1) death and (2) injury; whether he will make it his policy to arrange for a comprehensive personal insurance cover scheme for all service men and women; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    The figures for deaths and medical discharge as the result of injury for United Kingdom regular forces in 1988 and 1989 are as follows:
    417

    (a) Deaths

    Number

    1988

    316

    1989

    1336

    1 Provisional.

    (b) Medical dischargeas the result of injury

    Number

    1988

    244

    1989

    1

    1 Not yet available.

    Financial provision in respect of those who die in service, or who are medically discharged as the result of injury, is made under the terms of the armed forces pension scheme. Benefits payable can comprise pensions and/or lump sums, including those payable to eligible dependants in the event of death. The amounts depend upon the circumstances of each case. Relevant factors can include rank, length of service, whether death or injury is attributable to service and, where appropriate, degree of disability. It is not therefore possible to provide an average figure for the total amount which may be paid per person. A benefit will be payable in all cases except where medical discharge is due to causes that are not attributable to service and less than two years' reckonable service has been given.

    Where death or medical discharge is attributable to service provision is also made under the terms of the war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security.

    I believe these arrangements to be satisfactory.

    RAF Finningley
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hardened aircraft shelters have been, or are due to be, constructed at RAF Finningley; and what is their purpose.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    There are no hardened aircraft shelters at RAF Finningley, nor do we plan to construct any.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete his review of the arrangements in Gibraltar for logistics for the garrison; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    A review of the logistic support arrangements for all the armed forces in Gibraltar was completed in November 1989 and it is expected that many of the principal recommendations arising from the review will he implemented by October 1990, when the new joint forces headquarters comes into being.

    Works Organisation
    Mr. Shersby
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose his Department is setting up a works organisation; and what will be the total salary bill.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    On 25 May 1988 my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) announced the Government's decision that as 418
    from the 1 April this year the Ministry of Defence would be "untied" from the PSA. This means that the MOD will have new responsibilities both for managing funds and for deciding how to undertake our substantial works programme.

    The MOD is setting up Defence Works Services at Sutton Coldfield to help in the discharge of these new tasks. It will not, however, directly manage works services. DWS will supply professional, technical and contractual expertise to Ministry of Defence departments and service commands which are the customers for works services so that the best procurement options for the supply of services are identified.

    Under present plans, the total salary bill for DWS staff for the first full year of operation will be around £3 million at current prices rising to about £4·5 million during 1992–93 and thereafter.

    Cavalry Officers
    Mr. Marlow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to the benefits to service efficiency of cavalry officers in regiments which do not have a ceremonial role being encouraged to ride; what benefits accrue from riding that do not accrue from other adventure training activities; and what is the cost to public funds per hour of(a) riding and (b) other forms of training.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    All Army personnel are encouraged to participate in a range of both sporting and adventurous training activities. Such activities are complementary to other forms of military training in enhancing and developing the personal qualities and soldierly skills required of Army personnel.

    Some £1·25 million per annum is spent on the provision of adventurous training for the Army. Information regarding the cost of riding cannot be provided without disproportionate effort. It would not be practicable to calculate the cost per hour of adventurous training.

    Trident
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent to date on production and development for the Trident programme by the United Kingdom Government, and what percentage of this has been spent(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in the United States of America and (c) elsewhere.

    Mr. Alan Clark
    Actual expenditure figures for the Trident programme as a whole are not available beyond September 1989. The total expenditure for the project up to this point is £2,730 million, of which some £370 million is for development and £2,360 million for production. Seventy-four per cent. of the expenditure has been incurred in the United Kingdom and 26 per cent. in the United States of America. There has been no readily identifiable expenditure elsewhere.

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of costs already incurred to the United Kingdom Government, as a result of the decision to purchase the Trident D5 missile system, it has been agreed would be reimbursed by the United States Government, in the eventuality that development and production of the D5 missile system is cancelled by the United States Government.
    419
    Mr. Alan Clark
    There is no agreement specifying the reimbursement to the United Kingdom of a particular percentage figure.

    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current Trident deployment schedule.

    Mr. Alan Clark
    As previously announced, it remains our intention to deploy Trident into operational service in the mid-1990s.

    Dockyards
    Mr. Barry Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those commercial dockyards that have benefited from repair and refit work following the changes in Her Majesty's dockyards.

    Mr. Neubert
    Following is a list of those firms which have won contracts valued at £10,000 or more for ship refit or ship repair work since the introduction of commercial management at Devonport and Rosyth Royal dockyards in April 1987. All the firms listed have won work from the unallocated programme, which is put out to competition on the open market, with tenders being invited from all suitable shiprepair contractors, including the Royal dockyards.

    A & P Appledore (Aberdeen) Ltd.

    A & P Appledore (Falmouth) Ltd.

    A & P Appledore (Tyne) Ltd.

    Ailsa Perth Shipbuilders Ltd.

    Appledore Shipbuilders

    Babcock Thorn Ltd.

    Berthon Boats Ltd.

    J. Bolson & Son Ltd.

    Bristol Channel Ship Repairers.

    British Dredging Ship Repairers Ltd.

    Cairds Industrial Services plc.

    Camper & Nicholsons

    Clyde Dock Engineering Ltd.

    Clyde Shipbuilding & Repairing (1987) Ltd.

    Cockenzie Ship & Boatyard Ltd.

    E. Cole & Sons (Cowes) Ltd.

    Cosens & Co. Ltd.

    Crissan Marine Ltd.

    Devonport Management Ltd.

    Emsworth Shipyard

    Eyemouth Boat Building Co. Ltd.

    Falmouth Shiprepair Ltd.

    Forth Estuary Engineering Ltd.

    Garvel Dry Dock Co. Ltd.

    Globe Engineering (Hull) Ltd.

    Hall Russell Ltd.

    Halmatic Ltd.

    Harland and Wolff plc.

    Herd & MacKenzie Ltd.

    N. Holman & Sons Ltd.

    Holyhead Boatyard Ltd.

    Humber Shiprepairers Ltd.

    James Adam & Sons (Shiprepairers) Ltd.

    James Miller and Sons

    Mannings Marine Ltd

    Marine & Port Services Ltd.

    Mashford Brothers Ltd.

    McGruers and Co. Ltd.

    Midland Ship Repairers Ltd.

    A. H. Moody and Son Ltd.

    Odessa Shipyard Ltd.

    Ramsgate Marine Ltd.

    Richards Shipbuilders Ltd.

    RTR Marine Ltd.

    Smith Shiprepairers Ltd.

    Seaforth Welding Co. Ltd.

    Sharpness Shipyard Ltd.

    Souter Shipyard Ltd.

    Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd.

    420

    Tees Dockyard Ltd.

    Thew Engineering (Southampton) Ltd.

    Timbacraft Ltd.

    Tyne Dock Engineering

    Tyne Shiprepairers Ltd.

    Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd., Portsmouth

    Wear Dockyard Ltd.

    Wright and Beyer Ltd.

    Mr. Barry Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish and tabulate the refit times for auxiliary vessels refitted in(a) Her Majesty's dockyards and (b) commercial shipyards for the last five years.

    Mr. Neubert
    It is our policy generally to place refit work for RFA and RMAS vessels by competitive tender and most is now undertaken by privately owned commercial shipyards. It is not our practice to publish raw data on timekeeping because refits are rarely comparable in terms of the condition of the vessels and the work undertaken.

    Tritium
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to assess the security of long-term supply of radioactive tritium for his nuclear warhead production programme.

    Mr. Alan Clark
    Arrangements for the supply of tritium are kept under regular review to ensure that the requirements of defence nuclear programmes are fully met.

    Disablement Pension
    Mr. O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to increasing the pre-1973 war disabled pension.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    War disablement pensions are paid under the war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security. The rates payable do not differentiate between disabilities originating before, or after, 1973. Pensions may also be payable, under the provisions of the occupational scheme for members of the armed forces, to those who are eligible. The rules of eligibility and the basis for calculating the latter awards were changed with effect from 31 March 1973, but it has not been considered possible to extend those changes retrospectively to include those whose service ended before that date.

    Mr. O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current annual cost of the provision of pensions for pre-1973 war disabled.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    Figures of expenditure on pensions payable under the armed forces pension scheme to those with a disability attributed to service are not separately maintained.

    Mr. O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the total annual cost of increasing pensions by £40 a week for pre-1973 war disabled.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    The annual cost of making a payment of £40 per week to all those currently receiving a DSS war disablement pension would be approximately £400 million. Separate figures are not available for those whose service ended before 31 March 1973.

    CHARM Tank Gun
    Mr. Rogers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if progress on the CHARM tank gun programme is on schedule; and if Royal Ordnance will be able to meet the timescale of the Challenger 2 development programme.

    Mr. Alan Clark
    The CHARM gun programme is on schedule to meet the timescale of the Chieftain replacement programme as set out in my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 20 December 1988 (Official Report, Vol. 144, col. 283).

    Ambulance Services
    Mr. Robin Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the areas of the country in which military personnel have been providing ambulance services and the dates at which they became involved in each area.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    As at 17 January, the areas where service personnel have been assisting the police and voluntary services in the provision of an accident and emergency service, together with the date that these services began, are as follows:

    Location

    Since

    London

    8 November 1989

    Hertfordshire

    17 November 1989

    Bedfordshire

    25 November 1989

    Lincolnshire

    25 November 1989

    South Yorkshire

    8 December 1989

    422

    Location

    Since

    West Midlands

    15 December 1989

    Dorset

    18 December 1989

    Hereford and Worcester

    22 December 1989

    Staffordshire

    4 January 1990

    Surrey

    11 January 1990

    Essex

    11 January 1990

    Oxfordshire

    12 January 1990

    Buckinghamshire

    12 January 1990

    West Sussex

    12 January 1990

    Warwickshire

    12 January 1990

    Berkshire

    17 January 1990

    Service ambulances also operated in Derbyshire between 24 November and 1 December.

    Mr. Robin Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to date of the forces' operation of the ambulance service.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 9 January to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) (Official Report, col. 614). Figures for the period ending 31 December 1989 have not yet been finalised.

    Mr. Robin Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of military personnel and vehicles currently involved in the provision of ambulance services.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    Nine hundred and sixty-eight service personnel and 181 service vehicles are involved directly in the provision of an accident and emergency service.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Russian Warships
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the scale of building of ships of war for the navy of the USSR; and whether this has increased or decreased over the last two years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, we do of course take a keen interest in Soviet naval shipbuilding activity. In general, we have detected no great change over the past two years —neither increase nor decrease. The Soviet Government have announced plans for conversion of shipyards from naval to civil work, but so far we have noted only one significant example of this.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting Answer. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government regard with equanimity the possession of a substantial navy by the Soviet Union, which obviously has very little need for protection of sea communications, or whether they hope to see there too some activity by way of disarmament?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can inform my noble friend that the Soviet Union is currently engaged in major combatant and submarine construction programmes in all major categories of naval vessels. The bulk of those programmes has been established in production well in excess of five years. The trend is downward with some of the more mature among them; but among the more recent classes the position is unchanged or the trend is upward. Those on a rising trend —we judge in terms of annual completions —are in surface ships, a new class of frigate and the Sovremennyy guided missile destroyer, and in the submarine area the Oscar anti-ship cruise missile platform and the Akula nuclear powered attack submarine.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can the Minister say why it is that at a time when Mr. Dick Cheney, the American Defense Secretary, is considering cutting the US defence budget by 150 billion dollars over the next five years and has said that Soviet defence spending is coming down, Britain alone is set to increase its defence expenditure by £1 billion in each of the next three years? Why do Her Majesty's Government persist in ignoring the fact that the Berlin Wall has come tumbling down? That should enable fresh winds to blow away the cold war mentality that dominates much of their thinking.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I must make quite clear to the noble Lord that it is because of our defence in conjunction with our allies over the past 40 years that we are where we are at this very moment in time. There is no greater moment of uncertainty and concern in the Transcaucasus than at the moment. We must always consider their position of capability rather than intention. As your Lordships will know, their capability is still immeasurably greater than that of our NATO allies.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the Minister say what the programme of scrapping has been during the period to which he referred? Would the Soviet Union have scrapped fewer than 20 major ships in that major two-year period? How many submarines has it scrapped? Will the Minister confirm the American view that a very great proportion of the Soviet fleet is obsolescent? Finally, will he further confirm that during this period the West's considerable lead in naval power has not been eroded in any way?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the problem is that naval forces are not included in the current conventional force reduction negotiations.
The Earl of Kimberly: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in view of the fact that NATO has kept the peace for the past 40 years and, with regard to my noble friend's Question, the one thing that one does not want to do is throw away everything? At this moment in time should we not stay as strong as possible in NATO?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope and trust that all noble Lords will agree with my noble friend's comments.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, unfortunately the Minister implied that naval disarmament is not included in the current talks. Is he not aware that this is because of the Western attitude? Some Russians are perfectly willing, and have been for some time, to include those talks in the disarmament negotiations. If he is so worried about the naval shipbuilding of the Soviet Union, will he explain why the British Government and the West resist disarmament negotiations on naval weapons?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I can make it perfectly clear to the noble Lord. Naval forces are included in the current round of CSBM talks (the Confidence and Security Building Measures mandate) which are going on at this very moment. The West's proposals seek to encourage openness and predictability in military activities but the Soviet proposals for constraints on size and duration of exercises are not acceptable to the West. We have to exercise our deterrent posture.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that comparisons with the United States are beside the point? The United States can defend its own hemisphere. We are wholly dependent, as we always have been, on oceanic communication. Is that not a good reason for treating naval problems on their own?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as an aside to my noble friend's point, no doubt your Lordships are aware that NATO and her allies have 385 surface ships and the Warsaw Pact 220. Our superiority is of course for supply and protection of the North Atlantic routes.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, can my noble friend detect anything in the fact that, although in 1970 and the years afterwards there was a very large building programme in the Soviet navy, these ships are now becoming somewhat aged and needing repairs? Is that not distorting the fact that there may be a reduction in the strength of the Soviet navy? Can he tell me whether, on balance, the figure is going up or down?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in numerical terms it is not easy to answer the noble Viscount. However, the only sectors that are showing any signs of long-term reductions are missile control boats, minor combatants (in other words, minor warfare and patrol craft) and auxiliaries. The former two categories are highly dependent on export orders.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Question relates to our survival as a maritime nation. Is not the biggest threat to our survival if hostilities broke out —and God forbid —the fact that we now have hardly any merchant navy left to sustain us in the face of an adversary?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if the British merchant fleet continued to decline, our defence capability could be affected. But there is certainly no serious cause for concern that the needs of our armed forces could not be met.

Sizewell B: Cost Estimate
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What estimates of the total cost of Sizewell B have been submitted to them by the CEGB.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the most recent estimate of the cost of Sizewell B was that which the CEGB advised to the Hinkley Point C Inquiry in the autumn of 1989. The board then said that the estimate was likely to increase by 10 per cent. This gave a total of £1·86 billion at 1987 prices.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the figures which were given to the Hinkley Point Inquiry represent an 11 per cent. increase over the original cost at gross prices and a 25 per cent. increase at real prices taking inflation into account? Are not the costs of building Sizewell B escalating out of all proportion? Would it not be much cheaper either to scrap Sizewell B altogether or to transform it into a gas-fired station?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the CEGB's statement also identified that the extra costs were
738
mainly the result of developments in design, including additional requirements to meet safety commitments, and the increased costs were those of establishing a first-of-a-kind design in full detail. On the noble Lord's second supplementary question, the Government are firmly committed to the establishment of this station in order to secure the supply and the diversity of supply that the nuclear power station will give.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the CEGB evidence to the Hinkley Point Inquiry was submitted before the Government's decision to cancel the three other PWRs? Is he further aware that as a result of that decision between £200 million and £400 million in extra costs—that is the estimate of the University of Sussex —will be loaded onto Sizewell B rather than spread across the four PWRs?
Is the noble Viscount also aware that the cost of the Hinkley Point Inquiry incurred by the CEGB and the cost of other PWRs that have been cancelled is an extra £44 million which again now has to be considered as part of Sizewell B? Who will pay for that? Will it be the taxpayer or the electricity consumer?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot go further on the costs than I have already. Those are the figures that the CEGB has prepared. There are no other figures available. I do not think that I should comment on the costs that the noble Lord has put forward. The Hinkley Point C Inquiry has been brought to a conclusion and the report is awaited.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that the country, the Government and the consumer have already been victims of slipshod accounting, to say the least, on the part of the CEGB? How can we be sure that the figures that have now been given to the Government for the total completion cost of the PWR at Sizewell are any less slipshod? Will he now give an estimate of what the cost to the consumer of electricity produced by Sizewell will be?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the CEGB has undertaken to carry out a review of the costs of Sizewell B. The board expects to complete the review in two to three months' time. The present expectation is that there will be a single price for all nuclear output, and that is currently the subject of commercial negotiation.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the escalation of costs for Sizewell B is in line with those for the Channel Tunnel and that it is common for large enterprises to be involved in such escalations?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes. Safety considerations are an important factor. Thus the increase in civil works costs was affected by detailed safety analysis of seismic requirements. The increased costs to the nuclear steam supply system excluded expenditure to meet additional safety requirements agreed with the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it the Government's intention to make a Statement to the House after the review has been carried out by the CEGB?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we should wait and see what the review has to say.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as it is most important that we should know, will the Minister assure us that when the review has taken place the Government will come to both Houses and give Members the opportunity to assess the real question of whether in all the existing circumstances the project should proceed at all?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall pass on the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister's figures show that the cost of the nuclear power station will be at least £2 billion. Is he aware that according to the Government's own figures an investment of £3·8 billion in energy efficiency could reduce the cost of the United Kingdom primary energy used by nearly 20 per cent., reduce the carbon dioxide emissions which cause the greenhouse effect by 30 per cent. at current levels and save the consumer £12 billion? Would that not be a better investment than continuing the wasteful expenditure on Sizewell B?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government believe strongly in increasing energy efficiency. However, as I have already said, there is no prospect of higher investment in energy efficiency rendering it unnecessary to build new generating plant.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that it is useless to try to compare the capital costs of anything built today with something of a parallel character built 10 years ago? It is just not possible.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I tend to agree that the figures are incomparable.

Regional Economic Growth and Air Fares
3.23 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to further their policy of encouraging economic growth in the regions, and North Wales in particular, by ensuring that air fares from Manchester are in line with those of Heathrow.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government's policy is to remove restrictions in aviation arrangements between governments so that airlines are free to compete on fares and other aspects of their services, subject only to proper safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour. We have had
740
considerable success in liberalisation, both bilaterally and within the EC. The increase in competition which results is the best way of bringing down fares, including those from Manchester.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. How does he equate declared government policy of decentralisation when the fares from Manchester to Europe are, on average, 52 per cent. higher than those from Heathrow? Does my noble friend really want me to travel all the way to Heathrow, thus polluting the M.6 and M.1 and further overcrowding Heathrow?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not sure that I can advise my noble friend on the latter part of his question. However, fares from Manchester or from any other airport must reflect the costs of providing the service concerned. Therefore, fares from Manchester to European destinations tend to be higher than fares from London because of Manchester's greater distance and the lower level of demand, which reduces operators' opportunities for economies of scale. But on long-haul routes such as those to the USA the differences are less pronounced and fares tend to be the same whether from Manchester or London.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I agree entirely with the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. However, is it not also the case that communications between London, the Channel Tunnel and North Wales must be improved dramatically and quickly if that large and important region is to benefit from the single market in 1992? Will he therefore convey to his right honourable friend the need, for example, to electrify the line from Euston to Holyhead and ask him that it be done as a matter of urgency?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, of course I shall convey to my right honourable friend anything that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition says. However, as I am sure he knows, the Government are making a massive investment in the road infrastructure of North Wales. The most notable element is the improvement to dual-carriageway standard of the A.55 across North Wales, costing some £550 million. It will reduce the journey time from Bangor to Chester from over three hours to about one hour. That is probably quicker than would be the result of electrification of the railways.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend remain firm in a view which he expressed a moment ago, that regulation of air fares is not government policy and that they should be deregulated and set by the airlines in accordance with their commercial judgment?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I must agree with my noble friend. The agreement in principle at the Transport Council on 5th December provides a framework for the next stage of liberalisation and sets goals for the future.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that more than 60 per cent.

741
of air traffic is centred at Heathrow and he said that Manchester Airport is used less than Heathrow. However, how does he explain the fact that when Singapore Airlines, which had two flights per week into Manchester, asked for seven the Government restricted it to only three per week? Surely that would have been a way of increasing the income of Manchester Airport and perhaps ultimately reducing landing charges. That does not seem to be a way of encouraging competition or regional development.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot comment on the particular case raised by the noble Lord but I shall write to him. The Government encourage the maximum use of regional airports to meet local demand and to relieve the pressure on the London airports. Over the past decade the Government have approved borrowing totalling over £240 million for the development of local authority airports. That together with airports' internally generated resources has facilitated over £300 million of investment.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Food Safety Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during the adjournment the Driving Licences (Community Driving Licence)Regulations 1989 will be taken.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 16 [Food safety and consumer protection]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper) moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 12, line 18, leave out ("any class of food, or in food sources or any class of").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 64A:
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("(whether going to the fitness of the food or otherwise)") and insert ("(going wherever practicable to the fitness of the food)").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with Clause 16(1) which contains a provision that could
742
be subject to misinterpretation. The intention of the words now appearing in brackets in the subsection is to admit the use of microbiological standards of varying types.
However, as the World Health Organisation report pointed out, since food which meets microbiological standards may not be safe to eat, in our view it would be better if the provision contained a presumption in favour of using the strongest regulations possible. If such a provision is not included, the paragraph contains a possible loophole in that there is no requirement to prescribe microbiological standards which seek the highest level of fitness of food which can be attained. However, Ministers may wish to offer an assurance that it is the Government's intention to use their powers to meet the highest standard available and that the wording in the paragraph is merely intended to enable flexibility in interpreting that aim. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his explanation of the intention behind the amendment. I can certainly give him the assurance that we intend to aim at the highest standards. However, I regret that I can not accept his amendment because the effect of it is unclear.
Exclusion of the word "otherwise" in line 23 would seem to aim to confine the power to make microbiological standards to the fitness of food only. There may be circumstances where one would wish to make microbiological standards for other reasons, as I believe the noble Lord acknowledged, particularly the quality of food. As an example, the microbiological standard ensuring the fitness of milk could require the absence of pathogenic micro-organisms which can cause milk-borne disease. However, other spoilage organisms could, if present, cause a deterioration in the quality of the milk during its normal shelf life. A microbiological standard covering quality aspects can provide protection to very young or very old, who are vulnerable people, as well as providing the general consumer with more assurance on quality.
In the light of those comments, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I may not have been a microbiologist at the start of today but I believe that we shall all be microbiologists by the end of today. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the assurance which I sought that implicit in the clause as now worded is the intention of the Government that the highest standards of food will prevail. I hope that that will go some way to satisfying the intention behind this amendment.
However, I shall look in detail at her reply because some of it was rather technical. I shall look particularly at the criticism she made of the drafting of the amendment. In the light of that consideration, it may or may not be necessary for me to return to this matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 12, line 27, leave out ("or any class of food").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 12, line 32, leave out ("as to, and") and insert ("or prohibitions as to, or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 12, line 34, after ("descriptions") insert (", including health claims,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to Clause 16(1)(e) which is intended to improve the protection of consumers against health claims for food or food products which may be misleading. I am aware that there is already legislation which covers some of the ground and the food labelling regulations of 1984 are useful.
The wording of this paragraph in its current form makes provision for further regulations controlling labelling, marketing, presentation and advertising of food. Health and nutritional claims could well be included in those categories but the words "health", "nutrition" or "claims" are not specifically mentioned. I think that they should be. Certainly the words "health claims", as in my amendment, should be mentioned.
The effect of nutrition and food additives on health is, as I think all Members of the Committee will agree, of increasing public concern. Scientific evidence relating nutrition to a number of our current major health problems such as atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease and cancer is becoming increasingly clear and consistent. That means there is a real need for new regulations on health and nutritional claims to be made and updated as necessary.
A health claim suggests that a particular food product may have a beneficial effect on health generally or on a specific medical condition. The latter needs particular scrutiny. For example, a recent advertisement which many Members of the Committee may have seen had as its caption:
"Worried about osteoporosis? Consult an expert".
The caption appeared above a picture of a milkman delivering milk. In fact, the calcium in milk has no effect on established osteoporosis and the code of advertising practice operated by the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint about that particular claim. The advertisement was subsequently withdrawn but not until it had appeared all over the country. The firm concerned had no penalty imposed upon it.
I am not suggesting that health claims are necessarily bad. They can be extremely useful and can be used as part of a health education campaign. However, it is very wrong if they give false information. By including the words "health claims", I suggest that the Government would give themselves a useful opportunity to revise, improve and bring up to date existing legislation and regulations on a continuing basis to fit in with current and developing scientific knowledge.
If the noble Baroness feels that the words in the clause as it stands cover all the points which I have made and the Government intend to make regulations governing health claims, I should be most
744
grateful if she would say so. How she says that will of course govern what I decide to do on this amendment.
Lord Colwyn: Before the Minister replies, many existing herbal, mineral, vitamin and other food supplements have medicinal health claims and effects which are known and universally accepted. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary as medicinal claims are fully covered by existing medicines legislation and food claims by existing food legislation. The words proposed would cause further problems for the much beleaguered food manufacturers and I hope that they will be rejected.
Baroness Trumpington: I imagine that whatever I say nearly always influences what will happen to an amendment. I was interested to hear the noble Lord. I agree entirely that Ministers should be able to regulate the use of health claims on food labels. However, I assure the noble Lord that that is already achieved by the present wording.
As it stands, the clause allows Ministers to regulate the descriptions which may be applied to food. It is well established that that covers all food claims including health claims. In fact the noble Lord's amendment could weaken the proposed power by casting doubt upon the interpretation of the word "description". While the word is not defined in any way, it is taken to be all embracing. However, if health claims were specifically mentioned, there might be some doubt as to whether other types of claim which were not specifically mentioned were also covered. Moreover, where the word "description" appeared in other legislation without reference to health claims, it would no longer be clear that such claims were covered.
The noble Lord asked me whether the Government were going to cover health claims. Some are already dealt with in labelling requirements. I should like to add that the EC is also about to introduce proposals on claims. I would say that the example given by the noble Lord was obviously wrong, and that it is for the Advertising Standards Authority to point out when false claims are made.
Lord Rea: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Her words reassure me to some extent. I shall have to scrutinise them more carefully when I see Hansard tomorrow, but I thank her very much for her reply. At this moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 12, line 34, leave out ("or any class of food").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was also spoken to with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 68A:
Page 12, line 38, leave out ("necessary or expedient") and insert ("desirable").
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to Clause 16. The object of the amendment, again, is, in a sense, to test the views of Ministers on the interpretation of the clause. The words which intrigue us in that clause are those appearing at line 38, "necessary or expedient". Our feeling is that those three words might usefully be replaced by the single word "desirable".
The paragraph contains a reserve power for Ministers to make regulations introducing provisions with respect to food or commercial operations as appear to them to be necessary or expedient in the interests of food safety, public health or consumers. Our amendment therefore is intended to test the basis on which the Government would use their new power.
The paragraph leaves considerable discretion in the hands of Ministers who will determine what is necessary and whether action in relation to it is expedient. The word "desirable" would import a presumption in favour of action where food safety, public health or consumers appeared to be at any degree of risk from an activity which might otherwise be regulated. We hope that Ministers will be able to indicate that they can accept this amendment since it may be assumed that powers will be used wherever it is desirable to do so.
Finally, in favour of this modest proposition, perhaps I may say that as it substitutes one word for three words, it should be supported by legislators everywhere. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I am sorry, but I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment. Clause 16(1)(f) already contains a comprehensive power which allows Ministers to make regulations wherever it is necessary and expedient to protect the public health or the interests of consumers. The Government will not hesitate to use these powers whenever it is necessary or expedient to do so. However, I believe it would be quite inappropriate to allow Ministers complete freedom of action whenever they considered something to be merely desirable. Who would say what was or was not desirable? Such a power would allow regulations to be made almost at a whim, even when they were not necessary.
Despite the fact that I am always in favour of brevity, I fear we shall have to leave the paragraph as it stands.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: Before we leave what is desirable and expedient in connection with food sources, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a further question, again concerning the catering industry. In the Bill there appears to be a possibility that food sources will have to be designated on menus and other places where food is processed and served to the public. If that is the case, restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, public houses and other such institutions will be required to say how food had been processed. As it is, when you enter a restaurant, or even a sandwich bar, you obviously take on trust the source of that food. The ingredients may well
746
have been organic, chemically sprayed, frozen, microwaved, pasteurised or even, in due course (depending on what happens later today), irradiated.
The concern of the catering industry in its broadest sense is that if such regulations were thought at any time to be necessary, expedient or, I am glad to say considered by most people as not wholly undesirable, this would have a major effect on a whole section of a large part of the small business industry. I should therefore like to inquire, before we leave this clause altogether, whether it is the Government's intention to incorporate regulations which would interpret the Bill in that manner. If so, that would be very worrying. However, if there is to be full and fair consultation, or if it is not the Government's intention to have such regulations, that would not be a worry.
I have not given the noble Baroness much warning of this question. If she is not able to reply to me immediately, I would not be in the least concerned; and perhaps she can either write to me or we can deal with it at a later time.
Baroness Trumpington: I am sure of the fact that we have given a commitment that we shall include the word "irradiation" on menus in restaurants. With regard to the various other aspects that could possibly be included on menus, it would probably end up by being difficult to see what one was intending to eat. However, we shall be reviewing the matter, and talking to restaurant owners and other interested parties.
We are reviewing labelling requirements in general, and until we have completed that review it would be impossible, apart from my firm commitment on "irradiation", to introduce definitive remarks in answer to my noble friend.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Baroness for her response to this amendment, though naturally I am somewhat disappointed by it. The noble Baroness referred to the comprehensive power already scheduled in Clause 16(1)(f) and in effect assured me that Ministers would not hesitate to use those powers. To replace "necessary or expedient" with the word "desirable" could allow Ministers scope for being capricious and to that extent she has perhaps something of a case against the amendment as drafted.
Nevertheless, we must look at this question in some detail—perhaps also in the light of the intervention by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery—because an aspect of this Bill which has hardly been touched upon and which concerns us is the question of enforcement in the catering industry. It covers a very wide spectrum. It is an area where food enforcement is most difficult to regulate. There is —and I say so with due respect to the noble Viscount —a bottom line mentality now in the catering trade, probably spurred by the competition of tourism. All of this might mean that the Bill needs to be stronger in respect of catering than it is in other respects. Nevertheless, we are not opening up that particular question at this stage, but it may be necessary for us to return to it later in

747
the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert —
("1A) In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Minister shall take all necessary actions to ensure that all food treated with pesticides, fungicides and herbicides, whether pre-harvest or post-harvest, be labelled as such.").
The noble Viscount said: There has grown up in recent times a great deal of public concern about the use of pesticides in agriculture and in particular about the residues left in food. More and more people are turning to organic produce. This may in some cases be an exaggerated concern, but nevertheless it is a fact. Those who take a particular interest in these things know that, in the absence of a tag stating that a particular vegetable or fruit has been treated with pesticides, it almost certainly has been so treated.
The Government say that consumers should have as much choice as possible. This amendment therefore merely seeks to support the wishes and the aims of the Government in giving the consumer as much choice as possible. This amendment seeks to fulfil that in one way. Nobody is saying that food which has been treated with pesticides should not be sold under any circumstances. If that came about it would create an impossible situation because the whole of our agricultural system is geared to that end at the present time. People should have the right to make an informed decision for themselves. The motivation behind our amendment is that at present people do not have enough information on which to base these important decisions.
To those who say that pesticide residues do not matter one can only say that a growing number of people show an enormous amount of concern about them. Labels already have to show the contents of tiny amounts of additives, colouring agents, emulsifiers and so on, and quite rightly so. Why then are the public not told that the food that they are buying may well contain the residues of products which have a function basically to destroy living organisms?
It has been argued —and it may be that the noble Baroness will continue to argue —that pesticides present no problem whatever. However, there are one or two recent cases that have been brought to my attention which show cause for concern. A confidential report was produced by MAFF's own advisers and, not surprisingly, it was not published. A report in the Guardian in the summer of 1988 referred to a health hazard to man which some pesticides are likely to pose. In a famous phrase the subject was referred to rather alarmingly as "bucket and shovel techniques" which are commonly supposed to be used to apply pesticides after harvesting. The report stated that as a result consumers may well be exposed to higher dosages than those which had been formerly suspected. Such residues could present a health hazard. We feel that some statutory control should be enacted to limit exposure to pesticides.
A television programme in the "Facing South" series revealed that in 1988 1,500 tonnes of tomatoes and thousands of lettuces had been destroyed because inspectors found that they had been sprayed only a day before harvesting. A report prepared by Friends of the Earth revealed that 43 individual pesticides were recorded as having been applied to glasshouse lettuces. One crop received 46 treatments involving four individual pesticides.
Recently, in the United States, tests have been carried out on population samples. Detectable DDT related residues were found in the blood of 60 per cent. of the people tested though DDT had been outlawed in 1971. Despite assurances emanating from the Ministry and other quarters, besides what has appeared in the media and elsewhere, there are considerable doubts about pesticides in food among members of the public. The pesticides may or may not be a health hazard: I am not saying that they definitely are. However, what is clear is that a growing number of people wish to make a choice. They should be informed to an extent where they can make a proper choice. They cannot do that at the moment —a situation which my amendment is intended to correct.
In a survey carried out in the mid-eighties —I do not have anything more recent than that —86 per cent. of a sample of consumers in Britain said that if they had the choice they would pay more for foods free of the chemicals about which there is increasing concern. Since this majority is likely to increase rather than decrease I wish to give people the chance to have what they clearly want. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I suggest to the Committee and to the noble Viscount that neither this amendment nor Amendments Nos. 70, 71 or 72 are necessary. More importantly, they are not appropriate on the face of the Bill. The matters involve detailed labelling issues and as such they are under discussion, or already part of, the EC food labelling directive. It is also relevant to say that currently a UK food advisory committee review of food labelling is taking place. That is where these matters should be dealt with. I do not believe that we should spend too much time on these amendments.
The Viscount of Falkland: Perhaps I may be permitted to respond to the noble Lord. I intended to make some remarks on that very subject in relation to the last amendment I shall move in this group. That amendment refers to the type of legislation being used and although I have no particular objection to discussing this on the present amendment what I have to say on the subject of irradiation will be dealt with in connection with Amendment No. 73. I shall wish at that stage to take up the points which the noble Lord has raised.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: In addition to what has been said there are other valid points that need to be made in support of the noble Viscount. The labelling situation in this country is unsatisfactory. The public are confused at the lack of standardisation. They want to follow recommended guidelines for healthy eating, for the prevention of

749
heart disease, and so on. However, at the moment they do not have the necessary nutritional information on the food in shops on which they can base a choice. Also as the noble Viscount said, the public wish to be able to avoid substances in their food which may disagree with them.
Under present regulations and over quite a large area the public can avoid such substances. But there are gaps which are made more serious as new information comes to light. These gaps need to be plugged and I believe that that can be done. I am not convinced that we need to wait for the EC or anyone else. Some of the gaps are targeted in these amendments. I wish to say something about Amendment No. 69.
As the noble Viscount said, there is growing concern about the kinds of agent referred to in this amendment. Anything that ends with "cide" is in the business of killing. And that is not good for life. It is as unreasonable to believe that such substances do no harm to humans as it is to assume that acid rain only harms plant life. All these matters to which we are exposed add up. The argument that the doses are too small to do harm is less and less tenable.
There are well-documented cases of people who have suffered from exposure to these agents. I wish to amplify what the noble Viscount said. I have read that one independent review of scientific literature found that of 426 pesticide ingredients approved by MAFF, no fewer than 124 were known or suspected to have links with cancer, genetic damage, allergies or irritations of some kind.
The Select Committee in another place investigating pesticides and human health had some sharp things to say in 1987 about the degree of risk and the lack of official response to it. We believe that the Government's advisers are well aware of the potential danger from residues in food. They all add up to a cocktail of noxious substances to which we are increasingly exposed. It is right that consumers should be able to avoid any agents which they wish to avoid. That can only be achieved through proper labelling.
The Government accept the need to label food if it has been affected by irradiation, which is a supposedly harmless process. I hope that they will agree the need to label pesticides, fungicides and herbicides which have a potential for harm.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Of course there is anxiety about these matters and both noble Lords are right to highlight it and to give illustrations. I do not know whether either of them has studied how food is created and what the implications will be with labelling of this kind. It would mean that every field that was sown with wheat for bread, with vegetables or potatoes, would have to be hoed by a row of people in a line. That is a slow business and it could be done only in dry weather. It would be enormously expensive. We are not talking about gardening in the back yard. We are talking about the growing of food for the nation. The price of food would escalate enormously. I do not know whether my noble friend has the figures but I am sure prices would increase by a factor of six, seven, eight, nine
750
or ten if no weed killers were used in growing food. It would be enormously expensive.
We talk about choice and we are right to do so. In many instances in this Bill I quite agree that labelling is the way forward. But labelling every item of food which had been treated with a pesticide, a fungicide or a herbicide at some stage —when it was sown, while it was growing or after it was harvested —would mean that almost no foods without such labels would be available, except those which well-off people could pay for. It would put labelling into disrepute. People would begin to disregard it. It is not practical to do that at this stage.
I am sure that my noble friend will tell us about the way pesticides are tested and monitored. We must do everything we can scientifically to ensure that farmers do not put harmful substances on the crops. We all know that there comes a moment when something put on crops is proved to be harmful, but this amendment is completely impracticable. When noble Lords bring forward amendments of this kind they should think out the implications of their being agreed to. It is probably perfectly true that if one asked 86 per cent. of people or even a larger sample whether they would like to have something which has never met any of these chemicals they would say that they were willing to pay more, but they are thinking of paying 2p, 5p or 10p more. They are not thinking of the price of bread increasing sixfold or tenfold. I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Carter: It is important in discussing the amendment to consider the technical point of the status of the scientific protocols concerned in the measurement of residue levels. This is extremely important to manufacturers, farmers and consumers. The Minister will be familiar with the example of oilseed rape. The EC introduced a change in the subsidy rules which meant that there was a maximum level, measured in micromoles, of glucosinalates. This affected the subsidy. But there was no agreement about the way in which this should be measured. It is important for the Minister to explain to the Chamber—perhaps she may need to write to me afterwards —exactly how the Government intend to deal with the status of the scientific protocols in determining the levels of the residue.
The Earl of Radnor: I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendment. If I were cynical I think I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, that if he wants choice he can almost assume that everything has been sprayed in one way or another except those things he finds on the shelf which positively say that they have not been.
On a less facetious note, the impracticality of the suggestion must be borne in mind. I have only two suggestions to make in this connection. Let us suppose that a crop of wheat is sprayed for aphids soon before harvest. It then goes into the grain store and is mixed up with wheat that has not been sprayed for aphids. It then goes to the miller and finally goes into a loaf of bread. What labelling is one to put on

751
the loaf of bread? Another example, more up my own street, concerns a pond of fish among, say, 200 ponds of fish. It has a little diffusion in the water to kill an external parasite. Trout are graded the whole time, so the treated fish are mixed with the untreated fish. The mixing and remixing process goes on until eventually they go to harvest, when they would be rather hard to label and identify. To put it crudely, this proposal is pie in the sky. I hope that it will be strongly resisted.
Lord Colwyn: I do not wish to prolong the debate but I feel strongly on this point. Only a small number of pesticides cause the greatest hazard to health. Although I may not be up to date with current regulations, I know it has been suggested that the three petrochemical compounds, the herbicide Linuron and the insecticides Chlorodineform and Permethrin, should be banned. The problem at present is that one cannot tell whether the product contains an excessive quanity of pesticide without this clear labelling obligation.
In May 1987 the Committee of the American Academy of Sciences thought that an incidence of 5·8 cases of cancer per thousand was a likely forecast for people consuming food which had been treated with these pesticides. There can be no better argument for selecting organically grown fruit and vegetables, particularly if they have some other seal of approval. Foods, herbs and spices imported from overseas are also often heavily contaminated and are rarely checked for pesticide residues. The laboratory equipment at our ports —I look forward to hearing whether or not the Minister can confirm this —is so outdated that it takes 10 to 14 days to arrive at a proper analysis, by which time the food is bad.
In view of the comments we have heard, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and hope that she will look favourably on the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: I am most grateful to my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lord Radnor for their helpful remarks and I was interested in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Colwyn. He mentioned en passant organically grown food. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to choice. There is choice. A consumer can buy organically grown food, as marked in the shops. Perhaps I may remind him that there is as yet no test to prove that the food has been organically grown.
This proposal raises an important and difficult issue, although I believe it is unnecessary. Clause 16(1)(e) provides Ministers with wide-ranging powers to require or regulate the labelling of food. Ministers could therefore make regulations covering pesticide treatments. While Ministers obviously believe strongly in informative labelling, the issue of pesticide treatments is extremely complicated. It is currently being considered both by the EC and by the Food Advisory Committee. It would be premature at this stage to pre-empt the outcome of their deliberations.
I shall have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the status of scientific protocols. We must be
752
careful not to confuse or mislead the consumer. This proposal would have wide implications since it would mean that pesticides used at every stage of cultivation, even before emergence of a crop, would have to be shown on the label of the final product. Yet three-quarters of the volume of pesticides used in this country are herbicides —weed killers —which do not leave any residues in food.
A less sweeping approach would be to label only those pesticides applied after harvest. This is the approach adopted by the European Commission in a proposal relating to fruit and vegetables. Even this needs careful thought. Could it be enforced? The point raised by my noble friend Lord Radnor was a good one. Given that pesticides can be applied by a multiplicity of handlers at several stages of the food chain, one asks oneself whether it could be enforced. We must bear in mind that no one test determines whether or not pesticides have been applied. Instead, hundreds of tests will be necessary, one for each potential pesticide.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked how much the proposal would cost. Has the noble Viscount any idea? Has he contemplated the consequences for farming and the food industry of logging all uses of pesticides named in the proposal and tying them to the final product through the entire distribution chain? Certainly the Government will have to consider fully the heavy burdens such a requirement would place before reaching a conclusion.
Perhaps I may now reassure those noble Lords who are worried about pesticide residues in food. The Government carry out regular monitoring of our food, both home produced and imported, the results are published and they show that residues are at a low and entirely safe level. Moreover, pesticides can only be used in this country if they have first been approved by a rigorous statutory scheme which ensures the safety of consumers.
Finally, the noble Viscount referred to a confidential report of MAFF which was published in the Guardian. Perhaps I should say that he should have referred to what was said in that article.
The Viscount of Falkland: We have had a most useful debate on this subject and one which was refreshingly non-party political in content. I have listened with enormous interest to all the views expressed from the other side of the Chamber. Moreover, I take on board many of the points raised, especially those in connection with the difficulties. Of course I realise the difficulties in taking this process to its ultimate conclusion and I appreciate the vision of rows of ladies with hoes progressing down the field, as given by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I quite take her point.
However, by way of this amendment we are asking that all the necessary actions should be taken. Of course what is proposed is not easy; it is complicated. Further, my amendment may be imperfect and impractical. I am not a fanatic in these matters; indeed, I am probably one of the more cavalier people as regards my eating habits, since I have suffered food poisoning four times and have also had hepatitis. Nevertheless, I take seriously the concerns

753
which many people have about the number of chemicals and residues which are left in food. I realise the difficulties in dealing with the problem. However, I shall not pursue the matter and propose to withdraw the amendment. I think that we have had a useful debate and I daresay there will be further such debates on the subject in the future. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
("(1A) In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Minister shall take all necessary actions to ensure that the exemption from labelling requirements enjoyed by beverages where the alcoholic content is above 3 per cent. be annulled.").
The noble Viscount said: At this stage perhaps I may preface my remarks by putting forward my response to the interjection during the discussion on the last amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Tedious though it may be, it is important that my amendments under Clause 16 should follow one another. Of course, there is a good reason for that process. We on these Benches feel quite strongly that such primary legislation —and not just that confined to this Bill —is often dealt with in a way which would be more suitable for secondary legislation. As I said when I responded intitially to the last amendment, and I say it again in connection with this one, I should have thought that it could perfectly properly be dealt with by the Government through regulation.
However, there are matters which we shall come to that are not best dealt with in that way. Indeed, I was interested to see today that there is a debate which has been tabled by a member of the noble Baroness's party who is a distinguished Member of this place, on the way that legislation is dealt with in this Chamber. That implies that there is a feeling, even on the other side of the Chamber, that too much importance is put upon the use of regulation to bring in matters of this kind and also more serious matters. I apologise if the process is a lengthy one, especially when we are hoping to finish the Committee stage of the Bill today.
I turn now to Amendment No. 70. It deals with the anomaly in this country where labelling requirements so far as concerns alcoholic drinks are not consistent with other labelling requirements. Over many years the Government have accepted that consumers have every right to know what additives are present in the food which they buy. The Food Advisory Committee has accepted that among a certain percentage of the population there is an undesirable reaction, whether it be serious or not so serious, to the additive tartrazine. I do not wish to delve any further into the chemistry of such matters, but leaving aside the question of whether that particular additive should or should not be allowed, at least those who suffer such reactions and those who know about such matters can make an informed choice and avoid buying products which
754
contain tartrazine if they wish. However, no such choice is open to consumers of alcoholic beverages.
I have a reaction to certain wines. They happen to be cheap and red. I do not wish to malign Italian restaurants, but usually such wines are to be found in those establishments. I do not know why I get a headache and a feeling of irritability—which, I should add, I do not have now—but it seems to me that it is not the alcoholic content because I do not drink a lot of it. However, there is clearly something in the wine to which I have a reaction. In my view many people suffer such reactions.
I am not myself a beer drinker, but I am told by those who drink beer that headaches are suffered by people who drink beer but that this does not often happen in respect of German beers. That suggests, since German beer is generally free of additives, that it must logically be because of an additive in our beer. Therefore, for one reason or another many people are becoming extremely sensitive to what they buy and are not quite sure how to go about it. Thus there is a kind of hit and miss activity among consumers.
I am also told that there is a pretty high level of additives in beer. Moreover, colouring matter which I understand is derived from caramel —which is an E factor —is permitted in beer. I am informed that the level is two-and-a-half times that permitted to be put in bread. There is also another important point in this connection. I refer to the increased public awareness of additives in food which was discussed during the debate on the last amendment. It has led to consumer pressure for a reduction in the number of additives. This has been successful and has not been to the detriment —at least I do not think so—of the quality of the products, nor has it affected their profitability.
However, I do not think that any of us knows what reductions have taken place as regards additive levels in beer and wine, if indeed there have been any. So far as I know this situation has persisted for some time. In my case I still suffer the same reaction if I am foolish enough to drink certain red wines in Italian restaurants. People are denied the relevant information to which I think they are entitled. Therefore, in moving this amendment I am seeking to assist them. There is no doubting the fact that people are allergic to certain ingredients. Moreover, they have to go through a long and painstaking process to find out what substances affect them. It seems that alcoholic drinks quite often contain the guilty factor in this connection.
Again in this respect I suggest to the noble Baroness that the exemptions so far as concerns alcoholic drinks are not logical. They do not conform to the Government's expressed views about giving choice to and satisfying the interests of the consumer. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: So far as concerns alcoholic beverages, in my view it is just as important that they should be labelled as anything else that we eat or drink. As has already been pointed out, it is a handicap to people who react adversely to drinks not to be able to tell whether their problem

755
is the alcohol itself or some agent put in by the manufacturer or, if they find out, not to be sure of avoiding the drinks that make them ill.
I shall digress for just a moment. It is interesting to note that one of the pioneers in food allergy in this country, Dr. Richard Mackarness, who wrote the well-known book Not All In The Mind, has recently been working in Australia on alcoholism, which he often finds to be a manifestation of allergy —that is, a craving for the substance to which you react. He has discovered that people react to individual brands of beer or spirits and therefore he has to know which brand they habitually drink. With whisky it may be the grain that is the trouble. People allergic to wheat or corn can have trouble with Scotch Rye or Bourbon. There is not a great deal that they can do about that.
When it comes to the less essential activities about which we are talking —it is good to note that the Government are now outlawing colourings in table wines, for which we are grateful —the customer needs the full information. If he receives it and does his sums, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will find that after two pints of stout he will already have exceeded the daily recommended intake of caramel colouring E 150.
I have heard a whisper that with the amendment we may be pushing at a half-open door. I hope that I am not misinformed about that and that the Minister will look favourably on this logical step in our labelling laws. I support the amendment.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: First, even if some of these ingredients or additives were mentioned on wine bottles, I do not believe that most consumers would be any the wiser. Secondly, I should be happy to advise the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, outside the Chamber on his wine consumption so that he can improve his habits.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I wonder whether it has occurred to those who tabled the amendment that there is an increasing consumption of low-alcohol and no-alcohol beverages which are called wine and beer. Reading the amendment, one must of course remember (must one not?) that those beverages are not made in the ordinary way without alcohol but in the ordinary way with the alcohol and the alcohol is then taken out. If the amendment were accepted in the form in which it is drafted, one would have all the bad E factors in low-alcohol and no-alcohol wine and low-alcohol and no-alcohol beer as one would if they were fully alcoholic. I should rather take my poison with the alcohol.
Lord Colwyn: I am sure that that is a cogent point. If, for example, one is an asthmatic and sensitive to sulphur dioxide, which is E 220, commonly used in wines, beer and cider as a preservative, one has no way of telling whether it is present or how much there is. People with other allergies cannot tell whether a drink contains something that they do not like. It is almost impossible for an analyst, without great expense, to see that such products contain only
756
permitted ingredients, because there is no yardstick on the label with which to compare the analytical data.
Recent tests by the Dutch consumer organisation and by Which? magazine found that many wines were near the maximum permitted limit. If one drank a quarter of a litre (two glasses) of white wine or one-third of a litre of red wine (about three glasses) one could exceed the acceptable daily intake. Unless there is the safeguard of labelling on alcoholic drinks, disastrous and dangerous episodes such as the Austrian wine scandal are certain to happen again. The Committee will remember that the contaminant was diethylene glycol, which can improve the flavour of cheap wine; and 0.33 cc daily of that contaminant is a potential hazard, and 100 cc is fatal.
There is no reason why responsible manufacturers should not voluntarily tell us what is in their drinks, and I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: It has been a most interesting debate. This type of detail is inappropriate for the Bill. It is in any case not possible for the United Kingdom unilaterally to make the changes proposed since food labelling legislation in general, and the labelling of wines and spirits in particular, is harmonised throughout the European Community. The Food Labelling Regulations 1984 applied to alcoholic drinks, although those exceeding 1·2 per cent. ABV (alcohol by volume) are currently exempt from declaring ingredients and those of 10 per cent. ABV or more, together with wine, cider and beer in bulk containers, are exempt from date marking.
The European Commission should shortly be making proposals to require ingredient listing, including additives, of alcoholic drinks. We shall give those proposals careful consideration, taking account of the views of interested parties. I know that consumer groups are keen to have such requirements. I understand their concerns. The Community has already said that alcoholic drinks of 10 per cent. ABV and above should be exempt from the date-marking provisions. There is logic in that exemption. The Committee will undoubtedly be aware that alcohol is a well-recognised preservative. I therefore hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, will feel able to withdraw their amendment in the light of those explanations.
The Viscount of Falkland: It has again been an interesting debate. I sense a pleasing invitation from the noble Viscount opposite which I shall gladly take up. He will introduce me to expensive wines which have no after-effects. I feel remiss for not having mentioned no-alcohol and low-alcohol beers, being myself vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Alcohol Services Group. It is right that to remove the alcohol and leave all the things about which we are complaining would not be satisfactory. I take on board what the Minister has said. I shall take back this matter and look at it, but at this stage I should like to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert —
("(1A) In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Minister shall take all necessary actions to ensure that any product which contains mechanically recovered meat be so labelled.").
The noble Viscount said: Mechanically recovered meat is produced by putting animal bones into a special machine which pulverises them. The bones are stripped of all meat and gristle. Great pressure is used, and the result is commonly called slurry, a word which conjures up unpleasant pictures. The meat is completely unrecognisable as meat. It is possible for bone fragments to slip through the process. We feel that the produce should be labelled as such for various reasons, the main reason being that it is a change from the way meat has been traditionally prepared.
Before the advent of the technology and the use of such meat, the residues would have gone to what is popularly known as the knacker's yard. The resulting slurry, as is suggested, is broken down so thoroughly that it is often biologically unstable, with consequent possible nutritional implications.
I can give an interesting illustration of the position which my amendment addresses. Shropshire County Council believes that the EC food labelling directive requires mechanically recovered meat to be labelled. In a test case in 1988, the county council took Mr. Bernard Matthews, trading as Matthews Norfolk Farms, to court on that issue and won at Telford magistrates' court. His products now bear a label which states that mechanically recovered meat is included. Other companies argue that that decision does not apply to them. They have clearly obtained an advantage which might be deemed to be unfair.
The Government continually claim that their policies are based on true, accurate and informative labelling. In those circumstances, I should not have thought that they could have a great deal of objection to my amendment. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: There have been regulations governing meat products since July 1986 and there is a list of the parts of the carcass which may not be used in uncooked meat products. But the unacceptable, uncooked bits are permitted in cooked meat products. I shall not list the bits, as that may put Members of the Committee off ever eating a pre-cooked meat pie again.
However, there has to be an argument for manufacturers to tell us just what parts of the animal are used and how much. The true nature of the ingredients is disguised in taste and appearance by the use of flavour enhancers such as monosodium glutamate. Responsible food manufacturers are now labelling the fat content of meat products voluntarily, which I gather is opposed by the EC. I do not see why, in deference to the many pie manufacturers who use the finest ingredients, the contents of a meat product should not be clearly labelled.
Lord Lyell: Can the noble Viscount please enlighten me and many other Members of the Committee? How does he reconcile what he said in support of his amendment about, I think he called it, slurry —that is the bones and, I presume, the interior of bones, which would include marrow and other such products —with meat? He and I and perhaps all other consumers in your Lordships' House would understand that. I quite understand "meat products" since many of the items that might have been mentioned by the noble Viscount —for instance bones, crushed products and the attractively named slurry —might go into such forms of meat products as pate and other substances.
What the noble Viscount mentioned as recovered from bones in crushing and other similar processes would not appear to me, or, I suggest, to other Members of the Committee apart from the scientific experts like my noble friend Lord Colwyn, as meat, let alone mechanically recovered meat. Can he possibly enlighten me?
The Viscount of Falkland: I do not think that I can enlighten the noble Lord. I have taken the trouble to ask experts to explain to me what happens. To the amateur and the layman it is a fairly stomach-turning description of what happens to meat of this kind. Probably the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, was on the verge of telling us about it but withdrew.
As I understand it, what happens with this process is that the bones are stripped of all meat that is not used for other purposes. The process is very efficient. The marketing of meat nowadays is a sophisticated business; it has to do with colour, presentation and so on. The meat which is not used, which often includes gristle and other substances such as bone fragments —I mentioned that in passing and rather wish that I had not —is made into what is described as a slurry for want of a better word. It is known in the trade as mechanically recovered meat. That is all I can say to the noble Lord. I shall go again to my advisers when I feel strong enough, get a full exposition and tell the Committee what I have discovered.
Baroness Trumpington: Once again I believe that this kind of detail is inappropriate in the Bill. In any case it is not possible for the UK unilaterally to introduce specific labelling rules on MRM since food labelling legislation is harmonised throughout the European Community.
Clause 15(1) strengthens the existing general provisions on misleading labelling by making it an offence to describe food in a way which,
"is likely to mislead as to the nature, substance or quality of the food".
In addition, the food labelling regulations require precise names to be given both to the food and to the food ingredients to enable them to be distinguished from products with which they might be confused. Any treatment has to be declared if its omission would be misleading.
I believe that these provisions should ensure that products containing MRM are not labelled misleadingly. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed and I am extremely grateful to both noble

759
Lords for not going into the details. I shall continue to keep a close watch on this area. However, MRM is a substance that is perhaps better dealt with by an industry code of practice rather than by regulations. I understand that trading standards officers and industry representatives are currently in the process of drawing up guidelines on the labelling of MRM. I hope therefore that the noble Lords will feel able in the light of this information to withdraw their amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: I have learnt something from this exchange as I hope other Members of the Committee have. I do not intend to press the amendment. This is a new situation which needs to be examined both by the Government and those who seek to tighten up safeguards. For the time being and under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert —
("(1A) In making regulations under subsection (I) above, the Minister shall take all necessary actions to ensure that frozen foods be clearly labelled to provide information in respect of use-by dates, and defrosting and cooking times as recommended by the retail producers.").
The noble Viscount said: The Government have correctly recognised the behaviour of the modern consumer and the way in which he or she cooks food. The manner in which that is done is very important for maintaining its safety. If more people cooked food in the correct way I suggest that there would be less trouble and fewer cases of food poisoning. The person who cooks is the last line of protection. I welcome the production by the Government of a very helpful booklet which attempted to emphasise good cooking practices, as in other areas they have produced useful booklets for doctors on alcohol and so on.
We know that far too much food on sale contains potentially dangerous bacteria. Some of it is inevitable but much is a result of the failures which take place further down the food chain. Proper cooking can be expected to eliminate the vast majority of bacterial problems. In another place the Minister used a phrase which I liked very much in these days of modern language: everything should be cooked until it is piping hot throughout. That may be a trifle poetic for modern usage; there may be a more scientific description which would please some people. However, I like "piping hot". I know what it means and I hope that young people know what it means. The trouble is that people do not always cook food thoroughly and they suffer the consequences.
Often a simple failure to follow instructions is dangerous. Curiously enough I am told that women, who traditionally in our society have cooked the most, follow the instructions least. Men tend, maybe because they are new to it, to follow instructions to the letter. But sometimes the instructions which they need in order to cook the food properly are just not there.
My amendment talks of frozen food. One of the most common frozen foods is chicken, which has been very much in the news during the past 18 months. We learn, and most people know now, that some 60 per cent. of specimens of this bird show the presence of salmonella. I believe that chicken is one of the most common causes of food poisoning. When I recently went to India for the first time, as somebody who is sensitive in this area I avoided all chicken and had no problem at all. That is purely anecdotal to my case.
Clearly action is needed to eradicate the salmonella in the first place. I acknowledge the very determined way in which the Government are approaching the problem. But surely what we can do now and where the Government should show the way is to ensure that frozen foods show the use-by dates rather than the sell-by dates. They should clearly show the manufacturers' recommended defrosting and cooking times. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: One cannot repeat too often the fact that food should be properly cooked right through. The words "piping hot" are as good an instruction as the words "reheat frozen food". Chicken in particular should always be thoroughly cooked. As a good housewife, I know that.
I recognise the need for frozen foods to carry any defrosting or cooking instructions. However, a general provision requiring this to be printed on the label where necessary is already contained in food labelling regulations. While frozen foods are among a very small group of products currently exempt from date-marking rules, the latest changes to the Community labelling directive will remove this exemption and frozen foods will be required to carry a best-before date. This change will be implemented in UK legislation shortly. As food labelling legislation is harmonised throughout the Community, we cannot deviate from EC rules or act unilaterally in this area. I am satisfied that the purposes of this amendment are already covered in legislation and I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness for that response. We have well aired the subject. All interested parties are taking steps to obtain further knowledge on it. I am sure the Government have all these matters well in hand. This matter will be carefully watched by consumers in the ensuing months and years. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
("(1A). Any regulation made under subsection (1)(c) above which relates to irradiation shall only be made after —

(a) a diagnostic test has been established to determine whether or not food has been subject to irradiation;

(b) an independent scientific review has been conducted into the effects of irradiation on pesticide residues and other toxins in food, vitamin content of food, food additives and food packaging materials, and the results thereof published.").

The noble Viscount said: I am relieved to be able to say that this is the last amendment that I shall move in this group. I view this amendment as the most important one in the group and it is the reason that the amendments standing in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, are presented in the way that I have explained.
The issue of irradiation is perhaps the most emotive one in this matter of food safety. It turned up in the debate on Second Reading and there is a good deal of uncertainty in the Chamber about it, let alone on the streets outside the Palace of Westminster and world-wide. I do not wish to explain in too great detail the subject of irradiation, mainly because the Select Committee of this Chamber has produced a report on this subject. The report is a good and interesting one, as is usually the case. It will be discussed shortly.
I wish, however, to give some of the background to my thinking to explain why I have drawn up this amendment in the way I have. It is necessary to give a short definition of irradiation at this stage. I can do no better than take a sentence used in the report of the Select Committee which gives a succinct definition of irradiation. I think many people are unsure of what irradiation is. The report states:
"Ionising radiation is a form of energy. The energy is transmitted into food by the application of gamma-rays from a radioactive source or accelerated electrons or X-rays from a machine".
I need go no further. That is the technology of the matter. Some people refer to it as soft nuclear technology. It is not new technology; it has been used for a number of years but in exclusive areas. In recent times people have wished to improve standards of food safety within the seemingly widening area of food poisoning. For this very laudable reason Her Majesty's Government have decided to pay attention to this new process and give the consumer the choice of having irradiated foods.
Irradiation has considerable effects on food. It kills a lot of bacteria. However, irradiation is in its early days and the public and scientists are becoming increasingly concerned —not only the British public but the public around the world —about the possible effects of irradiation. No one is saying at this stage that the treatment of foodstuffs by the level of radiation that is used is unsafe. The level of radiation is quite safe but we are concerned that the changes which take place in the molecular chain within the food could have effects that we are not yet fully aware of.
Experiments which have taken place recently in Canada, India and the United States show the effects on animals of eating irradiated foods. It will possibly horrify the Committee to know that in India experiments were carried out on children suffering from malnutrition. Staple foodstuffs were treated by the irradiation process over a period of weeks and given to the children. In the Indian experiment scientists refused to continue the experiment after seven weeks as they had noticed that important chromosome changes had taken place. It was claimed that that effect was due to the falling nutritional values of irradiated food.
No one denies that that occurs. I am told that the vitamin content of irradiated food can fall by as much as 30 per cent. Often it is necessary to supplement irradiated food with added vitamins. That is by the by, but the interesting fact is that after a cautious acceptance of this process in various parts of the world, including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, to name but a few countries, there has now been a turnaround in the scientific viewpoint. Scientists no longer have the confidence in irradiated foods tha1 they once showed I suggest to the Committee that Her Majesty's Government still show that confidence in irradiated foods.
Last night a programme was broadcast on Channel 4 in which concerns were expressed by various scientists from around the world on this subject. Admittedly it was an edited programme, and perhaps the government spokesman on the programme would not have made the remarks he did in the presence of other people. He probably did not know what was in the rest of the programme. However, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, I must say that the programme was an example of a phenomenon which occurs so often these days in government circles whereby anyone who disagrees with the Government's present view is regarded as either cranky or a troublemaker. I do not think that the scientists who spoke on that programme or those whom I have quoted from in the various papers that I have are cranky.
A professor is carrying out long-term experiments in this country by adding different bacteria to foods and putting them through the irradiation process. His concern is increasing daily. I get irritated by the way people are lumped together and told that because they disagree with the Government they are not acceptable in some way. This has happened to doctors, to bank managers recently and certainly to Conservative Members of the European Parliament. Now it appears that scientists who disagree with the Government's view on irradiation are viewed as troublemakers or cranks. We are used to that and we can brush that kind of thing aside. However, that was my concern when I replied to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Lord Mottistone: I specifically did not address this amendment when I spoke earlier. My question to the noble Viscount related to an earlier amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: I apologise to the noble Lord if I was wrong; I thought that he referred to the whole group of amendments.
It seems to us that at this stage it is inappropriate to proceed with a process such as this which has implications for safety and about which concerns are growing daily. In recent laboratory experiments in the United States, which I am happy to say have been carried out on animals, it has been shown that irradiation of food fed to laboratory animals, mostly rats, has produced very alarming results, such as the death of complete litters of rats.
It is far too early to say whether or not that has any real meaning. But it seems to noble Lords on these Benches to be no reason to go ahead. Nor is it

763
a reason to suggest that this particular process can be offered to the consumer as an option for the treatment of foods generally or for it to be introduced through regulation.
If the process is to be introduced in that way we feel that the least that we can do is to ask the Government to accept my amendment, which seeks two specific safeguards. One is that a diagnostic test should be available so that food which has been irradiated can be detected. Nobody is suggesting that there will be widespread chicanery in this country. However, there have been several well-recorded cases of shipments of food, mainly of shellfish, which has not passed health requirements being taken to irradiation plants in Holland and then shipped to another port and sold. That is why the current slang for putting a vitiated product through the process is "Dutching" the product. There are several well recorded cases of that procedure.
Baroness Trumpington: Will the noble Viscount tell me where the information on those well-recorded cases is to be found?
The Viscount of Falkland: I do not want to detain the Committee. I have pages of cases here. I could provide them to the Minister outside the Chamber or if the Committee will bear with me I could do so now. I have several examples of such cases. For the convenience of the Committee I suggest to the noble Baroness that when I respond at the end of the debate I produce that information for her.
Baroness Trumpington: Does the noble Viscount not even have a heading to indicate where those reports come from? A report is usually produced by somebody. I do not ask him to read the reports but just to give the sources.
The Viscount of Falkland: I have the sources here and, if I may, I shall produce them when I rise to speak later.
The concern about the need for the diagnostic test is growing. It would have the effect of deterring those who feel that they can treat foods in that way. The marketing of food worldwide is a sophisticated business. A diagnostic test would allow us to be absolutely certain whether or not food imported into this country or into any country had been irradiated.
The second part of the amendment stems from the fact that we feel that it is not desirable at this stage to proceed with the introduction of irradiated food until there has been an independent scientific survey. One of the characteristics of the recent history of the process has been that, almost without exception, the studies worldwide which have approved the process have been held behind closed doors. The studies which have shown cause for concern about the process have been public inquiries in the majority of cases, and action has been taken as a result of that concern.
We shall have every opportunity to debate the matter more thoroughly when the Select Committee report is debated soon. At this stage I should like to emphasise that we are most concerned that there
764
should be a diagnostic test and an independent survey before the Government think of introducing or furthering the future of the process and bringing it nearer to the consumer. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: The question of irradiation of food is probably the most contentious issue in this area at present. There is a huge amount of unease about it among the public as well as an accumulated distrust of official assurances over a wide range of environmental subjects. For that reason it is only right that there should be full discussion of the pros and cons during the passage of the Bill. That, among other things, is what the amendment sets out to achieve.
Before dealing with the arguments I should like to say a few words about the brief which has just been put out by the Ministry. In that respect I echo some of what the noble Viscount said when moving the motion, although he was speaking about the television programme.
I should describe the brief as a hectoring and evangelical document. Whenever I see that degree of over-the-top enthusiasm for some new process about which there is scope for genuine debate I smell a rat. I take exception to being told that my main objective is to "maximise public alarm". I can tell the Government that three important independent committees, not none, have recently doubted the complete safety of irradiated food. Ironically, the heading to the section in the brief which makes those charges uses the words "bogus arguments". Enough of that for the present.
We do not seek to ban irradition. We say, please do some more work on it; tell us what you find before bringing forward any proposals for further debate. We say that for the following reasons. I feel that I must go into some of them here even though there will be further opportunities to consider them when we debate the Select Committee's report in two-and-a-half weeks' time.
There are a number of doubts which the majority of scientists agree have not been resolved. The chief doubts are listed in our Amendment No. 73. As the noble Viscount said, the fear is of the chemical changes which irradiation produces in food, with the attendant dangers to long-term health to which the British Medical Association continues to draw attention. Effectively, in those cases irradiation has the status of a multiple unknown additive.
Vitamin loss is another worry acknowledged by all, but I believe underrated by many. Not only will there be loss of vitamins but also of amino acids and essential fatty acids whose exact role is still being explored by researchers. Those losses will be additional to the losses caused by other processes and by prolonged shelf-life.
There seems to be no agreement on dosage. As always, different countries have widely differing standards. Our proposed 10 kilogray limit is 10 times what the Americans allow. What is safe? We clearly do not know for sure. It appears that the dosage which is effective in doing its job alters the taste of the food, sometimes even for the better. In that case how can you tell what it is that you are eating, and how fresh it is?

765
Significantly there is argument about how effective irradiation is in destroying what it is intended to destroy. Some hazards it can eliminate; others, like certain viruses and toxins, it cannot. It seems that none of the recent and much publicised outbreaks of food poisoning would have been prevented by irradiation. There is uncertainty about what it can kill just as there is about what it can create.
In view of all this —and I could have gone into some of these points at much greater length —it is very hard to see how the weight of evidence for the safety of this process can be described as "overwhelming" —the word used in, among other places, your Lordships' Select Committee report which has just appeared. In my view the word is contradicted in the same paragraph, paragraph 142, by the call for further research into the specific areas set out in our amendment.
In spite of what may be claimed, there have simply not been the studies on whole populations which would enable one to say with confidence that there was no long-term risk to health. The number of people who have actually been exposed even to a limited range of irradiated foods throughout the world is quite small, and in that sense the process is still experimental. If this is true in terms of research into food processes —which seems to be the frame of reference adopted here —it is even more true in terms of mainstream medical research where, for example with new drugs, far stricter criteria apply.
This is why I prefer the stance adopted by the BMA, who quite, clearly state:
"We simply do not have the toxicological and epidemiological data with which to formulate policy on this issue."
One would wish that by now this precautionary approach had become the norm in this country, and that the gradual greening of the Government —which is much to be welcomed —would include a swifter process of learning the lessons of environmental rashness of the past. After all at one point the weight of evidence for the safety of thalidomide was thought overwhelming.
Opinion polls have shown that the great majority of consumers do not want irradiation. Interestingly, the more they know about it the less they want it. The movement is towards food that has been interfered with as little as possible. The same is true in Sweden, among other places. There, above all, what the pople want is their food fresh. The response of the Swedish Government is to say, "If people want their food fresh, they shall have it fresh. Irradiation and freshness do not go together. We will therefore not allow irradiation".
The response of the British Government is quite different. Can they be surprised when people say, as increasingly they do say, "Whose side are you on?" The least that the Government can do is to meet public opinion half way along the lines of the present amendment. I am surprised that the Government should think that they can represent consumers' interests better than, for example, the Consumers' Association, who of all people has a brief for consumer choice but who put the safety of the customer first.
766
It is a seductive argument to say, as one eminent retailer says, in support of the Government's view, "We want to extend consumer choice by giving our customers the chance to buy irradiated food if they want it." Consider the following scenario. The choice is given. Some customers avail themselves of it. Ten years on a few of them get ill, and some maybe die. After another five years, research begins to link these illnesses with irradiated food. There is then a major reassessment of the safety question, as there has been in the past with lead, asbestos, DDT, X-rays, smoking, the contraceptive pill, and nuclear power. What will that retailer —and what will the Government, for that matter —say to those consumers, or their relatives, who exercised their choice in good faith? "I am sorry. We got it wrong"? Will they be surprised at the reply: "What, again?"?
We want to make that scenario less likely, and hence this amendment targeted at the areas of greatest worry. Someone described irradiation as a technology looking for a use. It is not a bad description. Let us be quite sure that it is a safe technology. As the President of the Royal Society said on 30th November:
"Like children with a new toy, we are inclined to play with our science before we properly understand it."
There are still a number of quite legitimate worries —as those of your Lordships who watched last night's television programme on the subject will know—centering largely on proper scientific practice over safety studies. For reasons of time I do not think that it would be appropriate to go into that at this stage.
If further research shows that we cannot be assured of safety, or that a workable diagnostic test is not obtainable —and this is a crucial point —then we must have the good sense to decide that irradiation is not for us. The world will not fall in. Even herbs and spices can find new treatment methods if they have to. There is a steam method under development which I understand is already quite promising.
I suspect that few people outside the food industry equate progress with constant technological innovation in food processing. We can live without it, and we might even be healthier. If further research shows food irradiation to be safe, then well and good.
Lord Middleton: As the noble Viscount reminded us, the irradiation of foodstuffs is a subject that has come under close scrutiny by your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities. Sub-Committee D, which I have the great privilege of chairing, has carried out an inquiry into two European Commission draft directives which are aimed at harmonising the conditions under which food might in future be irradiated in the Community. As we heard during the Second Reading debate it is in line with these proposals that the Government intend to legalise food irradiation in this country, and to bring in regulations under this clause for regulating the process. The Select Committee's report was published last week.
There is no question about the need for a process which can be used as another weapon to control food

767
poisoning by salmonella and other organisms, and that is what irradiation does. The question is: is it safe? The assumption underlying this amendment is that it is not, because sufficient scientific work has not been done in respect of the matters under the subsections (a) and (b) to which the noble Viscount referred. Therefore it is assumed that there is a potential health hazard, and that irradiation should not be permitted until the conditions described in the amendment have been satisfied.
Our report examined those particular matters, and we nevertheless concluded —and I know that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, does not like the wording—that the overwhelming weight of evidence is that irradiation of foodstuffs on the limited basis proposed by the Commission is safe. However, the process must remain subject to constant scrutiny and to re-evaluation, like any other technique.
May I turn to the specific matters in the amendment and take testing first. My noble friend Lady Hooper, when she was winding up the Second Reading debate on the subject, referred to the worries about radioactivity. She said on 5th December at col. 812:
"The infinitesimal extra radioactivity induced by this process is too small even to be measured. Scientists have calculated that it is a hundred thousand-fold smaller than the amount found naturally in food."
What that means is that at present there is, as the noble Viscount pointed out, no reliable method of testing whether food has been irradiated. Our report therefore strongly supports continuing research into the development of detection techniques. No one wants to eat irradiated food if he or she objects to it. On the other hand somebody who wants irradiated food needs to show that he has got it.
We did not consider that in itself the lack of a test represents a health hazard. Instead what it means is that the regulatory framework—which, among other things, will demand the most scrupulous labelling —will need to be more diligently enforced than would otherwise be the case.
In regard to pesticide residues, it is true that there has been no authoritative research. However, the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods considered that the levels of pesticide residues in food were generally low and that the levels of any radiolytic products would be negligible. This view was echoed, perhaps surprisingly, by the consumers of the European Community Group who did not consider that pesticide residues raised any particular issue. However, we agreed that more work should be done in that connection.
With regard to vitamins, the evidence of the Medical Research Council was that irradiation was no more damaging to most vitamins in food than was any other common technique, and frequently less so. They concluded that the nutritional impact of doses of 10 kilograys —that is the upper recommended limit —would not be a matter of significant concern. However, we agreed with the Government's proposal that information on the effect on vitamins of irradiation should be passed to the steering group on food surveillance for it to monitor the nutritional implications.
768
Regarding food packaging, we noted that irradiation has long been used as a means of sterilising packaging materials, and extensive research has been carried out particularly in the United States which has not revealed any breakdown of plastic packaging materials at doses of up to 30 kilograys. However not all commonly used packaging materials are suitable. We concluded that research into the effects of irradiation on packaging materials should continue, and that it would be in the consumer's interests for a list of approved packaging materials to be drawn up, as is already the case in the United States.
We were aware that very little research has been done on the effect of irradiation on food additives, particularly in the context of prepared meals. We recommended that the toxicological implications be thoroughly investigated before approval is given for any product containing additives to be irradiated.
As my noble friend Lord Sainsbury pointed out in his Second Reading speech, there is already a demand, albeit at this stage a limited one, on the part of the public for the protection against food poisoning that properly regulated irradiation would provide. In my view it would be wrong to delay its availability to the public as an additional food safety weapon merely for lack of a detection method or because more work needs to be done on certain aspects. So far as I know, no one is suggesting that people should be made to eat irradiated food. The Commission and the Government are proposing that any member of the public should be able to buy it if he wants it. It is the exercise of that choice which this amendment seeks to postpone.
On the question of how far one has to go to establish the safety of a new process, members of my committee felt themselves very much in agreement with the Co-Operative Wholesale Society. Perhaps I may quote what it said in evidence:
"There is a limit to the assurances scientific research can give … It is our view that scientific research [on irradiation] has arrived at a point where, within appropriate limitations and safeguards, the process can be legalised".
If my noble friend the Minister can assure the Committee that such safeguards will be established and rigorously enforced, I see no reason for the regulations under Clause 16 to be postponed, as is proposed by this amendment. I hope that the Government will resist it.
The Earl of Halsbury: The debate on this amendment seems to be degenerating into a generalised full dress rehearsal debate on the recommendations of our own joint committee. Our discussion is therefore being very protracted. Perhaps I may draw attention to the final words of the committee:
"they recommend the report to the House for debate."
Perhaps we can arrange to have that debate between now and Report stage so that it will be possible at this stage for the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to withdraw his amendment while reserving his position. Otherwise we shall go on talking all night.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I should like to ally myself with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury and my noble friend Lord Middleton. I think that there is something illogical about subsection (b) of this amendment. I do not believe that anything is to be gained by calling people names. The last thing I would do is to call the noble Viscount either a crank or a troublemaker. Nor, I hope, would the noble Earl who sits on the Cross-Benches assume that I was necessarily hectoring or evangelical. Evangelical I think perhaps I am, but hectoring I hope I am not.
However, in the meantime there is an assumption, which I challenge, in the amendment itself; namely, that something ought to be stopped unless it can be shown to be safe. To my knowledge, gamma ray irradiation has been known to scientists for over 30 years. There is a great deal of experience of it. It will not wash woollens; it sometimes alters the taste of a product; it does not remove toxins which are chemical toxins that already exist in the food. But it kills bacteria. That is known.
The assumption that one has to have an absolute assurance that irradiation is safe in other respects, while it certainly generates a desire for further research and full discussion, is not a wise way of approaching something which is designed to make food more safe and which certainly has that effect within limits.
Perhaps for a moment I may revert to the words of an earlier amendment. We were discussing eggs and something being piping hot. As a matter of fact, anybody who thinks that without eggs he can make either mayonnaise or a hollandaise sauce has another think coming. I have never consciously used irradiated eggs for the purposes of making either but I should certainly like to use them if I could. I do not know whether they would affect the taste of my sauces but I should like to try them.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I intervene to correct one misapprehension. I do not think that we are looking for absolute assurances. I for one accept that in science such things are unavailable. It is just that we do not believe that the evidence for safety so far is quite good enough.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: I should declare an interest as chairman of a food company. A retailer has no greater responsibility than the safety of the food that he sells. I have tried to approach this problem rationally, carefully and open-mindedly. I try to be well advised by extremely experienced scientists, and the advice that I have been given wholly accords with the report made by the Select Committee. Our chief scientist has studied it carefully and does not dissent from it. Therefore I also associate myself with the advice that I have been given which could be described as overwhelming. I support the freedom to offer this process to the public so long as appropriate and strict safeguards are installed.
I should also like to tell the Committee that no retailer would wish to use or sell irradiated foods
770
unless he believed that they were 100 per cent. safe. Retailers know perfectly well that the reputation of their business depends on it. They would not take such a step. We would not do it and nor would anybody else.
I also suggest that no retailers would want to sell irradiated foods unless their experience, knowledge and expertise suggested that it offered a real and genuine benefit to the consumer. What would be the point?
Thirdly, they would not do so unless they had evidence that there was a genuine demand from some customers. It may be a minority, but we believe in serving minorities as well as the majority. We also believe in not being swayed by the emotions such as one sees so often in the newspapers and on television, but calmly, carefully and rationally to listen to the experts throughout the world and study what they say. In my opinion, they support the line that the Government have taken.
Lord Hunter of Newington: I wish to make a very brief point. The World Health Organisation regards illness due to contaminated food as one of the most widespread health problems in the contemporary world. It positively encourages member governments to consider introducing irradiation because of the public health benefits that it brings. The World Health Organisation has issued 10 golden rules for safe food preparation. Rule 1, on choosing food processed for safety, includes the words:
"If you have the choice, select fresh or frozen poultry treated with ionising radiation".
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: At the end of this rather protracted debate, I hope the Minister will find that the amendment is not acceptable. I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Middleton has said. I am sure that on balance it is absolutely right that there should be capability of using irradiation. We seem to be forgetting its good points and searching for the rather more obscure dangers that lie on occasion apparently far into the future. I hope that the amendment will be rejected.
Lord Gallacher: Before the Minister replies to what has been an interesting debate, I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for giving us a preview of his committee's report.
On these Benches we have not at this stage sought to take up a firm position one way or the other. My own view is that we can live with irradiation. Nevertheless, one would be less than honest if one did not take account of the genuine public concern that exists in some quarters. As a consequence, at the Committee stage of the Bill we have sought by a series of what we hope will prove to be reasonable amendments to allay public fears. No doubt when we reach them we shall hear the Government's attitude to them.
It is only fair to say at Committee stage of the Bill that we reserve the right to come back to this subject on Report because of its overwhelming importance and the high degree of interest that it elicits.
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps I may start by saying that I have the greatest sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham have said. This afternoon I shall have to make major remarks on all the amendments dealing with irradiation in order to answer the points that have been made by the movers. That is not of my wish. I am well aware that a date has been set by the usual channels for a debate on the sub-committee's report; but there we are.
I am quite satisfied that there is no need to delay the introduction of the enabling provision for food irradiation for any of the reasons set down by the noble Lords. I shall specifically address the questions of testing and research at this stage. I shall reserve some wider arguments on food irradiation for later amendments on this subject.
The need for a detection test was carefully examined by the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods. It was satisfied that such a test did not form an essential part of a control regime. The view of the committee and of the Government was that a system of controls through the issue of licences, with inspection by specialised staff and a detailed record-keeping requirement, would provide a satisfactory control system. In taking this view, we are of course in good company. It is the view of, among other bodies, the World Health Organisation, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the EC Scientific Committee for food, the United States FDA and indeed of the governments of some 20 or more countries around the world, including a number of EC countries, where food irradiation is already in use. I say 20 countries have implemented food irradiation. In point of fact some 35 countries in all have passed the necessary legislation, and 15 countries over and above the 20 stand ready to use the process when they so wish.
I listened with great interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Middleton. I would also refer the Committee to the conclusion reached in paragraph 128 of the Select Committee's report concerned with irradiation of foodstuffs. It states:
"The Committee therefore consider that providing the enforcement authorities are possessed of adequate powers to maintain the standards described in this Part of the Report, and providing they are adequately resourced, irradiation can be safely permitted before a test is available".
Various remarks were made which I should like to answer. With regard to the attitude of the British Medical Association, everyone —including the BMA, the Consumers' Association and all kinds of other organisations—thinks that they are experts on food irradiation. I can assure Members of the Committee that I have the utmost confidence in the views of the Government's expert advisory committees. They contained eminent medical authorities as well as leading experts in a range of relevant disciplines.
With regard to scientific doubts, it is always possible to find the odd scientist who still has some doubt and of course we pay attention to such views. However, the fact is that not one independent committee which has reviewed the subject has doubted the safety of irradiated food up to an overall average dose of 10 kilograys.
772
With regard to the vitamin loss which was talked about, any process, even cooking, causes vitamin losses. However, the Government's advisory committee has advised that irradiation introduces no special nutritional problems. If that were not the case the process would hardly have the support of such organisations as the World Health Organisation and the British Nutrition Foundation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, talked about an Indian study. The Indian studies which took place about a dozen years ago have been reviewed by independent committees of scientists in the international field —WHO and FAO, in the UK, the US, Canada, Denmark and in India. Every single one of these committees has rejected the findings of the original study.
With regard to Dutch prawns —no doubt the noble Viscount will come back to that —an impressive-looking document has certainly been sent to my right honourable friend the Minister on these alleged prawn imports. However, it was simply a list of cases from years ago and only one concerned the UK. In more recent times there have to my knowledge been only a series of allegations, hearsay and rumours. But of course the Government are funding research in the active pursuit of a suitable test as that would clearly be useful. However, the Government take the view that there is no case for delaying introduction until such a test has been devised.
As for further research into the process of irradiating food generally, this process has already been researched more thoroughly and for more years —and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is quite right —than any other food process. I can assure the Committee that the suggestions concerning the alleged need for more research, which the media keep repeating ad infinitum, were considered by experts of the WHO at an international conference on food irradiation some 12 months ago. I wish some of those consumers who read this mindless repetition and who conclude that there must be something in it could have been at that conference. Opponents of the process put forward all the issues that they considered still required an answer. The experts of the World Health Organisation took this list and set out, point by point, a full and detailed answer in each case. The opponents were left with no effective reply, but of course they now repeat their charges in the press just as though that had never happened.
In the light of this overwhelming weight of expert and highly-specialised scientific opinion confirming the safety of the process from all points of view, it would clearly be unreasonable now to provide that further investigations should be carried out before the scientific conclusions are accepted and put into effect.
I am not of course saying that we have closed minds on the subject; that we have closed the door on any further research. We fund an extensive research programme which we intend to maintain. But the desirability of continuing research is a quite different matter than saying that irradiation should not be permitted until every conceivable avenue has been

773
explored. Incidentally, I am told that many years ago there existed the same kind of atmosphere about the pasteurisation of milk.
There are two further points. As Members are probably aware, the derogation permitting the decontamination of herbs and spices by ethylene oxide expires at the end of this year because of doubts over the safety of the process. Manufacturers and consumers need a safe and effective alternative treatment.
The steam process to which the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, referred is still at an early stage and as yet untried commercially. Also, I am told that it is unlikely to be able to cope with the tonnage of herbs and spices involved. Why limit ourselves to one form of treatment? Why not have several forms of treatment? At the moment irradiation is the only alternative to the treatment that has been carried out in the past and it meets the needs of manufacturers and consumers. I believe that there is a strong practical argument against unnecessarily delaying its introduction.
Perhaps I could also say that since 1969 —under the Food (Control of Irradiation) (Amendment) Regulation 1969 —the irradiation of food for patients for whom sterile diets are clinically indicated has been permitted. That said, I should add that to the best of our knowledge irradiated food has seldom been used in hospitals because of the advance in drug therapy which produces an alternative approach. Members of the Committee may recall that my noble friend Lord Middleton alluded to this in his excellent speech at Second Reading.
As I have already said, the Government will continue to finance research particularly for a reliable test. We shall allow food irradiation only after adequate control measures have been put in place. Once the Food Safety Bill has been enacted, specific regulations will need to be introduced, following consultations with interested parties, before irradiated food can be marketed in the United Kingdom.
Clearly, in drawing up our regulations we should not want to go against anything which the Community decided to require. Indeed, we do not want to make the passage of the EC directive more difficult. It is my hope that where these amendments are concerned Members of the Committee will as usual pursue the path of scientific facts and not allow scaremongering rumours to prevail.
I gladly give the assurance for which my noble friend Lord Middleton asked regarding the controls for irradiation. It is of great importance to reassure the public that the regulatory controls that we intend to introduce will amount to the close and detailed control which the public generally expects to be imposed in this sector.
I should like to stress the main elements in the controls that we wish to propose. First, no one will be able to undertake irradiation without a full and detailed prior inspection by highly trained experts capable of assessing their ability to carry out the process correctly. Secondly, they will be subject to
774
detailed conditions on all aspects of their business set out in a formal licence. Thirdly, they will be restricted to treating the food stipulated in the licence and to the doses specified therein for the particular irradiation objectives for which they have received official approval. Fourthly, they will be required to keep detailed records of all aspects of their business. Fifthly, they will be subject to official inspection at any time. Finally, there will be full labelling of all foods to which the process is applied.
I should like to stress—and I probably will again—that by including the means of introducing irradiation under strict controls in this Bill we shall be seriously helping to reduce food poisoning in this country. But manufacturers must want to take the process up. Retailers must want to sell it. And consumers must want to buy it. This Government would never say, "You must eat irradiated food". All we are asking for in a limited field is the right to produce a very valuable choice for the consumers of this country.
I am sorry that I have spoken at some length, but I hope my explanation will convince the movers of the amendment to withdraw it.
The Viscount of Falkland: I listened with interest to the noble Baroness. Obviously, I take exception to some of the words she used such as "scaremongering". I do not believe that scaremongering is a factor; there is a genuine concern.
I know better than to bandy words with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, over perceived illogicalities in my amendment. Moving to a lower level, I wish to advise him that he will not find an irradiated egg that he can use in his culinary adventures. The effect of irradiation on eggs is to make the inside a slurry.
Certain foods have recently been in the public eye as being culprits in terms of food poisoning. In addition to eggs, there has been cheese and pate. Similarly, they are quite unsuitable for irradiation, and in my view Members are unlikely to see them on the shelves of the outlets belonging to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, the chairman of the Select Committee. It is good that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the report. It is excellent; I have read it and understood it as much as I can. I believe that the debate will be most informative. I agree that any further detailed discussion should be postponed until that date.
The level of penetration of the rays proposed to be used in this country are 10 times those which are permitted in the United States of America. That is curious when the United States has recoiled from previous positions of certainty about the process to the stage where five states have or are about to discontinue their use of irradiated foods. In Australia there is a three-year ban which reflects the level of concern felt there.

775
As I promised the noble Baroness, I have now the document which gives several examples, and I am told that there are more. The document emanates from the London Food Commission, only one of the organisations which has sent me information. The noble Baroness said that they are cases which occured long ago. I shall not bore Members of the Committee by reading them all; I shall confine myself to only two. One concerns the United Kingdom and the other does not.
In 1986 a consignment of Malaysian prawns, which was originally imported into the United Kingdom by the owners of a proprietary brand which I shall not mention, was found to be contaminated. The prawns were shipped to the Gammaster irradiation plant in the Netherlands. They were irradiated, illegally reimported into Britain and sold under another label. That was in 1986 which is not so long ago. I shall give my document to the noble Baroness in its entirety.
My second example concerns a company which was fined in 1988. Again, that is not such a long time ago. The Dutch parent company of the Danish Romoe Museli Company was fined in 1988 for importing 32 tonnes of irradiated mussels. Danish authorities rejected them because of contamination with bacteria. The company sent them to Gammaster for irradiation and illegally re-imported them into Denmark. Gammaster was not prosecuted. The product was being irradiated for export. Gammaster claims that food is tested for bacterial contamination before being irradiated. The list is quite extensive.
Baroness Trumpington: Before the noble Viscount decides what to do about his amendment, he has made a very unfair statement about the dose being 10 times as high as in the United States because that is completely misleading. The United Kingdom intends to approve the irradiation of any food up to an overall average dose of 10 kilograys. The US approach is somewhat different in that it has fixed different maximums for different classes of food. In some cases that is only one kilogray because technologically there is no need for a higher dose. However, in the case of herbs and spices it approves a maximum of 30 kilograys, which is three times the proposed UK limit.
The Australian decision, to which the noble Viscount has referred several times, does not follow scientific assessment but was based on a report by the House of Representatives standing committee on the environment, recreation and arts. That assessment of the safety of food irradiation can hardly have the same force as the detailed evaluations of professional nutrition experts, radiologists and micro-biologists and so on who carried out the work for the WHO, the US and the UK. The Australian decision was political as are the contents of the noble Viscount's amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: I am sorry that the noble Baroness considers that I am unfair because unfairness is the last thing I wanted to bring into this debate. I see us all having exactly the same aims,
776
but it is merely that we have a differing view about a particular process. Therefore, the Minister's reaction, which I consider to be unfair, was a tit for tat, but I put that down to a misunderstanding.
I shall read carefully what the noble Baroness said, as will my advisers and others. She can probably gauge from the tone of my remarks that I do not intend to press this amendment at present for the very good reason that at this stage we are not informed as to the point at which we shall be after we have debated the report of the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton.
However, we consider this matter to be very serious. We intend to pursue it at a later stage with fairness and I hope that when we do that, our amendment will be stronger, more effective and Members of the Committee will be better informed and able to judge its necessary value. I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in a very interesting debate on this amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 73A:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
("(1A) No regulation made under subsection (1)(c) above in respect of the irradiation of food shall apply to food other than that produced under conditions of good agricultural and manufacturing practice, as specified in regulations under subsection (1)(d), and in respect of such food the Minister shall, after consultation with food authorities, issue regulations under subsection (1)(b) above as to appropriate microbiological standards").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to give effect to two of the principal recommendations of the World Health Organisation's international consultative group on food irradiation, whose findings were published in June 1989. Its recommendations included the following two key points:
"Only foods produced under conditions of good agricultural and manufacturing practices (GMP) should be accepted for further processing, including irradiation. Further processing should not be used to disguise the consequences of poor hygiene.
Microbiological guidelines should not be used as limits for regulatory action. Failure to meet such guidelines should direct attention to the manufacturing process and the establishing, if necessary, of GMP".
The World Health Organisation report said that food manufacturing practices, which are set out in a number of codes of hygienic practice drafted by expert bodies, can greatly assist food processors to ensure food quality and safety. Good practice can be maintained both by food processors and producers establishing adequate quality control procedures over their raw materials and processing systems, and by regular inspection by public authorities to ensure that the requirements of regulations are met. Good manufacturing practice is therefore a concept of regulation which will be revised regularly in accordance with developing technology.
We believe that the Government should consider issuing guidelines for microbiological treatments of food. However, those should not be used as limits for regulatory action. A failure by a processor to meet a guideline should be a signal that there is a

777
problem with the manufacturing process and the good manufacturing practice may have broken down in that particular case. As the report goes on to argue, the foods of concern in this area tend to be raw, which means that adherence to good manufacturing practice will not necessarily ensure absence of some pathogenic micro-organisms. The purpose of the microbiological guidelines would be to give some assurance of good manufacturing practice. Such guidelines would not themselves however demonstrate that food was necessarily safe for consumption without appropriate further processing.
If the Government now intend to permit the irradiation of food they should, as the World Health Organisation report concluded, at least use the maximum degree of regulation available within current understanding and technology. Our amendment draws attention to two specific types of regulation for which provision is made in the clause under subsections (1)(c) and (d). The powers are provided for in the clause and it is hoped that the Minister will give some indication of the Government's thinking as to the regulatory framework for irradiated food in the light of this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I do not believe that this amendment is necessary. However, I should make it absolutely clear that we will not allow irradiation to be used as a substitute for good quality control nor as a means of upgrading unfit food. I shall explain how we intend to ensure this.
First, all food irradiation would be subject to the normal food hygiene regulations. Secondly, while it would be impractical to attempt to lay down comprehensive microbiological standards, we will require appropriate microbiological testing to ensure that only normal, sound, marketable food is irradiated.
I draw the attention of the Committee to what the Select Committee had to say on this point. Paragraph 120 of their report records their conclusions as follows:
"Until such generally applicable microbiological standards are developed the committee believe that it would be misguided to attempt to apply specific conditions to foods intended for irradiation. Instead, adherence to the general quality standards currently applied in other forms of food processing should ensure that irradiated food is sound and of good quality. These standards can and should be enforced through random microbiological tests carried out by environmental health officers".
As I have indicated, we entirely agree. Food for irradition will have to comply with normal hygienic rules. In addition, we will require appropriate microbiological testing to ensure that it is of sound quality. And environmental health officers will carry out their own random checks to ensure compliance. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the comfort she has given me thus far in regard to the subject matter of the amendment. I am also grateful for her reference to the Select Committee report, a document I do not feel in the least inhibited in discussing during this Committee stage. To do so
778
would be Hamlet without the Prince or the Pope without Roman Catholicism.
Nevertheless, I will study what she said, particularly the implications for microbiological testing by environmental health officers and their capacity to undertake such tests on a regular basis. In that light, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
("(3A) Before making any regulations under subsection (1) authorising the irradition of food or class of food the Ministers shall consult such persons or bodies as appear to them to represent the interests of producers of food sources and consumers.").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment in line with item 145 of this Chamber's sub-committee report. It is also very much in line with what my noble friend on the Front Bench said on Amendment No. 73.
My main concern about irradiation is that of producers and consumers wanting a high quality, fresh product. Perhaps I may quote mushrooms as an example. Mushrooms, if irradiated, will last no longer than those kept in a cool chain. While looking white on the top, they can be discoloured inside. Customers, we believe would be discouraged from purchasing not just irradiated mushrooms, but all mushrooms. This problem could occur in respect of many fresh vegetables.
Perhaps of much more importance is the fact that mushrooms —85 per cent. of which are sold loose —must be irradiated within two hours of picking. How will that be possible to police, particularly if the mushrooms are purchased from abroad? Policing, for instance, of the olive oil regime has proved impossible. I wonder what are the chances for irradiation of products such as mushrooms.
I was very interested in my noble friend's reply to my noble friend Lord Montgomery regarding the need to designate irradiated food in restaurants. I wonder how his can be done for mushrooms where, as I say, 85 per cent. are sold loose.
British farmers and growers are always being exhorted, absolutely correctly, to produce high quality and reliable produce that the customer wants and likes. This amendment will ensure that the Minister, before he allows irradiation, shall consult those interested. That would mean the producers, the retailers, the consumers and, last but not least, the hoteliers.
I should like to tighten the amendment further and insist that the Minister does not allow irradiation unless there is agreement. I am not sure that that is possible, but I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.
The Viscount of Falkland: There is considerable concern among members of the industry who deal with fresh products of this kind. For that reason I support the noble Lord. Mushrooms particularly seem to have come into our briefing papers more than any other fresh product. I believe that the

779
anxiety of the Mushroom Growers Association reflects an anxiety among other producers.
The point that concerns producers of a product which achieves the majority of its sales volume through being sold loose is that irradiated products should differ substantially right through the distribution system and should be described and treated throughout that system as processed. That is the only way of protecting the housewife who purchases fresh produce such as mushrooms at a street market thinking they are fresh when in fact they may be days old having been irradiated. I support the noble Lord in his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My noble friend and the noble Viscount have talked about fresh foods. I see their point. I would not object to the principle of the amendment on those grounds. As it is worded, however, the amendment would seem to cover all sorts of food including processed foods, the producers of which, apparently, are to be excluded from those my noble friend would wish to be consulted.
The amendment needs to be re-worded to show that it refers to fresh foods; then one would have no objection to it. As it stands, the amendment is not necessary for processed foods for all sorts of reasons; and we have already gone over that ground. In any case, processed foods will be suitably marked, as we have also been told, where it is relevant for this process to be given to them. It seems to me, therefore, that we need to exclude them from the amendment. Alternatively, if they are to be included, then the food processors should be among those consulted. It will be interesting to hear what my noble friend says.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: In supporting my noble friend Lord Stanley perhaps I may ask that the proposed consultation process be extended from hoteliers to include restaurants and all representative catering organisation.
Lord Carter: Since we on this side of the House have put down a number of amendments in which we encourage and exhort the Government to consult with all interested bodies, we have no hestitation in supporting this amendment and saying that anything which brings the consumer and producer closer together is wholly desirable.
Baroness Trumpington: I thank my noble friend for his explanation, but I believe his amendment is unnecessary. Regulations authorising food irradiation are likely to be made under Clauses 16 and 19. As the Bill stands there is already a requirement in Clause 26 for such regulations to be subject to statutory consultation. This consultation will embrace all organisations which appear representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by the proposal. I hope that replies to my noble friend Lord Montgomery.
I am happy to give an undertaking that the Government will consult organisations representing consumers and producers on any proposals for such regulations. Any consultation document will also be available to individuals on request.
780
Turning to the point made in relation to the irradiation of mushrooms, let me reassure the Committee that there is no reason for particular concern. Mushrooms were among the vegetables assessed by the committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment as part of its contribution to the work of the Government's advisory committee on irradiated and novel food. They were also among the products assessed by the panel on novel foods for nutritional aspects as part of the Government's wider study. I can thus assure the Committee, on the basis of the conclusions of these expert committees, that irradiated mushrooms have been specifically assessed and that they are as safe and wholesome as any other irradiated foods. Of course, if there are quality problems producers will not wish to use the process but in view of what I have said I can see no justification for maintaining a ban on their irradiation. I hope I have answered the questions put to me.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Until my noble friend made that last remark I had hoped not to upset her too much by saying that I was entirely happy. I think I am more or less happy. The point I was trying to make about mushrooms is that irradiation does not destroy them at all. The point concerned appearance. I am sure my noble friend on the Front Bench realises that appearance in food is very important. However, I think I am happy. I shall read carefully what she said about mushrooms. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling Amendment No. 75 I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 76.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 13, line 5, leave out ("regard to the desirability of restricting so far as practicable,") and insert ("a duty to restrict, and so far as is practicable, eliminate").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 75 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 78. For 35 years Ministers have been required by law to have regard to the desirability of restricting, so far as practicable, the use of substances of no nutritional value in food. At present the approximate number of substances intentionally added during manufacture in this country is as follows: colours, 50; flavours, over 3,500; flavour enhancers, 7; sweeteners, 13; texture modifiers, 70. The total of these cosmetic additives whose function is to make food more attractive is over 3,640. Preservatives, including antioxidants and sequestrants, which basically extend the shelf life of foods, amount to 63. Processing aids, which facilitate the manufacturing process, total 91. The grand total is some 3,800 substances. Less than 1 per cent. by total and by weight are necessary preservatives; over 95 per cent. are cosmetic.
I am almost tempted to rest my case there. If additives have increased to such an enormous extent the argument for tightening up a law which has had so little effect speaks for itself. Frankly, it is inconceivable that there is a real need for so many substances in our diet. The wording of this amendment is designed to place a duty on Ministers not just to restrict additives but to work to reduce them.
Perhaps I may read to the Committee from a food label which states:
"Ingredients: raspberry flavour jelly crystals: sugar, gelling agents E410, E407, E340, potassium chloride; adipic acid, acidity regulator E336, flavourings, stabiliser E466, articifial sweetener (sodium saccharin), colour E123. Raspberry flavour custard powder: starch, salt, flavourings, colours E124, E122. Sponge, with preservatives E202, colours E102, E110. Decorations with colours E110, E132, E123, E127".
There are three more lines in this vein, but I expect the Committee has the flavour of it by now. It is (or was) a trifle, but I doubt whether the Committee would have guessed that.
People may ask: where is the harm in this, and does it really matter? I shall explain as concisely as I can why I think it does matter and why the framers of earlier legislation were right to want to restrict additives, and why the situation is even more urgent today. Additives harm people: not all additives by any means and not all people. But the evidence is clear to see. The harm is both negative —in the trifle I have described there can have been little room for any vitamin or mineral content —and positive by inducing adverse reactions.
I say that without equivocation and in the face of many official assurances to the contrary. A professor and a member of the Advisory Committee on Toxicity said:
"No one in Britain has ever suffered harm from an intentional additive".
He clinched the matter with the elegant argument that no additives were harmful, otherwise they would not be permitted in food. I refer to a recent television programme in which an official of the food industry said that artificial colours were perfectly safe and they had all been "fully tested".
Why can I not accept these assurances? It is partly because of the nature of the science that underpins them. I have spoken on this topic before. Science, which now includes medicine, is currently in thrall to the controlled trial. It is of course an absolutely vital tool, but it is not and never will be the only source of good evidence. However, the current fashion is to treat it as such. Clinical experience alone, on which medicine progressed for thousands of years, counts for little. The result is that a large and growing body of good evidence from doctors around the world, from the Hyperactive Children's Support Group, from practitioners of complementary medicine and others, can be dismissed as anecdotal with perfect professional respectability.
Few of these people have access to the kind of big money which is needed to mount controlled trials. So we hear the well-worn phrase, "There is no evidence to show that any harm has resulted". Few people recognise how little this bit of professional
782
jargon means. Coupled with that, we commonly see a high degree of proof of harm called for before any precautions are taken. The scientists' desire for absolute proof is admirable, but it is out of place in the real world of public policy where the possibility of harm to people should be enough to sound the warning bells.
It is the failure to recognise that which has been responsible for much of our present environmental troubles. The scientific approach is vitally necessary but it is seldom, if ever, sufficient. For all that, there have been some well-conducted trials in this field by respected people. Professor Soothill and others at Great Ormond Street Hospital were able to implicate tartrazine and benzoic acid, a colouring and a preservative, in childhood migraine and hyperactivity reported in the Lancet in October 1983 and March 1985. These results have not been refuted; they are usually just ignored.
Professor Truswell of the University of Sydney came to similar conclusions in July 1985, in a trial that tested other chemical additives as well and found culprits among them. Doctor Hunter, a leading gastro-enterologist at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, writes:
"Approximately one-fifth of our patients react 10 food additives such as preservatives and colourings".
The suggestion in the joint report by the British Nutrition Foundation and the Royal College of Physicians that a maximum of 15 people in 10,000 react to additives —I believe the figure was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on Monday —needs to be seen in the context of a very rough estimate on limited data made in the early 1980s when awareness of food intolerance was not as it is now.
A moment's thought will show the absurdity of the claims for perfect safety. How can 3,800 substances be rigorously tested within the limits of time, money and manpower? I take a foreign example. An authoritative textbook states that reliable toxicological information is available for less than one in 14 of the 17,200 chemicals eaten or absorbed in the USA. That does not begin to tackle the question of the interaction between chemicals, which is what the real life situation is all about. We do not eat and drink additives in isolation.
I am not aware of any research at all on the interacting cocktail of chemicals in our every-day diet. The scale of such a task is almost unimaginable. People sometimes argue that if there was here a real problem we would have noticed it long ago. The problem of smoking might have been recognised long ago—hundreds of years ago, in fact. A similar argument applies to lead in petrol, asbestos, and so on. It is not a good argument.
To find whether a colouring in beer is the cause of arthritis, headaches or heart trouble takes a great deal of careful and detailed work. These matters seldom spring to the eye. There are no easy assumptions of safety here. An indication that we are on the wrong track in this country is provided every time an additive is banned. The other day it was potassium bromate in white bread which was removed as a flour improver because it was shown to cause cancer in animals. Why was it there in the first place?
Two months ago the problem was with caramel colourings. Why does Britain allow more additives and have weaker controls than almost any other country in the developed world? At a meeting on additives a Dutch paediatrician asked:
"But why do you want to make your children ill? In Holland the parents came to us and told us what was happening, and we got together with the food manufacturers and identified the colourings, and they substituted, and in a few months the problem was no more … Why are they fighting this knowledge? I cannot understand it".
Neither can many people in this country.
So far I have not spoken specifically about Amendment No. 78. We have highlighted colouring agents because they are the most purely cosmetic additives as well as the most troublesome. The coal-tar dyes in particular need attention. Looking back over 60 years of expert advisory reports, no coal-tar dye has always been classified in the A category; that is, acceptable without question for use in food. If Norway can manage without artificial colours, and the United States allows seven, why do we permit 16? If Amaranth is banned in Sweden, Russia and America, why is it accepted as safe here? Where is the need for so many colours? It is welcome news that some tightening up is going on in the wake of the recent review of the Food Advisory Committee, but every such review must raise the question of why those substances were allowed in the first place.
Our hope in moving these amendments is that the Government will accept that Clause 16(4) as worded has been honoured mainly in the breach until now and that there is a strong case for tightening up. If they accept this, they will be moving in step with the views of the public, who want less, not more, chemicals in their air, water, soil and food. I beg to move.
Baroness Tumpington: Perhaps I may clarify in my mind that the grouping is Amendments Nos. 75, 76, 77 and 78.
Noble Lords: Yes.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Earl has made a fairly lengthy and extremely carefully thought out speech. He is saying things which concern a great many people. He asked why this country is so far behind other countries. Some of us have been wondering that, but surely that is what the Bill is about. It seeks to bring us up to date. In this clause the Government have attempted to strike a sensible balance. I say to the noble Earl that we should not take all the fun out of life. He is saying that if his amendment were accepted the Government would have a duty to make sure that all boiled sweets are white. I do not think that that would be very much fun for anybody.
The Viscount of Falkland: I support the noble Earl's amendment. Colour has little nutritional value in food except perhaps in one or two examples in regard to infant food. There might be a temptation to present the food in an attractive way using colour and so on to the detriment of its nutritional value,
784
although with a reputable manufacturer that would not be the case. The amendment would tighten up the law on the matter. I certainly support it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I propose to comment on Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 78 and also to speak to my Amendment No. 77. I believe that with Amendment No. 75 the noble Earl is overdoing it, on the lines suggested by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. The subsection goes as far as is necessary and as far as it is reasonable to require a government to go. It says:
"Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of restricting, so far as practicable, the use of substances of no nutritional value".
That goes quite a long way. To strengthen it in the way the noble Earl suggests because of his extreme views reduces the validity of the clause. I hope therefore that my noble friend will resist it.
Why pick on colours? There are a good many additives, and I shall have something more to say on that subject when I speak to my own amendment. In my experience in the past 10 years colours have been very much the subject of restriction, especially in the European Community as well as in this country. There was a stage when the food processing industry was invited to test six colours. It took about nine years to complete and several generations of rats were gone through. It cost £1·5 million to test six colours. The industry thought it worth doing that. On the whole, colours came through all right. This goes on all the time. To strengthen the clause in the way the noble Earl suggests strikes me as unnecessary at this stage.
Colours are to be the subject of even stricter regulation in accordance with the advice of the Food Advisory Committee, which has, however, recognised the need for the use of some colours in food. Some colours are certainly necessary because it has been found that people will not in the main buy grey products. Where it can be established that the colours are harmless —a great deal of trouble is taken to do that —it is much better to let people have what on the whole they want.
The current wording of the clause is taken from the Food Act 1984. It is intended to deal with the control of food additives through the development of positive lists in subsidiary legislation. Few additives are considered to have intrinsic nutritional value, although they may, through preventing deterioration, maintain a food's nutritional value, or, in making foods more attractive, assist in promoting the consumption of a variety of foods and hence of a balanced diet.
This provision does not, however, take into account recent developments such as alternatives to fat or carbohydrate which do not contribute energy to the food. These substances may be considered to be without inherent nutritional value and so be deemed to be caught by this provision. But they can, and indeed are intended to, make a beneficial contribution to the diet of those who wish to reduce their energy intake. That is the point of what may appear to be a very subtle alteration in changing "of no nutritional value" to "without beneficial nutritional effect".

785
Set against the background of recent COMA reports advising on intakes of fat and carbohydrate, there is likely to be increased interest in these substances. My amendment would retain the spirit of the current Bill's provision but usefully clarify its meaning to reflect changes in food technology and consumer requirements. It would of course be necessary for any such new substances to be evaluated and cleared for use, as may be appropriate, according to their intended applications, but that is the normal process.
I hope that my noble friend will agree with me that all the other three amendments are a disaster and that mine is worth supporting.
Lord Ezra: As my amendment is one of those contained in the group, I should like to support what the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, said in proposing his amendment. He was right to draw attention to the fact that there is growing public concern about the extensive and widening use of food additives. He was also right to draw attention to the fact that the use of this kind of wording in previous legislation did not seem to have much effect.
The wording of Clause 16(4) is highly qualified. The words "have regard to" are themselves a qualification. The words "desirability", or another form of it, was criticised by the noble Baroness earlier in relation to Amendment No. 68. She thought that the word "desirable" was subjective and could have almost any meaning that one wished to put on it. Moreover, the words "so far as practicable" are also a qualification. Therefore, I can hardly think of a more qualified phrase than that which is contained in Clause 16(4). Further, in the light of this very extensive public concern I should have thought that there was a strong case for strengthening the wording to some degree.
Lord Auckland: If these amendments, especially those put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, were accepted, I venture to suggest to the Committee that enforcement would be extremely difficult. Some noble Lords may have watched the most interesting television series which is shown on Tuesday evenings called, "Food and Drink". One recent programme dealt with additives in confectionery. Like many noble Lords, I am quite partial to certain kinds of confectionery since I am a non-smoker.
I do not know whether there is any evidence to show that any particular harm is done by the addition of such substances as cochineal and citric acid to confectionery. It may well be that members of the dental profession will have adverse comments to make on the matter, and perhaps in many ways they may be right. However, I very much doubt whether additives are necessarily responsible for any such harm.
I am much more inclined towards the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Mottistone because it seems to be much clearer. While of course good health is essential as regards any type of food —that is, with or without additives —I believe that these amendments, on the whole, go much too far.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I think that colour is quite important in food. Those of us who are well fed and like our food do not always appreciate the fact that there are people who have to be tempted to eat; for example, the elderly, the frail and the anorexic. Indeed, many people will not eat unless food looks appealing. Such people are really not eating enough. Therefore, I think that colour plays an important part in the process.
Each person's perception of colour in food is a personal matter. Someone recently gave me a cake. It was a home-made birthday cake. However, it had been made in screaming purple, red, and livid green. My first reaction was, "How incredible; I have never seen such a cake before". But the person explained to me that in her community that was the colouring always used for food and that they liked having their food in those colours. I should say that it was a delicous cake.
Surely the way to deal with the colouring factor is to carry out tests on the colouring materials in the first instance. That would determine whether they were all right. If they pass the test. we should be allowed to use them. However, if they do not pass the test they should be banned. That is exactly what has happened in respect of barbiturates. We are no longer allowed to prescribe them. The good effects of such drugs were outweighed by the bad effects and they are no longer on the list. Moreover, if that purple dye was not perfectly harmless —I hope that it was harmless —it should not have been available for people to buy and put into a cake. I think that this testing can be carried out quite easily.
The clause as it stands is really quite good. I also think that the subsection dealing with nutritional value is a good one. I say that because it says:
"shall have regard to the desirability of restricting".
That indicates to me that the Government can say, "Well, it is not desirable to restrict it". What worries me is that bulky fibrous material included in some food, which goes through totally undigested but which is of value in terms of providing bulk in the diet, might be described as having no nutritional value in the sense that you are not absorbing the calories. However, it may be a very desirable substance to leave in.
Under this clause it seems to me that the Government have the right to examine any type of food and any additives therein, whether good or bad, and to decide yes for them or no against them. However, the amendment seems to be pushing the balance in the other direction and getting it to a point where we might be bringing m an enormous amount of restriction which would not necessarily be in the interests of the consumer. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: I wish to answer a rhetorical question put by my noble friend as to why people colour food and drink at all. I shall give an illustration about something which I know and understand. Freshly distilled 'whisky is as water-white as vodka or gin, which are only pre-distilled whiskies. Why then, if the public do not buy whisky unless it is coloured, are they content with vodka or gin? The answer is very simple. Under

787
the trade descriptions regulations you cannot describe something as whisky unless it has been stored for a minimum of three years in an oaken cask. It picks up colour from the oak.
The favourite casks are second-hand sherry casks, but there are not enough of them to supply the entire trade. Therefore, we have whiskies of different colours. Moreover, since you cannot bleach the more highly coloured whiskies, you colour up the next highly coloured whiskies with a little caramel. That is done because the man accustomed to buying Johnnie Walker expects it to be of a standard colour and not necessarily the same as Famous Grouse. People have an eye for such matters. That is one answer to the rhetorical question: why colour things up at all?
Baroness Trumpington: In my view the debate on these amendments has been worth while just to hear the explanation of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. However, I do not believe that any of these amendments are necessary. Clause 16(4) repeats the wording of the present Act, which has been in operation satisfactorily for many years. It contains adequate safeguards for consumers and allows Ministers the flexibility necessary in such a subjective area as the need for non-nutritional substances.
There are substances such as artificial sweeteners or fat substitutes which probably have no intrinsic nutritional value. However, there is beneficial use to consumers in constructing their diets in permitting the use of those substances. I therefore consider that we would be well advised to leave the test as it is.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, want specific mention of colouring agents to be made. Again, this is not necessary as the same considerations apply and there is no need to highlight colours. There are examples, as pointed out by my noble friend, such as sugar, confectionery or table jellies, where the very nature of the product for consumers is governed by the use of colouring agents.
I turn now to the testing of colours, to which my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes referred. All the approved food additives have been assessed by independent experts and found to be safe for use before Ministers approved them. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, also asked about the large number of additives in the UK list. The statistics quoted by the noble Earl are misleading. The additives referred to are not of course all used at the same time. They are also used in infinitesimal amounts, especially in flavours —3,500 out of the 3,850. Moreover, there are some additives which are on our list because they have been approved at EC level, although they are not actually used in this country.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, asked why additives were allowed in the first place. I think that he answered the question himself. Public tastes and perceptions change. We keep our list of additives under review with that factor in mind. The current review of colours to which the noble Earl referred is part of that exercise. Although some people are intolerant to food additives, including colours, there
788
is an interesting thought in this respect. Scientific evidence is that many more are intolerant to chemicals naturally present in basic food such as milk and wheat.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I shall answer the Minister's last point first by pointing out that milk and wheat are part of our staple diet whereas one has much more of a choice about putting in additives. To add something to which people are known to react does not seem to me to be good sense.
We have had a useful debate. I am grateful to all who have taken part. The disagreement revolves around the extent to which the present wording has been doing its job. I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that that was what my main point was about. The present wording, as others have said, has existed for about 35 years. It appeared in the previous Food Act. My feeling, which is why I tabled the amendment, was that, far from overdoing it, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, something like this wording is necessary to produce any control over the escalating number of additives.
Why did I pick out colours? As I said, they seem to me to be the least necessary and to give the most troublesome reactions. They are probably what we can most do without.
I should turn around the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. He rightly said that the trials are expensive. I thought that he was going to say that they came through with flying colours, but he did not. They are expensive and therefore it is unreasonable to expect to find the manpower and money to test them all. So one takes a precautionary stance and starts with as few as one can. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his support. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, believed that there would be a problem over enforcement with this wording. Yes, in a sense it is a bit woolly; but so is the present wording. There is no worse problem with the wording of the amendment than with the wording that we have had for many years.
Needless to say, I am disappointed by the noble Baroness's reply. She said that the clause had been in action satisfactorily for several years. I would argue that it is far from satisfactory if we now have nearly 4,000 of those substances. I shall not argue about the exact numbers. I understand that she and her colleagues would feel a lot less comfortable if they were under a duty rather than having to have regard to the substances; but it is what I feel is necessary. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to press the matter at the moment. We have had an interesting debate. I should like to take the amendment away and think about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 to 79 not moved.]
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Enforcement of Community provisions]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 13, line 16, at end insert ("Where Ministers are aware of pending Community obligations they shall await a decision by the Council of Ministers on those obligations before making regulations of the kind described in this subsection").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to give the Government the opportunity of becoming even more communitaire than they claim they are at present. The text reads:
"Where Ministers are aware of pending Community obligations they shall await a decision by the Council of Ministers on those obligations before making regulations of the kind described in this subsection").
Clause 17 is the Community clause: the sidelining identifies it as such. We have no quarrel with the general objective on the clause. It is obviously sensible and right that the procedure in Britain for implementing Community requirements as regards food should be as expeditious as it will be when Clause 17 is enacted. The Bill is long on Community obligations. It is equally right that Her Majesty's Government should accept the nearness of 1992 and attempt to anticipate European Community proposals, even at the expense of own-initiative. Failure to do so, and the exercise prematurely of own-initiative when a Community directive or other legislation is in prospect, will be detrimental to business planning and other interests. In certain circumstances, it will lead to a request for derogations, which are designed to impede 1992, at least in spirit if not in practice.
The framework directives for food post-1992 are now mostly in place. However, there are some specific issues, one of which is the draft directive on irradiated food issued by the Community. Asking the Ministry of Agriculture to keep in step with Community requirements for irradiated food should commend itself to Her Majesty's Government. First, it accords with the concept of a single market; secondly it will avoid doubts in the mind of food manufacturers about incurring the high capital cost of providing plant for irradiation, and the likely response of food retailers to that capital cost; and, thirdly, it will eliminate problems concerning inter-Community trade in irradiated food—for example, a situation in which some member states allow irradiated food, some do not and others partially allow it.
If Her Majesty's Government permitted irradiated food as and when it was a Community requirement to do so, much of the present opposition would diminish. Blaming Brussels is almost a national pastime: I am surprised that an astute Minister of Agriculture, such as I believe the present incumbent undoubtedly is, has not realised that. The drive of career prospects in politics never fails to amaze me. As I said, it would be better for manufacturers and retailers because of the elimination of uncertainty.
The speed of Community action as regards irradiated foods is well within the scope of Her Majesty's Government to influence, especially as irradiated food is permitted now in France, Belgium and Holland. In view of those circumstances, the Council of Ministers should be willing to act
790
promptly and should not be too worried abut the European Parliament's views on the original directive.
Our Select Committee on European Community affairs in its special report advocates action on irradiated food in step with European Community. By happy coincidence that accords with the spirit of the amendment. The amendment is designed to achieve that end as regards irradiated food but, more importantly, as a general proposition. It ensures, as I said at the outset, a communitaire approach to 1992 which I hope will appeal to Her Majesty's Government and allow them the pleasure of accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has said everything that I was planning to say about the amendment except for one thing. As a member, at any rate during the later stages, of the Select Committee —at a time when it was agreed that we should propose to the Government that they should not proceed with their plans to allow irradiation until the draft directive had been agreed to —I was under the impression, as I believe was the committee, that that decision was pending and would not take long. If it does not take long, I stand by our decision. I hear on the grapevine —perhaps my noble friend the Minister can confirm this —that the Select Committee was aiming at a moving target and that it is not proving as simple as the Community thought to take that decision. If so, and it means a long delay, I can see the Government's point in proceeding, because many urgent matters require to be regulated upon. We probably should not wait indefinitely for the decision from the Community. We have been in this position before, and it could happen again. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
Baroness Trumpington: There are two main reasons why I cannot accept the amendment. I shall deal with the wider aspect first. If I were to accept the amendment the result would be that whenever we suspect that plans are afoot for a new Community law on any aspect of food, regardless of however many years hence, we should not proceed with regulations under the Bill. This would result in the British consumer waiting for possibly an unreasonably long time to be properly protected in a whole range of areas. This situation does not strike me as acceptable and for that reason alone I find it impossible to accept the amendment.
I come now to the question of food irradiation. The whole object of the Bill is to ensure food safety. That is the title of the Bill and that concern lies behind almost every clause we have been debating and will debate. Food irradiation has, I submit, a useful part to play in our comprehensive strategy. It is not a quick fix to clean up dirty food at the end of the food chain.
The report of the sub-committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Middleton has drawn attention to the weight of scientific evidence given by the distinguished independent expert scientific committee to which the Government referred the examination of the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated food. That committee concluded, first,

791
that given proper controls and up to an overall average dose of 10 kilograys, irradiated food is both safe and wholesome; secondly, that there is no public health justification to maintain the current ban; thirdly, that the potential benefits of food irradiation present strong grounds for permitting its use, assuming the safety of the food supply is a matter of great concern to any government.
In the light of the experts' recommendations, some of which I have outlined and which have been endorsed by the European Community's committee, and taking into account the firm position of WHO, I submit that it is the clear duty of the Government to provide for the introducton of food irradiation as an additional weapon in the armoury of measures to fight food contamination.
I understand the concern expressed in paragraph 141 of the House of Lords sub-committee, but if we were to follow its recommendation not to proceed with plans to allow food irradiation until the draft EC directive had been agreed it would strengthen the position of those who wish to restrict consumer choice by preventing the legislation on food irradiation. Other EC countries —France, Belgium, Holland and Italy —already give their consumers the choice of buying some irradiated food. We want to make the same choice available to our consumers, who deserve the same standards of safety.
Clearly, in drawing up our regulations, as I said earlier, we would not wish to go against anything which the Community decided to require in relation to food irradiation. One harmonised set of rules for the whole Community would certainly avoid any risk of confusion.
Nevertheless, I think it would be a great mistake to delay. Here I come to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. The time-scale in Brussels is far from clear. Discussions are currently bogged down, largely for political reasons; certainly not for reasons of safety since that aspect has already been confirmed by the EC scientific committee for food. It is not clear how those political difficulties will be resolved or how quickly.
We see no reason whatever to hold up the introduction of a potential health benefit for UK consumers simply because political difficulties among some of our partners are delaying action by the Community. It is true that there is disagreement between member states as to the products to which the process should be applied. But perhaps I may stress that our proposals do not envisage allowing irradiation for any product or for any purpose or at any level of dose for which safety has not been confirmed. Moreover, every single one of the products likely to be irradiated here is already being irradiated by one or another of our EC partners.
I hope that the truth of what I have been saying has convinced the Committee that it is right to proceed. Standards will be rigorously maintained. All irradiated food will be clearly identified and labelled. Food irradiation premises will be licensed. At the end of the day, with all the assurances I have given, the consumer will be the one to make the choice. It is a case of choice, not must. This Chamber
792
has always been the champion concerning matters of choice. For all the reasons that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will withdraw his amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. She will not be surprised to hear that I am totally unconvinced by it. It has been suggested that the effect of this amendment would be to put Her Majesty's Government in a situation in which they suspect that if plans are afoot they must delay. With due deference, the amendment says nothing of the kind. It says:
"Where Ministers are aware of pending Community obligations".
Suspicion does not come into it. There is either something on the table or there is not. It is only in the circumstances in which there is something on the table that this amendment would begin to bite. Therefore, I suggest that that argument is misconceived. I could think of stronger words, but because of my high regard for the noble Baroness I shall not use them this evening.
The argument that because the Community is a complex organisation there is likely to be delay seems to me to be entirely passive on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I thought, in my innocence, that come 1992 we would be in a new era regarding the European Community, and that in anticipation of it things would happen quickly. I am sorry that a certain distinguished noble Lord is not in his place tonight to hear this. If that is not the case and if the noble Baroness is telling me that we are still playing politics about simple questions of this kind in Brussels, I think it is time that the British Government made that abundantly clear to both the Council of Ministers and the Commission.
There must surely be limits to the credibility of the people of this country about whether or not we shall really see a Community functioning as those who advocate that in 1992 it will function. On the other hand, it may still be the same old niggling affair in which dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s and blaming translators and interpreters and all the other jiggery-pokery make a mockery of what we are seeking to do. Incidentally, worse than making a mockery of it, that gives us extremely bad value for money. I agree with the critics of the Community this far: that unless we can justify the cost to the United Kingdom, which is very considerable, we are on a bad deal in Brussels. Thus I do not accept these arguments in the slightest degree. I must say that I am disappointed that they should be advanced as a counter to this amendment.
Because we wish to do this as a food safety measure, I am substantially in agreement with it. But that seems to me to indicate the urgency of the question. I still see a situation of great difficulty in persuading people to invest capital. I have not quoted the figure of the capital cost of a modern irradiation plant. Two figures have been quoted to me. One took my breath away; the other almost gave me heart failure.
I suggest to the Ministry of Agriculture that there is a bland assumption here that once the legislation

793
is in place and the Minister has acted by making regulations under it, things will begin to happen. There is an assumption that capital is just waiting for the investment opportunity which the legislation of irradiated food provides. I do not think that that is so. A part of the United Kingdom Government in this sphere is quite happy to let Brussels take for ever to act as long as we proceed unilaterally. Capital will want an assurance, first, that when Brussels does act, if it produces a regime for irradiated food which is not at one with what Britain wishes to see, we have a situation if not of actual stalemate certainly one in which people may have invested capital unwisely. For this reason I do not see manufacturers rushing ahead of Europe in this context.
What we are advocating in the amendment is for the good of British business. I have yet to see much being said by those who might be expected to irradiate food —namely, the large food manufacturers —in this regard. I am extremely disappointed with the arguments that have been deployed. I am obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for her remarks. I dare say that the sub-committee thought that as it was considering a draft directive it would not take long before it was implemented. However, apropos irradiated food we shall not die if we do not eat it until Brussels says we can. There are those who equally firmly hold the view that we shall die if we eat it. I shall not test the opinion of the Committee this evening on the amendment because of the lateness of the hour. However, I shall certainly return to the matter on Report, perhaps with a better text. The Committee has a duty to pronounce for or against this principle.
Baroness Trumpington: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I wish to refer to his remarks when he said he was disappointed with me. Frankly, I am disappointed with him. He simply has not addressed the point I made that various EC countries are already irradiating food. The noble Lord has not addressed the fact that 20 countries already irradiate food, and that four of those countries are within the EC. I believe I understood the noble Lord to say that it may take years to get the money together to manufacture irradiation plants. However, if we have to wait while the politics go on —we are one of 12 and although we do our best we cannot influence all the others—we shall put off even further the day when irradiation plants can be set up. EC proposals are often under discussion in Brussels for many years. An example of that is the heat treated milk directive which was under discussion for years before it was adopted. The jams directive was under discussion for about 14 years.
Lord Gallacher: The noble Baroness ignores 1992. Is that event going to occur or not? Is all that is being said about it to be believed or not? If member states are already irradiating food, what are the impediments to a decision by the Council of Ministers? It seems to me that the British attitude is that provided we proceed unilaterally the Council of Ministers can take as long as it wishes to introduce a directive on irradiated food. That is a passive and defeatist attitude to the question; it negates the spirit of 1992. I withdraw nothing and assure the noble
794
Baroness that she will be hearing from me again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Special provisions for particular foods etc.]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 13, line 29, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: We believe it essential that there is an effective system for approving and controlling novel foods and processes. It is crucial in our view if novel foods, particularly genetically manipulated novel products, are to be accepted by consumers.
Baroness Trumpington: Am I right in thinking that this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 83, 85 and 86? That is all I wish to know.
Lord Gallacher: The noble Baroness is quite correct. I apologise to the Committee for not saying at the outset of my remarks that I was moving Amendment No. 81 and speaking also to Amendments Nos. 83, 85 and 86. I give that assurance now and hope that I can find my place in my script.
Genetic manipulation is an entirely new concept to most people who will want to be reassured that such developments are being carefully monitored and appropriately regulated. The Bill in our view fails to address this point. It simply permits novel foods to be prohibited once they are shown to be unsafe. Consumers deserve protection and must have it if novel food processes are to play a significant part in the food supply of the future.
These amendments to Clause 18 aim to give a sound statutory basis to the voluntary arrangements which at present exist for the control of novel foods and processes. Our amendments would give the Minister positive powers of approval rather than the negative sanctioning powers in the Bill. During the 1984 review of food legislation the Government formally accepted that some form of statutory notification and approval scheme for novel foods was necessary in the light of recommendations made by its food standards committee. I refer to the report on novel protein food issued in 1974.
In industry, too, there is a strongly held view that such a scheme is required to underpin consumer confidence. We are therefore somewhat disappointed that the Government appear to have backtracked on this issue, rejecting as they have any form of statutory approval scheme for novel foods and processes. These amendments to Clause 18 would make a legal requirement of the kind of approval scheme already envisaged by the Department of Health's advisory committee on novel foods and processes in its paper entitled Guidelines on the testing of novel foods. This proposal would provide guidance for those producing such foods, or those wishing to market them, through a flexible decision approach which would require

795
different information to be provided about different novel foods according to their complexity.
A system of identifying categories, as I have outlined, allows for a flexible mechanism of control which can easily identify those foods or processes which need to be checked and those which do not. In our opinion this arrangement would not impose an unreasonable burden on the food industry. It is for that reason, in addition to the other reasons that I have already advanced, that I beg to move Amendment No. 81.
Baroness Trumpington: Does any other Member of the Committee wish to speak on the other amendments before I reply?
Lord Gallacher: I hope that the noble Baroness will reply to Amendment No. 81. However, I was also discussing Amendments Nos. 83, 85 and 86.
Baroness Trumpington: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the amendment and those being discussed with it. I completely share his concern that only novel foods that are safe should be marketed. This was very much in our minds in drafting the Bill. I believe that its existing provisions cover this point adequately and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Novel foods range from exotic fruits and vegetables to the products of genetic manipulation. Many will be perfectly harmless but it is possible that some may pose risks to consumers. That is why in this clause we are seeking to provide additional safeguards, over and above the other food safety requirements of the Bill. In Clause 18 we seek to provide for a flexible system which fully takes account of the potential risk of different types of novel foods. Perhaps it would be helpful if I amplified the background to our thinking on this subject.
Technological innovation and the consumer's wish for a varied, interesting diet mean that novel foods are likely to become increasingly significant to the food supply. That is why we established the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) in 1988 to advise Ministers on all aspects of novel foods. I am pleased to say that the committee operates most successfully a voluntary notification scheme for novel foods.
Against this background of increasing innovation, there is also a need to provide appropriate controls. The proposed powers would enable Ministers to introduce various controls appropriate for the wide diversity of foods that could be classified as "novel". So, in the case of products involving genetic manipulation we would have powers under the Bill to require prior approval following a detailed assessment of safety. But the same considerations scarcely apply when one is considering an exotic fruit, which has long been consumed elsewhere in the world.
Let me amplify this point. Our industry is at the forefront of development in biotechnology. We have no wish to discourage its spirit of innovation or put it at a disadvantage in relation to overseas
796
competition by unnecessary or bureaucratic controls. On the other hand we are determined that consumers should be adequately protected whenever a novel food might pose a risk to health. As I have indicated, this demands a flexible approach to legislation. Clause 18(1) provides for just such an approach. It will provide for a system under which we can control the classes of novel food which present a potential risk to consumers and, where necessary, we can attach conditions to any approvals that are granted. Of course our intention is to meet the concern of noble Lords that only safe novel foods reach the market. The clause as drafted, taken with the wider food safety provisions within the Bill. meets that objective.
7. p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wonder whether the amendment as proposed might be more effective in cases such as that of the Skoal Bandit. Some people classified that as a food and others classified it as a drug. It was a terrible tobacco product which one chewed. It was very carcinogenic and many oral cancers developed as a result of it. My point is that by the time that that was discovered the Skoal Bandit was being manufactured in this country. A large government grant had been obtained to set up a factory to produce it. When the product was banned it was argued that we were taking employment away from the region in which the factory was set up, and the region needed employment.
If "shall" appeared in the clause instead of "may" perhaps such projects would have to be approved in advance. That would prevent a similar situation arising. However, it may be that the matter is too complicated and Skoal Bandits could still have escaped the net. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on the question of liaison between departments offering grants dealing with the food aspect. Would having greater control over food aspects mean that the department giving a grant would have to approach the Minister's department for a comment on the food aspect?
Baroness Trumpington: I may have to write to my noble friend on the matter. I believe that at the time the grant was given for the Skoal Bandit, with every good intention, it was not known that it was such a devilish thing. When a company comes along with what looks like a very good product which would provide employment for many local people in a new factory there may seem to be no reason not to give a grant. The decision was taken to ban the particular product; therefore I imagine that my remarks still stand.
I am a great one for taking out "or", but in this case I am afraid that I am told that I cannot take it out. There is a good reason, so I am told. The powers in Clause 18(1)(a) and Clause 18(1)(b) are quite different. One is concerned with novel foods and the other with importation. To substitute "and" might suggest that the two provisions should be used together, which is not the case.
I am reminded that the Skoal Bandit is not covered by the definition of food or novel food. However, I shall certainly look at the point when I am considering the relevant clause.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply to the group of amendments. Being very much a lay person in this area I shall need to study very carefully what she has said and to take advice from those who have asked me to assist them with this particular question.
Before I formally beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 81 and not move the other amendments when they are called perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether the statement that she has just made on this question represents the views of the Ministry of Agriculture or the Department of Health, or both Ministries.
Baroness Trumpington: In reply to the noble Lord, both.
Lord Gallacher: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 13, line 30, after ("prohibiting") insert ("or regulating").
The noble Viscount said: In speaking to Amendment No. 82 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 84. The argument behind the two amendments, which insert the words "or regulating" after "prohibiting", is quite simple. During the next decade we are likely to see an increase in what are described as novel foods. Those can be established substances which have never been used or totally new foods, many of which are produced by biotechnology. Genetic engineering in particular is an extremely powerful technology which could bring benefits to manufacturers and consumers alike. However, such foods will not have a history of safe usage. Some could have adverse or unwanted effects.
We feel that prohibition is largely a corrective action after the harm has been done. In our opinion there is an additional role for the Minister to assess and regulate novel products which appear on the market as a result of that new technology. The words "or regulating" rather than the final "prohibiting" might be more appropriate. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The clause seeks to provide for arrangements to deal with the special cases of novel foods and imports.
The conditions in which we shall be taking action on novel foods will vary very widely. Some may involve the technique of genetic manipulation and thus require a detailed scientific assessment of their effects on consumers. It is our intention that in such cases there should be a prohibition on marketing until such an assessment has confirmed the safety of the product. Accordingly, Clause 18 provides for prohibition and for the possibility of subsequent exclusion from the prohibition so as to enable us to bring in a strict control system on the basis I have outlined. If we had simply wanted to regulate novel foods we should have just touched on the powers of Clause 16. The point is that we wanted to be able to operate a special regime.
798
At the same time some novel foods will be novel in the sense only that they have not normally been regarded as foods in Western Europe, though they have been used as food elsewhere in the world. Clearly products of that nature can safely be released to the public on the basis of the normal controls in the Bill, including Clause 16 if appropriate. An example is Kiwi fruit.
As regards imports, the wording in line 33 reflects the Importation of Milk Act 1983. That has enabled us to operate a strict milk import regime which we wish to maintain. I therefore favour retention of this wording, and its application to imports other than milk.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. I fully understand and accept the argument that she put forward, which seems to be most appropriate. Under those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 86 not moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 14, line 10, at end insert ("or has been produced by new or extensively modified processes;").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is to the definition of novel foods contained in the Bill on page 14, line 10. The purpose is to broaden and clarify that definition by emphasising the importance of the process by which they are produced. That is clearly a crucial consideration if the consumer is to be presented, for example, with foods that are commonly consumed but are produced or processed by new or modified methods such as genetic manipulation.
We believe that it is vital that genetically manipulated products fall within the scope of these provisions. It is for that vital reason that I now move the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I believe that this amendment is unnecessary. Processes, including novel processes, can be regulated under Clause 16(1)(c) and can be licensed under paragraph 4(b) of Schedule 1. If the food produced is identical to a food already available to the public there is no special case for an additional prohibition under Clause 18.
I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: That reply has a facility which almost bewilders and baffles me. Therefore I must, in my own interests if not my own sanity, take it away, study it, take advice and, if necessary, come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 10 minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Driving Licences (Community Driving Licence) Regulations 1989
7.10 p.m.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Driving Licence (Community Driving Licence) Regulations 1989 be approved. The United Kingdom is obliged, by the provisions of the First European Community Driving Licence Directive, to issue full driving licences in the format laid out in a model in Annex 1 of that directive.
The present pink driving licence was introduced on 1st January 1986 to meet that obligation and is issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea to all drivers in Great Britain (Northern Ireland licences are issued in Northern Ireland by their own licensing authority). The European Commission considers that this licence does not satisfy the requirements of the first directive sufficiently.
The solution which has been devised to overcome the problem, and for which these regulations are required, is to have a driving licence (coloured pink) which fully conforms to the model in the directive and an endorsement and provisional entitlement document (coloured green) to be known as the "counterpart" which is legally separate from, but included on the same piece of paper as, the driving licence. This solution has been accepted by the European Commission. The new provisions will affect licences effective in Great Britain on and after 1st June 1990 and those effective in Northern Ireland on and after 1st January 1991.
For ease of handling what would otherwise be a rather complex series of amendments, the regulations have been divided into four schedules. These are: Schedules 1 and 2, which contain amendments to the relevant provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; Schedule 3, which contains amendments to Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989 (but which is not yet in force); and Schedule 4, which contains the amendments to relevant provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1972 and the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.
Although the matter was not raised during discussion in the other place on 11th January, your Lordships ought to be aware that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has queried the power to require a driver to produce both the licence and counterpart in the circumstances prescribed in Section 164(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This amendment to that section is brought about by paragraph 9(a) of Schedule 1 of the draft regulations we are discussing tonight.
Our view is that such a change is a matter arising out of, or relating to, the Community obligations to which effect is given by these regulations and is therefore intra vires. The licence and counterpart are to be printed on the same piece of paper, even though legally separate, and so it is logical for Section 164(1) to be amended to require the driver to produce both licence and counterpart. This does no more than preserve the present arrangements. I commend these regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Davidson.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I take it from the necessarily complicated explanation that the noble Viscount gave that this licence will now be valid in other countries in Europe and one will not require to get a translation when one goes abroad. It is extremely complicated. Perhaps it has to be, but it is describing something with which we are all basically familiar.
There was one point that I wondered about, and I gave the Minister prior notice because it is a technical point. My present driving licence gives me authority to drive motor vehicles in groups A, E and G. My licence also says that it acts as a provisional licence to drive motor vehicles of all other groups.
If one looks at the explanatory note (a) —and I know that there is always a danger in looking at explanatory notes, but it is simpler than trying to unravel the jargon in the rest of the order —it says:
"to delete the requirement that the licence contain a statement as to the clases of vehicles the holder is entitled to drive as if he were the holder of a provisional licence for these classes of vehicles".
I have looked at Section 98 of the 1988 Act; but since I have given the Minister some intimation of my question, I should be grateful if he could explain to me what it means in a way that I could understand. Does it mean that my licence to drive groups A, E and G only refers to holding a provisional licence for those vehicles and not complete licences? I should be grateful if the Minister could clear up this point for me.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I always know when I am about to speak because they turn down the lights in the Chamber.
Is it intended that people with existing licences should have them substituted by the new document? The licences that we now have —until we get them so full of endorsements that nothing further can be put on them, which I hasten to say does not apply in my case —are intended to be for life, or until at least you reach the age of 70, or whatever it is.
I wonder whether there has to be a big exercise to exchange all the existing licences for the new document. I trust that that is not the case, because it would seem to be rather an expensive exercise if it is. Otherwise, I thank the noble Viscount for explaining this order so clearly in the circumstance of it being extremely complicated. Perhaps the noble Viscount is now in a position to answer the question.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for carrying on for an extra minute. I can tell him that there will be no need to exchange all our driving licences at the same time. It will be phased in over a period.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for giving me notice of his question, which was not quite as complicated as my speech. I think I can give him the answer. First I can tell him that there is no need to translate this, because the categories will be common in all member states and most other European countries.
The holder of a full driving licence will continue to be able to drive other vehicles under provisional licence conditions, because the amendment to Section 98(2) in paragraph 4(b) of Schedule 1 of these draft regulations provides that the holder of a licence may also drive other vehicles under provisional licence conditions. This is achieved by the inclusion on the counterpart of the licence space to show such entitlement. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord. If it does not, I shall of course send him a copy of the document.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I ask him, further to the reply he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, whether it is the case that, if and when we reach the age of 70, we shall have to exchange our present green and white driving licences for the new pink ones to which he referred in his opening remarks?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am advised by sign language that that is the case.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 10 minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.19 p.m. to 8.10 p.m.]

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 18.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 14, line 12, at end insert—
("(4) Regulations issued under subsection (2) above shall be identified for England, Scotland and Wales").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which focuses on the well-known fact that this Bill, unlike previous food legislation, covers Great Britain. The subject of the amendment should be identified in that context. It asks that regulations in relation to milk should take account of the fact that there is a need to create conformity between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain. I assume that this is in part due to the separate character of Scotland at the moment and the fact also that it operates its own three milk marketing boards.
It is considered unsatisfactory by people who engage in the milk trade north and south of the Border that there is a greater barrier to trade in milk between Scotland and England than there is between, say, England and France. The object of the exercise is to encourage the Minister, given the passage of this Bill, to eliminate that barrier so that the milk trade between Scotland and England may flow freely. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I agree that there is much to be said for common provisions throughout Great Britain. However, there may be cases in which different rules are needed to reflect different production or consumption patterns. The amendment would rule out such 'variation and impose uniformity. That is why I am unable to accept it.
We considered the whole question of green-top milk last year —which brings in Scotland —and concluded that sales should continue, subject to new labelling and testing requirements. That decision reflected a consumer demand that evidently does not exist in Scotland and conveniently illustrates the need for flexibility, which is why the Government are resisting the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I may have misunderstood the purpose of the amendment because I was not aware that green-top milk was a major consideration. I did not embarrass the noble Baroness earlier when we were discussing food safety by drawing her attention to the disparity between regulations relating to unpasteurised milk in Scotland and those in England and Wales, where the very safe pasteurisation process that she mentioned, which was somewhat opposed when first introduced, is now accepted as correct and normal. Of course the Minister in England —in response, I admit, to farm-gate pressure —made an exception to permit unpasteurised milk called green-top to be sold, provided that it is identified as such, whereas in Scotland a number of years ago they took the decision not to permit it and indeed it is not permitted.
I believe that at the heart of this amendment is not the simple question of green-top milk but rather the ability of those engaged in the milk trade to trade north and south of the Border, particularly with regard to milk surpluses and the like. The Committee will know that for historical reasons there are three separate milk marketing boards in Scotland, some of them with a very limited geographical area. In itself, that is not of concern to me. I am more concerned about the aspect whereby if milk is surplus in one country, say, under the present quota system, it cannot apparently flow unimpeded north to south or south to north.
On that basis I believe that there is a case for having a further look at this amendment. Perhaps the Minister will look at it again. 11 too will take further advice to make sure that I have correctly interpreted what is before me. If so, it may be necessary to come back to this matter. Does the Minister wish to say something?
Baroness Trumpington: Thank you very much. I wish to say that it is simply not the case that trade in milk between Scotland and England is restricted. England sells to Scotland for manufacturing and Scottish milk is sold in our supermarkets.
Lord Gallacher: If that is the case, I have no case to put before the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Registration and licensing of food premises]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover moved Amendment No. 88A:
Page 14, line 18, after ("(b)") insert ("for the purposes of food safety").
The noble Lord said: First of all, I declare an interest as chairman of a food retailing company. With regard to Clause 19, I wholly agree with the proposal concerning registration and think that it is a sensible move. I also entirely agree with the need for the power to license premises. My amendment seeks to ensure that the licensing should be used for its intended purpose, which is in the interest of food safety. It should not be so drafted as to perhaps be misused in future by other governments to require licensing for reasons other than food safety.
For example, I believe that it would be possible for a bureaucratically-minded government which would like control over the economy —I am thinking of some of the taxes that were swiftly introduced to the service industries at one time and which were antipathetic to commerce —to introduce a requirement that food stores of a certain size should not be allowed to open without a licence. That is not the intention of the Bill but it is the reason for my suggested amendment.
The Bill serves the national interest of food safety and its purpose is the promotion and control of food safety. I suggest that the licensing should be effected with that purpose in mind. As a layman —indeed, this is the first time that I have risen to propose an amendment in this Chamber —I may not have got the wording exactly right. However, I am perfectly confident that my intention is right and that the powers given by this clause should not be so wide that they can be misused in the future for purposes other than the safety of food for this nation.
I hope that the amendment will gain support from all parts of the Committee and that I shall be disabused of any fear I may have that in future years there might be any possibility that the powers given by this Bill could be misused. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to speak from the local authority point of view and support this amendment, at least in principle. As the clause is set out it could form almost a mini-planning control and it could involve for the local authority a great deal of work and trouble unrelated to food. For example, a change of use from a different type of
804
manufacturing to a food business might be resisted. I therefore think that it is important to have such an amendment.
On licensing in general, all councils are overworked. Where voluntary members have to sit on panels to determine licences for such matters as sex shows, late nights and music and dancing, it is very hard to get councillors to sit on such panels. The provision should not become so widened that it becomes a complete burden on local authorities. I support the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: On this side of the Chamber we have much pleasure in supporting the amendment. We strongly support the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover. I am quite sure that no government of which I have experience —certainly no government formed by this party on this side of the Chamber —would dream of using the clause in the manner that he suggests. Nevertheless, for the purposes of food safety it seems to me a very wide insertion at this stage because these provisions are somewhat loosely drawn and could be misused in the manner in which he describes.
Baroness Trumpington: I am extremely glad to have heard the speech of my noble friend. I am glad that he has moved his very first amendment on this Bill. I hope that it will be the first of many.
I have listened with great interest to what he and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, have said. I should like to have a little think about it. I am not sure that it is written in the right way or perhaps in the right place. However, I should like to consider the point further to see whether we can go some way towards what everyone seems to be agreed on. I give no promises, but in view of what I have said I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment this evening.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: I am familiar with what non-commitment means. Nevertheless I very much welcome what the Minister has said. I thank her for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 14, line 21, at end insert ("; or
(c) for the publication by such authorities of information relating to applications for such registration or licences.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 19 concerns regulation of premises and/or prohibition of the use of premises. On the assumption that the recent amendment will be brought back in some different form I believe that my Amendment No. 89 could still be useful. It is so naive that I see it only as a probing amendment.
In the case of planning consents there has to be prior publication so that the public and the neighbours know what is going on. It seems to us that the registrations mentioned in Clause 19 ought to be dealt with in a similar way so that those who live in the neighbourhood of premises which will be

805
the subject of a licence or a registration can be aware of what is going on over the garden wall. For instance, if some change of manufacturing process or change of product will be involved, people have a right to know whether it will be noxious or not necessarily within the terms of what would be covered by normal planning consent. It is in this mood that I move the amendment. I am asking the Government whether they would find it useful to have a subsection in Clause 19 to cover such a situation. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: The principle of a list of granted registrations or licences being available to the public will obviously be sensible. There is no reason why they should not be so available. However, the information submitted by companies in support of such registration should surely remain the property of the company. I suspect that the amendment will breach that confidentiality. I therefore suggest to my noble friend that she should resist the amendment.
Lord Carter: Although the drafting of the amendment may not be perfect, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said, we feel that in principle it is a good idea. Perhaps the Government will consider it.
Baroness Hooper: The Bill already contains powers for us to require registers under regulations and to require such registers to be open to the public at all reasonable times. We shall be considering how to make use of this power in devising the regulations on registration of food premises on which all interested parties will be fully consulted. Our intention, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is to ensure that the public is properly informed about food safety.
However, the amendment would require additional information to be kept, and to be kept up-to-date by the local enforcement authorities. We believe that this would inevitably use some of the additional resources —the extra £30 million which has already been announced —which would be taken into account in the revenue support grant settlement for 1991–92 onwards.
As I said when commenting on the earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to Clause 12 of the Bill, I am most concerned that these important additional resources which we are making available to local authorities should be used for the purpose for which they are intended: that is for improving enforcement of food law. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that we should not be using these resources on an unnecessary bureaucratic exercise except when it is clearly in the public interest and in the interests of enforcing the requirements on provision of safe food.
With regard to the local authority register of food premises, businesses will not submit applications as such. They will, however, be required to provide certain basic information that will be used for the purpose of compiling the registers. We are not proposing to require applications for licences to be made public because these applications are likely to contain detailed information such as the names and
806
addresses of individual employees which would be open perhaps to abuse in the wrong hands.
In addition, an application for a licence might not contain sufficient information for a decision to be made. It would be misleading and unfair to publish incomplete information.
I trust that this will help the noble Lord to decide what he further proposes to do. He has already explained that he intends it as a probing amendment.
Lord Tordoff: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. There may be some confusion. People are frightfully worried about lists. There is no reference to lists in this provision. I had in mind that some notice would be posted on the premises to which reference was made and that notice would say, "We are minded to grant a licence to do such-and-such on these premises". That happens in planning consents and so on. Rather than the keeping of a great register, this was simply a method of letting people who live over the garden wall know what is going on in the premises if there is some significant change in the products that are being produced on those premises.
Perhaps the Minister and her aides would care to think a little more about it. I do not propose to press it tonight. However, the point is this. People would be better informed and would therefore be happier to live with what was happening if they knew about it before it was forced upon them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Defences in proceedings for offences under this Act.
"—(1) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act or any regulations made under this Act, being an offence consisting of selling, or offering, exposing or advertising for sale, or having in possession for the purpose of sale, any article or substance, it is a defence for the defendant to prove —

(a) that he purchased it as being an article or substance which could lawfully be sold or otherwise dealt with as mentioned above, or, as the case may be, could lawfully be so sold or dealt with under the name or description or for the purpose under or for which he sold or dealt with it, and with a written warranty to that effect; and

(b) that he had no reason to believe at the time of the commission of the alleged offence that it was otherwise; and

(c) that it was then in the same state as when he purchased it.

(2) A warranty is only a defence in proceedings under this Act if the defendant —

(i) has, not later than three clear days before the date of the hearing, sent to the prosecutor a copy of the warranty with a notice stating that he intends to rely on it and specifying the name and address of the person from whom he received it, and

(ii) has also sent a like notice of his intention to that person.

(3) Where the defendant is a servant of the person who purchased the article or substance under a warranty, he shall be entitled to rely on the provisions of this section in the same way as his employer would have been entitled to do if he had been the defendant.
(4) The person by whom the warranty is alleged to have been given shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and to give evidence, and the court may, if it thinks fit, adjourn the hearing to enable him to do so.
(5) For the purpose of this section, a name or description entered in an invoice shall be deemed to be a written warranty that the article or substance to which the entry refers can be sold or otherwise dealt with under that name or description by any person without contravening any of the provisions of this Act or regulations made under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment takes us into the realm of defences. I say at the outset that, while I believe the amendment has great merit, it is essentially an attempt to draw a balance between those who consume food and those who supply and sell it. In that regard the amendment has some importance.
In the Bill the Government have decided to dispense with the statutory warranty defence in Section 102 of the 1984 Act. That defence has served well in successive food Acts for something over 100 years. Its object is to ensure that the responsibility for any defects arising during the manufacture of food rests fairly and squarely with the person who has control of the process.
Normally that person is not the retailer who is responsible for the handling and storage of the food once it reaches the store. All the retailer can reasonably do is to ensure that he purchases food from a reliable supplier who he is confident employs the high standards which are expected today. Nobody can expect a retailer to stand over the manufacturer to ensure that he meets the standards in practice. He does the next best thing and obtains a warranty from the supplier. That guarantees that the food concerned meets all the legal requirements, including all those properly contained in the Bill.
If subsequently a customer complains —say, of a foreign body in his or her packet of whatever it may be —and the enforcement officer decides to take legal action against the retailer, that retailer would, as the law stands today, be able to use the warranty defence. In that case he will almost certainly win. If the enforcement authority concerned in the hypothetical case has been doing its job properly it will have taken the manufacturer rather than the retailer to court and it will have saved itself a good deal of time and expense.
A warranty defence, as it currently exists under the 1984 Act, would not succeed if the defect is attributable to a retailer. A retailer who sells a loaf of bread after its sell-by date, or who has altered the food in any way —for example, by slicing a piece of canned meat —will find that the liability falls fairly and squarely upon him. The Bill before us repeals Sections 102 to 104 of the 1984 Act. If that repeal is sustained the only defence available is one of due diligence. It is not clear who the enforcement authority should prosecute in practice.
Although the possession of a warranty will almost certainly be regarded as part of due diligence, I suggest that it is unreasonable because a retailer does not want to have to go to court to prove it. The defence of due diligence is a helpful tool in a borderline case where it is less clear as to who is liable. Therefore, the introduction of such a defence
808
into the Bill is welcome. However, if it is to be the only defence available, retailers are concerned that they may well be taken to court to fight cases in which they are not the real offenders, despite the helpful subsections in Clause 21 which set out the conditions. Even if they subsequently win the case a court appearance is a costly event not only in monetary terms but also as regards reputation.
I believe that it is in the consumer's interest for the law to be as clear as possible. The consumer is the person who, at the end of the day, will pay for the combined costs of any prosecution. I suggest that it would be sensible to retain the statutory warranty defence at least in respect of home-produced goods. The proposed due diligence defence might be more applicable in the case of imported and other goods where a warranty defence cannot be used.
If the only defence available is to be that of straight due diligence, without specification of what would be deemed to constitute due diligence as set out in subsections (2) to (5) in Clause 21, retailers would need to more than double their existing expenditure on the testing of food, and so forth. Each retailer would be duplicating the other and the costs would readily and quickly mount.
Amendment No. 90 reproduces Section 102 of the Food Act 1984 except that it admits subsections 2(b) and (c) of the section dealing essentially with imports and milk respectively.
In putting the amendment before the Committee it would be proper for me to ask the Minister two specific questions. Exactly why have the Government decided to repeal the warranty defence in the light of their general policies to reduce the burdens on business? Certainly the absence of the warranty defence will increase that burden. Can the Government demonstrate a substantial number of cases where the warranty defence has failed to the detriment or injury of the consumer? In that regard I ignore some of the comments made earlier in the Committee about the reimportation of sub-standard foods or about fire-damaged goods which have hit the headlines over the past 18 months.
I believe that retaining the warranty defence alongside the new proposals will give a far better balance between the interests of the consumer and those of the retailer. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I do not consider that the warranty defence proposed in the amendment is appropriate. The warranty defence which exists in the Food Act 1984 is capable of abuse and could allow operations buying in food to avoid responsibility for all the food they sell.
For example, it operates to discriminate against UK manufacturers in favour of importers in that a manufacturer is required to accept responsibility for the food he puts into circulation but an importer is not. By pleading the warranty defence the importer can escape conviction. At present the impact of this loophole is slightly mitigated by a requirement that a warranty given by a non-UK resident is only a defence if the defendant has taken steps to check its accuracy. The amendment would remove even this safeguard.

809
My noble friend asked about differentiating between imported and home-produced goods. Under the Treaty of Rome we could be in trouble for differentiating between goods from other member states and those produced at home.
The new system of defences outlined in Clause 21 of the Bill based on the concept of due diligence is designed to ensure that all those involved in the food chain take appropriate responsibility for the food they sell. We have recognised that the due diligence defence in Clause 21(1) could cause uncertainty for retailers as to their precise responsibilities; for example, the case of tinned meat. Subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 21 therefore set out special deemed due diligence defences which will apply to retailers. I believe that the new system provides a fair balance between the interests of consumers, manufacturers, importers, retailers, enforcement authorities and others. Discussions which Ministers and officials have had with representative organisations have tended to confirm that belief. I hope that in view of my explanation my noble friend will not press the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation which I understand in part. Not having to hand the relevant sections of the Treaty of Rome, it is rather difficult to reconcile what she says, so I must look at that.
Certainly there is uncertainty. However, does the Minister not agree that there can be no uncertainty that a foreign manufacturer, being outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts, cannot be engaged in any prosecution which may take place between the enforcement authority, manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer? We are concerned about the responsibility of the retailer in terms of due diligence. Under existing law, the retailer has the warranty —this is a quotation from Section 102(2)(b) of the 1984 Act —that,
"he had taken reasonable steps to ascertain, and did in fact believe in, the accuracy of the statement contained in it".
Therefore, it seems to me that there is already a responsibility of due diligence under the existing law dealing with the warranty defence which is not changed by the omission of the warranty defence. That seems something of an imbalance which particularly concerns me.
The retailer, who might very well be dealing through a wholesaler or an importer, should be the one to be taken to court. But his warranty, which he has relied upon before, because it is taken outside the law by virtue of this Bill, affords him no protection whatever. He must then rely solely on due diligence. Is it reasonable that a number of retailers buying from perhaps the same importer or wholesaler should have to take all the steps of testing, examination and so on, whereas hitherto, they have not had to do so?
Lastly, I repeat my question to my noble friend. Can the Government demonstrate over the past five or 10 years that a substantial number of cases causing damage or injury to a consumer have occurred as a
810
result of a retailer pleading and winning a case of a warranty defence? If they cannot, I suggest that that defence should remain intact.
Baroness Trumpington: I believe that my noble friend fights his corner very well. I do not believe that the warranty defence has worked at all well in the past. I do not consider that the warranty defence proposed in this amendment, which repeats and indeed exacerbates the faults of that in the Food Act 1984, is appropriate. The retailer will still be able to quote a warranty in establishing a due diligence defence. However, under the new system we shall be able to pin responsibility on the person who first brings the food into the UK. I cannot give examples off the top of my head but I must tell my noble friend that I shall not change my mind on the matter.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Knowing the noble Baroness as long as I have done, I certainly detect an "ironness" in her remarks. I should not expect her this evening to change her mind. I shall think about what she said, and I ask her to be kind enough to think about what I said. I may or may not wish to return to this matter on another occasion. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 21 [Defence of due diligence]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 14, line 41, leave out ("or (4)") and insert (", (4) or (4A)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment should be read with Amendment No. 94. It is intended to clarify the position of the pick-your-own enterprises. I should say that I have an interest in my son's enterprise in Oxfordshire. I believe, and I hope that my noble friend will agree, that if a person picks a mouldy strawberry, the owner of the pick-your-own would not be committing an offence. However, I hasten to add that if the owner was in breach of pre-harvest intervals as laid down under the Food and Environment Protection Act regulations, he would be committing an offence under that Act. I hope that that satisfies the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
This simple amendment makes it crystal clear that pick-your-own enterprises are exempt rather than burdening the courts with proving that the owner of the pick-your-own took all reasonable precautions. I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment.
However, there is a further problem with pick-your-owns. It may be that my noble friend would prefer to write to me. This is a rather grey area and perhaps she does not have the answer now. What is the position if the farmer picks the fruit or, much more likely, the vegetables, and then displays them for sale for the public so that they can choose which produce they wish to buy? Sadly, the public are usually too lazy to pick vegetables. They will pick strawberries and raspberries, but, for some reason, they do not like picking beans. That is quite

811
common. Therefore, the vegetables have to be picked for them so that they can select what they wish to buy. What is the position there?
We often offer cream for sale because it is too far for the public to walk to the village shop. I ask my noble friend whether the pick-your-own becomes a farm shop and therefore becomes subject to all the regulations in the Bill. This too is a rather grey area. There is also concern about catch-your-own trout. How is that affected? I beg to move.
Lord Carter: This is an interesting amendment. It seems that there is an omission in the Bill regarding the implications for pick-your-own which the draftsman has not really thought through. The Minister will know that we are encouraged by the Ministry and by ADAS to diversify our farm enterprises, including the operation of pick-your-owns.
Clause 21(3)(a) states that,
"the commission of the offence was due to an act or default of another person who was not under his control".
Does the picker commit an offence if he picks unripe or damaged fruit? Is the act of picking it a default under the Act? How does that differ from a greengrocer who has lots of self service fruit and vegetables? If the greengrocer puts unripe fruit on display and the customer chooses it, is the retailer at fault? We can see that there is an area here which needs to be looked at carefully. I believe that the noble Lord has done the Committee a service by bringing this matter to our attention.
Baroness Trumpington: Once again I am afraid I cannot accept my noble friend's amendment. It would mean, for example, that the owner of a pick-your-own enterprise could automatically be deemed to have satisfied "due diligence" and therefore escape conviction even if the food his customers had picked was unfit, contaminated, or injurious to health. That would hardly be a satisfactory state of affairs.
I understand my noble friend's anxiety, but I believe that as the Bill stands it already affords an adequate degree of protection for the farmers and growers that he has in mind. Clause 8(2)(c) is carefully drafted. It makes clear that food is only regarded as contaminated if it would not be reasonable to expect it to be used for human consumption in that state. After all, if the person who picked strawberries then sat on them and squashed them, as a result of which they rotted, that would hardly be the fault of the person from whose farm they were picked.
Neither that, nor the defences in Clause 21, would preclude the sensible and safe use of pesticides or fertilisers by farmers and growers engaged in pick-you-own enterprises. Pick-your-own lettuces covered in mud from the field would clearly not be regarded as contaminated because any reasonable person would wash a lettuce before eating it. Of course, if a pick-your-own enterprise is selling grossly contaminated produce, that enterprise would be committing an offence just as a shop would be. A farm shop is a shop, is a shop, is a shop. If a farmer
812
picks vegetables and displays them for sale, he is caught by the food law. I am sorry, but I cannot accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am sorry about that. I was hoping that at some stage my noble friend would accept one of my amendments. I was being very nice to her compared with the other day. However, to be serious, I shall very carefully read what my noble friend said. Looking at all the examples given by her I, as a pick-your-own owner, would have been caught under the Food and Environment Protection Act. As I said, I shall read carefully what has been said because I am certainly not trying to escape from that obligation. If I contaminate my food by using pesticides or by late spraying before picking, of course I am liable; but I cannot quite see the other side. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 15, line 1, after ("out") insert ("or caused to be carried out").
The noble Baroness said: I speak also to Amendment No. 93. Clause 21 brings the food safety law into line with other consumer protection legislation in that as it stands at the moment it sets out how a person may satisfy the defence of due diligence, which will be a defence against prosecution under the Bill. My two amendments do nothing to alter that premise and they accept the central principle of the clause.
I seek to clarify the Bill's provisions so that they do not impose an undue burden on smaller firms. It is the smaller firms who do not have extensive warehouse testing facilities and who have to contract certain testing work to outside laboratories. Surely that should be reflected in the person being able to prove that he carried out, or caused to be carried out, such checks as would be the case with Amendment No. 92.
Amendment No. 93 deals with the case of a person or company who might otherwise be liable to prosecution who has reasonably relied on tests carried out the supplier. By inserting the words "or on behalf of" in line 3 of the clause I am seeking to ensure that small suppliers are able to have tests carried out by someone else. The person supplied can then put equal reliance on such tests as if they had been carried out by the supplier himself. If that was not the case, the smaller firms would find it hard to sell to larger firms.
I do not believe that my two amendments in any way weaken the Bill, the object of which is to ensure the safety of food. One way to do that is by the testing of foods and ingredients. Provided such tests are carried out at all the appropriate stages, does it matter who physicially carries out the tests?
My proposals are comparable to ensuring that our cars are roadworthy. We do not necessarily carry out the mechanical checks or do the necessary repairs. We arrange for our garages to do that for us and to check that our cars are roadworthy. In a sense, I am asking that the same principle of testing is extended to the safety of food.
I confidently expect the Minister to tell me that the Bill as it stands can be interpreted as implicitly covering the points I have raised. However, the contrary interpretation is also possible. Where there is such a doubt in the Bill, then the Bill should be made as clear as possible because the courts will have to decide all the cases that go to them on the basis of what the legislation actually states and not on what we intended it to mean. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I support the amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will give it a fair wind.
Baroness Trumpington: I am sorry to tell my old friend the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that I cannot find favour with the amendments. As the noble Baroness will know, courts interpret defences very widely and would accept checks carried out at the instigation of the defendant as being checks carried out by him. Similarly, checks carried out on behalf of his supplier would be regarded as being carried out by that supplier. I hope in view of that brief explanation the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Baroness Stedman: I am terribly disappointed with the Minister's reply. Having tabled only two very small amendments in the whole of this Bill, I was hoping to be the lucky one to hear the words "yes, we accept the amendment".
The Minister has taken precisely the view that I expected, that the situation is covered by the Bill as it stands. Clearly, we must wait for the courts to make a decision to show who is right. I hope that the Minister is right. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 95 to 99:
Page 15, line 21, leave out ("(a)").
Page 15, line 22, leave out ("(b)").
Page 15, line 24, after ("unless") insert ("(a)").
Page 15, line 24, after ("hearing") insert ("and
(b) where he has previously appeared before a court in connection with the alleged offence, within one month of his first such appearance,").
Page 15, line 27, at end insert —
("(6) In subsection (5) above any reference to appearing before a court shall be construed as including a reference to being brought before a court.").
The noble Baroness said: I hope the Committee will welcome these amendments. They are designed to close a possible loophole in respect of action taken against defendants further back in the food chain. We have also taken the opportunity to make clear that the reference to appearing before a court will cover the case where someone has to be brought before a court and who does not do so voluntarily.
The main object is to ensure that proceedings against the real offender can be started before the overall time limit for taking a prosecution has run out. The Committee will be aware that Clause 34 sets these overall time limits one year from the discovery of an offence or three years from its commission, whichever is earlier.
At present, Clause 21 provides that if someone wants to use in his defence the fact that a third party was at fault, he has to identify that person seven days or more before the case has its full hearing. We are concerned that a defendant, perhaps wishing to protect the third party, could drag out his preparations so that there is not enough time left for the prosecution to start proceedings against the real offender.
With these amendments the defendant who intends to point to the guilt of a third party will have to identify that person within one month of his first appearance before the magistrate's court. In the unlikely event of a defendant wishing the case to receive a full hearing on his first appearance, he will still have to identify the other person at least seven days beforehand. This should lead to a much better working of the system. I trust that the Committee will appreciate the merits of these amendments which should make for more effective enforcement of food law provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
9 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 100:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Defence of unavoidable consequences
.In proceedings under section 14(1) above in respect of any food containing some extraneous matter it is a defence to prove that the presence of that matter was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment inserts a new clause which has exactly the same wording as Section 3(2) of the 1984 Act. That provides a defence where it can be proved that the presence of extraneous matter in food was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation.
Section 3(2) states:
"In proceedings under section 2 in respect of any food containing some extraneous matter, it is a defence to prove that the presence of that matter was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation".
That is what we are seeking to retain. Here I am not thinking of the piece of machinery in the can of beans to which we have referred earlier, but of something far more natural and not at all harmful. For example, I was thinking of the husk of a pea pod in a can of peas or something of that nature. It seems quite reasonable that the due process of law should not be enacted in cases of that kind and that there should be an automatic defence.
I am not going to press this amendment tonight. If my noble friend the Minister can tell me that my anxiety may be covered by the due diligence defence which we have discussed in connection with Clause 21, that would be helpful. If she has any other comment, I shall be delighted to hear it. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Before I answer my noble friend, I ask him whether there is a misprint in the amendment as printed. Should it refer to Section 14(1) and not 15(1)?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend for reminding me of that. I had that point written down but I failed to read it out. The Minister is quite correct.
Baroness Trumpington: I am grateful to my noble friend for the explanation of his proposal. I understand his anxiety which is to ensure that people should not be convicted of selling food not of the required nature, substance or quality if it contains matter resulting unavoidably from the manufacturing process. I am pleased to be able to tell my noble friend that the Bill already meets his point. The amendment would reinstate the defence in Section 3(2) of the Food Act 1984.
We are very concerned with tins of peas this evening. Some of my noble friends may recall the case of the caterpillar found in the tin of peas in Smedley v. Breed. In that case, the defendant —despite his demonstrating that his manufacturing methods were of the highest quality —was convicted though relying on this proposed defence. That was because he could not convince the court that the presence of the caterpillar was an unavoidable consequence of the manufacturing process. The process was designed to exclude such objects.
That result did not seem fair, but it was the legally correct consequence of the defence. Under the defence in Clause 21 I am assured that the defendant would have been acquitted on the evidence. In view of my explanation, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I thank my noble friend for her explanation. Does her answer apply to a tin of carrots? That is a purely rhetorical question. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Orders for facilitating the exercise of functions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 101 and 102:
Page 16, line 20, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
Page 16, line 35, leave out ("or any class of such food").
The noble Baroness said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 16, line 46, at end insert ("or
(c) where disclosure is necessary for the purpose of preventing an imminent risk of injury to health;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 133 and 134. As the Committee is aware, Clause 25 enables the Minister to obtain samples of a particular product from all of its producers. For instance, if the Minister decides that she wants a sample of pigs' trotters and goes to every pigs' trotters manufacturer in the
816
country—thought I hate to think of the state of the noble Baroness's office after that exercise has completed —the Minister is entitled to do so.
Under subsection (3) of this clause it is an offence to pass information relating to any individual business which is obtained by means of an order under subsection (1). Any person who discloses any such information is in contravention and he shall be guilty of an offence. There are two very proper exclusions from that provision. We are seeking to include a further exclusion in cases where there is a danger to health. The actual wording of the amendment is:
"where disclosure is necessary for the purpose of preventing an imminent risk of injury to health".
If in the course of this sampling procedure there is found in one particular sample something which is genuinely nasty and a danger to public health, then that should be disclosed to the general public, who could be at risk, even without the consent of the manufacturer or the person from whom the sample was obtained.
With Amendment No. 133, we come to the secrecy clause, Clause 32(7), to which I made some oblique reference the other evening. This severely penalises unauthorised disclosure of information about food by enforcing authorities, which are mainly local authorities. As the Bill stands, an inspector who publicly reveals information about unsafe food or unsafe food manufacturing processes could be guilty of an offence. The maximum penalty is an unlimied fine or up to two years' imprisonment, which incidentally is the same penalty as the new Official Secrets Act prescribes for unauthorised disclosures which damage Britain's defences or national security. But this clause if anything is slightly more oppressive than the Official Secrets Act.
The offence under Clause 32(7) is too disclose information about any manufacturing process or trade secret unless that disclosure is in the performance of the inspector's duty. However, there is no duty to inform the public about these hazards. That is what we are worried about. The case for protecting trade secrets is obvious. We would not wish in any way to alter that under Amendment No. 133. But we are concerned about the protection of information relating to manufacturing processes even where no trade secret is involved and the information is without commercial value of any kind. It would be an offence to reveal that a manufacturing process was being used, for instance, without the required safety precautions. We believe that the use of the words "manufacturing process" is unnecessary and that they should be removed. Such secrecy has been dropped in other legislation. For example, the Clean Air Act 1956 originally used exactly the same words, but it was amended by the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to delete that reference.
Amendment No. 134 would allow the disclosure of trade secret information but only where it was necessary for the purpose of preventing an eminent risk of injury to health. That is a necessary case. Emergency action might have to be taken where people ought to be told that there was imminent risk

817
of injury to health. In those cases it should override even the need to preserve trade secrecy. One would always hope that it would be possible to speak to manufacturers and get them to agree that emergency action should be taken, but in those cases where that permisson was refused, it ought still to be possible for the authorities to override them.
The three amendments are extremely important in reducing the amount of secrecy built into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: On these Benches we are pleased to support the amendments. Considerable concern has been expressed by a number of organisations about the quite draconian powers contained in Clauses 25 and 32 of the Bill. We all understand and accept the need to protect trade secrets, although I expect that the lawyers will have a field day in defining a "trade secret". The protection of a manufacturing process which may have no commercial value and which may involve an imminent risk of injury to health is not acceptable.
These amendments are not intended to be a whistle-blower's charter. They are intended to protect the public, which we understand is also the Government's object in this Bill. We hope therefore that the Minister will be able to consider them favourably. The Independent pointed out on 9th January that the penalties under this clause are the same as those prescribed in the new Official Secrets Act for unauthorised disclosure of information which damages the defences of Britain or its national security. It pointed out that most offences under that Act require the prosecution to show that disclosure was likely to cause harm. No evidence of harm will be needed to convict someone who makes a disclosure about hazards in food. That is an extremely important argument. We have no hesitation in supporting the amendments and we look forward to hearing that the Government are prepared to accept them.
Baroness Trumpington: In order to put noble Lords out of their misery I shall tell the Committee immediately, without giving a lengthy explanation, that I sympathise with the noble Lord's intention in putting forward the amendments. We had not realised that problems had arisen in the past. However, in view of the concern expressed on the subject, I am willing to take the matter away and give the issues further careful consideration. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I assure her that there is evidence of difficulties in the past. Even if the provision had been tested in the courts and found to be wanting, people might be inhibited by such a provision. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the matter seriously. I look forward to an amendment or some further discussions at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 26 [Regulations and orders: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 17, line 1, after ("regulations") insert ("or orders").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 106. Members of the Committee will notice that the title of the clause set out in the margin includes the words "Regulations and orders". Noble Lords will also notice that subsection (4) refers to:
"Regulations under this Part or an order under section 25".
It seems to me that it would be appropriate for consultations which are already required within subsection (1) to apply equally to orders under Clause 25 as well as to regulations contained in Clause 26. Indeed, that process should also apply to any regulations or orders in this part of the Bill. In my view this is merely a small omission and I hope that my noble friend will agree to accept what is proposed. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The amendment would require Ministers to consult before exercising either of the two order-making powers under Part II of the Bill. The first such power allows Ministers to make emergency control orders. Such orders would of necessity have to be made very swiftly and there would be no time to carry out a consultation exercise before they were made.
The second order-making power would enable Ministers to collect information or food samples. That power is intended to supplement rather than replace the existing voluntary system. For example, the Government food surveillance programmes are at present based upon samples given voluntarily, but the order-making power would enable Ministers to take samples compulsorily should that prove necessary. However, such orders would only be made if voluntary approaches had failed. Consultation would clearly not help in such circumstances. Moreover, information gained in that way could on occasion be used to help reach a decision on whether regulations were needed. Interested parties would of course be consulted in the usual way before such regulations were made. I am afraid that, once again, I shall have to disappoint my noble friend.
Lord Mottistone: I appreciate what my noble friend said. I shall take great pleasure in carefully reading her reply. I am not entirely sure that I am satisfied and I may return to the subject at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 17, line 4, after ("interests") insert ("including the interests of consumers").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment reflects the need for greater consumer representation on the various advisory committees. Despite the recent increase in consumer representation on the Food

819
Advisory Committee, there are still only two representatives out of a total of 15 committee members.
While I welcome the consumer panel newly set up by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to strengthen consumer output, it is not yet clear exactly what its role will be and how it will interact with the directorate and the various advisory committees. There is no consumer representation on the committee dealing with toxicity or, more important, on the Advisory Committee on Irradiated Novel Foods, which has a crucial role to play in the future.
In dealing with such matters as the use of biotechnology in the food industry and the controversial issue of irradiation, the committee should not just touch upon matters of scientific safety; it should also deal with the social and ethical implications of such new processes.
Consumer participation is especially important when it comes to the vexed question of whether new processes are really necessary. The regulation of food additives provides an example of where there are clearly two sets of criteria to be considered prior to approval; namely, safety and need. In the past, need has been interpreted very narrowly by the Food Advisory Committee in terms of the technological and economic need of the manufacturers for the additive in question. The regulatory process tends to be dominated at present by scientific debate; that is, debate which is obviously essential to establish safety but which often overlooks more human questions. In our view, consumer needs should be given more consideration in such assessments. It is that factor which has prompted the tabling of this amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: The consumer is central to the whole Bill: he is to be protected from bad food; he is to be offered irradiation although he says that he does not want it; but is he to be consulted on any of those measures? I am sure that the Minister will say, "Of course", but the Government's idea of consumer involvement is sometimes a pretty measly affair. If the Government wish to be seen to be on the public's side —they have a large credibility problem at present —a good way would be to write consumer consultation on the face of the Bill. Those interests likely to be substantially affected by the regulations are sure to include the big battalions, and it is right that they should. Many of us would feel a great deal more confident about the interests of the public if the amendment were accepted.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Viscount's proposal is specifically to include consumer interests among those to be consulted who are likely to be substantially affected by the regulations. I of course believe that that is unnecessary. Consumers' interests are already fully recognised by Ministers as being in the forefront of interests to be consulted. An extensive list of consumer organisations is consulted regularly on a wide range of issues, including food legislative matters.
There is no need to highlight consumer interests in the Bill. In any case, they are already well covered
820
by the current wording. I think that I understood the noble Viscount to say that there was no consumer representation on some committees. Some of the committees that he enumerated are committees of experts to give Ministers the kind of information that we can be sure is scientifically correct, and they are not therefore for the amateur. That is why we have some committees composed only of scientific experts. We consult a great deal. I assure the Committee that the consumers' interests are very much to the forefront of the Government's thinking.
The Viscount of Falkland: I am encouraged by the Minister's remarks. The committees to which I referred are too expert for one to expect the consumer to take a leading role. I was suggesting that there might be an increase in consumer participation even if it is on the edges of those committees. I take on board what the Minister says and I am generally encouraged by her recognition of what prompted the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 17, line 23, leave out ("the public") and insert ("an authorised officer of an enforcement authority or such other persons as may be specified in the regulations").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to replace "the public" with a specified authorised officer of an enforcement authority
"or such other persons as may be specified in the regulations".
As time goes on perhaps even the public might be
"such other persons as may be specified",
but until the detail of the subsidiary provisions contained in subsection (3)(c) are specified, it does not appear appropriate to include reference to members of the public or any other specific group of people.
My noble friend the Minister may say that she believes that the only information to be disclosed on the register would be the name and address of the company and the number of employees. I wonder whether that is so. The detail of registration and licensing has yet to be established. There is concern that if such information is open to public inspection it could be abused, not just by commercial interests —for example, sales representatives —but by activists such as the Animal Liberation Front and "food terrorists". The Committee may be familiar with recent incidents when food terrorists have sought to upset large companies.
If the registered information is limited; that is, to little more than what appears in a telephone directory, that concern would be minimal. Such limited information however would be of little value to enforcement authorities, and the expectation is that the registered information about a company would be much more detailed and give information about types of activities and names of responsible personnel.
An amendment of this nature at this stage would be a suitable safeguard, because it would enable the Government to widen the number of persons

821
specified, as and when they saw what they required under the remaining headings of the clause. I hope that this argument will appeal to my noble friend the Minister and that she will be able to agree. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The register of food premises will contain a very limited amount of information such as the address of the premises, as my noble friend suggested; the nature and size of the business; and the name of the proprietor. It will not include detailed information on the running of the business. We believe that allowing the public access to the register has three major advantages. First, it will benefit the consumer because he or she will be able to check whether or not premises are known to the local authority and therefore whether or not the authority is monitoring hygiene standards. Secondly, it will benefit the industry. Reputable businesses sometimes suspect that they are being undercut by unscrupulous traders who cut corners on safety to keep down prices. If they have access to the register, they will be able to check whether or not those premises are registered. If they are not, the occupants may deliberately be trying to avoid inspection. At any rate, the reputable trader will be able to do something about it. Finally, we believe that public access will lead to better standards of enforcement as any gaps in the local authority's knowledge can be filled by the public.
I note the examples quoted by my noble friend which give rise to his concerns. But we believe that industry has nothing to fear fom public access to the register. Indeed, there are real advantages for all concerned. I hope that my noble friend will therefore agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I am partially reassured by my noble friend's remarks, but not altogether. I may well come back at the next stage of the Bill with some alternative amendment in order to tackle the point. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 17, line 31, leave out ("or to a tribunal constituted in accordance with the regulations").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. It raises the question of what kind of tribunals are envisaged under the regulations; how such tribunals will in themselves become appeal courts; and whether appellants will have any choice regarding which body they take their appeals to in order to be heard. I should be grateful if the Minister could give me some further information and clear up what for me is a somewhat unusual provision, particularly in regard to appeals. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: It gives me great pleasure to support an amendment moved from the Opposition Front Bench for the first time during proceedings on the Bill.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: The main purpose of these provisions is to allow us to maintain the system of milk and dairies tribunals. It may help
822
noble Lords if I try to explain the need for this system. Our milk hygiene regime includes arrangements for registering dairy farmers and for licensing dairies in order to ensure that high standards are maintained so as to protect public health. If standards are not maintained the registration or licence can be cancelled by the Ministry or a local authority but this is a severe penalty because it effectively deprives the farmer or dairyman of his livelihood. Accordingly, there is a long established tribunal system to consider appeals against cancellation. The system works effectively in practice; it is inexpensive; and it enjoys the industry's confidence. This is, therefore, a case where there is much to be said for leaving well alone, and this evidently means that we must keep the enabling power. Accordingly, the Government are resisting the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: The noble Earl's resistance is unnecessary. He has jogged my memory about milk and dairies tribunals. That point did not impress itself upon me when I first read this provision, although I have reason to believe now that I am a member of a milk and dairies tribunal. That is for the reason that no one else whom I approached at the material time would agree to serve. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Appointment of public analysts]:
9. 30 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 18, line 4, leave out ("food authority") and insert ("authority to whom this section applies, that is to say, every food authority in England and Wales and every regional or islands council in Scotland,").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend and with the permission of the Committee I shall move Amendment No. 110 and speak to Amendments Nos. 112, 113 and 114. Amendment No. 110 amends Clause 27 so that responsibility for the appointment of public analysts in Scotland rests with regional and islands councils. Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 are consequential. Amendment No. 114 empowers such authorities to provide facilities, if they wish, for microbiological examinations.
Lest any Member of the Committee should feel that these amendments are at variance with the stance which the Government adopted to the amendments to Clause 5 proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord Ezra, perhaps I may offer some background. Responsibility for food matters in Scotland currently rests under the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 with the environmental health departments of district and islands councils. This is unlike the situation in England and Wales where responsibility is split between environmental health and trading standards officers employed by different layers of local authorities. Because of this split, Clause 5(4)

823
empowers Ministers to make orders specifying which authority may carry out specific functions. This, as my noble friend explained, is not required in Scotland where there are unitary authorities, although Clause 5(6) enables an authorised officer to be other than an employee of the district and islands council so that TSOs could be called on to act on the council's behalf.
The position of public analysts is somewhat different. Public analysts carry out a range of duties outwith food. For example, they analyse pesticides, soil samples, materials and contents of certain foods, toys, etc, and carry out analysis for the police. In those areas they are employees of regional and islands councils. It clearly represents an economic use of resources for these analysts also to undertake the necessary work on food which they currently do. The amendments to Clauses 27 and 28 are designed to accommodate that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 18, line 13, at end insert ("provided that nothing in this Act shall preclude a person acting as a public analyst who may have received instructions from the proprietor of any food business, whether carried on in that area or otherwise, to undertake professional analytical work.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. It arises from the drafting of the Bill and specifically the use of the word "indirectly" in Clause 27(2)(b). Although some local authorities employ public analysts on their staff, we are advised that there are others which employ consultants on a fee-paying basis. In that way a council receives the service it requires at a lower cost.
It follows that consultants and public analysts used by local authorities in this way should also be able to receive instruction as professional scientists from private firms, including food businesses. We are advised that the words used in Clause 27(2)(b), as drafted, would appear to preclude the use of private consultant analysts who act for food businesses as being persons engaged indirectly in a food business in the area. This is a probing amendment and we hope that the Minister can clarify the meaning of the clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the amendment. However, we do not agree that the wording in the Bill should be changed. Clause 27(2) is designed to prevent any public analyst being so involved in the food industry as to bring about a conflict of interest. Public analysts are holders of public office and exist to assist in enforcement and trials. I hope that in view of that brief explanation the noble Lord will feel that I have solved his problem.
Lord Carter: I am not sure that the Minister has solved the problem because I am talking about the case of a private consultant who is acting as a public analyst. However, I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee now. I shall read what the noble Baroness said and I may come back again at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: I hope I may write to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Mottistone: Will my noble friend also write to me as she did not give me time to break into the discussion? I support the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: I shall gladly write to my noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 111A:
Page 18, line 13, at end insert —
("( ) A public analyst may also be appointed as an authorised officer for the purposes of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 111A, with the leave of the Committee I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 117A and 154A. In doing so, I should like leave to question the Minister on the future academic status of food examiners, starting with Clause 28(2). I shall also ask leave to comment on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, Amendment No. 117, which seeks to amend Clause No. 30.
My amendments and the comments and questions that I seek to ask all relate to the status of public status of public analysts, about whom I should like to ensure that the Committee is sufficiently informed, without making a Second Reading speech on the subject. Public analysts are defined in Statutory Instrument No. 273 of 1957 entitled The Public Analysts Regulations 1957. The only item that need concern the Committee is Regulation 2(a), which reads:
"A person appointed to be a public analyst under the Act" —
that is, the Food and Drugs Act 1955—
"shall either

(a) hold a diploma of fellowship or associateship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and a certificate granted by that institute after an examination conducted by them in the chemistry including microscopy of food and drugs and water; or

(b) have held immediately before these regulations came into operation an appointment as a public analyst".

That implies that public analysts existed before the regulations and are an evolutionary body.
The words need updating in so far as at some time after 1957 the Chemical Society, a learned society, and the Royal Institute of Chemistry, a professional body, merged with a new charter to form the Royal Society of Chemistry which combines the work of its two merged predecessors.
The requirement for a public analyst is now that the candidate should hold a degree of Master of Chemical Analysis awarded by the Royal Society of Chemistry. The examination for that degree lasts a whole week.
Perhaps I may say a few general words about public analysts as they are today. There are about 100 qualified public analysts holding a master's degree, and of those some 80 are in practice. Without them the Bill would have no teeth and be inoperable. They are the cream of the cream of their profession. Many of them work for more than one local authority. I know one who works for no fewer than

825
eight. Some are self-employed, others are partners in a general practice. They operate always as individuals. They are all of the highest professional integrity. My amendments are all concerned with preserving their status, in grateful acknowledgment that I received part of my practical training in the laboratories of one of them.
Master of Chemical Analysis is a very advanced scientific qualification covering the analysis of foods, drugs and water together with related disciplines such as microbiology, pharmacology and food technology and the disciplines of sampling processes which are essential to water analysis. In addition public analysts must be familiar with no fewer than 27 Acts of Parliament, 28 including this one, making provision for their services, not to mention the rain of Statutory Instruments which descends from Ministers under the enabling powers in those Acts.
They have to maintain liaison with central government and the European Commission in the review of relevant national and Community legislation. In a very general sense they are advisers across the board on scientific matters to local government which, having no specific scientific qualifications, may require help in locating specialist advisers of whom it stands in need.
These are very special people. However, aware as I am of the limits of the patience of the Committee I shall cut short my panegyric at this point and refer the Committee to a study guide published by the Royal Society of Chemistry which I shall place in the Library at the end of the debate.
I come now to question the status of food examiners in the context of Clause 28(2) where "examination" is defined as "microbiological examination" and where "examine" is to be construed accordingly. Those definitions are applied in Clause 30(1) where an authorised officer should have the option of submitting a sample to a public analyst or, (b), to a food examiner according to his judgment of the most appropriate choice.
Turning to Clause 30(8) I find:
" 'food examiner' means any person who possesses the requisite qualifications to carry out examinations for the purposes of this Act".
Next,
"'the requisite qualification' means such qualifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Ministers, or such other qualifications as the Ministers may approve".
But what are these to be? The word "examine" is tied to microbiological examination. The public analysts already do this work and are hallmarked by the Royal Society of Chemistry. Who will hallmark the examiners? There is indeed a Chartered Institute of Biology, of which I have the honour to be a fellow. Such people would be competent to hallmark food examiners, but will the Minister set about asking them to do so or not?
Unless an authorised person is technologically qualified as a public analyst or a hallmarked food examiner, how is he supposed to discriminate between who would be more appropriate to refer a sample to? I badly need answers to these questions with a view to bringing these matters forward again at a later stage in the Bill.
I now turn to my Amendment No. 111A.
Baroness Trumpington: I wonder if I might intervene?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before the noble Baroness intervenes, if the noble Earl moves this amendment then the noble Baroness can no doubt intervene. Amendment proposed, page 18, line 13, at end insert the words as printed.
Baroness Trumpington: What I wanted to say was that the noble Earl has me and indeed the Committee at a slight disadvantage. There is a certain grouping, and we are now considering Amendment No. 111A which stands on its own. In the grouping Amendment No. 117A is grouped with Amendments Nos. 116 and 117. I am going to tell the Committee some secrets in advance, which makes it even more difficult for me to speak to the grouping as the noble Earl has arranged it.
I intend to resist the noble Earl's present amendment; I intend to consider his following amendment; and Amendment No. 154A, which is grouped with Amendment No. 154, I shall resist. It does not marry up if we break the grouping. I am entirely at the disposal of the noble Earl, but I wonder whether we may deal with Amendment No. 111A as it stands, and perhaps the noble Earl would then like to come back. Would that be suitable to the noble Earl?
The Earl of Halsbury: I have always understood that the rule of groupings is that by the leave of the Committee one is not bound to stick to them. That is why I started my remarks in moving Amendment No. 111A by seeking the permission of the Committee to group with it amendments not as grouped on the grouping paper. But if that creates difficulties for the noble Baroness I am content to speak to Amendment No. 111A and then follow the grouping that she suggests.
Baroness Trumpington: I was trying to be as helpful as I could to the noble Earl by saying what I did. I hope that he is not upset.
The Earl of Halsbury: No. The purpose of Amendment No. 111A is to enable the main, positive argument to be put in favour of public analysts and their role, and to ensure that there is a strong scientific influence on the enforcement of food safety by the involvement of professionally and scientifically qualified public analysts.
Public analysts are already employed as authorised officers in some cases. One specific example is in Lancashire. The amendment simply writes current practice into the Bill. It thereby prevents any future argument. The practice current before the Bill is not a precedent for anything to be done after its enactment. The appointment of public analysts as authorised officers will become more and more desirable in the light of the EC directive, which I must say represents the biggest single leap forward in respect of food safety since the Food Act of 1860. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have already put the Question to the Committee whether this amendment be agreed to.
Lord Mottistone: I do not know whether the noble Earl will agree but I should be very happy to move his subsequent amendments formally later if my noble friend the Minister could talk about them now.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I can assist in this matter. I think that the problem here is that although it might be useful to group together all the noble Earl's amendments, nevertheless they impinge on other people's amendments, with which they are also grouped. I feel that it would be proper for the Committee to deal with the amendments in the groupings that exist on the list in order that other people's amendments which touch on similar subjects can be dealt with at the right time. I believe that we have to proceed along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Trumpington: I listened with great interest to everything that the noble Earl had to say about public analysts. I am also concerned to maintain their status and their role. I accept that in some cases the same individuals may also be able to undertake the duties of food examiners. I believe that the proposed amendment, Amendment No. 111A, is unnecessary. Clause 5(6) of the Bill provides for any person, whether or not he is an officer of the authority, to act as an authorised officer for a food authority. Thus, a public analyst could be appointed as an authorised officer for a food authority if that authority thought it appropriate.
In view of that brief explanation I hope that the noble Earl will not press that particular amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: In view of the assurance given to me by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Earl has spoken to Amendments Nos. 112 and 113. Does he wish to move them en bloc?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 112 and 113:
Page 18, line 14, leave out ("A food authority") and insert ("An authority to whom this section applies").
Page 18, line 19, leave out ("A food authority") and insert ("An authority to whom this section applies").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Provision of facilities for examinations]:
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 18, line 31, after ("authority") insert ("in England and Wales, or a regional or islands council in Scotland,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 114A:
Page 18, line 31, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is not grouped with any other amendment. It brings us back to our old friends "may" and "shall". Local authorities acting as food authorities are given the power in Clause 28 of the Bill to provide facilities for the examination of food for safety purposes. The examination is defined as meaning a microbiological examination. The amendment is put forward on the basis that it will be preferable for there to be a duty to secure the protection of the public.
Behind that argument, as I am sure the Minister will recognise, is a concern among local authorities that the funding of the provision of such facilities and their upgrading in line with the rising expectations of the public should be enshrined in the Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister could give a clear commitment to local authorities, as she has done on previous clauses with other amendments concerned with resources, that the Government will place the safety of food above financial constraints in producing a proper system for the protection of the public in which the citizen may have confidence and within which the local authority may operate according to professional rather than financial criteria.
As I said, this matter was touched upon in previous amendments. I look forward to the Minister's assurance that she understands the argument behind the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: This amendment would require food authorities to provide facilities for the microbiological examination of food samples. We believe that to require them to do so would be unnecessary and would entail a waste of resources.
In most cases, environmental health officers make use of the resources of the public health laboratory service for the analysis of samples. The public health laboratory service has 52 area and regional laboratories in England and Wales. They are thus well dispersed across the country, and their facilities are readily available. The Committee may also be interested to know that local authorities sometimes also have access to National Health Service laboratories attached to hospitals. In Scotland, food samples from environmental health departments are examined in NHS laboratories. In some cases, environmental health officers send samples to the public analyst or indeed to a private laboratory. The Bill would not prevent them using any of these facilities for the examination of samples. For most local authorities, the facilities which I have just described are adequate.
However, Clause 28 of the Bill, which contains very similar wording to Section 77 of the Food Act 1984, is necessary for the small number of local authorities which have such a large number of samples requiring analysis that the facilities of the public health laboratory service and the National Health Service hospitals are unable to cope. These local authorities are able under this clause to provide additional facilities for their own use. As an example, the borough of King's Lynn provides its own facility

829
because that authority has within its district major food manufacturing companies. The London borough of Hillingdon also provides its own facilities because that authority is responsible for Heathrow Airport and the large quantity of food produced in that area requires a large number of routine checks to be carried out. It is essential that we should retain the clause allowing local authorities to provide these facilities if they need them. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I believe that she has met the concerns we have expressed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Procurement of samples]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 18, line 37, leave out ("or examination") and insert (", examination or other investigation").
The noble Viscount said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Ezra, who is unable to be here, I should like to move this amendment. As currently worded, Clause 29(1) gives power to an authorised officer to procure samples for analysis or examination only.
Clause 28(2) defines "examination" as a microbiological examination, which limits it to a hygiene measure. Trading standards officers entering a manufacturing outlet to ensure that any foodstuff has not been adulterated or misdescribed are in effect limited in their powers of procurement to those samples for analysis. That inhibits the inspectors in their wish to examine labels, which is most important. Clause 30(1)(a) places a requirement on the officer in these circumstances to submit the sample to a public analyst.
Advances in modern technology have enabled manufacturers either at home or abroad to adopt techniques which can lead to adulteration and fraud on an extensive scale. By way of example, substances such as bone protein or blood powder are available on the open market and can be added to a meat product artificially to inflate the apparent meat content on analysis or disguise the presence of added water. Soft wheat has been used to adulterate Durum —hard —wheat products such as pasta.
Such frauds are extrememly difficult to detect on analysis. Moreover, there is as yet no scientific method to determine the presence of mechanically recovered meat in meat products —an ingredient of some concern to the Government's own Food Advisory Committee. Those are but a few of such problems facing food authorities in this respect.
Enforcement officers investigating these and other similar matters may need to consult, in addition to the public analyst, other experts including those in fruit, vegetables and honey, and meat and fish technologists, electron microscopists and forensic scientists.
Finally, Clause 29(2)(d) enables an officer to take samples,
"of any article or substance … which he has reason to believe may be required as evidence in proceedings".
That is a welcome and necessary additional power and would, for example, enable the officer to produce to a court relevant ingredients, or even a piece of machinery or equipment, which had been used in the adulteration of the product. This subsection, however, is brought into effect by virtue of subsection (1) which again would appear to limit the procurement of such samples to those for analysis or examination. The proposed amendment would give the necessary flexibility to enforcement officers. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury: I must oppose the amendment with everything that I have. In my view, it would completely undermine the status of public analysts and hallmarked —assuming that they are —food examiners and weaken the Bill beyond repair.
Public analysts are special people and hallmarked examiners ought to be so too. To allow run-of-the-mill investigators to provide an alternative would be to degrade public analysts and food examiners to the status of a luxury rather than a necessity. I am afraid that I must raise my voice against the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: The amendment introduces the concept of an investigation alongside that of analysis and examination. But there is no indication of what happens with a sample taken from an investigation. The purpose of this and subsequent provisions of the Bill is to provide an orderly framework for the gathering of evidence to be put before a court. That evidence is gathered in such a way that the court can be assured as to its expertise and validity. We believe that amendment would leave a loose end in this part of the Bill.
For the great majority of cases any analysis or examination of a food sample can be carried out by a public analyst or food examiner. It is of course possible that a public analyst or food examiner could seek expert opinion from elsewhere where such other expert opinion might be required.
The examples of bonemeal and blood products to meat products quoted by the noble Viscount would require analysis, and the clause as drafted would cover them. I understand from the noble Viscount that he envisages circumstances —for example, in cases of fraud and deception —where it might be necessary to take a sample not for analysis or microbiological examination, but for some other type of examination. I shall investigate whether there is a need to extend the provisions in the clause, and if necessary bring forward a more appropriate amendment at a later stage.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness. I shall convey her remarks to my noble friend. He has been more fortunate than I was in

831
respect of my amendment, and I am happy to carry the good news to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Analysis etc. of samples.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 19, line 12, after ("area") insert ("either for the area where the initial investigation is being pursued or").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 117 and 117A. We have tabled the amendment because we fail to understand the reason for the restriction in Clause 30(1)(a) regarding the area in which a sample is procured. We see no reason why enforcement authorities should be restricted to submitting samples to the public analyst for the area in which they are procured. There is always controversy about the power of enforcement officers to continue their investigation outside their area. We foresee circumstances in which it would be possible that with the agreement of another authority, an enforcement officer may wish to pursue his investigations at a factory or importer's premises where further samples may be obtained.
It would be far more sensible if the restriction were removed so that the enforcement authorities could use a public analyst in the area where the sample was procured or in the area where the initial investigation was being pursued. There are considerable complexities in the food chain and I hope that the Minister is able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I support this amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: Again, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ezra. In the vast majority of cases, authorised officers will act within their own areas under what is termed the home authority principle, sampling foodstuffs and ingredients and submitting them to their own public analyst. However, on occasions retail samples of products actually produced outside the authority on analysis are reported as either incorrect or suspect and further inquiries have to be undertaken at the point of manufacture.
Such inquiries have involved sampling the ingredients used in manufacture, a point particularly relevant given the ease by which certain ingredients can be used to assist in the mis-description of the product. The use of imitation cheese as a replacement for genuine cheese on pizzas is but one example.
The officer conducting those investigations outside his own area is given the relevant authority to enter such premises by virtue of Clause 32(1)(b) and to sample ingredients by virtue of Clause 29(2)(b). Under Clause 30(1)(a), he has to submit the samples obtained at the food manufacturer to the public analyst in the area in which it was procured. That appears to be an unnecessary technical restriction on enforcement.
832
The only analyst who will be able to analyse the ingredients and interpret the results to establish the effect they might have on the original product under investigation is the analyst who undertook the original analysis, working closely with the officer from his own authority who undertakes the actual investigation.
There is a precedent for this amendment under current food law by virtue of Section 81 of the Food Act 1984. Samples of milk obtained from a dairy outside the local authority area in pursuit of inquiries are deemed to have been procured within the local authority area. The equivalent of Clause 30(1)(a) is Section 79(1) of the Food Act 1984 which states:
"he shall submit it to be analysed by the public analyst for the area in which the sample was, or is deemed to have been, procured".
Therefore, this amendment only reflects good and logical enforcement practice.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps the noble Earl would now wish to speak to Amendment No. 117A which is in his name.
The Earl of Halsbury: The purpose of this amendment is to support the principle of flexibility tabled on this issue by, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Gallacher and Lord Ezra, but specifically to assert the right of the public analyst who has been consulted to be further consulted and agree to any investigation being pursued elsewhere. It seems a matter of professional courtesy that that should be so.
Baroness Trumpington: It is clearly practicable that the same analyst should be used for the whole of one investigation when samples need to be taken in other areas. I am doubtful whether it is essential, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, suggests, to obtain the agreement of a local analyst in every case because on some occasions that could cause difficulties for enforcement authorities, especially if, for example, the local public analyst was absent from the area at the time the sample needed to be taken.
However, I can agree in principle to the substance of these proposals. I must examine the wording further but in view of my assurances, I hope that noble Lords will not press these amendments.
The Earl of Halsbury: In view of the words of the noble Baroness, of course I shall not press the amendment this evening but will await the result of her further studies on this subject.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 117 to 118 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Regulation of sampling and analysis etc.]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 20, line 19, after ("may") insert (", after consulting such persons or organisations likely to be substantially affected").
The noble Viscount said: I speak also to Amendment No. 120. These are important powers and although the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food consults on a voluntary basis, we would prefer a statutory requirement for it to do so. We accept that it may be necessary to hold urgent consultations especially in cases of dire emergency; for example Chernobyl-type incidents. However, if trading standards officers are to be appointed to the new food safety directorate, that will help. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My name is attached to Amendment No. 120 which is grouped with this amendment. The Minister has been making helpful noises throughout the Bill about her wish to consult with other organisations so I shall be interested to hear her views on consultation with food authorities.
Baroness Trumpington: I am grateful for the proposals, for which I have considerable sympathy. Instead of giving endless explanations it might be better if I simply say that I am prepared to consider the matter. I hope we can bring forward a government amendment which will suit noble Lords.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness. I am encouraged by that remark; I shall pass it on to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Powers of entry]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 21, line 5, leave out ("whether within or outside") and insert ("within").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendment No. 122, for which Amendment No. 121 is in effect a paving amendment. One imagines the purpose of this part of the clause is to grant an authorised officer a right to enter premises, notably vehicles, outside his authority's area only when he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a contravention of the law, particularly in regard to a food safety matter.
The amendment is somewhat vague but I seek to ensure that routine inspection of premises should be the prerogative of the local enforcement authority which, through the registration procedure, will be best acquainted with the operations carried out on the premises. The outside authority should be discouraged from extending investigations beyond its own territory. I am not sure that the amendments as phrased convey that intention adequately. I can understand that the wording needs to be improved, but the purpose is as I have described. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I hope my explanation will satisfy my noble friend. If it does not, we will be considering many other points at some future time. So why not this.
Enforcement officers are employed by food authorities which are responsible for their actions
834
and the proper use of their resources. Any enforcement officer who entered premises outside his own area would only do so if it was a necessary part of following up an inquiry originating in his own area. For example, it would be necessary for an officer to cross borders when following up an inquiry about consignments of unfit meat. Also, if an officer needed to check the accuracy of an organic label it is likely that he would have to follow up his inquiry on a farm situated in a different area.
To restrict his power of entry by always requiring suspicion of a contravention within his own area would inhibit the proper conduct of an inquiry. However, we do not wish to give enforcement officers unrestricted and complete freedom of movement. It is intended that they will be obliged to notify the food authority of the area entered giving reasons for so doing. This will probably be achieved in one of the codes of practice referred to in Clause 39. I therefore believe my noble friend's concerns to be unwarranted. I find my explanation perfectly logical; I hope my noble friend will also.
Lord Mottistone: I find my noble friend's explanation perfectly logical because she has brought into assistance Clause 39, which did not occur to me. She has the power to do that when she wishes. The object of my amendment is met, but I think it might be improved and perhaps we might come back at a later stage. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 121.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 21, line 11, at end insert —
("(d) to take such photographs as he considers necessary for the purpose of any examination or investigation under section 32(1)(a) above,").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 124. It has always been a contentious issue as to whether enforcement officers are entitled to take photographs for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is or has been on the premises any contravention of the provisions of an Act and of similar consumer protection legislation. We are therefore seeking an assurance from the Minister that the taking of photographs is included within the wording of,
"for the purpose of ascertaining".
I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Enforcement officers are entitled to take photographs during their investigations into food law offences, just as any citizen can take photographs subject to specific prohibitions. The absence of an express provision in existing law should not have prevented them from doing this to date. There is nothing in the Bill which will prevent them from continuing to do so.
Specifying the power to take photographs would, we believe, be exclusive and would imply that other forms of recording evidence were barred. This is not,

835
and should not be, the case. I would add that neither the Consumer Protection Act 1987 nor the Trades Description Act 1968 refers to the taking of photographs. To make an explicit reference here could cast needless doubt on the use of photography by enforcement officers operating under those Acts. Therefore we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness very much for her help and guidance. I shall discuss the matter with my noble friend Lord Ezra. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 21, line 28, leave out ("one month") and insert ("28 days").
The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment. It is desirable to have greater precision as regards the duration of a warrant than a month which can vary in length of time. Twenty-eight days would be more suitable. Until Amendment No. 98 was accepted by the Committee, this amendment was the only place in the Bill in which time was expressed other than in days. It was therefore consistent. That fact has been breached by the other amendment which I shall seek to amend at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that this amendment is also unnecessary. By virtue of the Interpretation Act 1978 "one month" would be interpreted as one calendar month. That is a convenient approach since it means that a warrant issued, say, the third day of one month will expire by the third day of the following month whatever the length of the month may be. One month is used for the lifetime of a warrant in current legislation and also in other consumer protection measures. That works perfectly well.
The amendment would make the Food Safety Bill anomalous in referring to 28 days. We therefore believe that no useful purpose would be served in agreeing to this amendment and I trust that my noble friend will withdraw it.
Lord Mottistone: This amendment is not worth pushing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 21, line 35, leave out ("inspect") and insert ("require the production of, inspect and take copies or).
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 128. As with Amendment No. 123, we are seeking an assurance that the word "inspect" includes the requirement to produce, inspect and to allow the taking of copies. Parliamentary draftsmen are reluctant to give examples of what is meant by ascertaining or inspecting. Enforcement officers are content to leave the terms vague as long as there is an assurance, which I hope the noble Baroness can
836
give, that the enforcement officers can say to the magistrate that it was Parliament's intention that these words should be construed widely and not narrowly.
As with Amendments Nos. 123 and 126, Amendment No.128 seeks an assurance that the use of the word "detain" means that copies can also be taken when there may not be a wish actually to retain the originals. That will enable the production of copies at a later date if the originals have perchance disappeared. I beg to move.
10.15 pm.
Baroness Hooper: Our proposal in the Bill is to enable officers to seize evidence for production in court—hence the seizing of originals is more appropriate than taking copies. Nevertheless, if the proprietor needs copies, they would and could be supplied to him. The power to inspect and seize the originals implies a power to take copies too, and has always been interpreted in that way. I therefore hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: I again thank the noble Baroness for that guidance. We shall examine what she has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 21, line 35, after ("any") insert ("relevant").
The noble Lord said: In Clause 32 the authorised officer has an enormous amount of power which is underpinned by the rather frightening, although I am sure necessary, Clause 33(1). It is important that he should have access only to relevant records, as specified in my amendment. It cannot be right that the officer should be able to go trampling all over the establishment and look at all records of the food business, including, for example, personnel records, records of trading over many years, and so on.
As the Bill is presently drafted, he could do all those things. I am sure that it is not the Government's intention, and probably would not be the intention of the food authority, that he should do so. But one knows how aggressive officials can become if they are given great power. It would be wise for the Government to accept the amendment, or if they cannot accept it, to consider whether my fears are not justified and that something of this kind needs to be done. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I support my noble friend. I have in mind matters such as VAT records. Where we are attempting to protect one agency against the incursion of another agency, it would be quite wrong to give a food enforcement officer powers to examine the VAT records or other matters which are confidential between the business and Customs and Excise and have nothing to do with the matters dealt with in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: I hope I am always sympathetic. We always look very hard at amendments which are put before us. However, we believe that this amendment, once again, is unnecessary. Examination of records will take place only when relevant to the enforcement of the Bill, and any regulations or orders made thereunder, when the contravention or suspected contravention is being investigated. We do not believe that it is necessary to limit further an authorised officer's powers. I trust therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment on that basis.
Lord Airedale: The words which the Minister has just used do not appear in the Bill. If she is not prepared to insert the word "relevant" which the amendment requires, is she prepared to insert in the Bill the words which she has just used in attempting to demonstrate that the word "relevant" is unnecessary?
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was a very good one. Indeed, you can get an enforcement officer investigating matters which are no business of his. In my view, this is an important matter.
Baroness Hooper: My understanding is that the powers of entry of authorised officers are limited to those set out in Clause 31(1). Inspectors will therefore be able to examine records only relating to the activities covered by the Food Act and regulations or orders made thereunder.
Lord Mottistone: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, put his finger right on the point. My noble friend actually used the word "relevant" when describing what the officers are allowed to do. Moreover, she now refers to a part of the Bill which will be enforced by regulation. Therefore, we must take her word for it that the regulation will be stiff enough. When she uses that argument, she is resisting the word "relevant". However, it does not seem to me to be at all duplicatory, or against the principle of what my noble friend is saying is in the Bill, to insert the word "relevant" where I wish it to be.
I am not at all satisfied, but I shall not take it further at this time of night because it might upset the whole applecart; and, in any event, there is probably not a sufficient number of noble Lords present for a Division. However, if this discussion was taking place at an earlier time of the day, I should certainly test the feeling of the Committee on the matter. I shall return to the issue at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings, unless my noble friend thinks carefully about it and puts forward a similar amendment. At this stage, I reluctantly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 128, 129 and 130 not [moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 22, line 3, at end insert —
("( ) An authorised officer entering premises by virtue of this section, or of a warrant issued under this section, may require any person to afford him such facilities and assistance with respect to any matter or things within that person's control
838
or in relation to which that person has responsibilities as are necessary to enable the authorised officer to exercise any of the powers conferred on him by this section.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 132. Both amendments are in effect the same. Therefore I take it that what I say about this amendment will suffice if it is decided to proceed with Amendment No. 132.
What is proposed is an additional clause which would require persons in control of a food business to co-operate with the enforcement officers in order to facilitate an investigation. That would include permitting interviews to take place on the premises, ensuring that staff were available for interview, and so on. It has been represented to us that the powers being sought in this proposed new clause are compatible with existing provisions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
I gather that from time to time enforcement officers encounter a measure of obstruction. In order to counteract that situation wherever it arises, it is suggested that an additional clause along the lines set out in Amendment No. 131 would be helpful. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Clause 33 already provides for the prosecution of anyone who obstructs or fails to assist the enforcement officer in the execution of his duties without reasonable cause. It is therefore implied that an enforcement officer would be able to require any person to assist him in carrying out his duties. I note the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, but my understanding is that that Act is unusual in containing such a provision. Therefore I trust that in the light of the assurance I have given in respect of Clause 33 the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It has been represented to us that obstruction under the Bill may be encouraged by the fact that the fine for obstruction, which I believe is of the order of £2,000, could seem to some people to be worth incurring to avoid an even greater fine if they did not obstruct and a more serious offence was detected. That is partly the thinking behind the amendment.
I take the Minister's point that under Clause 33 provision is already made by implication for that eventuality. That is to some extent reassuring. The fact that the Health and Safety at Work Act is unusual in that regard does not, I hope, exclude the possibility of picking up better features in other legislation. The Committee will be aware—this is a point to which we shall come—that there is a substantial body of opinion in this country which takes the view that enforcement would be better undertaken by a body akin to the Health and Safety at Work Commission, enjoying somewhat similar powers to those of that commission.
I do not wish to press the amendment this evening, but nevertheless it may be necessary for us to look at it again. I do not regard the fact that we have

839
chosen to refer to another piece of unusual legislation necessarily excludes emulation. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132 to 134 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Time limit for prosecutions]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 22, line 39, leave out ("three") and insert ("one").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 136, which is consequential on Amendment No. 135. The amendments would reduce the outside limit of three years for prosecution to one year and from one year to six months. Three years is too long, because memories and circumstances surrounding offences would be much impaired, making it difficult to prove whether a particular product is the cause of a particular complaint. It is inconceivable that an injury would not manifest itself well within three years of the consumption. No injury or distress can be caused, under the terms of the Bill, without a foodstuff having been consumed. It is surely inconceivable that that would not manifest itself well within three years. I cannot think of a food product which has a shelf life of up to three years, but perhaps my noble friend the Minister can give an illustration.
There is a further point to which I should like an answer, though not necessarily tonight. Let us suppose that a company was prosecuted after it had changed hands. Would that sale become unlawful or in any way endangered because there had been no disclosure of an impending prosecution? That could happen, especially in a small retail business. Alternatively, if there was a hint that there might be a prosecution, that investigations were continuing, and that impending prosecution was not disclosed, would it invalidate the sale? There are two issues here. I am mostly concerned with the former, but I should like an answer to the latter at some time. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment, but I believe that it is inappropriate. The time limits of three years from commission/one year from discovery mirror to a large extent the existing provisions in the 1984 Food Act, although I recognise that without the previous time constraints on the handling of samples they will bite more in the future. However, I believe our proposals strike the right balance. They allow sufficient time for enforcement authorities to prepare a case but still require the case to be taken to court within a reasonable period. These time limits are completely in accord with those found in other consumer protection legislation such as the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
I cannot offhand think of an example to give to my noble friend as he requested. But on the subject
840
of the successor company and whether it could be prosecuted, I believe it would be normal legal practice to ensure that the warranties and disclosure in relation to the transfer of the business would cover this. Nevertheless, I shall look into it and if necessary write further to my noble friend on the point. In view of my explanation, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend for her explanation. I am of course somewhat amused that she calls in aid the 1984 Act when it suits her, but when it suits me she feels that it is not appropriate. However that is the way matters go and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Punishment of offences]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 22, line 42, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Viscount said: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 138 as well as moving Amendment No. 137. It has always been argued by the enforcement officers, unsuccessfully, that the offence of obstruction should carry the same penalty as the offence itself. Otherwise, if it is lower by £1,800 for offences under Sections 7, 8 or 14, which are the important sections, there is a clear advantage or incitement for prospective offenders to obstruct the enforcement officer. The same remarks apply to Amendment No. 138. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to support the principle of the amendment. I think that this is a point which I raised at an earlier stage of the Bill. It is very wrong that an obstruction should carry any less penalty than if someone had committed the offence. I have quoted examples and it is well known that people obstruct. There is a parallel with drunken driving where if a person refuses to give a breath test or blood test, that person is treated as having committed the offence and the penalty is the same. I think that this should be parallel. Whether the wording is right I do not know, but it is an important issue.
Baroness Hooper: Despite what the noble Viscount and my noble friend have said, I feel it is difficult to justify an increase in the penalty for an offence which in itself is not a contravention of the main provisions. In determining what levels of penalty are appropriate the possible motive for an offence should not be relevant. We have in any case increased the penalty which is currently available for comparable offences in the 1984 Food Act. At present there is only a maximum of a £2,000 fine and no possibility of imprisonment.
The Viscount of Falkland: At this late hour I have tried to follow closely what the noble Baroness has said. It still seems to me to be strange, I am not

841
quite happy about the problem of incitement and encouragement for people to obstruct. I shall take this away and consult with my noble friend. I reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage, if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 23, line 8, leave out ("8 or 14") and insert ("or 8").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 35(3) rightly proposes increased penalties for offences under Clauses 7 and 8 which deal with rendering and selling food which is injurious to health. This reflects the importance of a safe food supply. As it stands, the Bill would impose similar penalties for offences under Clause 14 which deals with the nature, quality or substance of the food supplied. My amendment would remove Clause 14 offences from the higher penalty of £20,000 imposed under the subsection. Instead they would be dealt with under paragraph (b) where the penalty is the lower statutory maximum. This is set by ministerial order under the magistrates court and currently stands at £2,000. The suggestion is in line with my contention that this difference in penalties should not exist.
I do not wish to suggest that offences under Clause 14 are unimportant, but they seem less serious than those under Clauses 7 and 8. The latter, as I have said, deal with food safety. A person guilty of an offence under these clauses would thus be selling something which could harm or even kill someone. Clause 14 on the other hand deals with selling food not of the quality or the substance demanded by the purchaser. This might mean selling non-vintage wine as vintage or a restaurant claiming that vegetables are fresh when they might be frozen or tinned. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I can assure my noble friend that we have good reason for proposing an exceptional summary maximum fine of £20,000 for offences committed under Clause 14. This is an important provision which covers among other things the cases where false claims cause harm to those who are particularly vulnerable or with special needs such as those who unfortunately suffer from diabetes. We clearly need an effective penalty to match the seriousness of the harm that can be caused where the product does not meet the consumer's particular requirements. That does not mean that fines of this scale will be imposed for less serious offences. Indeed the concern is normally that courts impose inadequate fines.
There are two other reasons why we need the £20,000 maximum fine. If a large company is involved, its potential for causing harm to quite a wide range of people is very large indeed. A mere fine of £2,000 in a magistrates' court may not always be an adequate deterrent. If one is not merely being negligent but also plans to make a lot of money through selling debased food, again one might well choose to take the risk if the maximum fine the
842
magistrates can give is £2,000. For these reasons, I feel that we must retain the £20,000 maximum that we have. I accept that there is always the possibility of proceedings on indictment for the most serious breaches of Clause 14, but our experience is that the vast majority of food law cases are considered in the magistrates' court. We must therefore ensure that adequate penalties are available to the magistrates for use if necessary. I trust that my noble friend will accept that explanation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Appeals to magistrates' court or sheriff]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 23, line 37, at end insert ("or the terms of that notice").
The noble Baroness said: This is a small probing amendment. Clause 37 deals with appeals against improvement notices. The amendment simply seeks to make clear that an aggrieved person might have the right to appeal in respect of part of an improvement notice as well as against the whole of such a notice. It could be that the proprietor of a business accepts that nine-tenths of what he is asked to do is reasonable but objects to one-tenth. The amendment would allow him to appeal against that one-tenth. My noble friend earlier gave an undertaking to re-examine the wording of Clause 10 when we debated Amendment No. 38 on the form of improvement notices. This is a rather similar point which I hope may be viewed favourably.
It may be that the amendment is unnecessary because the concept of an appeal against part of a notice may be contained within the existing clause. I should very much like my noble friend to clarify whether that is so. Does the wording of the clause follow that of the existing legislation in which a precedent has already been established? If so, there is clearly nothing to worry about; but if that is not the case clarification in the Bill may be appropriate. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I accept that an improvement notice may contain a number of different deficiencies, all of which need to be put right. I can assure my noble friend that Clause 37 already allows an aggrieved person to appeal against the individual requirements of an improvement notice. Her amendment is therefore unnecessary.
I also intended to remind my noble friend —she has already mentioned it —that I have already agreed to look again at Clause 10. That clause states at present that the enforcement officer may specify the steps which the owner of a food business must take in order to comply with an improvement notice. I explained that we do not intend to involve food businesses, especially smaller businesses, in any

843
unnecessary expense. We should prefer to specify the end result rather than the means by which the result should be achieved. I trust that that reassures my noble friend.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend for that reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 23, line 39, leave out ("11(5)") and insert ("11(6)").
The noble Lord said: My advisers have spotted a printing error which the amendment corrects. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I commend my noble friend for his most thorough scrutiny of the Bill which brought this typing error to light. I have no hesitation in accepting the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 23, line 39, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 142 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 143 and 144. Amendment No. 142 is a paving amendment for the two subsequent amendments. Even at the risk of slowing down the proceedings of the Committee, I feel that the amendments are very important. They introduce two additional rights of appeal. I know that it would be the wish of the Government to draw a fair balance between the supplier of food and the retailer.
The argument for all the amendments is the same. Amendment No. 143 would introduce a right of appeal in relation to Clause 12 of the Bill, which, the Committee will recall, provides powers for enforcement authorities to serve emergency prohibition notices. After the notice has been served the authorised officer will apply for an emergency prohibition order. There is provision for compensation by the enforcement authority for any loss suffered by the proprietor of the business in complying with the emergency prohibition notice if the magistrates' court or the sheriff refuses to impose the emergency order.
In welcoming the compensation provision one has to recognise it perhaps as a means of discouraging over-zealous enforcement officers from serving unnecessary notices. However, the amount of compensation is unlikely to make up for the potential adverse effect on the business of a retailer who has a prohibition notice displayed in a prominent position as required by Clause 12, even if that notice is displayed for only a few days.
The enforcing authorities are provided with extensive new powers. My noble friend Lord Mottistone emphasised that when he spoke to Amendment 127. I believe therefore that the Government should be seeking to strike a fair balance because the new powers are quite considerable. Those powers include the ability to
844
shut down a business, which would obviously affect its prosperity and even its very existence.
Until the hearing in a magistrates' court there is nothing under this Bill —at least so far as I can see —that the proprietor can do to put his case. It seems only just and equitable therefore for a retailer, or any other food business proprietor, to have the immediate right of appeal against a prohibition notice. Hence Amendment No. 143, which provides for such an appeal.
10.45 p.m.
Amendment No. 144 to Clause 37 would for the same reasons provide an immediate right of appeal in respect of the powers of enforcement officers to issue a notice, or seize goods under Clause 9(3) of the Bill. That subsection enables authorised officers either to give notice to a person in charge of food that the food cannot be used for human consumption and can only be moved if allowed by the notice, or to seize food and remove it to be dealt with by a justice of the peace or sheriff, as the case may be.
It will be an offence knowingly to contravene the requirements of a notice under this clause, and I therefore suggest that this right of appeal common to both amendments is only fair. I regard this amendment as fundamental and serious. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say in response. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I should like strongly to support my noble friend's amendments.
Baroness Hooper: This is a complex subject and I shall endeavour to describe as clearly as possible the procedure. An enforcement officer may serve an emergency prohibition notice on the proprietor of a food business if he is satisfied that it presents an imminent risk of danger to health. The wording is important because it means that he cannot serve an emergency prohibition notice merely on suspicion, and it also means that the danger must be unusually great.
The officer must apply to a court within three days for an emergency prohibition order, and he must give the proprietor at least one day's notice of his intention to do so. If he does not apply, the notice lapses and the authority has to compensate the proprietor for any losses that he sustained as a result of complying with the notice. If the enforcement officer does apply, the proprietor has the right to appear in court and to call witnesses to contest the application. If the court refuses to make an order confirming the prohibition, again the authority has to pay compensation.
A proprietor is therefore assured that if the enforcement officer intends to pursue the matter there will be a speedy start to proceedings and he will get automatic compensation in full if the enforcement officer's decision is not upheld. A right of appeal against an emergency prohibition notice is therefore unnecessary.
My noble friend has also asked for an appeal against an enforcement authority's decision to serve an emergency prohibition order. As I have just

845
explained, an emergency prohibition order is not made by the enforcement authority, but by the magistrates' court. If my noble friend will look at Clause 38 he will see that the Bill allows a proprietor to appeal to the Crown Court against the magistrates' court's decision. I therefore hope that on that basis my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her explanation. Perhaps I may just say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that I am grateful to him for his support. It is late. I think I have taken in what the Minister had to say; namely, that the enforcement officer has to make his application for the order within three days, and that he has to give one day's notice. Nevertheless an immense amount of damage can be done to the business in that time. It is exactly that problem, particularly with a small business, that worries me.
I accept that under Clause 38 the injured party has a further right of appeal to the Crown Court from the magistrates' court, by which time the damage has been done to his business, because notices in a prominent place attract the interest both of the passing public and indeed the media.
Were it earlier in the day, I should have liked to pursue the argument. As it is, I do not think that the Committee would thank me for doing so now. I should like to consider carefully the noble Baroness's response and indeed take further advice on it. But it is my intention to come back to this matter at a later stage in the Bill, when perhaps this Chamber may have the benefit of making a judgment. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Appeals to Crown Court]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No.145:
Page 24, line 21, leave out ("determination") and insert ("dismissal").
The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment and I hope that at this late hour the Committee will bear with my somewhat technical explanation. It is designed to ensure that enforcement authorities do not have two avenues of appeal to a higher court if they wish to challenge the determination of an initial appeal by a magistrates' court. This may be relevant, for example, where a magistrates' court has upheld an appeal against the issue of an improvement notice and the enforcement authority wishes to appeal against that decision.
Clause 37 permits appeal to a magistrates' court against various decisions of an enforcement authority. As presently drafted, Clause 38(a) would enable any person aggrieved by the result of such an appeal to take a further appeal to the Crown Court. This is not however the usual avenue of appeal for a prosecutor, in this case the enforcement authority. Normally a prosecutor would appeal by way of case stated to the Divisional Court.
Therefore, the amendment will ensure that enforcement authorities appeal only to the Divisional Court and not to the Crown Court. The citizen will continue to have his present recourse to the Crown Court.
I hope that the Committee can accept this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 24, line 25, at end insert ("; or
(c) any order by a magistrates' court as HS mentioned in section 9(6) above.").
The noble Baroness said: I must at the outset apologise for a drafting error in this amendment. In fact Section 9(6) does not refer to a magistrates' court but rather to a justice of the peace. Thus, the amendment should not have mentioned a magistrates' court. Nevertheless, I should like to pursue the principle of the amendment.
The previous clause, Clause 37, makes provision for those who are aggrieved by the decisions of the enforcement authorities to appeal to a magistrates' court, or in Scotland to the sheriff. Clause 38 provides for those who are still not satisfied by the magistrates' decision to appeal further to the Crown Court.
As I read the Bill, it does not seem to make provision for appeals under orders made under Clause 9(6). That, the Committee will recall, deals with the orders made by a justice of the peace either to destroy suspect food or to release it as not being unfit with compensation to the owner. I therefore seek clarification from my noble friend the Minister. Can she tell me if I am wrong and an appeals procedure against such orders is contained in the Bill as it stands? If not, is that an oversight? If so, what is the justification for not allowing appeals on this part of the Bill when appeals are allowed on other parts? I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining the error in her amendment. We believe that the provisions of the Bill are necessary because it is often important to have seized food dealt with quickly, especially if there is a large quantity of it. The need for rapid action arises because of the risk that the food could otherwise be used for human consumption. It could also deteriorate substantially if there were delay.
On the question of an appeal, if the owner of the food is aggrieved by the decision of the justice of the peace to condemn it he can apply to a court for judicial review of the decision. I hope that helps my noble friend.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend for that reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Power to issue codes of practice]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 24, line 31, after ("may") insert ("after consulting such persons or bodies as they think it appropriate to consult").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 147 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 148, 149 and 151. Effectively Amendments Nos. 147, 148 and 149 are similar amendments, differing only very slightly in their terminology. Therefore if after I have moved Amendment No. 147 the Minister has any sympathy with any of the three amendments and cares to indicate which one, we shall be very happy to co-operate by formally moving that amendment.
Amendment No. 147 again concerns the question of the width of consultation and openness about decision-making which we consider to be essential if the public are to be confident about the way food law is implemented and administered.
We believe it is important that when issuing codes of practice Ministers are seen to be active in addressing and duly considering the widest possible spectrum of interest. We therefore advocate the inclusion of a statutory obligation on Ministers to consult appropriate persons or bodies when making these codes to ensure that confidence in good manufacturing practice is maintained and bolstered. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: As we have already announced, we shall be setting up an implementation advisory committee to advise on the issue of codes of practice. The committee will involve representatives of the enforcement interests as well as the main central government departments involved.
I know that there are strong views concerning this matter. I wish to be as gracious to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, as he was to me earlier. I am prepared therefore to see formal consultation with interested parties written into the Bill. With the permission of the Committee, I shall consider whether we can apply the formula that we used in Clause 26 to this clause and bring forward an appropriate government amendment at a later stage. I hope that will suit the Committee.
Lord Gallacher: In the light of that assurance, for which I thank the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 24, line 34, at end insert—
("The Minister shall issue a general code of practice as regards the execution and enforcement of the powers in this Act which code shall be available by the date on which this Act comes into force").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 150, perhaps I may take it that the remarks the Minister has just made might apply equally to this amendment. If she will indicate that they do so, I need go no further. Since she does not do so, I shall have to go further.
We have talked about the powers that are contained in this Bill for enforcement authorities inspecting factories, seizing food, issuing prohibition and improvement notices, and so on. That can be done without recourse to a higher authority. Since the enforcement agencies will be spread across the country there will be enormous scope for a variety of interpretations of the new law by the different authorities. We see this already in the way in which trading standards officers look at various matters. We have observed over the past 12 or 18 months in regard to matters such as Sunday trading that a multiple supermarket chain, for instance, is frequently faced with having to comply with different interpretations of exactly the same legislation in its different branches in different areas of the country.
Amendment No. 150 would require the issue by the Minister of a general code of practice for the purpose of providing guidance to enforcement officers on interpretation and implementation. There is an obvious advantage in greater uniformity. It would reduce costs of prosecution for all parties. It would certainly facilitate a better understanding.
In support of my argument, I draw an analogy with the existing manual of practical guidance for inspectors, which was drawn up for use with weights and measures legislation. Although that is a statutory code it provides a good deal of information which may be relevant.
If the Government consider that weights and measures legislation is sufficiently important to issue a statutory code of practice on enforcement, surely something as important as food safety law enforcement is worthy of similar treatment. To be effective such a code would need to be issued to coincide with the date on which the new Food Safety Bill comes into force. If there were a code of practice it ought to support the defender in a prosecution under the new due diligence clause contained in the Bill. That is an eminently suitable vehicle for such a code. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I need no convincing that we should issue codes of practice, in particular to ensure even enforcement of the Bill. That point was made by many interested parties during our review of food law. However, drawing up a comprehensive general code would be an enormous task for central government departments and local authority interests. Many areas of the legislation are in fact already familiar and evenly enforced throughout the country.
I believe that our time and energies would be much better spent producing codes of practice on specific points or areas of concern. These might include areas which are controversial or new, where experience of local authorities can usefully be shared or where enforcement might vary quite widely without central guidance. For example, we have in mind a code of practice indicating the frequency of inspection appropriate for different categories of premises.
Moreover, given the amount of work involved and the fact that it will take time to consult other

849
interests, I do not think that it would be possible to draw up a major comprehensive code before the Bill is enacted. Given the commitment to consult, which we have just accepted, the codes envisaged may also take rather longer to finalise.
I hope that in view of my explanation, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Were it a different time I should be happy to debate the matter further. However, at this time of night I am left with no option but to withdraw my amendment. I do not find my noble friend's answer satisfactory. I am not looking for a comprehensive code; I said a "general code". That is not beyond the wit of man or woman. It is certainly not beyond the wit of officials because there are sufficient codes of practice from which something can be drawn. If it is proper to draw up a code with regard to the number of inspections or visits carried out under various and different categories, it is not beyond the wit of man to draw up a general code to set a general interpretation.
I hope that my noble friend will not take offence, but the reasons for rejecting my amendment could have been based on sounder grounds. I must look carefully at her answer. I can see flaws in it and may well wish to return to the matter at another stage. Sadly, I have no option but to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 151:
Page 24, line 40, at end insert—
("(2A) Before issuing any code of recommended practice under subsection (I) above, the Ministers or the Minister shall consult with such persons or bodies as appear to them to represent the interests of food authorities, producers of food sources, the food industry, and consumers.").
The noble Lord said: I thank my noble friend for the remarks she made to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I hope that she has a good night's sleep and I am pleased that we have finished in these terms. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Power to require returns]:
11 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 25, line 3, at end insert ("and, except insofar as they disclose information about any trade secret, the Minister shall as soon as is practicable arrange for the publication of all such reports and returns.").
The noble Lord said: This is not an amendment of which I am very proud and the more I look at it the less I like it. However, it touches on an important point. It may well be that one would have to come back with a different amendment at some stage.
Clause 40 is about, among other things, sending reports to Brussels on compliance with EC regulations. We believe that that information should be capable of being seen by the public. It is in that
850
context that we want those reports to be made public. I suspect that the amendment does not achieve what we have set out to do. However, I should be interested to know whether the Government have sympathy with the thought that those matters should be in the public domain. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I rather agree with the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, of his own amendment. However, I should like to consider the matter further with a view to a possible government amendment later in our proceedings. How about that?
Lord Tordoff: It is Christmas twice on the same day. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Default powers]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 25, line 10, after ("order") insert ("after holding a local inquiry").
The noble Lord said: I am not sure that this amendment is in the right place in the Bill but Clause 41 as drafted introduces yet another default power. We consider that a local inquiry should be held before the Minister makes an order relieving an authority of its statutory responsibilities.
Under Clause 41(2) the Minister may cause a local inquiry. It may be that the effect of this amendment would be achieved by substituting the word "shall" for "may" in that subsection. This is a probing amendment and I should like to hear the Minister's views. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I assure the Committee that declaring a council to be in default is not a decision which the Government would take lightly. Clause 41 permits Ministers to hold a local inquiry first, and when the facts were in doubt we would normally do so. However, there are occasions when the time and expense of a local inquiry could not be justified. For example, in an emergency, the Government might need to take immediate action to protect public health. Alternatively, a local authority might be quite prepared to admit that it was in default; for example, if it were unable to provide a service because its employees were on strike.
Therefore, I do not believe that a local inquiry should be required in all the circumstances. I hope in view of that explanation that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I shall read carefully what she said and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 154:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause—
("Duties of Minister in relation to Food Safety Directorate.
(1) The Minister shall ensure that the Food Safety Directorate which has been established by him is broadly based and accessible to representatives of parties having a legitimate interest in its work, and that it shall report annually to Parliament under the authority of this Act.
(2) In particular the Minister shall appoint an independent chairman to preside at meetings of the Food Safety Directorate.
(3) The Minister shall co-opt as members of the Food Safety Directorate one representative recommended by the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and one representative recommended by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers.
(4) The Food Safety Directorate as well as reporting to Ministers shall also report periodically to the Consumer Panel which has been appointed by the Minister; and that Panel should also have the right of access to the Food Safety Directorate on matters which are of importance to the Panel.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is concerned with the Food Safety Directorate primarily and also, of course, with the consumer panel. Members of the Committee will be aware that details concerning both those creations were given in a Written Answer in both Houses on 2nd November last. I understand that the Food Safety Directorate is now in being and has been operational since 20th November.
On this side of the Committee, we welcome both initiatives by the Government. We do not take the view that they are cosmetic. We believe that, given the fair and slight amendment which we propose in Amendment No. 154, they can become very useful bodies and that there will also be some degree of public interest in them and access to them.
The reason that we seek to change slightly the composition of the Food Safety Directorate is that at present we think it too much an internal body and, therefore, one which is not likely to make an impression on the public. For that reason, it is likely to be hindered rather than helped in its work. The first change which we should like to see is that the chairman of this important body should be an independent person.
It is necessary for me to say that under the present arrangement the chairman is the Minister for Food, who is an Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Agriculture. We have nothing against the present Minister for Food. Indeed, on the basis of his performance to date he is likely to be promoted very soon. That is one of the objections we have to giving the chairmanship of a highly technical body to someone who is appointed at the level of Under-Secretary of State.
He may or may not bring with him, to what is for most MPs the first rung on the ladder, the kind of technical expertise which heading this Food Safety Directorate calls for. By the time he has assimilated that expertise he may either be moved up or, as sometimes unfortunately happens in the scheme of things, moved sideways or down, in which case he will not be fully able effectively to chair what we believe is a very important body. On the other hand, if a distinguished independent scientist is invited to chair the body, that in itself would reassure the public and give the Food Safety Directorate a status it badly needs.
We also think that some form of co-option is necessary so that the directorate is not wholly a body of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We suggest that the co-options might comprise one representative recommended by the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and one representative recommended by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers. At this stage, I shall be happy to accept the amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, which would add to the co-opted list one representative recommended by the Royal Society of Chemistry, whom I take it would be representative of the public analysts.
We should therefore have a triangle of experience externally available to this Food Safety Directorate; and again, not merely in its own right, but by way of reassuring the public, that field experience—if one may so describe it—would be valuable to the directorate. It is therefore a useful suggestion that I hope the Government will consider sympathetically.
Finally, we come to the question of reporting. The directorate should report to Ministers and also periodically to the new Consumer Panel which is in the process of being formed so that they are aware at that level of what the Food Safety Directorate is doing and why it is performing a function which will be of interest to the Consumer Panel. The mere reporting to them of their activities will not only be useful to the panel but will give the panel itself a broader experience of food safety matters. That seems to be desirable so that the level of the panel will be raised by reason of its contact with the Food Safety Directorate.
The panel should also have the right of access to the directorate on matters which the panel considers to be important. In other words, the traffic might be two-way rather than one-way. Again, we see that as being mutually beneficial and also being of reassurance to the public. For those reasons, which I have considerably truncated, I consider the amendment to be worthy of consideration. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 154, Amendment No. 154A:
Line 11, at end insert ("and one representative recommended by the Royal Society of Chemistry.").
The noble Earl said: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has really spoken to my amendment by accepting it on his own behalf. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Following the good example of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, I too am truncating. The amendment misunderstands the nature of both the Food Safety Directorate and the Consumer Panel. Both have been set up within the internal structure of MAFF and are ultimately responsible to the Minister. It is for the Minister to report to Parliament on the activities of both bodies and to answer to Parliament for such activities. There is thus no role for either an independent chairman or for an annual report.
The Consumer Panel will consist of ordinary individual consumers not representatives of any particular interests. Environmental health officers

853
are already employed full time at the Department of Health and are thus available to the Government to provide advice. I am content to examine the need for the involvement of trading standards officers, but that can be done quite separately from the passage of this Bill.
As far as the Royal Society of Chemistry is concerned, there are already members within the directorate including the Ministry's Chief Scientist (Fisheries and Food) himself. In view of these somewhat truncated explanations, I hope that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
11.15 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: I must present the noble Lord with a contingent withdrawal of my own amendment assuming that he withdraws his.
Lord Gallacher: I am naturally disappointed with the Minister's response because on a question of some considerable importance we are being by-passed in a way which is not worthy of the occasion. We well know the Minister's responsibility in these areas. We are not in any way suggesting that that responsibility to Parliament should be diminished. Neither are we suggesting that the Consumer Panel should be representative of bodies. I made no such suggestion. The choice of the membership of the Consumer Panel is entirely within the discretion of the Minister.
I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been internal and paternal for far too long. This is a very tentative toe in the water. The question to which the Minister should give attention is whether the public at large will be satisfied. From the limited time that I was able to devote to drafting this amendment and from the conversations that I had with the people concerned with this matter, I have been assured that, while they went along with the proposals because they felt I was trying to be constructive, in their considered opinion the ultimate solution lay in an independent food safety directorate.
They reached that conclusion because of past performance and because they were quite certain that MAFF had producer and other employer interests which were so overwhelming that it could not effectively discharge a food safety function in the way in which modern conditions require that it should be discharged. I shall certainly beg leave to withdraw this amendment. I shall return to the question at the Report stage. It may be that the people advising me will say "We told you so. You have asked for a half loaf and got nothing. Now go for the full loaf of bread". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 154, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 154, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Regulations as to charges]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 26, line 27, leave out from ("discretion") to end of line 34.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment because of the rather confused drafting of Clause 44. As drafted, the clause will enable the Minister to impose maximum charges. We consider that local authorities should be able to make whatever charges are necessary in order to deliver the service they provide as economically and as effectively as possible. That is hinted at in subsection (3) of this clause.
The circumstances of each local authority and the profiles of the individual areas which they administer are all different. A function that can be performed relatively cheaply in one local authority area is of necessity considerably more expensive in another. We consider that local authorities should have the necessary discretion to take such matters into account without the constraint of a statutory maximum charge imposed by a government department that will be many miles from the area in question. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I believe that the power included in the Bill is necessary. Where charges would apply locally we would be unlikely to wish to interfere with local authorities' decisions on charging, but would normally leave it to them to set charges appropriate for their areas. For example, we would expect local authorities to set their own charges for running training courses on food hygiene. However, some charges will apply nationally; for example, charges for issuing certain licences under Clause 19. In such circumstances it would often be appropriate for the Government to set maxima and minima or scales of charge, and I believe the power to do so should remain in the Bill.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept my explanation.
Lord Carter: The explanation is helpful. I shall read with care what the noble Baroness has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clauses 45 and 46 agreed to.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 156:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
Food specially prepared for babies and young children
(" .—(1) Where regulations made under this Act, or regulations which have been or are made under any other Act by any Minister, contain any provision relating to food or food sources which is expressed by reference to food specially prepared for babies or young children or for babies and young children, that reference shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed in accordance with subsection (2) below.
(2) Any such reference shall be construed as—

(a) referring to food which is of such a kind, or is prepared in such manner, that it would not in normal circumstances be consumed by adults; and

855

(b) including a reference to food which is made up, packaged, advertised or otherwise presented in a manner which indicates or suggests that it is particularly suitable for children for whom a normal adult diet is not yet, or not yet fully, appropriate.').

The noble Lord said: This amendment is a proposed new clause arising out of the drafting of certain statutory instruments of which the easy one to remember is No. 1987 of 1987. The instrument makes it an offence punishable with imprisonment to put colouring matter in food specially prepared for babies or young children. When it came before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, on which I have the honour to serve, the committee's first questions to the Minister were, "What do you mean by young children? Are you talking about toddlers, or primary school children, or something in between?"
This is an important matter because if a Minister is to be given authority to create criminal offences, and if every person is presumed to know the law, it behoves the Minister precisely to define every ingredient of every offence he creates and to leave nothing to chance. If that does not happen, the matter will go to the courts to be interpreted. If the courts are required to interpret without guidance a wide open expression like "young children", one cannot expect them to come to a similar interpretation; and then they will be in trouble.
People will say quite unfairly that the courts are not consistent, that the thing is a lottery and that if one is prosecuted what happens will depend on before which court one comes. That is unfair because all the court will have tried to do is to define a term without guidance from the Minister. The joint committee has tried long enough and hard enough to extract from the Minister a definition of "young children", so far without success. I very much doubt whether we shall get a definition from him, and so the matter has to be looked at from a different angle.
At least we know what was in the Minister's mind when these instruments were drafted. It emerges from several memoranda which he has supplied in answer to questions from the joint committee. It is quite clear that he had in mind two perfectly simple propositions which are enshrined in the proposed new clause. First, he had in mind food not normally eaten by adults; and, secondly, food that is normally eaten by children until they reach a stage in their development when they can graduate from children's food to eating ordinary adult food. That has now been put into the proposed amendment.
If the amendment is accepted and a case arises, the court can look at the new clause, see into the Minister's mind, as it were, and find out what he meant when he spoke of "young children". There will be a much greater chance of consistent interpretation on the part of the courts and all the trouble that has arisen will not occur in future. I hope that the new clause commends itself to the Committee. If the Minister were to have second, third or tenth thoughts and decide that he did not like to do it this way but was prepared, after all, to come forward at Report with a definition of "young children", I have no doubt that that would satisfy the Committee. But we must have something. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I agree with this amendment in principle. I should remind Members of the Committee that I am advised by the representatives of the food processing industry. They think that a provision to clarify the meaning of food for infants and children in the legislation would be helpful. However, I shall not go into such details at this time of night. There are points of drafting which give rise to concern because they are not really clear. Nevertheless, the principle is there.
I have one further point to make. I believe that under the European Community directive in respect of foods for particular nutritional purposes, the Commission intends to draft specific controls covering foods for infants and children. It may well be that this is not the right time to put such provision into the Bill and perhaps it could be dealt with at a later stage when we know what the Commission has suggested. As I said, I support the amendment in principle and I hope that my noble friend will be sympathetic in his response.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: On behalf of my noble friend, I must say that I do not consider it appropriate to include in primary legislation a definition of a term which only appears in secondary legislation. However, I accept that the noble Lord's proposed definition is useful and that it could form the basis of an appropriate definition for inclusion in relevant statutory instruments. The noble Lord has kindly sent me a list of the statutory instruments to which he thinks such a definition is relevant, but I do not accept that the Bill is the appropriate place for what he has proposed.
Definitions appear in respect of expressions used in the Bill, but there are no references to children or babies. It is not therefore appropriate to put such a definition into the legislation. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall carefully consider the definition in the context of any statutory instruments and that we shall study the list he has provided to see whether we can amend the statutory instruments at some suitable time along the lines he suggested. I hope, in the light of what I have said, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Airedale: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for his support in principle, and I am also grateful to the Minister for his very sympathetic reply. It seems that something will happen in this connection, although it will not happen this evening. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Regulations and orders]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 27, line 13, leave out from ("make") to ("and") in line 17 and insert ("different provision in relation to different cases or classes of case (including different provision for different areas or different classes of business)").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Statutory instruments]:
[Amendments Nos. 158 to 160 not moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 27, line 31, at end insert ("or to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. In deciding which procedure is to be followed Ministers shall take account of the view of the consumer panel appointed by the Minister.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I think that it will generally be agreed that the Bill is in a sense a skeletal Bill, and that much of its effects will only really be felt when regulations under it are made. The proposal in the Bill to limit the parliamentary endorsement to the annulment procedure is a matter which has been concerning us ever since we first read it. On the other hand, it would be virtually impossible for the Committee to write into the Bill at every point where orders are likely to be made a specific provision as to whether the procedure for approving such orders should be affirmitive or whether it should be dealt with by way of annulment.
We have come up with the idea in the amendment, which I have no doubt will be well and truly turned down by the Government, that to reassure Parliament and to give consideration to the procedure to be followed as and when the occasion arises the Minister shall take account of the views of the consumer panels which he has appointed. While it may be a constitutional novelty, it will again provide the consumer panel with a useful role. To feel that it had been consulted as to whether the affirmative or the annulment procedure was to be adopted in a particular instance would be beneficial and would perhaps save us a great deal of blood, sweat and tears in attempting to write into the Bill specific provisions for the procedures to be followed.
In the event that that proposal is not acceptable to the Government, we are of the view that the principle laid down in Amendment No. 162, requiring the affirmative procedure for irradiation, should be adopted, and if that is not tested tonight we are willing to put our names to it and see it tested in Report. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: The amendment is totally inappropriate for the Bill and I hope that my noble friend will resist it.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: On the general point, as the Committee will be aware the affirmative procedure places heavy demands on the time of this place and of another place, and is by convention reserved for powers substantially affecting provisions of Acts of Parliament and powers to increase taxation or other financial burdens or other especially important powers such as those creating new varieties of serious criminal offences. I do not believe that any of the order-making and regulation-making powers in the Bill fall into any of those categories.
In any event, it would be inappropriate for the new consumer panel to advise on matters of parliamentary procedure, as has been suggested by the noble Lord. The panel is a non-statutory body
858
designed to fill an important advisory role and keep Ministers in touch with the views of ordinary consumers.
In practice, we should not wish to use those powers without taking the views of outside interests, including consumers, into account wherever possible. In view of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not pass the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 162:
Page 27, line 31, at end insert—
("(3) Any regulations made under section 16(1)(c) of this Act authorising the irradiation of food shall be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Viscount said: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said, I do not wish to move the amendment. We shall return to it at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Form and authentication of documents]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 163A:
Page 28, line 12, leave out ("enforcement") and insert ("food").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 164, 165, 166, 171, 172, 174, 175 and 175A, B and C.
I trust that the Committee will be able to accept the amendments, which are of a technical nature or merely correct printing errors. Amendment No. 163A amends Clause 49. The subsection deals with food authorities rather than enforcement authorities. The amendment is needed for consistency. I hope that the Committee will accept it as such.
Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 ensure that the lists of definitions in Clause 53 are in alphabetical order. Amendment No. 166 follows earlier amendments grouped with Amendment No. 41 enabling regulations or orders to refer to classes of food. Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 simply make printing corrections. Finally, Amendments Nos. 174, 175, 175A, 175B and 175C are to ensure that table A in Schedule 4 correctly records the new provisions in the Bill which mirror regulation-making powers in the 1984 Act. I hope that Members of the Committee will have no difficulty in accepting these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Contamination of food: emergency orders]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 163B and 163C:
Page 29, line 4, leave out from ("there") to ("likely") in line 5 and insert ("exist or may exist circumstances which are").

859
Page 29, leave out lines 9 to 15 and insert—
("(c) the substitution for subsection (5) of that section of the following subsection—
"(5) An emergency order shall refer to the circumstances or suspected circumstances in consequence of which in the opinion of the designating authority making it food such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above is, or may be, or may become, unsuitable for human consumption; and in this Act 'designated circumstances' means the circumstances or suspected circumstances to which an emergency order refers in pursuance of this subsection";

(d) in section 2(3) (powers when emergency order has been made), the substitution for the words "a designated incident" of the words "designated circumstances";

(e) in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 4 (powers of officers), the substitution for the words "an escape of substances" of the words "such circumstances as are mentioned in section (1) above"; and

(I) in paragraphs (b) and (c) of that subsection, the substitution for the words "the designated incident" of the words "the designated circumstances".").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 163B and 163C en bloc.
Lord Gallacher: Before agreeing to the adoption of Amendments Nos. 163B and 163C en bloc, I should like a word from the Minister about the effect of the amendments on the Bill. I have been looking at exactly what they say and I shall look at them again when they are reprinted. Would the Minister care to tell us briefly why the necessity for Amendment No. 163C has arisen and whether it in any way weakens the provisions regarding emergency orders as the Bill now provides for these?
Baroness Trumpington: I apologise to the Members of the Committee for introducing these substantive amendments so late in the day, but I consider it proper to do so now rather than at Report stage.
The new proposal arises as a result of recent experience of lead contamination. The effect of these amendments is to extend the powers in Section 1 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. As amended, the powers will enable Ministers to take emergency action where there are or may be circumstances which are likely to give rise to a hazard to human health through human consumption of food. The 1985 Act, as currently framed, only enables Ministers to act where there has been an escape or release of substances. The new provision replaces this with the concept that there are circumstances which put people at risk if they eat particular foods. This is because it has become clear to the Government that risks have arisen from naturally occurring environmental sources—for example, from lead in the soil ending up in the cows' milk or meat. This may be a small gap but it is certainly a significant one.
I trust that Members of the Committee will recognise the merits of these amendments. Clearly Ministers must be able to take immediate action to protect consumers and the national food supply when emergencies have arisen.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [General interpretation]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): Amendments Nos. 164, 165 and 166 have already been spoken to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 164 to 166:
Page 30, transpose line 9 to after line 13.
Page 31, transpose line 8 to after line 9.
Page 31, line 34, leave out ("class or").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 53, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to speak briefly on Clause 53 in order to point out to the Minister that the clause has definitions of various terms. Will she consider, before we come to the next stage of the Bill, whether or not there should be a definition of the word "labelling"? I know that she said that it would not be necessary because the definition was in the food labelling regulations of 1984. However, would it not be better to define what labelling means in the Bill rather than leave it to subordinate legislation? There are some other minor definitions such as that of advertisement. I leave it to the Minister to consider that point.
Baroness Trumpington: Clause 53 provides a very useful table of definitions of certain expressions used in the Bill. The clause re-enacts many of the definitions found in Section 132(1) of the Food Act 1984 and Section 58 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956. There are, however, some additions and amendments which I hope are largely self-explanatory.
I recognise the problem of my noble friend as regards the definition of labelling. However, I thought I had described the problems involved with the matter of labelling when I spoke on earlier clauses. I would be loath to see a definition on labelling at this stage of the Bill. No doubt when the matter of labelling has been harmonised across the EC we could include a definition, but until then I do not feel we can do so. I ask the Committee to agree that Clause 53 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provisions of regulations under Section 16(1)]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 34, line 43, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: Schedule 1, paragraph 4(a), which is written in a very convoluted fashion, seems to identify persons with appropriate qualifications who will give written opinions with respect to processing or treatment in the preparation of food. I wondered how these persons compared with or were part of the various advisory committees which the Minister already has, such as the Food Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, the Committee on Medical

861
Aspects of Food Policy, the Committee on Microbiological Aspects of Food Safety, and indeed the new consumer panel of the food safety directive.
I suppose some consumers have the qualifications prescribed by the regulations and they may have a few experts among them. However, does this provision exist for describing the members of that body or does it refer to another set of people who will give written opinions? If that is not the case, is there any provision in the Bill for the kind of advice on the subject matter of food safety which the organisations that I have described inevitably give to the Minister at the present time? Clarification on that point would be helpful. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: We believe that to accept this amendment would seriously weaken the proposed powers in the Bill to ensure that processes are safe. The provision we are discussing will enable us to ensure that the food producer has identified the critical control points and parameters, where necessary obtaining expert advice. That will ensure his product is safe and that he is carrying out his process accordingly.
Without this provision there may be no indication that a process is unsafe until it has resulted in an outbreak of food poisoning or other food-borne illness. Clearly in the light of the speed of technological change and the increasingly complex nature of food processing the powers contained in the paragraph under discussion are essential. We cannot depend on food enforcement authorities to provide absolute assurance on food safety in every case. That is the duty of the food producers.
The question of the qualifications of people serving on advisory committees is a quite separate provision. We intend to allow experts to give views on the safety of processes, not general views. I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: With the greatest possible respect, my question was not answered. I tried to help by giving advance notice of what I intended in the amendment but that does not appear to have filtered through the system. I shall have to return to the charge, dealing with the matter differently so that it is easier for everybody to understand. I am still puzzled as to who the people mentioned in paragraph 4(a) are and how they relate to the organisations to which I referred. It seems to me that the Minister will receive a great many written opinions from different sources and that paragraph 4(a) is not necessary in its present form. Something similar is necessary, but the situation is untidy and I am not at all happy with it. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 168 and 169:
Page 34, line 45, leave out ("or any class of food").
Page 35, line 5, leave out ("or any class of food")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, be agreed to?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Perhaps I may speak briefly on the schedule. I should like to ask my noble friend to give some indication, either in a letter or at Report stage, of what the Government have in mind with regard to training, which is mentioned in paragraph 5(3) of the schedule.
I have in mind the position of the person who works on a casual basis in a village shop or in my pick-your-own business. Is she or he to have government or local government certificates or to take government or local government courses? Is her or his training to be, as it is now, from the employer? I do not for one minute expect my noble friend to answer now because it is quite a deep question. However, perhaps she could write to me between now and Report or make a statement on Report. I believe that it is important.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps before my noble friend answers I may intervene. I had intended to raise a similar point in relation to paragraph 5(3) because training is uppermost in our minds in a number of areas. There is no indication of whether the training is to be industry led, whether the industry is to set the standards or curricula, or whether there is to be a government-inspired programme.
I am sorry that we do not have the opportunity to discuss the matter at greater length. We have been progressing like a runaway train since Amendment No. 81. However, I believe that before the Bill passes into law it is incumbent upon the Government to give some indication as to their thinking. It will be too late for Parliament, and particularly for this Chamber, to deal with the matter when it comes under regulations.
There may well be areas to which the industry and individual employers will have to give attention now. For example, what are we to do about the training of the sandwich bar operator? What are we to do about the training of the street vendor? Such matters are crucial to the efficacy of the entire Bill. Without adequate training in hygiene—elementary or more complex—all that we have spent two days debating can go straight out of the window.
I echo my noble friend Lord Stanley's request that at some stage, in some form or another, at least some indication should be given as to the way the Government are thinking. I hope that in giving such an indication any response may not just confine itself to, "Well, we have consultation going on, and all will emerge". It is essential that Parliament should know, either in this House or in another place, exactly what the Government are hoping to achieve under this schedule.
Lord Mottistone: The complete answer is to re-create the distributive industry training board, of which I had the pleasure and privilege to be the director in the years before 1975 when it was ruined.
Baroness Hooper: We are of course most grateful for the helpful suggestions that have been made in this respect. The Committee will have seen that Clause 16 gives Ministers fairly broad powers to make regulations on aspects of food safety and consumer protection. Schedule 1 simply spells out some of the things that may be included in the regulations. Many of these are contained in existing legislation but some are new.
The new provisions include, for example, powers to require processes to be licensed, and indeed to require the training of food handlers. In this I fully agree with my noble friend that training is of considerable importance. Because we believe that, we published a consultation paper about training last December. We would of course welcome comments on it and on any other points from my noble friends and any other source.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 39, line 21, at end insert—
("(2) In that Schedule, paragraph 40 shall cease to have effect and after paragraph 36 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"Food
36A. Tribunals constituted in accordance with regulations under Part II of the Food Safety Act 1990 being tribunals appoined for Scotland." ").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 170 and discuss with it Amendment No. 181. There are straightforward, technical points. The first, in Schedule 3, will bring within the ambit of the Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals such Scottish tribunals constituted under regulations made under the Bill.
The second amendment removes paragraph 40 of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 which will no longer apply with the repeal, under this Bill, of the Milk (Special Designations) Act 1949, as proposed in Schedule 5. This amendment achieves for Scotland what paragraph 14 of Schedule 3 to the Bill does for England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 171 and 172:
Page 40, line 20, leave out("16(2)")and insert ("16(3)").
Page 42, line 8, leave out ("Environment and") and insert ("and Environment").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 172A:
Page 42, line 9, after ("(interpretation)") insert—

("(a) in the definition of "designated incident", for the words "designated incident" there shall be substituted the words "designated circumstances";

(b) the definition of "escape" shall cease to have effect; and

(c)").

The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment following upon Amendments 163B and 163C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 43, line 32, after ("Act") insert ("or section 58 of the 1956 Act").
The noble Earl said: Schedule 4 contains six technical amendments relating to Scotland. All are concerned either with saving or transitional provisions necessary to ensure the smooth operation of food law between the repeal of existing legislation and the introduction of new regulations or orders under the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 176 to 180 are similar in nature in that they provide for any food and milk orders to continue to have effect until new regulations take their place. In this respect also a definition of existing order is provided. Amendment No. 173 simply saves a definition of home-going ships until, as with the others, regulations are introduced specific to certain ships on which food is sold. I should add that similar arrangements for England and Wales have been made in all these cases.
I hope that that brief explanation will allow the Committee to agree to these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 174 to 175C:
Page 44, line 11, column 2, after ("16(1)(b)") insert ("(c)").
Page 44, line 13, column 2, leave out ("(d) and (f) and (2)") and insert ("(c), (d) and (f), (2) and (3)").
Page 44, line 17, at end insert—
("section 73(2) (qualification of officers) section 5(6)").
Page 44, line 18, at end insert—
("section 79(5) (form of certificate) section 49").
Page 44, line 35, at end insert—
("section 29(3) (form of certificate) section 49").
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendments Nos. 174 to 175C have all been spoken to with Amendment No. 163A. The Question is that these amendments be agreed to en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 176 to 180:
Page 44, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
Page 45, line 2, leave out ("orders") and insert ("existing order").
Page 45, line 4, leave out ("repeal of that section, as if they") and insert ("relevant repeal, as if it").
Page 45, line 5, at end insert—
("(2) Any existing order made under section 3 of the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Act 1922 (sale of milk under special designations) shall have effect, after the commencement of the relevant repeal, as if it were regulations made under section 18(2) of this Act.

865
(3) In this paragraph "existing order" means any order made under a provision repealed by this Act which is in force immediately before the coming into force of that repeal; and references to the commencement of the relevant repeal shall be construed accordingly.").
Page 45, line 19, after second ("Act") insert ("or section I of the Control of Food Premises (Scotland) Act 1977").
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: These amendments have been spoken to with Amendment No. 173. The Question is that Amendments Nos. 176 to 180 be agreed to en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 46,line 9,column 3,leave out ("paragraph 15") and insert ("paragraphs 15 and 40").
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: This amendment has been spoken to with Amendment No. 170.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Isle of Wight Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Buckinghamshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.

Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to and with the remaining amendment agreed to with an amendment; the Commons amendment to the Lords amendment was considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before midnight.