Sitting of 22 January 1990

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

    British Rail
    Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent consultations he has had with British Rail; and what matters were discussed.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend and I and our officials consult British Rail regularly on a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Smith: I thank the Minister for that reply. When he and his colleagues next meet the chairman of British Rail will they discuss the possibility of establishing a passenger rail link to Cardiff Wales airport? I agree with the director of that airport that such a rail link is essential for its future as an international airport. Such an airport is vital to the continued success of the south Wales economy. We must recognise that the cutting edge of business communications is air travel. If we make the mistake of not establishing adequate surface links in Wales we shall fall behind other regions and other countries and we shall not get our fair share of the cake in Europe after 1992.
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is, I think, aware that South Glamorgan county council and British Rail are in the lead on this proposal. They examined it last year, but came to the conclusion that there was not an economic case for it. I understand, however, that they are still examining the possibility of running an executive coach from the airport to Cardiff's hotels in addition to the hourly bus service from Cardiff to the airport.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should like to do all that we can to help further the interests of the airport and to meet the economic requirements of south Wales.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister ask the chairman of British Rail why it continues to treat Wales as though it were an impoverished cousin, fit only for the hand-me-downs from more wealthy members of the family? Is he aware, for example, that the new high-speed trains that we shall receive in south Wales will come into operation when they are no longer needed, after the electrification of the east coast mainline?
    Mr. Roberts: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. We consult British Rail and we are pleased with some of the things it has done. It is, for example, providing a first-class service from Paddington to and from south Wales. We have asked for extra trains to be provided and
    604
    those trains will be provided from next May. British Rail meets our requirements whenever they are commercially viable.

    Rechem
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the importation of toxic waste bound for the Rechem incineration plant.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations.
    Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he confirm that the Germans are not keen to install a similar plant in their country as they believe that it is not safe? If that is so, what plans does the Minister have to safeguard the interests of the Welsh people?
    Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know of our proposals in the current Environmental Protection Bill whereby we wish to restrict the importation of waste into this country, although we see a role for dealing with special wastes. I would not care to comment on the activities of an allied Government.
    Mr. Favell: It is absolutely vital that such plants should operate safely and, therefore, the new proposed legislation is welcome. Is it reasonable for organisations such as Friends of the Earth to attack companies such as Rechem, which is ridding the world of unwanted chemicals? Surely that company is being a friend of the earth.
    Mr. Grist: If we did not have such firms the question would arise as to exactly what would happen to the PCBs and other emissions. Presumably, they would endanger Third world countries which are too poor to have our high technology.
    Mr. Murphy: Is it not true that the large profits made by Rechem come from imports and that those profits have declined dramatically in the past few weeks? Is the Minister aware that reports in the business press this weekend have indicated possible insider dealing in Rechem shares? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to investigate those reports? Does he accept that the only answer to this controversy is a proper, independent public inquiry?
    Mr. Grist: After that barrage, I am not quite sure into what the hon. Gentleman wants an inquiry. I do not care to comment on the insider dealings, but I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have noted what the hon. Gentleman said. Only 20 per cent. of the company's dealings come from imported waste and, if there is a fall in the company's profitability, I imagine that it would be of some concern to the hon. Gentleman's constituents who work there.

    Uniform Business Rate
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the implementation of the new business rate in Wales.
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had on the Welsh business rate level.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I have received a number of such representations.
    Mr. Murphy: Is the Secretary of State aware of today's business news in south Wales—a staggering increase in the number of bankruptcies and liquidations of small businesses? Does he accept that the business tax will increase the possibility of such events? Why does he pretend to help industry in Wales but introduce a tax that is universally condemned by all organisations that represent commerce in the Principality?
    Mr. Walker: I am well aware of today's commercial news. I have seen the survey done by the Cardiff chamber of commerce and industry which shows that 24 per cent. of firms expect to take on more people in 1990—three times more than those set to reduce their work force—that turnover is 75 per cent. higher than last year, and that firms expect 60 per cent. higher profits. That fits in with an industrial survey carried out by the Institute of Directors, which comes to similar conclusions. We are having record inward investment, record growth and a record drop in unemployment. I am sure that the news that factories and warehouses in Wales will have a 27 per cent. reduction in their business rate will be good news for the Welsh economy.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Secretary of State recall that when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food he gave farmers the incredible advice that if a nuclear attack was imminent they should drive their cows into ditches and cover them with a tarpaulin sheet? Is not the advice and protection that he has given to Welsh business men just about as effective as a tarpaulin sheet would be against a nuclear attack? In his long litany of records, the Secretary of State forgot that today we know that there are record bankruptcies among Welsh businesses. Why do Welsh businesses have to pay 5 per cent. more for their business rate than those in England? What will he do about it?
    Mr. Walker: Once again, the hon. Gentleman's production of fiction is on the most extraordinary scale. As Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I never made any such remarks, which are a total work of fiction by the hon. Gentleman. Welsh businesses will contribute 20 per cent. of the costs of local government and those in England, 30 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman calls that a disadvantage to Welsh business, that is a funny analysis.
    Mr. Burns: When replying to representations he receives about the business rate, will my right hon. Friend tell those people that when the transitional phase is over, the maximum amount by which the business rate can increase in any one year will be the inflation rate? That will be infinitely superior to some of the rate increases faced by businesses in Wales over the past 10 to 15 years. Will he confirm that when we take the business rate and Government funding together, community charge payers in Wales will pay only 15 per cent. of local government finance?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is quite correct—community charge payers will pay only 15 per cent. of local government finance. I am glad that it is also true that the rate burden of factories and warehouses throughout Wales will be reduced by 27 per cent. That should be a cause for celebration in the Principality.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Is not the Secretary of State's early optimism likely to be hit on the head by the very tax that we are discussing? Will he confirm that the interim protection to which he has referred is lost if a firm changes premises? Premises will therefore become more difficult to sell or to rent; firms wanting to expand will find it difficult to move to larger presmises; and firms in trouble will find it difficult to move to smaller ones. Is not that contrary to the mobility that is essential to regional policy?
    Mr. Walker: The figures that I gave have nothing to do with the transitional arrangements. I know of the right hon. Gentleman's passion to help the valleys, so he will be pleased to know that valleys factories will have their rate burden reduced by 35 per cent.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that manufacturing industry will benefit particularly from the new business rate? How will that act on the valleys' initiative? As many concerns involved will be smaller businesses, will he give further consideration to the present threshold of £10,000 and increase it to, say, £15,000?
    Mr. Walker: We shall keep the present figures. Factories in the valleys will pay £13 million less in rates, and warehouses £2 million less.

    National Curriculum
    Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about implementation of the national curriculum in Wales.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend has received many representations about the implementation of the national curriculum in Wales, most of which have been in response to the numerous consultations he has conducted.
    Mr. Rogers: I am not surprised that the Minister has received many representations, because the whole teaching profession in Wales is disaffected with the proposals. Does not the Minister realise that under these proposals teachers will have not only to teach and maintain discipline but to absorb and implement the new curriculum—and to assess and record almost continuously the progress of their pupils? Teachers have been placed in an impossible position without the resources to help them and without the extra manpower to deal with some of the extremely large classes in the Principality.
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman must remember that more is being spent per pupil now than when we came to office, and that there are fewer pupils per teacher now than then.
    We consult after each national curriculum working group has produced its final report, and we consult again at the draft order stage. We realise, of course, that teachers carry a burden but we also have faith that they will see that the work is well worth doing and that they will carry it out.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: When does my hon. Friend expect to make a decision on the applications from a number of schools in my constituency to be exempt from Welsh at secondary level?
    Mr. Roberts: We shall be consulting separately on the regulations relating to possible exemptions.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is not the national curriculum causing severe difficulties with staffing and with the teaching of

    607
    Welsh and modern languages? Teacher morale is very low. Why is the Minister so indecisive? He has legislated for major change but provided minor resources. If he does not wake up he will have a serious situation on his hands.
    Mr. Roberts: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. Is he now saying that he is against the introduction of the national curriculum? His party was not when we dealt with the matter in Standing Committee.
    As for staff morale, I have explained that teachers have good reason to feel proud of the work that they do. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are raising the additional education support grant and the money available for local education authority training grants from £7 million this year to £10 million in the next.

    Sheltered Accommodation
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many units of local authority-provided sheltered accommodation for the elderly currently exist in Wales.
    Mr. Grist: At 1 April 1989 there were 16,219 units of sheltered accommodation for elderly people provided by local authorities in Wales.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm that under the new ringfencing arrangements local authorities will have to exclude the costs of warden services from their housing accounts, and will therefore no longer be eligible for housing subsidy? Does he realise that the full cost of warden services will then fall on the poll tax? The Minister's estimate of poll tax in the Rhymney valley of £166 per head has already increased on the basis of the local authority estimate of £225 per head. That seems to generate laughter from the Secretary of State. Will the Minister seriously reconsider those elements of local authority expenditure that should be eligible for housing subsidy?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the considerable increase in funds that are being made available next year to local authorities for housing and through the Housing Corporation for mixed housing in sheltered accommodation. The hon. Gentleman can look there for considerable growth. The effect of the pay of wardens on the community charge will be infinitesimal compared with the good that will be done by sheltered accommodation.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Minister compare his figure of 16,200 units of accommodation with the anticipated increase in the number of elderly—48,000 over the next 20 years—and with the figure for the very elderly, those over 85, of 26,000? Given the emphasis on community care and on people being enabled to live independent lives, will he provide the money to enable local authorities to undertake rapid acceleration in the provision of sheltered accommodation?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman should consider that we have been able to provide the finance for an increase of more than 3,000 units of accommodation for elderly people in the last two and a half years. We shall be able to maintain that rate in future. He will also be aware of the new renovation grants scheme that will considerably assist
    608
    private elderly owners in Wales, of whom we have a high proportion and for whom local authorities will have an unlimited financial draw on the Treasury.

    M4 (Port Talbot)
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in which month in 1991 the two unfinished sections of the M4 in the Port Talbot area will see work commence; and by which month in 1991 the work will be completed.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Work on the Briton Ferry-Earlswood and Baglan-Briton Ferry schemes is planned to start early in the period April 1991 to March 1994. The schemes will take two and a half years and three years respectively and are expected to be completed in mid-1994. It is not possible to be more precise at this stage.
    Mr. Wardell: The Minister will know that it is a national disgrace that after 10 years of Conservative rule there is still not a single finished motorway in Wales. Will he look again at this to see whether this missing gap in the M4 can be filled before the time period that he mentioned? That gap is a major sore in the economy of south Wales and urgently needs attention.
    Mr. Roberts: If it has been a disgrace for 10 years I am surprised that the previous Labour Government did not anticipate building this section of the M4-A48. We have planned extremely well. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have already carried out remedial works at the Baglan roundabout which have eased traffic congestion there. We have further works planned for the two other roundabouts, and here we have work that is estimated to cost £116 million at November 1988 prices. We shall accomplish that work within four years. That is a very good rate of progress for the building of roads.

    Rechem
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the taking of soil samples around the Rechem incinerator.
    Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend is considering what further action may be necessary in the light of the results of monitoring undertaken by the Welsh Office and other agencies in the Pontypool area.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister authorise comprehensive environmental tests not only of the soil but of grass and meat to test for toxins passing into the food chain? Does he agree that the stock exchange is investigating Rechem share insider dealings and that a Welsh Office public inquiry on Rechem is long overdue?
    Mr. Grist: That seems a very muddled supplementary. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is currently conducting further environmental soil surveys in the vicinity of various types of incincerators, including that at Pontypool. As I said in my answer, and as the hon. Gentleman will know, we have been carrying out various surveys ourselves and releasing the results to interested parties.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Given the poor level of monitoring of the plant by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the general lack of confidence in HMIP's work, will the

    609
    Minister note the work commissioned by Torfaen borough council, whose independent analysis shows that levels of polychlorinated biphenyls in grasslands around the Rechem plant are extremely high—50 to 100 times the background? In the light of such findings and of the general concern in the area, why does the Welsh Office refuse to allow a public inquiry into the operations of the plant?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter before, I think in the Select Committee. The surveys carried out by HMIP are the surveys for which we have most respect. We aware of the findings given to us by Torfaen borough council, and that is why we have instituted investigations of our own. We are looking into the findings of all the surveys to decide what step to take next.

    Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on hill livestock compensatory allowance payments in 1990.
    Mr. Peter Walker: We shall announce the hill livestock compensatory allowance rates for 1990 shortly.
    Mr. Jones: The Secretary of State will be aware that the value of HLCAs has been eroded by inflation since the last increase in 1986 and that in 1989 incomes in the less-favoured areas fell by 13 per cent. in real terms. He will also be aware that the European Commission's cut will represent a loss to Welsh farmers of £1.2 million in HLCA payments this year. Will the Secretary of State give the House and Welsh farmers an assurance that the Government will make up the difference?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows that last year the Government gave careful conideration to the matter and paid out £30.2 million in allowances. Our latest figures show that net farm incomes on less-favoured area livestock farms rose by just under 40 per cent. on average, partly reflecting increases in output and lower-than-expected increases in input costs.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Secretary of State consider a concerted policy programme to bring greater social and economic prosperity to Wales? Has he carefully assessed the need for a rural affairs unit in his Department—for example, a task force for north Wales? Will he fight harder in Brussels for rural Wales?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman asks about help for rural Wales. I can only say that the reduction in unemployment, the increased farm income figures that I have just given and the programme for north Wales that we have just announced completely dwart anything that was achieved when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the Welsh Office.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what figures he has for the amount of inward investment that took place in Wales in 1989.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I am pleased to say that preliminary figures show that during 1989, Wales secured on average
    610
    two projects per week—100 projects, promising 8,252 new and safeguarded jobs and a capital investment of £520 million.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the job-attracting agencies in Wales has been outstanding and that they have beaten into a cocked hat the achievements of the other job-attracting agencies in the United Kingdom? Does he further agree that the quality of that investment is far higher than was the case in the 1960s and 1970s and is unlikely to suffer in the same way as investment in those decades suffered when adverse trading conditions came along?
    Mr. Walker: The quality has been very high. An important factor for the Welsh economy is that three of the biggest inward investments of the past two years have been in the Toyota and Ford engine plants and the Bosch motor component plant, which are all under construction and have yet to recruit labour forces. When fully in production, those plants will require a whole mass of component manufacturers to supply them. The investment has been of high quality and will bring permanent benefit to the Welsh economy.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: The Secretary of State talks of inward investment. But does he appreciate that today Mitel, which has a large factory in Caldicot, has announced its intention of divesting itself of its 51 per cent. shareholding in that company? Does the Secretary of State realise that the company has pioneered advanced technology? What is to be the future of the work people employed there?
    Mr. Walker: I cannot comment on an announcement about the disposal of the ownership of a particular company. However, inward investment into the hon. Gentleman's constituency continues to be made on a considerable scale, as in the past.

    Tertiary Education, Clwyd
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals have been submitted to him by Clwyd county council for tertiary reorganisation of the schools in Clwyd.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend has not received any formal proposals affecting the organisation of secondary education in Clwyd.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: As my hon. Friend has a wider area of responsibility than his English counterpart in the Department of Education and Science, will he, when assessing any proposals from Clwyd county council, take into account not only the possible educational advantages of concentrating sixth form teaching in one place but the conceivable social disadvantages of removing from a place such as Abergele the element of a school that provides a valuable service to the community?
    Mr. Roberts: Tertiary education is only one option for consideration by local education authorities wishing to rationalise their provision for 16 to 19-year-olds. It would not be right for me to comment on the merits of tertiary education in Clwyd. If the local education authority publishes notices of its intention to abolish sixth forms and there are statutory objections, the matter would be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, for him to determine.
    Mr. Foot: Does the Minister recall the reply that the Secretary of State was ill-advised enough to give me during Welsh questions last time, when I suggested that his best course would be to make his next annual or biannual speech on the catastrophies of the Government's general economic policy in the constituency of Clwyd, North-West? Do not recent events emphasise the truth of that? Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to make special arrangements to visit Clwyd, North-West, not only to speak on the subject of tertiary education, which is very important, but to give his views on interest rates at 15 per cent. and all the other elements of the Government's catastrophic economic policy? We want that speech to be made as soon as possible, and only regret that it was not made last week.
    Mr. Roberts: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is welcome throughout north Wales, including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who is very much his own man, and my constituency of Conwy.
    Dr. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State and the Minister of State consider the future of tertiary education in Clwyd in the context of the plans that are simultaneously being prepared for Gwynedd? The two counties share a substantial border, and there is a clear need for tertiary facilities along the border to be shared. Will the Secretary of State consider any representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who has a distinguished record of public service to his constituents and whom we shall certainly miss if the disastrous course that was inflicted on the Conservative party in Clwyd, North-West is followed?
    Mr. Roberts: A tertiary education scheme has already been adopted for Gwent, West Glamorgan and South Glamorgan, and a similar scheme is under consideration for Gwynedd and Mid-Glamorgan. I am sure that Clwyd's proposals will take into account the interests of Gwynedd and that there will be collaboration between the two. I remarked earlier that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West is very much his own man. He has an enormous amount of courage, which we all respect.

    Polytechnic of Wales
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the Polytechnic of Wales; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Neither my right hon. Friend nor myself have had occasion to meet representatives of the Polytechnic of Wales in the last 12 months.
    Dr. Howells: In terms of the sums allocated across all subjects, the Polytechnic of Wales receives half the amount allocated to universities, and about 12 per cent. less than that allocated to British polytechnics in general. The Secretary of State and the Minister for State know the vital role that the polytechnic plays in supplying scientific and engineering expertise to the new Welsh industries. What will be done to ensure that its funding is made commensurate with that role?
    Mr. Roberts: We have been increasing the funds available to the Polytechnic of Wales in recent years, and
    612
    one hopes that they will continue to increase. The polytechnic is, as the hon. Gentleman says, of great importance to us as it serves industry in south Wales. I have faith in its future being assured.

    Green Pound
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the effect of the green pound gap on Welsh farming; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have received a total of eight written representations; seven from hon. Friends and hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies, and one from the Wales branch of the National Farmers Union.
    Mr. Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern among farmers in Wales about their growing competitive disadvantage compared with farmers in other parts of the European Community as a result of the increasing gap in the green pound? Will he make strong representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, saying that this is a matter which requires deep cuts in the forthcoming price round in the EC negotiations?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I am well aware from experience —my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is also aware of it—that, in a price-fixing exercise, the movement of monetary compensatory amounts is of considerable importance. There is a commitment to remove all monetary gaps and, therefore, MCAs by the end of 1992. When that happens, it will be of great benefit to Welsh agriculture.

    Polychlorinated Biphenyls
    Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will carry out an inquiry into the effect upon the environment of the emissions of polychlorinated biphenyls from the combustion of plastic clinical waste in hospital incinerators in Wales.
    Mr. Grist: No, Sir. Such an inquiry would anticipate implementation of the proposals contained in the Environmental Protection Bill which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment laid before the House on 20 December 1989. When it is enacted, NHS incinerators will be required to meet operating and emission standards that will be published and will be enforceable by the relevant local authorities.
    Mr. Davies: Does the Minister agree that, when plastic PCBs are burnt—a considerable amount is burnt in hospital incinerators—biphenyls and dioxins are emitted unless the combustion temperature is extremely high? He mentioned the new legislation. At what temperature should these plastics be burnt to prevent the emission of biphenyls and dioxins?
    Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is undertaking consultations on standards of incineration which it is intended should be introduced later this year.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been so much controversy about this in Wales that it is a matter of considerable urgency? Will he urge my right

    613
    hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take every step to get the issue moving? Is my hon. Friend aware that the county town of Warwick has been threatened with an incinerator and that there is considerable anxiety about it?
    Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend should be reassured by the fact that the power to control and license the incinerator would be given to his local authority by the proposals in our Bill. He would be able to exercise such authority locally. That should give him and his constituents a great deal of assurance.

    Ruthin and Caernarfon Agriculture Department Offices
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be (a) the beneficial and (b) the adverse effects to farming in the proposed reorganisation of the Ruthin and Caernarfon Agriculture Department offices.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The reorganisation will provide a more cost-effective administrative structure for my Agriculture Department in Wales. There should be no effect on the farming community, since Ruthin will continue to be served by a substantial area office.
    Dr. Marek: Can the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that no farmer from Clwyd, particularly east Clwyd, will have to travel to Caernarfon, that the furthest he will have to go is to Ruthin, and that he will not suffer any loss of quality because of going to Ruthin?
    Mr. Walker: The new area office will be purpose built, and will be linked by a computer network to the other office, so all the information will be readily available.

    British Rail
    Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail plans to prepare the rail infrastructure of Wales (a) generally and (b) to improve links with the continent.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend will discuss these issues when he next meets the chairman of British Rail.
    Mr. Anderson: Are the Government prepared to invest £195 in the report by the Economist intelligence unit, published today, on the social and regional implications of the Channel tunnel? In the report, British Rail is sharply criticised for its failure to plan for the regional effects of the tunnel. Is it not clear that Wales may suffer major adverse repercussions unless the Government intervene as a matter of urgency to protect areas such as Wales?
    Mr. Roberts: As the hon. Gentleman knows, British Rail has produced its plan as required, and has made provision for Wales. The hon. Gentleman will know that there will be an overnight passenger service from Swansea to the Channel tunnel and daytime services from south Wales to the international centre at Waterloo; there will also be services from mid-Wales to Wolverhampton to connect with services to the tunnel, and from north Wales to Crewe. Freight terminal sites are also under consideration: there will be one in south Wales, one in the west midlands which will serve mid-Wales and one in Cheshire to serve north Wales.
    614
    This is a basic plan, to be reviewed and updated annually. Therefore, I cannot possibly agree that British Rail has completely ignored the interests of Wales.

  THE ARTS

    Admission Charges
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his policy on compulsory admission charges to national museums.
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his policy on free access to national museums.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): The Government's repeatedly stated policy is that the decision whether to operate a system of admission charges or voluntary donations should be for the board of trustees responsible for each institution.
    Dr. Marek: Surely the Minister now recognises, given the evidence all round him, that the introduction of charges has affected museum attendances. At the national maritime museum, for example, attendances have dropped by 35 per cent; at the natural history museum they have fallen by 40 per cent; and, worst of all, at the Welsh national museum they have fallen by 85 per cent.
    Does the Minister agree with the claim by my hon. Friend for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) that the Government believe that people value only what they pay for? Does he value only what he pays for? Does he think that the public value only what they pay for, and does he believe that members of the public who now pay charges to go to museums value those museums doubly because they have paid twice over?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman may care to note that museum attendance all over the country—including attendance at a mass of independent museums, most of which charge—reached record levels last year, which was museum year. It is entirely for the trustees to decide whether the introduction of charges would bring benefits to the public and to individual museums, and it is right for us to leave that practical, pragmatic decision to them. All this must be seen against the background of a real increase in resources for our national institutions, to the benefit of the taxpayer.
    Mr. Haynes: May I ask what responsibility the Minister has? He is always blaming someone else. Let me tell him in no uncertain terms that the proposed charges will reduce attendances, and let me tell him this, too: I have the backing of Nottinghamshire county council, which does a marvellous job for the arts. Let us have less rhetoric from that Dispatch Box, and let us have some action—and we do not want any charges either.
    Mr. Luce: I feel inclined to recommend the hon. Gentleman for a drama award: he certainly qualifies for one.
    Each individual institution has its own decision to make. Evidence shows that, since the introduction of charges, attendances at the imperial war museum are up on the last full year in which there were no charges. Other museums have experienced a drop in the first year or two of charges, but it is usually temporary. If museums are to

    615
    introduce charges, however, I strongly believe that they must be linked with an improvement in services to the public, and that is what is happening in most museums.
    Sir Philip Goodhart: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the national museums in almost all the EC member countries make admission charges? Does he agree that, in France, all Louvre museum acquisitions are paid for by admission charges? If that is right on the continent, why should it not be right here?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One is being told repeatedly that people in France are less philistine than people in this country. There is nothing philistine about making admission charges; the vast bulk of the French museums do just that.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no reason why the trustees of museums and galleries should not be allowed to make up their own minds about this matter? Does he know that the most important thing is the quality of display? Will he congratulate the Tate gallery on its rehanging?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I congratulate the Tate gallery on its remarkable achievement. I am glad that, in addition to sponsorship from British Petroleum, the Government and the taxpayer have been able to contribute to the very excellent rehanging and reorganisation of, the Tate.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that there have been remarkable improvements in museums that have introduced charges. That is very important, but it is equally important to note that a large number, if not a majority, of museums that have introduced charges have set aside certain free, open days and hours, in addition to their concessions for school parties and for other people in special categories.
    Mr. Fisher: Is it not clear that the Government are content to sit and do nothing while admissions to national museums plummet through the floor? Indeed, are not the Government directly responsible, in that the Minister's refusal properly to fund the base budgets of national museums is forcing museums into making admission charges? Is the Minister now repeating his disgraceful remark to the conference of the Council of Regional Arts Associations a few years ago—that if a service is any good, people will pay for it?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman talks an awful lot of nonsense. He will have to make up his mind. During previous questions on the arts he was good enough to congratulate the Government on the substantial increase in taxpayers' funding for national museums and galleries. In fact, provision has been made for a 27 per cent. increase in the amount of taxpayers' resources allocated to museums and galleries. To suggest that national museums base decisions on inadequate funding when, in real terms, funding is far greater than it was under the Labour Government is absolute nonsense.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Select Committee examined this matter in 1981, it got it about right? It produced a unanimous report which said that trustees should have the ultimate discretion, but that, in exercising that discretion, they should always make provision for days free of charge and so preserve a great tradition. My right hon. Friend will
    616
    agree that if we are seduced by the latest Select Committee report we shall reach the stage of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.
    Mr. Luce: The Government will, of course, reply to the Select Committee's latest report. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of allowing decisions to be taken on a practical, pragmatic basis by the trustees, who are the people in charge of these national institutions. The evidence suggests that museums that have introduced charges have made a wide range of concessions, including open days and free days. Those changes are extremely important, and they follow the recommendations of the Committee to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Wilding Report
    Mrs. Golding: To ask the Minister for the Arts how many responses he has received to the Wilding report on funding of the arts.
    Mr. Luce: I have received almost 6,000 responses, of which approximately 4,500 are preprinted postcards.
    Mrs. Golding: Following the representations from many people, including constituents of mine, will the Minister reject the proposal to merge the West Midlands regional arts association with the East Midlands regional arts association, to form a massive and unwieldy regional body that would attempt to serve more than 9 million people? He will agree that that would be an impossible task.
    Mr. Luce: Of course, I take note of what the hon. Lady says. She probably knows that the chairmen of the East Midlands and West Midlands regional arts associations have been to see me and expressed views similar to hers. I shall take very seriously the views of the chairmen and directors of the regional arts associations, as well as the views of hon. Members. My concern is to achieve an arrangement and a structure for funding of the arts that makes sense in terms not only of efficiency but of coherence of funding and management.

    Yorkshire-Humberside Arts Link
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received regarding the creation of an arts link between Yorkshire and Humberside.
    Mr. Luce: I have received a small number of submissions from individuals and organisations about such a link.
    Mr. Cran: Arising from the Wilding report, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable opposition in my neck of the woods to any suggestion of a merger of Humberside and Lincolnshire Arts with the Eastern arts association and that the majority opinion would seem to be that, if there is to be a merger, it should be with the Yorkshire arts association? Will he take that opinion fully into account when he decides these matters?
    Mr. Luce: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall do so. I have met a delegation from the Yorkshire arts association and am due to meet one from Lincolnshire and. Humberside Arts this week.
    Mr. Heffer: When the Minister has met the delegation from the Yorkshire arts association, will he be prepared to agree with the letter that I sent to him and state that he will see hon. Members—especially Labour Members from Merseyside, but any other hon. Member, too—plus the Merseyside arts committee, to discuss the whole question of the merger between Merseyside Arts and North-West Arts? There is a strong feeling in Merseyside that there should not be a merger because we have a cultural background of our own. We agree with much of the Wilding report, but believe that a merger is not the answer to our problem.
    Mr. Luce: If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member wishes to express his or her views to me, I am prepared to hear them, just as I have heard the views of many other hon. Members. The report has to be seen as a whole, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that he accepts or supports many of its recommendations. The report contains 80 recommendations and the objective is to achieve a system of accountability and management of the arts that will serve the arts as we move towards the turn of the century.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Civil Service Unions
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I meet representatives of the Civil Service trade unions from time to time. A wide variety of matters is raised.
    Mr. Fisher: When the Minister next meets the unions, will he discuss with them the responsibilities and remit of the ombudsman? Will he particularly discuss with them why the ombudsman does not set standards or administer good standards in the public agencies so that the interests of the public are safeguarded? Why can the ombudsman deal only with maladministration when he could be looking into many other important matters on behalf of members of the public?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman's question relates to the ombudsman's terms of reference, which are a matter for wider debate. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the civil servants in the agencies will remain part of the Civil Service and will be under the responsibility of the Secretary of State of the day. There are no plans to change the ombudsman's terms of reference.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: In the light of the report of the Hansard Society, under the chairmanship of Lady Howe, on the deficiency of women in public life that will be published tomorrow, when the Minister next meets the Civil Service will he address himself particularly to that problem? Does he have any women at senior level in his office, for example?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the report which, I believe, will be published this week. Of course, I and my colleagues in Government will take the report seriously. My concern is to increase the number of able women in the Civil Service to as high a
    618
    level as possible, based on merit, ability and fair and open competition. There has been an improvement in the number of women in the service and 60 per cent. of recruits into the service are now women. I am interested in ensuring equality of opportunity.
    Dr. Marek: I welcome the Minister's statement to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that increasing the powers of the ombudsman is a matter for wide debate. Will the Minister put away his dogma about agencies being the stepping stones for privatisation and a means of lowering the salaries of individual groups of civil servants? The public will not, understand the creation of agencies unless the agencies themselves increase public confidence in them and provide a better public service. Will the Minister ensure that the creation of any further agencies is coupled with service standards for the public so that the public have a better service? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman initiate that wider debate on increasing the powers of the ombudsman?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman appears to have muddled several points in his question. I do not know which one he wants me to answer. Whether the powers of the ombudsman need changing is an issue for separate debate.. The policy on agencies is clear, and the Government's first priority is to determine whether any service would be better managed and operated if it were not privatised. If not, the second option is to determine whether it should be made into an agency. That does not preclude the agency from being privatised if, at a later stage, the Government think that that is right. It is because it has been precluded from being privatised that it becomes an agency. Strict performance targets are now set for agencies, which the hon. Gentleman must support as it will lead to an improvement in services.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many retired civil servants earn much more than they did in employment, thanks to the indexation of their pensions? How can my right hon. Friend reassure the House and the country that the Government are receiving impartial advice on the defeat of inflation, given that civil servants have an inbuilt advantage enjoyed by no other employee in this country?
    Mr. Luce: Whatever the terms and conditions of civil servants, I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to suggest that they do not give impartial advice. All the evidence suggests that the vast bulk of civil servants give loyal service to the elected Government of the day.

    Code of Conduct
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the new code of conduct governing the activity of senior civil servants.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the proposed changes to the Civil Service code of conduct.
    Mr. Luce: The relevant section of the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code, which applies to all civil servants, is being revised to take account of the Official Secrets Act 1989.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that that revision has been widely interpreted as a scandalous attempt by

    619
    Hacker to hamstring and hogtie Sir Humphrey? If the conditions that apply to senior civil servants in their duty to the Crown are thought to be deficient, why is it necessary to change them, so as to try to restrict senior civil servants in their duty to the Government as opposed to Her Majesty's estate?
    Mr. Luce: I am not sure that I fully understood the hon. Gentleman. The first duty—it is clearly set out—is that civil servants owe their allegiance to Her Majesty's elected Government of the day. The code is being adjusted and revised because of the passing of the Official Secrets Act 1989. It was necessary to do so because certain categories of civil servants, which were formerly subject to criminal proceedings if they had wrongly divulged information, are now subject to ordinary disciplinary proceedings.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister take into account the reported views of the leadership of the unions representing the Civil Service, which are opposed to the proposed code?
    Will the Minister assure the House that the interests and views of the Civil Service will be properly taken into account and that there will be proper consultations and no hasty decisions? Will he protect the interests of civil servants who found their Box taken over on Friday by a member of Tory Central Office?
    Mr. Luce: The Secretary to the Cabinet—the professional head of the home Civil Service—has agreed to meet Civil Service unions to discuss that matter and a number of other issues. There should be no misunderstanding—there is no basic change in the Armstrong guidelines—over matters of conscience for the civil servant. He can apply to his permanent secretary or to the head of the home Civil Service. These new procedures have been in operation since 1987 and they are not changing.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: I understand from what my right hon. Friend is saying about the Armstrong submission to the Treasury Select Committee that, for all practical purposes, for a civil servant the interest of the Government of the day is the national interest—the interest of the Crown. Hon. Members on both sides of the House find it difficult to say that the interests of the Government of the day are exactly synonymous with the national interest. Surely that is wrong in a free democracy and perhaps we need sunshine laws.
    Mr. Luce: I should like to clarify the position. As the Government see it, the primary duty of a civil servant is to serve Her Majesty's elected Government of the day. That
    620
    has always been the position and it remains the position. There are, rightly, procedures for dealing with a matter of conscience.
    Mr. Conway: On the activities of senior civil servants, does my right hon. Friend think that it is wise or desirable that they should have contact with organisations involved in governmental or parliamentary lobbying? Is not that very poor practice?
    Mr. Luce: I am not certain whether my hon. Friend refers to serving or to retired civil servants. There are clear rules and obligations and civil servants understand the position. Their duty is to their Minister, who is accountable to Parliament.
    Mr. Winnick: Should not any new code for senior civil servants who have official dealings with the police make it clear that where there is deep public disquiet—as now, over the Stalker affair—there should be no resistance to a full public inquiry? Will the right hon. Gentleman pass on that view to the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Luce: As the hon. Gentleman implies, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. If Mr. Stalker wishes to submit a document to the Government, that is up to him.

    Agencies
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what agencies have been established in the last 12 months.
    Mr. Luce: Seven of the 10 executive agencies set up so far were established in the past 12 months. A full list is given in the White Paper "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies" (Cm. 914) which is available in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Martin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the main objective of the agency system is to improve service to the public? Can he give examples of how this is working successfully in practice?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. One of the main purposes is to improve the management of the Civil Service, especially the service function. The aim is also to ensure that, by setting performance targets, services to the public or to the interests that are served are improved. There is already evidence of that in the Vehicle Inspectorate and Companies House. There is evidence that the 10 agencies are carrying out surveys on their consumer interests and taking account of the views of those whom they serve. The purpose of these reforms is to lead to a better service to the public.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you had the good fortune to miss most of Friday's rather boring debate, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and which was enlivened only by the chairman of the Conservative party, who masquerades as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on these occasions, admitting that there had been a mistake in that the authorities allowed a Conservative Central Office official to occupy the Civil Servants' Box. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"I have already said that I apologise to the House if there was a mistake. There should not have been an official from central office in the Civil Servants Box and he has withdrawn from that position."—[/Official Report, 19 January 1990; Vol. 165, c.558.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker was good enough to say that he would initiate inquiries as to whether the Cabinet Office or any other Department had written to the House authorities requesting permission for the Conservative Central Office official to occupy the Civil Servants' Box. I wonder whether the outcome of those inquiries is now known and whether, Mr. Speaker, you can assure the House that there will not be a repetition of Friday's events.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal with the first point of order, please.
Mr. Skinner: It is on the same point.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not care that it is at the moment.
The matter was reported to me and I have carefully studied Hansard. I have received a letter of apology from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who accepts personal responsibility for the fact that a Conservative party official was on the list for the Civil Servants Box and was admitted to that Box. I was asked about security. I am satisfied that there was no breach of security at any stage. As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has now apologised to me, in addition to the apology that he made to the House on Friday, I regard the matter as having been dealt with as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during the debates on the English revenue support grant last week the Opposition were challenged to state their policy. We have had no reply. In the newspapers this morning we have had a sign that the Labour party wants a property tax which might be levied on separate people in the same household. As the Opposition chose not to say on Thursday what is to be their policy, may we have a statement from them so that we may question them on this important subject and find out exactly what they believe?
Mr. Speaker: I have not studied the whole of Friday's debate, but I am surprised that the matter did not arise then.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Would you Mr. Speaker, rule further on the matter? It is unsatisfactory
622
and out of order that a clear, gross abuse has been committed deliberately. Surely it is not enough for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster simply to apologise. The House is entitled to an explanation of how the abuse happened. What happened was part of a pattern of the blurring of lines between the Government and party, which is no accident. We want, and I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, want from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster something more than an apology which is, in effect, an apology for being caught.
Mr. Speaker: I have looked into the matter with great care. I received a full apology from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in which he explained exactly what happened. I accept that apology. The way in which we deal with each other in matters of this kind implies that if an apology has been given we should accept it.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that your job is to maintain the dignity of the House and its central role in our political affairs. I hope that, like me, you consider that it does not add to our dignity when either the Government or the Opposition deliberately refuse to reveal a policy or fact to the House which is known to them. A major debate last week was held in a vacuum because the Labour party refused to reveal its policy on the new local property tax based on the capital value of houses. Just four days later it revealed its policy. How is that consistent with the dignity of the House?
Mr. Speaker: The House will accept that I am not responsible for the policies of either the Government or the Opposition.
Mr. Tony Banks: Are you, Mr. Speaker, not surprised that someone as experienced as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should seek to introduce a member of Central Office into the Civil Servants' Box? After all these years, one would have thought that he would be aware that that clearly was not in order. In his apology, which is easy enough to give, did he explain why the incident arose in the first instance? What sort of security exists behind your Chair? After all, your back needs to be protected. We must make sure that people from Central Office do not creep into the Box.
Mr. Speaker: I am concerned for my back. I have checked and I think that it is safe. I have received a full apology from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I have nothing more to say on the matter.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We accept each other's apologies in this House. Mistakes can happen, even here.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Further to the points of order raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough; Hid Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). You Mr. Speaker, will recall that during that debate the Minister of State was interrupted and challenged when he said that certain Labour authorities misuse their powers to the detriment of the intended community charge. It has been brought to my notice today by the leader of the Conservative minority in Nottingham county council that the Labour authority seeks to increase spending in that county by over £100 million in order to push the

623
community charge beyond what is reasonable in anybody's book. Is there no way in which the House can protect my constituents from such conduct by Labour authorities?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must do that himself. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have nothing more to say on the matter. An apology has been received and I have accepted it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: How is it that Tory Members can get in to speak?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot call the hon. Gentleman every time he attempts to intervene on a point of order. He got in on Friday.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is this a different point of order?
Mr. Skinner: No, it is not.
Mr. Speaker: Then I cannot hear it. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have nothing more to say. I have accepted the apology.
Mr. Tarn Dalyell: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not deeply unsatisfactory that named public figures are, by implication, under a cloud of suspicion, seemingly for having done something wrong? Is it not a pity, therefore, that you may not have received a request from the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General or the Minister for the Civil Service at least to clarify the assertion by Mr. John Stalker that the letters "RA" stand for either Armstrong or Robert Andrew? Should not the House of Commons be told exactly what the Government know about Mr. Stalker's assertions on this delicate matter which is of increasing public anxiety, and rightly so?
Mr. Speaker: I heard what the Minister for the Civil Service said. This is not a matter for the Chair. What the hon. Gentleman said will have been heard by members of the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this about a different matter? I am not taking further points of order on what happened on Friday.
Mr. Skinner: This is a different matter.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that I can trust the hon. Gentleman. He has already said once that his point of order is on the same matter. I shall hear it only if it is on an entirely different matter. As a man of honour, he should do what he says.
Mr. Skinner: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in a previous parliamentary Session you were in the Chair
624
when a statement had to be made about issuing passes for admission to this House. It was followed by a debate. On that occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was at the centre of the matter. There was widespread discussion about people who should not be allowed into the House getting into this place. It has been made clear that people who are allowed into the Box must receive authority—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is letting himself down, and me.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman said that he would raise a different matter and now he is trying to get round it. I am sorry, but I cannot hear him further.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not hearing any more.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not hear points of order about the same matter. I shall take the point only if it is on a different matter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, if Mr. Stalker wants to submit documents under the protection of privilege, he can submit them to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee and if he does not need privilege, he can submit them to the Library where they can be made available to hon. Members? In the circumstances, is it not a little unreasonable of Mr. Stalker to dangle these documents before the British public without being prepared to reveal them in so far as Parliament wants to know what is happening?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for Mr. Stalker. It is not a matter of order in the Chamber.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek to raise a question about passes—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman talking about last Friday's passes?
Mr. Corbyn: I am talking about the point made two years ago in the debate about research assistants. It was made clear that no one could be admitted beyond the public areas of this building without a pass and that a pass had to be approved, in effect, through your office, Mr. Speaker. I am worried that those rules are not being upheld. If they are not, it makes nonsense of the debate we had two years ago. It would be seen to be entirely selective against one person if others, merely at the behest of another Member, were brought not just beyond the public areas of this building, but, in effect, almost into the Chamber.
Mr. Speaker: We do not need to dwell on this. I have looked carefully at the matter, and in my original comments I said that I had considered the security aspect of it. I am satisfied that there was no security risk and that an error was made. I hope that it will not happen again.

Orders of the Day

  Social Security Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.44 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Those in the House who have shared with me much of the experience—that certainly includes the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—will know that there has been a Social Security Bill before the House every year since the Government took office. I make no apology for that and for presenting yet another this year. It would no doubt be rash of me to suggest any parallel with Finance Bills, but it is certainly right, as with the tax system, to ensure that we have the means to keep our social security system properly adapted to changing needs and demands.
  This year's Bill is relatively short, but its scope is wide ranging. It makes a number of important changes across the areas of social security and occupational pensions. As with most Social Security Bills, it has both substantial measures of policy and some necessary points—quite a lot of them—of technicality and detail. The two main themes of the Bill are a number of changes to disability benefits and the provision of greater protection for the members of occupational pension schemes. In addition, the Bill makes a number of more minor changes to various benefits, to national insurance contributions, and a change to the scope of the national insurance fund. It also gives new powers to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy—who is admirably represented this afternoon—to introduce a new scheme of grants towards the cost of insulation measures in low-income households.
  During my speech I shall seek to describe the main provisions more fully, but, of course, the Bill as such is only one element in the continuing development of social security policy as a whole. As the House will be aware, next year we will spend more than £1 billion each week on social security. The total expenditure next year of £56 billion is more than a third higher in real terms than expenditure in 1979 when the Government took office. Hon. Members will understand that the point that I want to stress in the context of the Bill is the increasingly important part of that expenditure that is committed to providing for the needs of disabled people. We are spending more than £8 billion this year alone on the long-term sick and disabled. Since 1979 such expenditure has almost doubled in real terms, largely because of the great increases in the number of beneficiaries.
  Mr. David Winnick rose——
  Mr. Newton: I shall give way in a moment.
  To take just two examples of the increase in coverage since 1979, which has been an important gain for the disabled community, the number receiving help with extra costs through mobility allowance has multiplied six times and the number receiving help through attendance allowance has increased three times. Those are encouraging and welcome trends.
  Mr. Winnick: I had hoped to intervene before the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the disabled, so I hope that he will bear with me.
  The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the increased sums spent on social security, but he should bear in mind the increasing hardship faced by so many pensioners. That is certainly the case in my constituency where pensioners constantly write to me and visit me to discuss their problems. Their pensions have not increased in line with earnings and they have lost a great deal. A married couple, for example, have lost £20 a week because of that. Such pensioners are also facing hardship because of the substantial reduction in housing benefit. One of my constituents receives a total income of £54 a week, but he pays more than £10 a week for his housing as he is no longer allowed a rebate, arising from Government policy. No rebates are allowed on a works pension. Why should pensioners, many of whom fought in the last war and now live in such poverty, constantly be penalised as a result of Government measures?
  Mr. Newton: It might have been more appropriate if the hon. Gentleman had sought to make a speech rather than an intervention. I shall resist the temptation to make another speech in reply.
  From exchanges that the hon. Gentleman and I, and others, have had in the House in recent weeks and months, he well knows that he is generalising wildly when he implies that anything like his remarks could conceivably apply to pensioners as a whole. Their incomes on average—I readily accept that I am using averages—taking account of state social security benefits and the other sources of income have, according to the latest evidence, been rising about twice as fast as the incomes of the population as a whole. I readily accept that those are averages and not everyone has had the advantage of the improved occupational pensions and improved income from savings which have taken place under the present Government. Therefore, it is right to seek to direct additional resources to those who are least well off. That is precisely what the Government have been seeking to do—most recently with the changes made last October which, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, took additional help to about 2·5 million pensioners with the greatest needs either through income support or housing benefit.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Presumably, one of the Bill's general aims is to improve the quality of service given to claimants and would-be claimants. Surely that would be most welcome, particularly in the light of recent Public Accounts Committee's report on poor quality of service given to claimants and would-be claimants. Has not the time come for the provision of an ombudsman to assess the kind of treatment given to claimants? May I remind the Secretary of State that I recently wrote to him about an investigation carried out by the parliamentary ombudsman into the appalling treatment given to a young pregnant constituent of mine? That case demonstrates the need for such a monitoring service.
  Mr. Newton: We have had yet another almost separate speech, but I shall seek to respond in my usual helpful fashion. I readily accept—indeed, it was one factor in our minds when we carried through the major reforms of the system between 1985 and 1988—that some changes were necessary in the system's structure to enable us to deliver

  627
  anything remotely like an acceptable service. Whether we consider the speed or accuracy with which claims are processed or the shorter amount of time that people have to spend hanging about in DSS offices, it is clear that a substantial improvement is taking place. That is not to say that errors are not still made, but there is no good reason for departing from the current arrangements by which—as the hon. Gentleman implied—the ordinary ombudsman, if I may call him that, on the request of a Member, is perfectly at liberty to investigate maladministration by the DSS in respect of the payment of benefits, in the same way as in any other sector.
  Dr. Godman: He is not.
  Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman says that the ombudsman is not, he must be quarrelling about the distinction between a policy matter and a matter of administration. We could get into a potentially endless argument about that. It would not be sensible to do so, as the Bill has relatively little to do with that. I shall seek to ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a reply to his letter as soon as possible. However, we shall not gain too much by prolonging the argument now.
  I compliment the hon. Gentleman on the actions of people, some of whom are possibly his constituents. There has been a dramatic improvement in the service provided to social security claimants in some parts of north London as a result of the removal of the processing of benefits from offices in north London to the new, central office in Glasgow which is performing extremely well. I visited it and was most impressed. I may say, on behalf of some social security claimants in England, that we are grateful for the effective efforts of some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Scotland who have helped us bring about the improvements that he wants.
  My statement in the House on 25 October on the annual uprating of social security benefits gave a further clear illustration of our continuing desire to give real extra help to those disabled people in greatest need. The range of measures for long-term sick and disabled people that I announced at that time will increase spending by some £100 million a year and help about 500,000 disabled people and carers. Those changes include the extension of attendance allowance to disabled babies, the extension of mobility allowance to people who are both deaf and blind and a new carers' premium in income support and housing benefit. These measures have been widely welcomed, and they show also how the reformed system of income-related benefits can be used to focus additional help quickly and effectively on particular groups.
  These measures, most of which will be in place by April, and all by October, are the first stage of a wide-ranging programme of action that seeks to improve the balance and structure of the benefits provided for disabled people. That programme was set out in the paper "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People", which my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the disabled and I laid before the House on 10 January.
  The measures in the Bill represent the second stage in our programme. They abolish the attendance allowance six-month qualifying period in respect of terminally ill people. They introduce an age-related addition to severe disablement allowance. They end reduced earnings
  628
  allowance for new cases and they provide for the end of the accrual of further entitlements to the additional pension element of invalidity benefit.
  The third phase of the programme, which, for purely practical reasons, will have to come in a later Bill, is to bring in two new benefits that will substantially improve the help given to disabled people—the new disability allowance and the new disability employment credit. The first will replace the existing attendance allowance and mobility allowance schemes for people under 65 and will extend help to less severely disabled people. The second will make it easier for disabled people to take up and stay in work. The only reason why we are not legislating in this Bill is because such significant changes in the benefit structure need a great deal of detailed work for which there has not yet been time. In pressing ahead with it, as we most certainly shall, we want to take account—this is welcomed on both sides of the House—of the views of interested organisations and individuals.
  Thus, the four measures in the Bill are part of a wider strategy to improve the coverage of help with the extra costs of disability, to improve the balance and structure of benefits for disabled people who are unable to work, and in particular to do more for those disabled from birth or early in life, and to improve the help given to those disabled people who can and want to work.
  Mr. Max Madden: Will the Secretary of State confirm that official figures show that there are about 6·5 million disabled people in this country? Will he also agree that the various measures that he has announced are, although welcome, extremely modest, and that on the highest estimate only 1 million disabled people, including carers will benefit from them?
  Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wholly dishonest if he or anyone else pretended that the measures that he has announced represent a dramatic improvement in the standard of living for all the 6·5 million disabled people whose interests are at the heart of this debate?
  Mr. Newton: Had I attempted to suggest in any way that these measures would benefit 6 million or more people in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described, I should have misled people. But, as I am sure he realises, the figures that he is talking about are derived from the substantial surveys set in hand by the Government and conducted over two or three years by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which deliberately set a very low threshold—some organisations for the disabled think that it was too low—for the assessment of disablement. The surveys therefore covered large numbers of people who, it found, had little in the way of additional costs; and they included some disabled people who are in perfectly ordinary work and are quite as capable of taking part in everyday life as those who are not disabled.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I have not sought to oversell the substantial improvements that I have proposed. Equally, I hope that he will not seek to exaggerate the extent of the problem. The Government's proposals that I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State brought forward on 10 January seek sensibly to address some of the main additional needs clearly revealed by the OPCS surveys.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
  Mr. Newton: I shall give way, but I am anxious not to turn this into a series of separate speeches.
  Mrs. Ewing: The Secretary of State will recall that when the OPCS survey was commissioned the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee stated that this was an opportunity to revise the system with great precision to ensure that the disabled received the income that they required. Is he convinced that his proposals will reflect that statement? Disabled groups are very concerned that they do not.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady refers to the report published by the Social Security Advisory Committee in 1988 in advance of the committee seeing the main results of the OPCS surveys. That report made suggestions on which we have drawn extensively in developing the proposals that the Minister of State and I put before the House 12 days ago. I would not attempt to speak for the SSAC or to predict the comments that it will no doubt wish to make when it has had a chance to study the paper. I hope that it will recognise that we have drawn constructively on the suggestions that it put forward.
  In particular, we have taken considerable account of the SSAC's view that perhaps the top priority, certainly one of the main priorities for additional help, is the group of people for whom the system does least at the moment. That is the group consisting of people who were disabled from birth or disabled very early in life and who have never had the opportunity to build up contributory benefits entitlement or occupational pensions or to make savings on which they can draw when difficulty occurs. That is undoubtedly the group for whom we do least at the moment and our proposals seek to do significantly more for them.
  I now want to speak in detail about the clauses in the Bill. The House will recall that last summer we made a firm commitment to tackle the problems faced by terminally ill people who satisfy the eligibility criteria for attendance allowance, but who die before the six-month qualifying period is complete. Clause 1 honours that commitment and gives extra help for terminally ill people, and thus to their families and their carers. It does not just mean extra payments for attendance allowance of what will be from April £37·55 per week. It means extra payments of invalid care allowance and of income support or housing benefit via the disability premiums and the new carers' premium. The total cost is some £35 million a year. That proposal at least is welcomed by all hon. Members.
  Clause 2 introduces an age-related addition to severe disablement allowance. I touched on that in reply to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). That, of course, is a non-contributory benefit which is available to the long-term sick who have not paid the required national insurance contributions to qualify for invalidity benefit. That, of course, includes people who have never been able to work at all. Again I underline what I said to the hon. Lady. This group of people is one of our major priorities for additional help.
  The measure will give people who become incapable of work before the age of 40 an extra £10 per week in benefit from next December. There will be a lower addition for those who become disabled later in life. That is exactly parallel to the current contributory invalidity addition that goes with invalidity benefit itself. The net additional cost
  630
  is expected to be about £16 million in 1990–91 and about £50 million a year thereafter. The gross additional cost is much larger.
  The third measure relates to the industrial injuries scheme which presently provides for what is called a reduced earnings allowance for loss of earnings by people whose disabilities are caused by industrial accidents or diseases. The majority of recipients of that allowance who are not working are, however, receiving the normal long-term national insurance benefit—invalidity benefit—for those who are unable to earn as a result of sickness or disability. Clause 3 will remove this duplication by ending new—I underline "new"—entitlements to reduced earnings allowance after the autumn. Existing beneficiaries—this is why I emphasise "new"—are not affected by the change. Their entitlements, if continuous, will be preserved after the change, and uprated as at present.
  Although the measure will, in due course, reduce expenditure below what it would otherwise have been, the effect will build up rather more slowly than the increases in benefit expenditure to which I referred a few moments ago. We expect the reduction to be about £1 million in 1990–91, £15 million in 1991–92 and about £40 million in 1992–93.
  Ms. Clare Short: Was not that benefit originally intended for people injured at work who could continue to work but could not achieve the same level of income as they enjoyed before their accident? The benefit was intended to make up for someone's injury and to enable him or her to work for lower wages but still have a reasonable life. That opportunity for people who have been injured at work is now to be wiped out by the Government's actions.
  Mr. Newton: We are seeking to direct attention to the general problem on which the hon. Lady touched with the new disability employment credit. I accept that the origin of the present arrangement, known until recently as the special hardship allowance—the name has now been changed—may be as the hon. Lady describes it, but it is also true that the majority of those out of work who receive the REA also receive the ordinary benefit that replaces earnings for those who are unable to work. There is therefore a degree of duplication which can be sensibly tackled in the context of our proposals.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The special hardship allowance is paid to many people in the mining industry who suffer from pneumoconiosis, bronchitis and emphysema who have had to leave highly remunerative face work and move to light occupations because of their disease. Those people depend heavily on the special hardship allowance. Is the Secretary of State saying now that those who continue to work at reduced wages are to lose the benefit? If so, the proposal needs to be looked at again. Moreover, because the earning capacity of people who suffer from such diseases is reduced, their saving capacity is also reduced and they can no longer save as much for their retirement. The continuation of the special hardship allowance and REA has compensated for that to a certain extent. The Secretary of State will be doing a disservice to a lot of good, honest people by making this change.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman makes a point on behalf of his constituents. I have emphasised the principal reason why the Government have felt it right to introduce

  631
  the proposal. I should also remind the hon. Gentleman that, regardless of the existence of the reduced earnings allowance, those who suffer from certain prescribed diseases and experience industrial injury—according to the assessed percentage effect of their disablement—already receive substantial preferences, under the industrial injury scheme, over those injured domestically or in the course of their daily lives. In considering these matters, we have sought to consider the balance of provision among disabled people generally—I have never made a secret of that—and in that context, we think that the proposal is reasonable.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Let me pursue the matter a little further. The compensation that is paid is not compensation for reduced earnings. The special hardship allowance and the reduced earnings allowance deal with that. Compensation is paid for the accident or the contracting of the disease if there has been negligence and according to the extent of disablement or disfigurement. That is an entirely different matter. If compensation were intended to make up for loss of earnings—as the Secretary of State implies—compensation payments would have to be considerably higher.
  Mr. Newton: At least part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks may relate to proposals in another part of the Bill, concerning the balance between benefits paid and the amount of compensation awarded by the courts in an action concerning industrial injury that is judged to be the result of negligence by the employer. That separate matter is one on which my right hon. Friend will comment when he concludes the debate.
  The last of the four measures relating to long-term sickness and disability benefits concerns the additional pension element paid with the main invalidity benefit. That benefit has three components. They are a basic pension with increases for dependants, the invalidity allowance which I touched on once or twice earlier, in the context of explaining how we extend it to the severe disablement allowance, and an earnings-related additional pension.
  The Bill's provisions make a change affecting only the last of those three elements. Additional pension first became payable with invalidity benefit in 1979. The average payment currently is £9, incurring a cost of about £450 million a year. However, that commitment is growing rapidly and we estimate that by 1998, the average payment will be £21 at a cost of about £1·6 billion, which will continue to grow thereafter.
  As I pointed out in my statement on 10 January, a continuing commitment on that scale would be likely not only to inhibit the very welcome growth of occupational sick pay schemes—now thought to cover more than half the population—but widen the gap still further between those who are able to work and those who are not. Such a commitment would take more and more social security resources to those who already enjoy good entitlements, do nothing for people never able to work or whose working life is cut short early, and make it increasingly difficult for any responsible Government to find resources to help disabled people with the greatest needs, as I have done—this relates to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady wood (Ms. Short) —with the measure in clause 2 to pay an age-related addition with severe disablement allowance.
  632
  We want to ensure that we can, both now and in the future, place proper emphasis on the needs of people who most need extra help. Clause 4 provides that no new—and I emphasise again "new"—entitlement to additional pension with invalidity benefit will arise after the end of the 1990–91 tax year. From April 1991, all entitlement to additional pension will be assessed on earnings between 1978–79 and 1990–91. All existing rights up to that time will be preserved. Earnings will continue to be revalued, and 1 assure the House that the clause does not in any way restrict rights already earned or earned up to that time.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: What is the Government's best estimate of the total cumulative saving from the abolition of the additional pension over future years? Why is it that although a benefit of substantial cost to the state is to be abolished, there is no equivalent reduction in national insurance payments?
  Mr. Newton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question will become clear when I come to the national insurance fund. I have not sought to disguise any figures, and I shall not do so in respect of the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
  As with the reduced earnings allowance, the change to additional pension will reduce expenditure—but quite slowly, building up from £5 million in 1992–93 to about £100 million by the middle of the decade and about £350 million by the end of it. It is important for the House to recognise that, despite that reduction, total expenditure on such additional pensions with invalidity benefit will continue to grow rapidly, from £450 million now to more than £1·3 billion by the turn of the century.
  Incidentally, because invalidity allowance—the age-related addition to invalidity benefit which remains unchanged—is reduced by any entitlement to additional pension, invalidity allowance will for many people replace to some extent entitlement to additional pension.
  The complete package of measures, including the two new benefits on which we are working, will give extra help—this picks up the figure mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)—to an estimated 850,000 people. The total net effect by 1993–94, even allowing for the measures I have just commented on to restrain future growth, will be to add some £300 million to the total costs of the benefits we pay to the disabled and their carers. That is over and above the money we will pay on account of inflation or any increased demand.
  Because of the relatively slow build-up of the effect of what we propose on additional pensions, the result of the package as a whole is to make expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled higher than it would otherwise have been in every remaining year of this century.
  Mr. Meacher: I have listened extremely carefully, but the Secretary of State has not answered my question. Will he now tell us what the total cumulative saving to the Government is, over future years, for the abolition of the additional pension?
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Member, quite reasonably, asked a long series of parliamentary questions immediately after my statement about disability benefits. I have the answers here. The hon. Gentleman also has the answers. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State went to some trouble to ensure that the hon. Gentleman had the answers before this debate.

  633
  I have stated the effects on expected expenditure on additional pension between now and the end of the century. The hon. Gentleman knows from answers that he has been given—it was implied in my earlier remarks—that those effects continue into the next century. The reduction of expenditure on additional pension with invalidity benefit by 2015—some far distant time by which many things will have changed—compared with what would otherwise have taken place if the current commitments for the future had remained unchanged, will be in excess of £1 billion.
  I shall give the hon. Gentleman the credit of suggesting that he has not sufficiently considered what I said about the consequences of continuing to make commitments—we had some of the same argument on what I shall call main SERPS—about what a generation of taxpayers and contributors will be prepared to do in 2015. Their form may or may not be honoured. At that time, demographic trends may be at their worst.
  It is not certain that a future generation will be able to honour such commitments. As long as they remain unchanged and we continue to make long-term promises about what future generations of taxpayers and contributors will be asked to do, it is increasingly difficult to add additional commitments to current expenditure—as I have tried to do to help disabled people today—because those commitments would be piled on top of long-term commitments.
  It would be difficult—I would say impossible—for any responsible Government to make the short and medium-term improvements I am making if we had not taken action to restrain the scale of the uncertain promises that are being made for the future. I make no apologies to the House for that. It is the responsible position for a Government to adopt when considering these matters.
  Mr. Meacher: The practicality of SERPS is at the heart of the debate. It is, for the Opposition, a point of principle that SERPS offered far and away the best pension provision for this country—provision that the present Government have destructively undermined.
  How does the Secretary of State justify his argument that SERPS was not a practical scheme, given that this country spends about 7·5 per cent, of its national income on state pensions, while in the free-market United States the figure is 8 per cent, and in Germany and France it is as high as 14 per cent? How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly say that SERPS was wildly extravagant or that it was not viable, which it clearly was?
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is trying to rerun some rather old arguments dating back to social security measures of 1985 and 1986.1 accept that looking ahead 40 or 50 years involves a huge range of uncertainties, not least economic uncertainties; those measures, however, set out clearly the reasons—including demographic trends—for doubting whether it was sensible to continue to make commitments affecting future taxpayers and contributors on the scale represented by SERPS.
  I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's comparisons with the position in other European countries take us very far. At present, those countries do not match our structure of support for retired people, which has for a long time included substantial provision for occupational pensions.
  634
  We need to think in terms of total provision for those in retirement, and in that context the hon. Gentleman's comparisons are misleading.
  Sir Peter Hordern: The comparisons offered by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) are not valid, because provision for occupational pensions is just as extensive in those countries as it is—increasingly—here. What does my right hon. Friend think of the proposal that the retirement pension—for which the Government are responsible—should be increased in line with either prices or earnings, whichever is the greater? What would have been the cost of implementing that policy over the past 10 years?
  Mr. Newton: The cost would have been substantial. The last Labour Government, who implemented such a policy, proved incapable of sustaining it. In the middle of their time in office, they had to fiddle about with the uprating mechanism, which saved some £1 billion at current prices—at pensioners' expense—because they found that they could not live with the consequences of the formula that they had promoted so strongly.
  What is more, there is no doubt that an attempt to pursue such a policy would have serious inflationary consequences, thus damaging one of the key factors in the improvement of recent years in pensioners' living standards—the increase in the real return on their savings. As I have told the House numerous times, the available information suggests that—almost unbelievably—pensioners' income from savings actually fell under the last Labour Government. Under the present Government that income has risen sharply, and has contributed significantly to the improvement in their living standards.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State confirm that under the last Labour Government the real value of the old-age pension rose by 20 per cent., while under the present Government it has risen by less than 3 per cent? The poorest pensioners had a much better deal under Labour.
  Mr. Newton: Pensioners as a whole have done significantly better—
  Mr. Paul Flynn: On average.
  Mr. Newton: All right, on average. We are now rerunning exchanges that have taken place on numerous occasions in recent weeks. It can be said, as a broad generalisation—although, as I have always accepted, it is not true of every individual case—that pensioners have done significantly better as a result of various features of what has happened under the present Government, including the improvement in savings income, the greater value of occupational pensions which has resulted from reduced inflation and our measures to price-protect faithfully the basic retirement pension.
  I have acknowledged clearly on many occasions—indeed, it is reflected in Government policy—that not all pensioners have benefited to the same extent and, in particular, that older pensioners who tend to have less savings because they retired at a time when there was less prosperity or because they have less entitlement to occupation pensions, have not benefited from those general trends as others have done. But, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) argued last week in a newspaper article, by which I was quite struck, the logic of

  635
  that is not that we should go down the path of the wholesale, massive increases that the hon. Member for Oldham, West is advocating, with their inflationary consequences, but that we should focus help on the less-well-off pensioners, as the present Government have been seeking to do.
  Mr. Frank Field: Perhaps I will be able later to develop the ideas that I expressed in that newspaper article—[Interruption.] No I am not making a speech: I am making an intervention, and if hon. Members behind the Minister keep interrupting, it will take longer.
  The Secretary of State's point is that, under this Government's price protection, the real value of the old-age pension has risen by 3 per cent., whereas in a much shorter period, under a Labour Government, it rose by 20 per cent. When the Minister talks about pensioners without savings or occupational pensions perhaps he should remind the House that those people represent about 45 per cent, of all pensioners.
  Mr. Newton: The essential point, on which I hope that there will be some community of view between the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in these matters, and myself, is that the average total net income of pensioners rose by 3 per cent, under the last Government, whereas it has risen by 23 per cent, under the present Government. Part of the reason for that is that the approach that the Labour Government adopted to public expenditure as a whole, including social security expenditure, generated rates of inflation that decimated large parts of the income of pensioners as a whole.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that nearly three quarters of single women pensioners do not have access to occupational pension schemes and that often they do not have access to savings? Does he not agree that over the past 10 years, under this Government, the breaking of the link between the state old-age pension and average earnings has made those people £13·10 a week worse off than they would have been had the link been maintained in 1980? Of course it was callously broken by the Government of which the Minister is a member.
  Mr. Newton: No, I do not accept that. Those people, too, would have suffered, perhaps even more harshly, from maintenance of the sort of inflation—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ladywood ought to remember that even the present rate of inflation, which the Government have indicated clearly is higher than they would wish, is barely more than half the average rate of inflation that we experienced in the latter part of the 1970s.
  Ms. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Newton: My normal instinct is to give way, and I will think about giving way to the hon. Lady after I have had an opportunity to complete my reply to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I think that that would be better than allowing intervention to pile upon intervention.
  I have already made tbe first main point that I wanted to make to the hon. Gentleman. The other point, of course—and here I am not endorsing his figure of three quarters, or whatever it was—is that many single women pensioners, especially those who might be described as always having been single, rather than widows who may be entitled to an
  636
  occupational pension arising from their husband's entitlement, may well be less likely to have the sort of extra provision from which so many pensioners have benefited. Consequently, of course, there will be a disproportionate number of such people among those helped by the measures that we have taken, most recently last October, to steer additional support to the over-75s and the more disabled pensioners by way of increases in income support and consequential increases in housing benefit.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Newton: Yes, I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but so that I do not cause any unnecessary aggravation, perhaps I should give way first to the hon. Member for Ladywood.
  Ms. Short: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I should like to put two points to him. The first, which he has completely ignored, is that if we sustain our rate of economic growth at just over 2·5 per cent., our national income will double every 20 years. Therefore, when the Secretary of State says that we cannot afford in the future better pensions or better payments to people with disabilities, he is saying that, relatively, those people will get worse and worse off while our income doubles every 20 years. That first point is extremely important, because it wipes away many of the points that the Secretary of State made earlier about what we can afford for pensioners and for people with disabilities.
  My second point relates to inflation. The Government constantly tell fibs about the old economic statistics. They inherited a rate of inflation of about 8 per cent, at a time when inflation across the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was massively higher than it is now. The Government then doubled that rate by doubling the rate of VAT. They took inflation up and squeezed the economy, causing enormous suffering. They then took inflation down until, with the silly Lawson boom, inflation is now up again. The Government's record on inflation is not a fine one. We now have a problem with inflation although we have had the benefit of North sea oil. The Government should not boast about that.
  Mr. Newton: I shall make only two points in response to the hon. Lady. First, she will have to do a great deal more detailed work before she can show that the previous Government's record on inflation was better than that of the present Government, which is to fly in the face of all reality.
  Secondly, if—as I should certainly expect in view of the expected continuation of the present Government in office—we were to maintain our success in generating more rapid economic growth than we have over recent years, that would make a whole lot of things easier. However, what is equally true is that if the dismal record of the last Labour Government had been maintained, it would be extremely difficult to maintain the commitments that we have already made, let alone those that the hon. Member for Oldham, West wishes to pile on top.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the last few interventions by Opposition Members display the extreme paternalism and old-fashioned attitudes of the Opposition? After all, most women now enter the professions and earn occupational pensions. On top of that, our introduction of portable

  637
  pensions means that pensioners no longer have to be dependent on the state. Do the Opposition welcome these moves or do they want to keep us all as permanent beggars?
  Mr. Newton: I am not quite sure whether the Opposition welcome the moves or not—perhaps the hon. Member for Oldham, West will enlighten us on that when he speaks. However, I certainly welcome the trends to which my hon. Friend has referred, but at the same time I recognise the point that the hon. Member for Islington, North made. Quite a lot of women who are already retired—and especially older women—have not had the advantage of those trends and we are rightly seeking to concentrate on them some of the additional help that we can give.
  In a way, these exchanges lead me naturally into the second main theme of the Bill, which is occupational pensions. We are building on the platform that we have established in recent years with changes that have encouraged people to make proper financial planning for their retirement, and have given them greater choice in deciding what is best for them in their particular circumstances. Individuals have responded—the success of personal pensions is just one indicator of that. In my view at least—I recognise that this is a matter of some controversy to the hon. Member for Oldham, West who will no doubt return to this point when he speaks—a more stable and sustainable pensions structure has been created, in which a larger part of provision over and above the basic state retirement pension will be firmly founded on people's own savings while in work, not on Governments today making commitments that the taxpayers and contributors in 30 or 40 years' time may or may not be able to fulfil.
  The Bill covers a number of miscellaneous technical amendments to existing occupational and personal pensions legislation. It also provides for a number of significant measures designed to give greater protection to the members of schemes. I announced last November that we would be taking specific legislative action to respond to the recommendations of the Occupational Pensions Board in its report "Protecting Pensions". This report followed a request to the board from my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) to look at a number of issues relating to the balance of interests of employers and scheme members, and the involvement of schemes in company mergers and takeovers. I should like to pay tribute to the board for its work. The Government have accepted the vast majority of its recommendations, and our proposals have been widely welcomed. Their general thrust is to improve the benefit security, the information and the help available to scheme members.
  For some pension scheme members it has come as a painful awakening in recent years that the takeover or merger of their company has resulted in a sharp reduction in the value of the pension they expected to receive. Not only did they enjoy the full value and security of pension rights built up over a number of years; they also had expectations of discretionary increases off top. Instead they can end up with a pension based on the lower salary that they had when their original scheme was wound up. Only part of that is protected by revaluation each year. That, as I have made clear, is no longer acceptable. We are,
  638
  therefore, proposing that revaluation should be applied to the whole of the preserved pension rights of future early leavers, not just that fraction accumulating after 1985. That will help not only people affected by takeovers and mergers, but those who change jobs. The preserved pensions of all members who become early leavers after the appointed day will be covered. The value of the pension rights above the guaranteed minimum pension level will be revalued until they come into payment in line with price increases, or by 5 per cent, per annum, if that is less.
  In addition, we are introducing a further obligation to revalue benefits when a scheme is wound up. Sufficient resources will have to be provided to revalue all present and future pensions in payment in line with price increases up to a maximum of 5 per cent, a year. Any deficiency in the scheme assets necessary to meet those liabilities are to count as a debt on the employer. It has been suggested by some organisations representing employers and pension funds that that could be an undue burden on some employers and schemes. I am, of course, willing on this as on other matters to listen to specific problems that are raised, but I believe that the Government's proposals are a sensible and measured step forward which will greatly improve protection for ordinary scheme members. We are also providing for the appointment of an independent trustee in certain circumstances. That can be only beneficial in ensuring that the interests of both employers and members are taken into account.
  The Bill also includes measures to restrict self-investment where pension funds own any assets in companies to which they relate. We think that it is important to spread risks and equally important to remember that the prime purpose of those pension schemes is to provide a good retirement income, not to improve the company's financial position. If a pension fund invests in the company to which it relates, failure of the company leads to double jeopardy, both for employees' job prospects and for their pensions at the same time. In general, our antipathy to that being allowed to happen is widely accepted. Concern has been expressed about the position of small self-administered pension schemes. Those are schemes with fewer than 12 members, often directors of a small family concern which, since their institution, have been accustomed to the opportunities, within Inland Revenue rules, for a certain degree of investment in the related company. It was forcefully argued to me that, in those cases where the shareholding directors and trustees make poor investment decisions, the double risk is for their own jobs and pension prospects rather than those of other people, and that different considerations therefore applied. As I made clear to the House in an answer shortly before Christmas, I have accepted the validity of that argument, and we therefore intend that, where small self-administered schemes consist only of controlling directors, they should be excluded from the proposed self-investment restrictions.
  Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill are concerned with providing a better service for the individual members of schemes. I believe that the introduction of a pensions ombudsman is a major step forward. Although assistance is already available from various sources such as the occupational pensions advisory service, there is a clear need for a mechanism to provide a straightforward method of redress for consumers' problems. Individuals will have free access to the ombudsman and schemes will have to abide by the decisions given. A tracing registry should also assist many

  639
  people to track down where past pension rights may be held. On both those issues we are continuing to talk to the pensions industry about how to provide the best possible service to consumers.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Newton: I am conscious of the fact that I have been speaking for the better part of an hour and that I am in danger of trenching unduly into the time available to other Members. [Interruption.] I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Tim Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
  "The public expenditure effects of Clauses 7 and 8 are still under consideration."
  Will my right hon. Friend explain how the ombudsman and the register will be funded?
  Mr. Newton: To a significant extent, apart from details of the arrangements, that issue is under consideration. We hope that the industry will join us in providing this important underpinning for people's confidence in the industry. We are having discussions on that matter.
  When I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) that I wanted to make progress, I thought that I heard some mutterings among the Opposition to the effect that they would all have retired by the time I finished my speech. It is right therefore to observe that the principal cause of the length of my speech has been my willingness to give way to Opposition interventions. On the one occasion when I sought to make progress by not giving way, the hon. Member for Ladywood, no less, expressed some concern at the idea that I was not prepared to offer her the same opportunity that I had offered others.
  Clauses 11 and 12 concern the administration of the national insurance fund and arrangements for the collection of contributions. As the House will know, the Government Actuary has recently produced his annual report on the state of the fund. It shows that the fund will remain well above his minimum recommended level during the next financial year, but that the balance will fall. That reduction in the fund's surplus is the result of a number of factors, including most notably the major reduction in national insurance contributions worth £3 a week to the great majority of contributors, which took place in October last year at an annual cost of between £2 billion and £3 billion, and the success of our personal pension initiative, since, of course, such pensions attract contracted-out rebates in the same way as occupational pension arrangements generally, under the arrangements introduced by the previous Government.
  Personal pensions have proved very popular. We introduced them at a time when the number of people in occupational schemes had remained virtually static for about 20 years. Many people who wanted to make additional provision for their retirement had no ready means of doing so. Now over 3·5 million have opted for the personal schemes. We welcome that unreservedly. The change has enhanced the choice available to individuals in a way they have manifestly welcomed and helped significantly towards the wider objective of getting people to think further ahead about provision for retirement than has traditionally been the case.
  640
  Although this means more income forgone by the national insurance fund in the short term, it reduces the burden on the state earnings-related pension scheme in the longer term. As I have said, despite the reduction in contributions, which was generally welcomed, and the very encouraging response to personal pensions, there is no immediate problem. In the present year, the expected balance in the fund, at 34 per cent., is over twice the actuary's recommended minimum. Next year, at 25 per cent., it will still be far in excess of the minimum.
  We need, however, to ensure that the balance stays healthy in the years further ahead, and clause 11 does so in a way which could well be argued to be sensible in any event, by simply removing from the fund three benefits that are not related to national insurance contributions and are, therefore, more properly paid out of general taxation.
  The benefits in question are industrial injuries benefits, statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay. As the House is well aware, entitlement to national insurance benefits depends on an individual's contribution record, but that is not the case with these benefits. To receive industrial injuries benefit, the only requirement is that the claimant has been in employment. Statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay depend on an earnings test and not on the need to satisfy particular contribution conditions; thus, for instance, married women and widows who have actually opted not to pay contributions in full are nevertheless entitled to receive SSP or SMP. It is, therefore, more appropriate for these benefits and their administrative costs to be met from general taxation rather than from the contributions of those paying for the national insurance system. The national insurance fund, in our view, should concentrate on the proper contributory benefits, and clause 11 provides for that to be done.
  I should make it quite clear to the House that this change does not in any way alter the present or future benefit entitlement of any individual. It will not affect the way these benefits are administered by the Department. It will not affect the current arrangements whereby employers recoup the cost of statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay from their national insurance contribution payments. We will simply ensure that the national insurance fund will be reimbursed from general taxation.
  Mr. John Battle: How much will the right hon. Gentleman's Department lose in income as a result of the 2 per cent, bribe for people to move out of the SERPS into private pension schemes?
  Mr. Newton: The amount paid out in the current year for commitments in the previous year is £500 million. It is a small part of the total change that is occurring in the balace of the national insurance fund. With respect to personal pensions, the overwhelming bulk is not the incentive to which the hon. Gentleman referred but contracted-out rebates, which have been part and parcel of the system since they were introduced by the Labour Government in the late 1970s. Because of the growth of personal and occupational provision, contracted-out rebates are a longer-term addition to the income forgone by the fund, rather than the incentive to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which, in any case, is due to come to an end.

  641
  I am not trying to dismiss the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), but it should be understood that the incentive is a relatively small part of the change. This should be put in the context of a fund that has an income and outflow of roughly £30 billion a year.
  The one significant effect of the clause will be on the finances of the national insurance fund. In the first full year, the fund will gain overall by about £1·9 billion—although, of course, the overall financing of benefits will be unaffected. We see this as a straightforward and sensible rationalisation. It also represents prudent housekeeping for the fund.
  Clause 12 concerns the arrangements for national insurance contributions. It introduces provisions which mirror the Inland Revenue legislation contained in the last two Finance Acts to streamline tax collection by encouraging prompt payment. It provides for a system of penalties for late national insurance contribution returns and for interest charges on late paid contributions. I hasten to assure the House that the arrangement is even handed: the Bill also provides that the Secretary of State should pay interest to employers who are owed refunds on their contributions.
  The last main point on which I need to touch is clause 10, which gives powers to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to introduce a new scheme of grants towards the cost of insulation measures in low-income households. The new scheme of grants will build on the success of the community insulation projects and the current home insulation scheme. It will, however, go beyond what they have achieved. As the House will be aware, the community insulation projects began in 1982 as part of the community programme. Over 700,000 low-income households have benefited from that scheme. However, with so many fewer unemployed people—which hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome—we can no longer rely on a training programme for the unemployed to deliver this valuable national service. The projects need now to be developed into fully fledged local business.
  The clause does no more than give an enabling power to my right hon. Friend to make regulations governing the new scheme. These regulations will set the detailed framework for the new arrangements.
  Ms. Short: No new money.
  Mr. Newton: If the hon. Lady is muttering, "No money." I draw her attention to the financial part of the explanatory and financial memorandum which shows that the expenditure is expected to be about £12 million in 1990–91.
  I know that my right hon. Friend wishes to consult widely before those regulations are laid and will be issuing a consultative document on the scheme very shortly. He hopes to do that—I am sure that hon. Members agree that that is proper—before the clause is discussed in Committee, in order to assist the discussion which will, no doubt, take place there and which, from the sound of it, the hon. Member for Ladywood will seek to illuminate.
  I shall not seek to take the time of the House by going at length into the more minor and technical provisions of the Bill, although, of course, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will seek to respond to any points that are
  642
  raised when he speaks at the end of the debate. However, I shall draw attention to one provision, tucked away in paragraph 16 of schedule 5, which, although modest, will, I believe, be warmly welcomed. This provision will extend statutory maternity pay to service women on the same basis as for other women.
  The Bill is designed mainly to carry forward the process that we have embarked on to give a better balance to the system of disability benefits. It also makes important and valuable changes to the operation of occupational pension schemes and makes a sensible rationalisation in the scope of the national insurance fund. It will further improve both our social security system and the strength of wider provision for retirement, and I commend it to the House.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: After listening to what must be a speech of record length from the Secretary of State, I refer to the long title of the Bill. It begins:
  "The Bill makes a range of amendments to the law relating to social security".
  After such a marathon speech, one might have expected that either the Bill or the Secretary of State would have dealt with some of the key outstanding priorities in social security. I submit to the House that in at least four areas urgent action is needed now. On all of them there is a deafening silence in the Bill and they were scarcely mentioned by the Secretary of State. Nothing has been said about the almost 2 million pensioners living on or below the poverty line who have increasingly fallen further behind during the past 11 years. Nothing has been said about the social fund fiasco, the young homeless scandal or the child benefit freeze. Therefore, my first point is simply that the Bill signally fails to tackle the major issues that urgently need attention.
  What does the Bill deal with? In his usual amicable way, the Secretary of State made a modest presentation of his proposals. He has a lot to be modest about. As he said at some length towards the end of his speech, the main purpose of the Bill is to give more security to members of occupational pension schemes. The other side of the coin, about which he ostentatiously said nothing, is that Government policy takes away security from members of SERPS, which, I submit, is a much better scheme. Even in respect of occupational schemes, the proposals will do little or nothing to stop employees being cheated of their pension rights.
  Let us take as an example the proposal on early leavers, which is central to the Bill. At present only pension rights built up after 1985 are revalued in line with prices, up to a limit of 5 per cent. The Government now propose that all preserved pension rights will be uprated by the same formula—only up to 5 per cent. That is an improvement as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. The average rate of inflation over the recent historic period has been, not 5 per cent., but 10·2 per cent. It is currently 7·7 per cent. In other words, the Government have offered to uprate the pension rights of occupational scheme members at a mere half of the historic rate of inflation. As pensions are nothing more than deferred pay—at least that is the Opposition's view—that is like saying to one's employees, "I am going to give you a pay increase this year of 3·8 per cent—half the current rate of inflation." That would not

  643
  go down well with the ambulance men, with the Ford workers or with Lord King who gave himself a pay rise last year of 11·6 per cent.
  Mr. Madden: Or with us.
  Mr. Meacher: I am coming to us. That would not go down well with hon. Members, including Tory Members who cheered the Secretary of State's announcement as if it was a bonanza for the pensioned classes. They would not accept it for a moment, not even for one year, let alone for the 20, 30 or 40 years proposed in the Bill. My point is not simply a debating point but an important issue of principle. Why should employees, who are compelled by law to contribute from their gross incomes to pension schemes, be forced meekly to watch that part of their earned income whittled away by increases at only half the rate of inflation? Employees would never put up with that formula in respect of their current pay. It is a form of legal expropriation—I choose those words advisedly—to allow employer controlled pension schemes to extract earned income from employees and then reduce its real value.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that private sector occupational pension schemes are voluntary and that when the Occupational Pensions Board examined the issue in 1981 it said that there should be some ceiling, because otherwise the commitment is open-ended? His proposal is wholly retrospective and could go back many years in the case of a long-serving employee. The hon. Gentleman proposes a huge new cost for employees in the future. They are the people who will have to pay.
  Mr. Meacher: Indeed, I appreciate that. However, employees deserve their pension rights. It is a disgrace that pension schemes with funds that currently total over £50 billion are indulging in contribution holidays rather than meeting their prior obligation to their employees.
  There is a serious political point here. We are constantly told about the benefits to Sid from privatisation. In pensions, the disbenefits from privatisation are absolutely enormous. SERPS and most public sector occupational schemes, including the scheme for Members of Parliament, offer full inflation-proofing of pensions. The hon. Gentleman and every hon. Member in the Chamber should bear in mind that they will have the advantage of full inflation-proofing. Virtually no private sector scheme provides that. That is not a minor matter. Cumulatively over the years it has a huge impact, not only on the value of the pension achieved on retirement, but on the remainder of the person's life, which might last another 20 years or more.
  It can be argued that the income losses from most private occupational schemes—let alone from personal private pensions, which I shall come to later—far outweigh any income gains that individuals may have received from all other forms of privatisation put together.
  Mr. James Cran: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make the point that index-linking in occupational schemes is not as high as he would like. Will he also make it clear that the contributory pension scheme for hon. Members has a contribution rate of 9 per cent., whereas the average rate for occupational schemes is of the order of 5 per cent.? He is saying to the work force that if it wants index-linking it will have to pay for it and pay for it severely. The hon. Gentleman has not made that clear.
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman's figure is not right. Contributions are on average somewhat over 5 per cent. and I shall give some examples later. Certainly, index-linking would not require significant increases in contribution rates when there are huge and growing fund surpluses. The hon. Gentleman must face that. The trustees of pension schemes do not have a divine or unmitigated right to that money. It is owed to the employees who contributed to it in the first place.
  Mr. Cran: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Meacher: I want to get on. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
  The Secretary of State says that the Bill provides more protection to occupational scheme members, but it is rather like a car insurance policy that excludes crashes. According to the consulting actuaries, R. Watson and Sons, if his formula had been in operation over the past 20 years a pensioner retiring in 1989 who left the scheme 20 years ago would have found the real value of his pension rights reduced by more than 60 per cent. That is a telling figure. That is the acid test. It reveals the pathetic inadequacy of the so-called protection in the Bill for what it is.
  I want to be open about this and tell the Secretary of State that the Labour party will not accept the formula. When we come to power we shall ensure a proper level of protection for early leavers. That means that we shall require pension rights to be uprated each year by the full rate of inflation. That is not an unreasonable requirement for schemes when surpluses currently top £50 billion—that figure is not even the most recent and the sum may well be significantly more—and when many companies have recently declared extended contribution holidays for themselves. To require anything less is to cheat employees of a significant part of their entitlement to their deferred pay.
  There is another major weakness in this part of the Bill. It does nothing to ensure that occupational pensions maintain their value in payment after retirement. It is a scandal that some, not many, private sector schemes make no increase in pension after retirement.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Hear, hear.
  Mr.Meacher: I am glad to have support for that point.
  The same actuaries have shown that some people who retired in 1969 would have found the real value of their pension reduced in those circumstances to a mere 15 per cent. of its original value. The Bill will do nothing to stop what is little more than legalised robbery.
  Even where private schemes guarantee increases, and most do, it is normally at the low level of about 3 per cent. That is only one third of the average rate of inflation for the recent historic period. That is completely unacceptable. In our view, pensioners should have the first call on the surplus of a scheme until the real value of their pensions has been restored fully. Then it should be maintained annually.
  Mr. Hawkins: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Meacher: I am glad again for support for that point. It is important. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to have a word with his right hon. Friend. The Bill lamentably fails in that necessary requirement.

  645
  We reject the Government's view that it is sufficient to urge employers and trustees as a matter of good practice to price-index pensions up to 5 per cent. a year. Because company pension schemes are in a healthy financial position and companies continue to enjoy contribution holidays—a position which could last several more years—
  Mr. Cran: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I shall not give way now because I am making a point.
  Mr. Cran rose——
  Mr. Meacher: I shall give way in a moment.
  We shall table amendments in Committee calling for the full inflation-proofing of occupational schemes. I say advisedly to the right hon. Gentleman—perhaps I anticipate the point that the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) seeks to make—that it would be far better to offer companies an escape clause to cut pension payments in conditions of real economic crisis than to continue at a time of sustained profitability grossly to underpay pensioners on the grounds that occupational schemes cannot accept an open-ended commitment to inflation-proofed pensions.
  For the same reasons we criticise the Bill because it does nothing to stop employers declaring unilateral contribution holidays for themselves while making their employees continue to make contributions from their pay. The British Aerospace scheme, for example, is in surplus to the tune of £300 million. Recently the employers declared a two-year contribution holiday for themselves, yet they continue to require their employees to contribute 6 per cent. from their pay.
  Mr. Tim Smith: We do the same.
  Mr. Meacher: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is asking what is wrong with that.
  Mr. Smith: I am not.
  Mr. Meacher: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not. It is manifestly unjust that employees should have to contribute towards their deferred pay when employers do not.
  The GKN scheme is in substantial surplus and a three-year contribution holiday was declared from 1988. Yet pensions in payment are being uprated only by 5 per cent., which is less than two thirds of the current rate of inflation. The Manufacturers Hanover Trust company scheme, a major banking scheme, has already had four years of contribution holidays which are expected to continue for another three to four years, yet pension rises are not indexed and increases are discretionary.
  Mr. Cran: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the surpluses of a pension fund can be given away only once, yet the whole point of a pension scheme is to take obligations for liabilities for a long period? That being so, is he not oversimplifying the case and duping employees who happen to be members of a pension scheme by telling them that they can get something for nothing when they cannot?
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman, who, before he came to the House, had a position with the CBI, seems to be a spokesman for the pensions industry. It would be helpful if the pensions industry, which has substantial and still growing funds, recognised its proper responsibility to those who made the contributions in the first place.
  Mr. Newton: I am sorry to prolong this, but the hon. Gentleman made an important statement. If I understood him aright—I should be grateful if he would confirm whether I did—he said that he would prefer to impose by legislation fresh obligations on occupational pension schemes along the lines that he suggested, but at the same time make legal provision for the schemes not to meet those obligations if circumstances became difficult. If the hon. Gentleman did not say that, he certainly talked about conditions of economic crisis. I do not know how he would define them. If what he said had any meaning, I understood him to say that he would impose new obligations on schemes now because conditions look good —because of nearly 10 years of a good Government—and would give them powers to welsh on or reduce those obligations if conditions became difficult. I am not sure that that would be welcomed by occupational pensioners.
  Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State must explain how he can justify surpluses continuing at their current enormous level without full inflation-proofing being provided.
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Answer the question.
  Mr. Meacher: I am
  Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman is not.
  Mr. Meacher: That is what I am proposing. I accept that there could be conditions of real economic crisis—I used those words advisedly—when in some cases it might be impossible for those schemes to meet their obligations. In that limited and marginal case I am prepared to accept that there may be an exception. The vast majority of schemes will not be in that position and they should be given proper standards. There should be a proper benchmark for their obligations. There is none now and there is none in the Bill. That is not fair or right.
  Mr. Newton: I shall not seek to intervene again as I do not want to prolong the hon. Gentleman's speech unnecessarily. There will be a great deal of interest, however, in what he has said. When he speaks of conditions of economic crisis, does he mean a broad, generalised crisis affecting the economy or would his dispensation clause let out a particular pension fund that got into difficulties, which is a much more likely eventuality? Often such funds are connected with particular firms. What the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do is to encourage all sorts of hopes and to impose all sorts of commitments on funds to make additional payments at the moment, because things happen to be good, but those commitments would not be worth the paper they were written on as soon as things got less good. That is fundamentally irresponsible.
  Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman has a nerve to say that what I am proposing, which is widely understood to be reasonable and perfectly viable, is something that occupational schemes somehow could not manage. He is

  647
  simply not addressing himself to the size of the current surpluses, which, at £50 billion, represent one-ninth of the entire national income. Those surpluses are colossal. For the right hon. Gentleman to use weasel words about the inability of such schemes to meet those obligations shows a craven feebleness and an unwillingness to accept responsibility on behalf of employees.
  Mr. Cran rose—
  Ms. Primarolo rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I shall not give way again to the hon. Member for Beverley, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo).
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Perhaps we should turn my hon. Friend's comments round the other way so that the Minister understands them. I understand my hon. Friend to say that where a pension fund has a surplus it is unreasonable for the employer to have the option to suspend his contribution while compelling the employee to continue to make his. The employer, by suspending his contribution, is spending the surplus to his advantage now instead of paying out from that surplus in the future to the people who contributed to the scheme.
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right. This is a pipsqueak of a Bill as it allows employers and trustees to go on paying miserly increases in pensions, below the rate of inflation, when pension schemes are in massive surplus. Even then it allows employers—
  Mr. Cran rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I shall certainly not give way to the hon. Gentleman for a third time—he can make his own speech. I have answered his point at considerable length and if he had a better point to make, I might consider giving way again.
  It is not acceptable to allow employers to go on making small increases to pensions, below the rate of inflation, when pension funds are in such enormous surplus. Even then the Bill allows employers and trustees to stop contributing to their funds without consultation. The Labour party believes that that is the opposite of good practice. We shall instead require occupational schemes to meet full inflation-proofing targets and so we shall place a ban on employers' or trustees' unilateral contribution holidays to ensure that they do so.
  Mr. Hawkins: I agree with much of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Many funds have allowed employees who have retired in the past to be grossly ripped off by inflation. It is possible for everyone to be offered an index-linked pension and it is possible to invest in index-linked bonds.
  Mr. Tim Smith: At what cost?
  Mr. Hawkins: I do not care about the cost. I look forward to the day when everyone will be offered the choice of investing in an index-linked pension rather than taking up the absurd Mickey Mouse offers from insurance companies. Such offers speak of £65,000 at the age of 65, but one has no idea whether that £65,000 will be worth 4p or £1 million as that pension is not indexed for inflation. Everyone should have an index-linked pension.
  Mr. Meacher: I am glad that at least one Conservative Member is knowledgeable enough and, with genuine
  648
  respect to the hon. Gentleman, brave enough to make that intervention. He is absolutely right that index-linked bonds are one way in which to achieve the desired result.
  If it is impossible for occupational pension schemes to manage inflation proofing—the minimum requirement of a good pension scheme—people should reconsider whether SERPS is a better system in terms of providing minimum guarantees in retirement. That system guarantees full inflation-proofing as well as many other important benefits, for example, allowing women to choose the best 20 years of their working lives as the basis for their pensions—at least that is how Labour left it.
  The second major issue in the Bill concerns disability benefits. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) will be dealing with this matter in more detail on Wednesday in our Supply day debate. The Secretary of State said that the provisions for the disabled had been widely welcomed, but that must be another Government euphemism, meaning that the provisions have been widely attacked by the disability organisations. The over-trumpeting of the proposals is matched only by their modesty. After 10 years of waiting and six reviews from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, churning out more and more information, all the Government have brought forth is a mouse. The proposals were heralded as a comprehensive review, but they represent a narrow tinkering with existing provision without any radical reassessment. Despite overblown claims of substantial new money being available, we are talking about old recycled money, even without the cuts in the package that drain that money away.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am not sure when that 10-year period began. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the period since the Conservative party has been in government, payments to the disabled have increased at a far greater rate than they were ever increased under the previous Labour Government. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by a 10-year wait?
  Mr. Meacher: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should seek to draw attention to this as it is embarrassing to the Government.
  Ten years have elapsed since the Government made a commitment in 1979 to improve benefits for the disabled. Between 1979 and April 1989 there has been a cut in the value of almost all disability benefits—the disabled have been forced to wait 10 years for a mouse. First, the Government said that they needed to be sure that the economy could bear such benefit improvements. By 1984 they said that they were satisfied by the rate of economic growth, but they then said that they needed more information. They set up six OPCS studies, which have now reported, but, as a result, we have got a feeble set of proposals.
  There is a huge hole in the middle of the Government's review as it omits the two thirds of disabled people who are elderly, including many of the severely disabled. The Government believe in targeting on those in greatest need, but obviously only as long as it is cheaper to do so; and if it turns out to be more expensive, they ignore that need. As a result, the needs of seven out of every eight disabled people have been neglected by that so-called comprehensive review.

  649
  The Bill proposes an age-related addition to the severe disablement allowance. Any increase in disability benefits is welcome, but the additions are small and, regrettably, the right hon. Gentleman has not followed the advice of his Social Security Advisory Committee to raise progressively the rates of SDA to the level of invalidity benefit. The new addition does nothing to remove the inherent discrimination in SDA against people who have never been able to pay national insurance contributions, particularly those disabled from birth. Worst of all, most disabled people on SDA are also on income support. The increase that they will receive in severe disablement allowance will simply be offset by an equivalent cut in income support. That is one of the many examples of recycling contained in the package.
  The cost of the new benefit is estimated by the Government to be £50 million in 1992–93. But they also calculate that that will be offset by savings on other means-tested benefits for the disabled of £65 million in 1993–94. Therefore, even with this, the disabled will make a net loss.
  The right hon. Gentleman's disability statement two weeks ago was more than an exercise in the mysteries of semantics than a guide to the Bill. He said then that the net extra cost of the package would be £300 million by 1993 and all the extra money was new. I can only assume that the right hon. Gentleman is into his Alice-in-Wonderland phase in which words mean what he says they mean. By any normal dictionary definition of new, none of the so-called extra money is new.
  In his statement on 10 January the right hon. Gentleman told the House:
  "The extra provision for the first three years…has been included in the totals for my Department published in the Autumn Statement."—[Official Report, 10 January 1990; Vol. 164, c. 943.]
  In other words, it is within the existing budget.
  Mr. Newton: I am trying to resist the temptation to intervene, but I cannot when the hon. Gentleman seeks to place on record points that are manifestly misleading. He must know that the Autumn Statement is the outcome of prolonged, sometimes difficult, discussions between Ministers and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The result of the discussions was an agreement between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and me, endorsed by the Cabinet, to increase expenditure on long-term sickness and disability benefits to the extent embraced in the Autumn Statement. That does not mean that it is not new money, but that we did not advertise it to the world until the Autumn Statement was made. It will be clearer when the White Paper on public expenditure is published at the end of the month.
  I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House and therefore, while I am on my feet, I shall explain that the hon. Gentleman was given an answer last Friday on the severe disablement allowance invalidity addition, in which it was made absolutely clear that the £50 million which I said will be spent is net of savings on income-related benefits. If he looks at the answer he was given, he will find that the gross expenditure is £115 million and the net expenditure is £50 million. No one is seeking to disguise the fact that there will be an offset. Equally, he should not disguise the fact that there is an increase in expenditure on severely disabled people.
  Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman seeks to make the point that because the expenditure was mentioned in the Autumn Statement—about which he had already issued a lengthy statement, press notice and departmental brief—when he announces it again, we should assume that when he says that it is new money it really is new money. However, it has already been announced. We have heard for the third time today about the content of the Autumn Statement. He repeated his announcement at the start of his statement on 10 January and repeated it again today —that is the third time. He is talking about exactly the same money which has already been announced. There is absolutely nothing new here.
  If there is any genuinely new money, it will be swamped by three major cuts in disability benefit in the Bill. By far the most important is the abolition of the SERPS additional pension to invalidity pension, about which we have already had some exchanges. Disabled people have waited patiently for 10 years for the long-promised improvement in benefits. Frankly, the right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed that the centrepiece of his review is a massive cut which will save the Government £350 million by the end of the century. I tried to make this point earlier: it will save a great deal more because the Government's document, "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" states that by 1998 the cost of the additional pension will still be £1.6 billion a year.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that one estimate shows that the eventual saving to the Government from the Bill will amount to no less than £3.5 billion cumulatively over future years, at the expense of disabed people? If that is the result of a review designed to improve benefits for one group in poverty, I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman will treat the other groups to a long period of benign neglect.
  The Government's reasons for the destruction of this valuable benefit are instructive. Astonishingly, the right hon. Gentleman repeated them today without any apparent embarrassment. Paragraph 6.8 of "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" states that the continuation of the additional pension
  "would have been likely not only to inhibit the growth of occupational cover but also, through the constraints inevitably imposed on Government's ability to do more for those with no such entitlement, to have widened yet further the gap between those who have been able to work and those who have not."
  In other words, if everyone cannot have it, no one shall have it. That is the classic argument of a Government who prefer to level down rather than up.
  The Government's other pretext is no less contemptible. They say that the benefit will inhibit the growth of occupational schemes. There we have it: it is more important for the Government to promote private sector insurance than to leave in place good, existing benefits for disabled people.
  The Government's explanation for getting rid of the reduced earnings allowance—another cut in the Bill—does not bear looking into either. They have said, and the right hon. Gentleman repeated it today, that it overlaps invalidity benefit. That is surely to misunderstand the purpose of industrial injuries benefits which are intended to be compensation benefits, not income maintenance benefits. I suspect that having ended 90 per cent. of industrial injuries entitlements, through the Fowler review

  651
  of 1986, the Government have fastened on the pretended and small anomaly as an excuse to pave the way for the ending of industrial injuries benefits.
  There is no coherent or comprehensive restructuring of benefits, as the right hon. Gentleman likes to claim, merely a rehash of existing provision, with small extensions, but enough camouflage for a substantial cost-cutting exercise. If only the organisations for the disabled had been consulted. However, it is no accident that they were not. The review was published on 10 January without any invitation to comment on its contents and complete with a timetable for its implementation. The very next day the Social Security Bill was published executing phase 1 of the proposals. To go from White Paper to Bill in one day, after a wait of 10 years, is simply to give the most insulting confirmation that the Government wish to avoid, at all costs, any input from the people most affected. It is a tragedy that this component of the Bill is such a huge missed opportunity.
  The present framework of disability benefits is a patchwork of disconnected, uneven and jumbled rights. It desperately needs an integrated structure that coherently combines cover for extra daily living costs with a flexible allowance according to either partial or total working capacity. Sadly, in the Bill there is no vision, no sense of measured steps towards a final objective, no sign of the comprehensive disability benefit which is urgently needed.
  I do not blame the Government for failing to bring forward such a ready-made benefit at one go. However, I roundly condemn them because, after 10 years in which they have not even uprated existing disability benefits in line with prices, let alone earnings, they have failed to show any signs of ever having any intention to move towards such an integrated benefits system. For that, we cannot forgive the Government.
  On behalf of the Labour party I pledge that we shall introduce a new and comprehensive disability benefit which will provide assistance with the extra costs of disability matched to the degree of disability. It will also supply a guaranteed income, without a means test, for disabled people of working age who cannot obtain employment because of long-term illness or disability.
  For those who can work, the cost element of our new benefit will not be means tested and will not be withdrawn if a person obtains work. When the earnings of those able to return to work are insufficient to meet their basic needs the new disability benefit will supplement their income. We want disabled people to participate in and make their fullest contribution to society, and we have the vision and the drive to bring that about. If the Tory Government will not bring it about, we shall.
  The third and last main element of the Bill concerns the proposed new grants for home insulation and for advice on energy efficiency for low-income households. There was a gaping hole in the Secretary of State's comments on this matter, too. He did not tell us how large the grants would be; what the total funds available will be; how much of the £12 million that he mentioned will be merely transferred from other budgets; and how much will be new money. Nor did he tell us whether the new money is once again Department-speak for no new net money, and merely a euphemism for clawback.
  I warn the right hon. Gentleman that, early in the new post, he is already earning himself a dangerous reputation for laundering social security money, with sleight of hand and hidden juggling his specialities. On this occasion he
  652
  has chosen selective silence to protect himself. He did not say a word about the fact that the Government's enforced switch in 1988 from community programme to employment training has caused the number of draughtproofing jobs carried out to plummet by 34 per cent. He did not say a word about the fact that the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 abolished the 95 per cent. grant to local authorities for roof insulation and draughtproofing for low-income households; and he said not a word about the fact that, with 5.5 million low-income households estimated to have no draught-proofing, it will take 45 years at the current rate of progress to provide them with this minimal protection. As most of those in such households are elderly, I suspect that not too many are likely to live to see the benefit—or is this another recycling device to reshuffle the costs on to the next world?
  There is no overall theme to the Bill; it is more like an exercise in filling holes in the dyke. The background to the Bill, about which the Secretary of State never breathed a word, is that Government policy is increasingly splitting that dyke open all over the place. It is ironic that this is called a Social Security Bill, given that the one recurring characteristic of Government policy in this area is the production of insecurity.
  Nowhere is this more glaring than in pensions. The Government inherited SERPS, which had all the virtues of a first-class pension scheme. It offered very low administration costs, job mobility, comprehensive inflation-proofing and maximum security in old age. Nothing in the private sector can equal this combination of advantages.
  The Government tried to abolish SERPS, and when they found that politically impossible, they hobbled it. Then they introduced personal pension schemes which are expensive to administer and which offer no security because, being money purchase schemes exposed to the vagaries of the stock market, investors have no idea of what benefits their contributions will eventually buy.
  Then, to encourage people to take a flutter on their retirement, the Government offered a 2 per cent. bribe which has now cost a cumulative total of £1.5 billion, and then forced other national insurance contributors to pay for it. Despite this huge subsidy, a high proportion of the 3.5 million people who have gone on a personal pension gamble will end up with grossly inadequate pensions. It is sheer humbug for the right hon. Gentleman to claim that he is improving protection in pensions when every major act of the Government's pension policy has undermined the long-run financial security of millions of people in our country.
  Insecurity is the hallmark of Government policy in other areas that are also conspicuous by their absence from the Bill. The Prime Minister likes to claim that hers is the party of the family, but how can 7 million mothers feel security about their budgeting when the Prime Minister has frozen child benefit for three years running so that it is now worth 14 per cent. less in real terms than in 1979? How can those on the lowest incomes feel security when the social fund is grossly underfunded by the Government and now exhibits refusal rates that top 60 per cent? How can young people obtain security of getting a job when the denial of all benefit rights has turned thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds into an itinerant army of cardboard-box outcasts, unable to get a job until they have a place to stay and unable to get a place to stay until they have income from a job?

  653
  This is a patch-up-and-mend Bill which tackles none of the fundamental insecurities plaguing the lives of millions of our poorest citizens, many of them caused directly by the Government's policy. It is like a medical insurance policy that tidies up a few minor administrative anomalies but neglects to provide cover against all the major illnesses. That is why we shall reject the Bill's feeble ineffectiveness in the Lobbies tonight.
  5.36 pm
  Sir George Young: I support the reforms outlined in the Bill, which I know will be warmly welcomed by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) adopted a policy that was appropriate for a Labour Front-Bench spokesman last Thursday; when repeatedly pressed for his policy on local government he chose to say nothing. Today, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) adopted another policy, which was to come up with a commitment that I had never heard before on the future index-linking of pensions. When that policy and commitment are analysed, it may turn out that the hon. Member for Dagenham chose the right approach.
  There are two sets of reforms in the Bill, one dealing with pensions, the other with the disabled. At the end of the Bill there are also some useful reforms which are basically tidying-up measures.
  I greatly welcome the additional protection afforded by the pensions ombudsman. As responsibility for pensions shifts away from the public to the private sector, as the sums involved become much larger and as the whole subject becomes more complex it makes sense to institute the protection given by an ombudsman to those with pensions, especially as this has been tried and found successful in many other parts of society.
  I noticed that the building societies ombudsman, who was not initially included in the Building Societies Bill but was added in Committee, was funded by the building societies. This Bill provides that the Secretary of State will pay for the pensions ombudsman. Why is one criterion applied to building societies and another to pensions?
  Schedule 3 gives the Secretary of State power to help organisations such as the occupational pensions advisory service. I very much hope that this opportunity will be taken to give it more resources to strengthen its network throughout the country of advisers who give independent advice to people with pension problems.
  As hon. Members who have received a briefing today from the Consumers Association will know, that body hopes that the ombudsman will publish his report. It has been helpful in other areas and I see no reason why such an obligation should not be placed on the pensions ombudsman. I hope that that suggestion will be added to the Bill in Committee.
  I welcome the additional rights for early leavers. Of course, I understand that an employer will wish to use his pension fund to retain his staff and dissuade them from leaving. However, it seems that there is a countervailing national interest in job mobility. A healthy economy is a changing one. It has to respond to new demands and new technology, and it would be wrong if penalties for early leavers were to pull too hard in the opposite direction, as
  654
  they do at the moment, and inhibit the essential job mobility that the economy needs. I understand the objections of the CBI, and I do not agree with them.
  The Government's proposals are much more modest than those advanced by the Opposition. Against the background of most pension funds, the relatively modest extra insurance included in the Bill is such that a well-run pension fund should be able to take it in its stride. A growth rate of 5 per cent. seems a fairly modest target.
  I welcome the change of approach by my right hon. Friend on small self-administered pension schemes. I never understood why it was proposed to prevent an SSAP investing in the firm's own freehold, when that might have been a secured loan, while allowing it to invest in somebody else's freehold without any security at all. The change of heart contained in a parliamentary answer before Christmas has been well received by small businesses for which the pension fund has often been a useful source of funds.
  I welcome the pension changes in the Bill because they go with the grain of increased reliance on the private sector while underpinning that with useful extra insurances such as the ombudsman and the funding for independent organisations. One cannot ignore the disappointment expressed by many voluntary organisations about the levels of benefit for the disabled. However, one needs to distinguish between the levels of benefit and the new structure. Benefits can be increased. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said in an intervention, the Government have an excellent record on increasing benefits, far better than that of their predecessors. I hope that the debate in Committee and in the House will concentrate on the structure of benefits rather than on the level. Good progress has been made, but we must still try to make the structure more streamlined, simplified, user-friendly and comprehensible.
  I am returning to social security matters after a gap of some 10 years and I have been struck by their growing complexity. Hon. Members find the subject complex and so will the disabled. I hope that we can look again at the income of carers. Caring Costs, an organisation which I think has been in touch with most hon. Members, has outlined a number of improvements, many of which involve little structural change but involve increasing the level of benefits. Some of us serving on the Committee considering the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will want to see how the structure of benefits in this Bill interrelate with the implementation of Griffiths, which the Committee is about to discuss. It is important that the philosophy outlined in Griffiths is made reality by any social security reforms that are going through in parallel.
  I welcome the provisions in clause 1 for the terminally ill. I understand that they will help about 58,000 people. The explanatory memorandum shows that almost 275 more civil servants will be required to administer the provisions. That implies that each employee in the Department will process one case a day, which seems to be a low level of productivity. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but we need an explanation of why so many staff are needed.
  The theme running through the reforms for the disabled, coupled with other announcements, seems to be that work is now a real option—more of an option than it was for the disabled. That is partly because the economy is picking up and there is a demand for labour, partly as

  655
  a result of changes made by employers to make their premises more adaptable for the disabled, and partly as a result of changing expectations about the role of the disabled. The Bill seems to tidy up the interface between income in work for the disabled and benefit out of work, and it removes any perverse incentives not to seek employment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) may deal with clause 10 in more detail because she had direct responsibility in the Department for administering the home insulation scheme. That scheme combines wholly worthwhile objectives, such as training the unemployed, saving energy and helping those on low incomes to keep warm. Local newspapers have pictured hon. Members posing with a roll of insulating material under one arm and a pensioner under the other before insulating the loft.
  There has been some uncertainty about the future of the home insulation scheme and I am delighted to read that Neighbourhood Energy Action, whose work in this field I commend, has been involved. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes to consult before finalising the scheme, as was demanded of him by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I hope that as soon as the consultation is over, we can put that type of scheme on a firm footing because it has been an outstanding success.
  The reforms outlined in the Bill are balanced, realistic, prudent and carefully targeted and I have no hesitation in commending them to the House.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Jack Ashley: I intend to touch on some of the points of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), to whom the House always listens with great interest. The Secretary of State is one of the most respected members of the Government, but his Bill lets disabled people down badly. The best way to judge the proposals is from the reaction of disabled people themselves and, of course, from the reactions of organisations for the disabled. They are furious about the provisions in the Bill and feel insulted.
  I do not know whether the Secretary of State saw Professor Townsend's letter in today's issue of The Independent. It is a fine letter by a great authority on disability. It is careful, authentic, logical and well reasoned. Writing on behalf of the Disability Alliance, Professor Townsend speaks for many millions of disabled people. I am glad to see that the Minister has the letter.
  Disabled people have waited patiently—too patiently —for the implementation of the 1979 Conservative party promise of a coherent disability income. All that has emerged are these pathetic proposals which will help 850,000 disabled people out of a total of 6.5 million identified by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The Bill will help only 13.5 per cent. of the disabled population. In addition to those disabled people there are 6 million carers. They were mentioned by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and identified in a general household survey in 1985.
  The proposals will cost £300 million, and that money has been filched from other parts of the benefit system. The Minister knows that. The money will come largely from child benefit and from industrial benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr.
  656
  McKay) was right to complain about hitting industrial benefits. When the Secretary of State was originally making his statement, I put a point to him and I make no apology for repeating it. The £300 million to help disabled people is minuscule compared with the £23 billion given in tax cuts to top earners. I know that the Secretary of State's Department is not responsible for tax matters, but the Government as a whole have given that disproportionate increase to top earners and only £300 million to the disabled. That means that disabled people are denied the benefits of economic growth.
  In his foreword to the booklet "The Way Ahead" which, in many ways, is the foundation of the Bill, the Minister of State said that attitudes towards disabled people are changing. He was right. I welcome that, and I know that he does, too. But the attitudes of disabled people are also changing. Disabled people will no longer passively accept such shabby treatment by the Government, and I believe that disabled people are shabbily treated. They are not asking for luxury; they are not even asking for compensation for their disablement. All that they want is an equal chance to participate in society and a reasonable amount of help from the Government.
  In addition to their disability, the biggest burden that disabled people have to bear is that of special costs. I am dismayed that the Secretary of State has not provided for adequate help with extra costs. The Bill could have provided him with a marvellous opportunity to do something about it. That help has been the demand of disabled people since I entered the House in 1956, when Megan du Boisson began campaigning with the Disablement Income Group. That marvellous, fragile, disabled woman, who was a great campaigner, explained then that disabled people needed provision to help them with those extra costs.
  What are the extra costs? What does a severely disabled man or woman require? Special heating is imperative. Special diet is vital. Laundry needs to be done. Severely disabled people cannot get out to shop around and shop economically. Many disabled people need unprescribed medication. In addition to those problems, they face the difficulty that they cannot save money by undertaking do-it-yourself repairs and so on. All those items add to the costs borne by disabled people, and none of them is covered by the Bill. That is a failure on the Government's part.
  The needs of severely disabled people far exceed those documented by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. It would appear from the DIG's survey that the costs of some disabled people are eight times higher than those documented by the OPCS. The Minister is looking somewhat askance at that estimate, but it is the estimate that I prefer. The DIG survey said that many of the disabled people interviewed had described their financial position as "just scraping by" or "permanently in debt". Many severely disabled people are suffering in great debt or living on the margins of poverty as well as bearing the burden of their extra costs. They need very generous provision from the Government. All severely disabled people need that extra help, and they have simply not been given it. I hope that the Secretary of State can be persuaded to think again as the Bill proceeds through the House.
  I echo the point made by the hon. and respected Member for Ealing, Acton. The question of the cost of

  657
  caring has been raised in the House on many occasions, and it should become one of the major disability issues of the next decade. The Government have done no more than to tinker with the cost of caring, and have failed to deal with the implications of the present unacceptable burden on voluntary carers. I think that carers are among the nation's most exploited people. The Government have failed to provide for them adequately. That failure means that millions of carers will feel embarrassed because they are doing a job without adequate financial provision. Millions of disabled people will also feel severely embarassed because they do not want to have relatives looking after them who are not being helped adequately. They are being given some help at present, but it is not enough. The relationship between millions of disabled people and their carers will be distorted. These are serious issues and the Government are doing nothing substantial about them. I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider.
  The flimsy nature of the Bill can also be seen in the omission of any help for the 4-2 million elderly disabled people. The growing number of elderly people will swell the total number of disabled people in the future.
  Like the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton, I shall make a short speech because so many hon. Members want to speak. I conclude, therefore, by saying that I believe that this Bill is a failure because it does not deal adequately with the major problems of the severely disabled. The 1990s should bring major advances for disabled people, especially given the promises that the Government have made. This Bill makes no such advances. It is a midget of a Bill that takes very limited steps. Disabled people are furious with it. What we now need are gigantic steps to take disabled people, with fresh hope, into the 1990s. No such steps have been made and I regret that the Government have not risen to the occasion.
  5.56 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I support the Bill. I congratulate the Government on introducing further measures that will help the sick and disabled people and improve the quality of life of older people. I fully agree with many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) so I shall not waste the time of the House by repeating his arguments in support of the Bill.
  I particularly welcome clause 10, which will allow for grants to improve energy efficiency in low-income households. For many years, energy efficiency has been the Cinderella on the world political scene. Depending on the political and economic circumstances of the time, saving energy has been either at the top or at the bottom of the political agenda. Following the energy crisis of the early 1970s, Governments around the world became overnight converts to energy efficiency, spurred on by the fear that the West would be held to ransom by Arab oil sheiks and by somewhat apocalyptic forecasts of how long oil reserves would last. Energy-saving measures became the order of the day.
  The collapse of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and real falls in oil prices changed all that, but although the economic incentive for energy saving was not as strong in the 1980s as it was in the early
  658
  1970s, Britain's energy-saving record in that decade was exemplary. As early as 1985, the International Energy Efficiency Office contrasted the vigour of Britain's efforts to conserve energy with stagnation elsewhere. For the past 10 years, our rate of improvement in energy efficiency has been more than twice the average for the European Community.
  Much more remains to be done. Each year, Britain consumes about £40 billion worth of energy. That is equivalent to about one tenth of our national income. Potential savings of about £8 billion still exist, according to the Energy Efficiency Office of the Department of , Energy. Such savings could add substantially to industrial competitiveness and significantly improve living standards.
  Energy efficiency is not just a matter of economics, however, crucial though savings may be. We are beginning to appreciate the environmental consequences of energy consumption. Although it would be naive to expect the industrialised world dramatically to cut back energy consumption overnight—however attractive such a notion may be to Green party supporters—energy consumption will have a heavy burden to bear over the next few years in the process of reducing environmental damage.
  Energy efficiency not only makes economic sense but is an environmental imperative. I warmly welcome clause 10, for there could be no better time to introduce an insulation scheme to help low-income households. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Energy Efficiency Office's community insulation project has helped to insulate more than 700,000 homes, mostly those of pensioners. The new scheme should help to increase further take-up of basic insulation by lower-income households. I am glad to note that both tenants and owners in the public and private sector will be eligible.
  Given the sustained and substantial fall in unemployment that we have seen over the past three years, reliance on the unemployed in implementing insulation schemes should be reduced. I hope that the new scheme will have as one of its aims the encouragement of smaller businesses providing insulation services. Such work could easily be undertaken by one or two-man or woman firms, which would offer the prospect of self-employment to the unemployed. The existence of local firms providing the required services could stimulate demand from households that are not eligible for Government assistance. When the details of the scheme are filled in over the coming months, I hope that consideration will be given to encouraging smaller firms.
  Dr. Godman: In my constituency, many home insulation schemes are effectively and efficiently implemented by community businesses and tenants associations, as well as by small firms.
  Mr. Roe: When I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment, I saw a number of such schemes in operation, and I agree that they were most effective and that local input is extremely helpful. Nevertheless, there is always room to supplement them with the services of small firms.
  I hope, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton, that the Department of Energy will consult Neighbourhood Energy Action over the mechanics of the

  659
  scheme. That organisation has an excellent record in energy conservation and its expertise should be brought to bear in designing the new scheme.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can reassure the House that eligibility for the scheme will not be drawn too tightly. It would be a pity if, in trying to target help at those on the lowest incomes, the scheme missed householders who cannot afford the full cost of insulation. The savings to be made from the individual and for the nation from home insulation projects are rapid and proven. I believe that energy efficiency will prove to be the very best environmental investment. The scheme will also bring greater comfort and warmth to lower-income households.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The opening speeches both from the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench were lengthy—no doubt because the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) were frequently interrupted. I appeal to Back Benchers in all parts of the House to continue making brief speeches so that as many other right hon. and hon. Members as possible can be called. If speeches are limited to 10 minutes, it will allow the Chair to call every right hon. and hon. Member who has indicated a wish to participate.
  6.4
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: In following the speech of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) I cannot resist the temptation to remark that, though I appreciate her interest in energy conservation and that home insulation is of prime importance to low-income families in particular, she will understand if I do not accept that home insulation is the most burning social security issue confronting the country. That point was also made most ably by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
  I also remind the hon. Lady that, whereas housing construction statistics for 1986 show that 400,000 home insulation schemes were completed, the figures for the June 1989 quarter show that the number had fallen to 11,000. I could quote other statistics to illustrate even more forcefully that the trend is going in the wrong direction. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Lady's campaign among her own right hon. and hon. Friends to improve home insulation will meet with success.
  I share the disappointment expressed by other Opposition Members about the Bill, which can best be described as a ragbag of different measures. As a former solicitor, albeit only a Scottish solicitor, I begin with a plaintive plea on behalf of people who will have to make some sense of the legislation. Social security schemes are already complicated enough, and the intention now is to introduce not only huge chunks of disability legislation —though even that is not as extensive as it should be—but also new measures embracing pensions and energy matters.
  The Minister for Social Security has been a member of the Department long enough to be able to tell his officials that he refuses to use social security Bills as a vehicle every year to sweep up any bits and pieces of legislative proposals that may be lying around the Department at any given time. The Minister would be better advised to go
  660
  along the road of introducing a disability statute, a pension statute, and so on. That would be a more orderly way to make progress.
  As to the inevitable arguments over what is and what is not new money, although I take a close interest in social security matters, I was hoodwinked by the Secretary of State's statement on 10 January concerning the Government's new document, "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People". On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of £300 million, but I did not understand at the time that it embraced £100 million already announced in his uprating statement. I do not say that the Secretary of State deliberately misled the House, but I was certainly temporarily hoodwinked, and care must be taken to avoid such confusion in future. It is not easy to make sense of expenditure levels, and it will be helpful if Ministers bear that in mind.
  One bone of contention has for some time been whether any increased expenditure is the consequence of increased take-up or of improved rates of benefit. Agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House on the true figures would place in context the real improvements that the Government have made. The Minister may take a different view, but I am not convinced that increased take-up, welcome though it is, is something that the Government can crow about, given that the benefits concerned are something to which claimants have a statutory right. Perhaps the Minister can say something about the balance between take-up and expenditure.
  The Bill's provisions for the disabled appear to leave pensioners behind. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West said, there is an underlying implication in several recent changes that that is being done. While I appreciate the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee that progress should be made in respect of the disabled who are still in work or who are of working age, there is genuine anxiety that we are ignoring the problems of people over retirement age. We tend to mention average pensioner incomes, but there are single women pensioners in my constituency who have not had an opportunity to build up a pension entitlement and they are paying for it now with real financial hardship. Their plight must not be forgotten.
  Ms. Short: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would appreciate my putting some figures on the record. Two thirds of pensioners are women, because women live longer, and three quarters of them depend on means-tested benefits. They are the poor pensioners.
  Mr. Kirkwood: That is a helpful and succinct intervention.
  I pay tribute to the work of disability pressure groups which inform all our debates. They are most worried about the opportunities presented by the report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys being missed. This is a unique opportunity, but it seems that it is to be lost. Everybody has been reining in the temptation to make more strident and urgent representations about disability to the Government recently. Since 1986, and the announcement of the review which I supported, we have held ourselves back. Now we have a glossy document and precious little else. The opportunity for a full review with proper consultation over a long time looks as though it is slipping away.
  I recognise that there has been a three-phase approach. First come the uprating improvements, which were

  661
  welcome. Secondly, we have the improvements which are announced in this Bill in clauses 1 and 2. They, too, are welcome. Thirdly, with the move towards a disability allowance, unless it includes resources to meet the true costs of disability, it looks as though the opportunity will indeed be lost. If it is lost, the Minister will never be allowed to forget it. He should not be allowed to forget it.
  There is scant regard in the Bill for the plight of carers. I know that there is to be a debate on that subject later this week. The part played by carers seems, by implication, to have been ignored by the Government in the Bill and in their long-term proposals as laid out in "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People".
  I listened with interest to the exchange about surpluses in occupational pension schemes. I am worried about them, too. The Government will have to tackle them. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle to do that. I agree also that index-linked pensions in occupational schemes are the way forward. I hope that we shall move in that direction. The Government cannot stand idly by and do nothing about the gross surpluses that are being built up in some schemes.
  I am also worried about changes in the national insurance fund. I was unhappy to have my fears confirmed by an article in the Financial Times today. I should be obliged if the Minister would say something about that. The article reports that the Government originally budgeted for some 750,000 people to leave SERPS, but the latest estimate is that 4 million will have left by the end of April. That is only the beginning. According to some estimates, if the promotions continue, some 7 million people will eventually opt out. That is two thirds of the original SERPS membership.
  The consequences of the move are proving extremely expensive to the national insurance fund. The cost of contribution rebates has risen, according to the Financial Times, from £792 million in 1987-88 to £1.5 billion in 1989-90. Incentive payments, the so-called bribes, have soared from £346 million to £615 million. The article reports:
  "Overall the fund will have lost nearly £5 billion in the three years to next April. Costs are likely to escalate because more people will leave SERPS and because contribution rebates and incentive payments are linked to earnings."
  I remember saying, when they were introduced, that I was much more relaxed about personal pensions than the official Opposition, but I said with some vigour that the Incentive payments, or bribes, were unnecessary. If the figures I have quoted are anything like true, that is certainly the case. They represent a substantial sum of money that could be used on disability or pension benefits, which would be a far better way in which to use them.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kirkwood: No. I want to conclude my speech.
  The revaluation of pensions on winding up schemes is something of a worry for the industry. I have received representations from the industry, and I require some satisfaction that revaluation will be done in a way which will not prove literally to be an incalculable burden on some pension schemes.
  There have been exemptions on self-investment for small self-administered schemes, but I am told that some 20 per cent. of such schemes will nevertheless still be
  662
  caught. I would like the Minister to find time to say something about that. Is it necessary to have the 20 per cent. director rule, the "nem con" vote, and for each director to be a member or trustee of the pension scheme? If so, dozens, if not hundreds, of small firms in knitwear and other industries in my constituency will be prevented from recycling pension funds when there are cash flow problems. That would be a severe curb on their business activity.
  The Bill is disappointing both in the short term and in the long term. More than anything else, however, the Government's attitude towards consultation does not augur well for the future of the social security system.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. William Hague: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak so early in the debate, and, like other hon. Members who have spoken, I undertake to be relatively brief.
  Like my hon. Friends, I have enjoyed all the contributions that we have heard so far, but I think that we were all particularly fascinated by the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). As my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) pointed out, some of the promises made in that speech may prove somewhat rash. I noted the get-out clause that it contained —that those promises would not have to be implemented in the event of an economic crisis—and I suspect that if Opposition Members were ever returned to office that clause would be implemented fairly early on.
  Ms. Short: In Labour's policy review—I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes away and reads it—we promised that we would re-establish SERPS, making it as good as it was before and adding the possibility of top-ups. We shall then require any opting-out pension scheme to match SERPS: one of the reasons for the improvement in occupational pension schemes is that they have had to match SERPS. That is the framework of our commitment, and the way in which it will be implemented.
  Mr. Hague: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I am sure that I shall read the policy review many times during the next few weeks, although I think that Labour may have to look again at what its proposals mean for pension fund surpluses.
  I listened with care and respect to the speech of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), but I hope that we shall not fall into the trap of comparing increases in benefits with reductions in tax rates over an extended period, as if there were a simple choice between the two. One of the reasons for the current record tax revenues is the reduction in tax rates, including those paid by top earners, who are also supplying record tax revenues. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that, rather than a choice being presented between the one and the other, one is required to supply the other.
  The Government have a solid record of improving and expanding social security provision and targeting it more effectively—
  Mr. Ashley: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but is he disputing my figures?
  Mr. Hague: I was not disputing any figures supplied by the right hon. Gentleman. I was disputing the case for

  663
  comparing tax reductions with increases in benefit as though there were a choice between the two. Nevertheless, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to check the figures given by all hon. Members in the debate, as is customary.
  The Government have received far too little political credit for their achievements in social security provision, and the debate provides Conservative Members with an opportunity to put that right. The improved benefits for widows, the sick and disabled and the terminally ill for which the Bill provides represent the latest example of the Government's effective and prudent spending of increased resources. Over the past 10 years total expenditure on cash benefits for the sick and disabled has increased by more than 100 per cent., even after allowing for inflation.
  Although there is and always will be scope for more provision for the needy, the average annual real increase in spending has been dramatically higher in the 1980s than it was in the 1970s: it now accounts for more than 15 per cent. of total social security spending. That is good news, in keeping with what the nation has most wanted the welfare state to provide—help for those who are unable to help themselves. Opposition Members who complain, even now, about the level of benefits were utterly unable to do better when they were in office; indeed, they could not even contemplate being able to give so much assistance to the least fortunate members of society.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hague: I will not give way for the moment, as I have already done so twice. I may do so again later.
  Of course we recognise that there are always cases for increases in benefits, but we might be forgiven for thinking that, while requesting so many increases in specific benefits, the Opposition could have had the good grace at least to congratulate the Government on their overall record.
  The package announced by the Secretary of State last October is an important part of the background to the Bill. At that time much righteous indignation was being devoted to the subject of child benefit and the Government's refusal to increase it. Such an increase, however, would have constituted an indiscriminate use of the nation's resources, with much of the additional provision going to people who were already better off than many of the taxpayers called on to pay for it. I congratulate the Government on having had the courage to resist the hysteria and to use the money where it might win fewer headlines, but would be of more genuine use.
  Half a million disabled people and their carers will benefit from the improvements announced last October. The premiums for disabled children provided through income support have been more than doubled; the help provided by attendance and mobility allowance has been extended to new specific groups; and the benefit structure for those on employment rehabilitation courses has been improved so that they can, for instance, continue to receive invalidity benefit. More support has been given to those who care for disabled people, and the new carers' premium in income support and housing benefit for those receiving care allowance is particularly welcome. I am sure that the Government have not yet reached the limit of the improvements that they can make, but a warm welcome should be given to what they have done so far.
  664
  May I make a specific point about the earnings limit on care allowance? I have already written to the Department about this. Many carers manage to work on a part-time or occasional basis, but are often able to do so only in a rather irregular way. Sometimes they can work for only a few weeks of the year, when other members of the family take over the task of looking after their dependants. As a result, the carers may lose care allowance for some weeks of the year, while their total annual earnings are still substantially less than the weekly earnings limit multiplied by 52. Would it not be better to calculate entitlement on the basis of annual earnings, or provide the option to do so? I hope that Ministers will consider that possibility in the coming year.
  The Government, then, can point to a strong record on social spending, which I believe should be drawn to the country's attention. The Bill will bolster that record. Let me mention three aspects in particular.
  First, the Bill makes further improvements in the assistance provided for sick and disabled people. I know that some of the key features of the package of improvements announced earlier this month are not included—for instance, the new disability allowance, and disability employment credit—but we can look forward to their implementation in the future. Other measures for the sick and disabled are included and are very welcome, particularly the removal of the six-month qualifying period for receipt of attendance allowance by the terminally ill, which has long been a source of discontent. Equally encouraging is the Government's declared aim of dealing with applications in a matter of two weeks. Let us hope that they can deliver on that.
  The age-related addition to the severe disablement allowance is also very welcome. It will help many families, including some in my constituency, who are unable to work as much as they might because of the need to take care of young disabled people. The improvement in widows' benefits is also welcome. It is possible that only a small number of widows will be affected by clause 5, which will help those who make a late claim owing to a delay in determining the death of their husbands; even so, the action was worth taking, and the clause is a good piece of tidying up.
  The part of the Bill that deals with occupational and personal pension schemes will be good news for millions of people. More than 70 per cent. of newly retired pensioners now have an occupational pension. The new ombudsman service will be of great practical value, and will provide a reassuring presence for many pensioners. I am pleased to note that the ombudsman will have statutory powers of enforcement.
  The tracing service established by clause 8 is another important measure: it enables the Government to keep up with the times, and to remove any remaining disincentives and obstacles to the taking out of occupational pensions. Confidence that pensions with previous employers can be tracked down is essential in a world where occupational pensions are more common and the mobility of labour is increasing.
  The strengthening of protection for members of pension schemes is another improvement. It is right to strengthen the protection for early leavers of occupational pension schemes, and to give more help to married women and widows by granting the right to a guaranteed minimum pension to those who have contracted out of SERPS. I am sure that the new restrictions on

  665
  self-investment are right, and I am pleased that Ministers have reversed their initial position on restrictions on small self-administered pension schemes. Members of such schemes generally have sufficient control over their funds not to need such protection.
  In general, I consider the Bill to be a very positive measure, and part of a continuing positive record. Most of those who complain about its provisions could never have imagined a few years ago that the nation would be devoting such a level of resources to social security, let alone providing such an increase in funding for the sick and disabled. In the face of all the cynicism, the Government continue to spend more, to spend it in the right places, and to do so without bankrupting the nation. That is the proper way in which to improve and expand the welfare state.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. John Battle: Despite the attempts of Government to find positive reforms in this Bill and to sell it in the context of the Government's economic approach, I hope that the House will agree that the Bill is a disappointment and a wasted opportunity—not only because it fails to address significantly some key issues, such as the basic retirement pension on which people in the constituencies of some of us have to live, but because it fails to recognise that child benefit has been frozen and does not put before the House the comprehensive benefit for disabled people for which some of us have been pressing for a very long time. In fact, the Bill will implement few of the proposals that were announced in the Secretary of State's recently published report "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People". It even sidelines that long-awaited report.
  In his introduction to the report the Secretary of State wrote:
  "When completed, this programme will build on the many improvements already made in recent years to give us a more comprehensive and coherent system of disability benefits than ever before."
  That statement seems to hinge on a future.promise—one based on the fact that many claimants are experiencing a dismantling of social security and a reduction in their incomes. There are 6·5 million disabled people in Britain, but it is estimated that, in practice, the Bill will affect only 850,000 people, including carers. We are entitled to ask whether this is the Government's best response to the surveys that they have commissioned over the years, the results of which they have now gathered together.
  What about pensioners, who make up the majority of disabled people? There are 4·2 million disabled pensioners in Britain, yet the Bill contains no measures to improve their financial position. Conservative Members boast about the improvement in incomes and living standards achieved by the Government. Recently I received from a 74-year-old widow a letter setting out in clear detail a table of her income every year since November 1987, taking account of the changes in the system and of reductions in housing benefit. Her income, at £48·35 a week, is exactly the same now as it was in November 1987. She writes:
  "Every time something is reviewed or reformed by this Government we either finish up with less money or worse services … I am now having to find an extra £5·25 to pay for
  666
  the cut in housing benefit, 20 per cent. of my rates and all my water rates each week. This is on top of all the other increases in gas, electricity, telephone and food."
  That letter is from a lady who gave up her job 10 years before her retirement date to look after her sick husband so that he would not have to be in and out of hospital. Is it fair that this Bill will do nothing to improve her position?
  Of course, it could be argued that it would be churlish not to say that clause 1, which extends attendance allowance to the terminally ill without a waiting period of six months, is an improvement, but the benefit should be paid as soon as need is established.
  Clause 2 proposes an addition to the severe disability allowance related to the age at which the claimant became disabled. But of the 263,000 people in receipt of severe disability allowance, 140,000 get income support, too, and others receive means-tested housing benefit. They will see no difference as a result of this clause. The discriminatory 80 per cent. disability test will ,remain. Perhaps the Secretary of State, who claims that there have been increases, will tell the House why the Government will not increase the severe disability allowance to the same level as the state retirement pension. That would be a start.
  Furthermore, the abolition of the earnings-related allowance, which is proposed in clause 3, will decimate an already reduced benefit. The Government claim that this benefit will overlap with invalidity benefit. The point is that invalidity benefit represents income maintenance, whereas the reduced earnings allowance is compulsory. In practice this is another reduction in benefit.
  Mr. McCartney: It is vital that we explain to people what is happening in respect of reduced earnings allowance, which is paid to people who are maimed or injured during their work. Many of those people will never return to the type of work in which they were engaged, or to the workplace at all. The Government have steadily reduced the ability of working people to claim this benefit. We have reached the stage where a worker who has had two fingers amputated can fail to qualify for that benefit. That is the sort of thing that the present Government have been doing to people injured in the workplace.
  Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has spelt out in detail the implications of the cuts for people whom we have been trying to represent for months, if not years.
  Clause 4 will remove entitlement to the earnings-related element of invalidity benefit after the 1990–91 tax year. Even that measure flies in the face of the proposals set out in "The Way Ahead".
  The Bill offers a bit of piecemeal tinkering, with no signs of a comprehensive scheme. Worse, it manifestly ignores the main findings in "The Way Ahead", which spelt out in detail the huge gaps in income between disabled people and non-disabled people. Where in this Bill, we are entitled to ask, are the proposals to cover extra costs, such as those involved in diet, heating and laundry, that many disabled people incur as a consequence of their disability? We are no further forward than we were when the special additions were withdrawn as a result of the so-called Fowler review.
  The Bill proposes abolition of the invalid pension allowance by April 1991 to encourage occupational pension schemes. In his statement on 10 January the Secretary of State said:

  667
  "the forthcoming Social Security Bill will contain measures to enhance the benefits of severely disabled who were never able to work, or who were disabled early in life, while at the same time ensuring a better balanced and more sustainable overall structure of income replacement benefits for incapacity, taking account of the encouraging growth of occupational provision in this field."—[Official Report, 10 January 1990; Vol. 164, c. 942.]
  What lies behind those words about a more sustainable overall structure is a clear attempt to reduce social security costs again—and that amounts to a reduction in benefits. Occupational pension schemes are least likely to exist for those most at risk, and this proposal will only undermine the security that SERPS provided. The result will be a saving of £350 million for the Department of Social Security by 1991 and, in practice, a further erosion of disability benefits.
  We welcome the introduction of a pensions ombudsman, but can the Secretary of State assure us that that person will have power to look into the current duping of the taxpayer in the pensions section of the Department of Social Security?
  Today's Financial Times informs us:
  "After running a healthy surplus for years, the National Insurance fund has plunged into deficit. I would be the last to object if this reflected a more generous policy on benefits. Needless to say, it does not. The basic pension, which continues to decline against earnings, is a meagre £43·60 a week—rather less than the cost of a meal for two in a typical City restaurant."
  The reason for that is that when people contract out of SERPS, not only does the fund lose contribution income, as the Secretary of State acknowledged earlier, but the Government are paying a 2 per cent. subsidy to people who switch to personal pension schemes. It is a bribe to undermine the SERPS scheme and to promote private pensions. Although, officially, the Government budgeted for 0·75 million people to leave SERPS, the latest estimate—it was echoed in the remarks of the Secretary of State earlier today—is that about 4 million people will have left the SERPS scheme by April this year.
  As the Secretary of State confirmed, by next April the fund overall will have lost nearly £5 billion in three years. Interestingly, the Financial Times concluded its article with the following:
  "It is surely the height of fiscal irresponsibility to undermine the National Insurance fund by spending £1·5 billion of taxpayers' money encouraging people to gamble their pensions. When so many of today's pensioners are obliged to live on so little, the policy looks more than a trifle callous."
  Contrary to what the Secretary of State suggested, it is not a sum to be brushed aside lightly, yet the Government have embarked on a totally inefficient waste of significant financial resources that could be used to improve other social security benefits.
  In 1979, the Conservative manifesto claimed that there would be a move towards a coherent system of disability benefits
  "as swiftly as the strength of the economy allows."
  The problem with that trickle-down approach is that it always begs the question whether the economy is strong enough to bring the poor, the elderly and the disabled in our society in from the margins. Worse, since 1984 the Government have regularly proclaimed that increasing economic prosperity has arrived, yet, in the words of the Minister for Social Security at the front of the report "The Way Ahead",
  668
  "as a society, we have a long way to go before we accept disabled people as full members of our economic and social community."
  We certainly agree with that. Sadly, there is a long way to go and the Bill does not take us much further forward in ensuring that disabled and elderly people have adequate incomes to meet their needs, and incomes that ensure that they have a decent quality of life and retain their independence. This is a piecemeal, cost-cutting Bill. I urge the House to ask the Secretary of State to take the Bill back and to think again because it is just another missed opportunity.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: I suspect that the sentence that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has just quoted from the document "The Way Ahead" had more to do with attitudes towards disabled people in society than with the cash that is provided to them to help them to overcome their disabilities. If that is the case, I agree with it. Although attitudes are improving, there is a long way to go until we get to the point where people treat disabled people as if they were not special cases but ordinary people with a disability that could be overcome with the help and co-operation of others. That help and co-operation is not just a question of financial help and co-operation—
  Ms. Short: That is important.
  Mr. Smith: Yes, it is important, but it is also important that through a process of education we try to improve people's attitudes to disabled people and persuade them that many disabled people could play a full role in society. There are apparently 6·5 million disabled people in our society, but I believe that many of those people have already overcome their disabilities and play a full role. Therefore, I believe that that is a misleading figure from which to start.
  I support the Bill because it makes worthwhile improvements to both the system of social security and our occupational pension schemes. I very much support the Government's philosophy on social security, which is, as far as is possible, to devote what are necessarily finite resources to those people who are most in need. So, if it comes to a choice—
  Ms. Short: What about tax cuts?
  Mr. Smith: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I shall deal in a moment with her point about tax cuts.
  The important point about social security is that it should be devoted to those who are most in need. Clearly child benefit does not achieve that objective. So, if it is a choice, which I think it must be, between an increase in child benefit and targeting improvements on specific groups, I think that the Government are right to choose the latter.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) earlier described the sum of £16 million as "peanuts". That epitomises the Opposition's attitude. First, £16 million is a substantial sum of money in its own right in absolute terms; and, secondly, if it is targeted on a specific group of people who are in need, it can result in substantial improvements in the weekly benefits of the individuals concerned. When my right hon. Friend made his statement in, I believe, October, he gave examples of

  669
  some substantial improvements in the weekly benefits payable to individuals in need. I hope that the hon. Lady has taken that important point fully on board.
  Ms. Short: Clearly £16 million for one, two or a few people is an enormous sum of money, but £16 million shared among all who are severely disabled is peanuts.
  Mr. Smith: The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) described £300 million as minuscule. I do not see such sums in that way. We must recognise that they are large sums in absolute terms.
  The hon. Member for Ladywood made a revealing intervention earlier when she said that we can assume that we shall have 2·5 per cent. economic growth for the foreseeable future and so we can plan to spend the money now. I advise her that, although we did not have such growth under the last Labour Government, we have certainly had it in the past decade so we have no right to make that assumption. We must have sensible and prudent economic policies because only then will we achieve economic growth.
  Ms. Short: The level of economic growth in our country since the second world war has been 2·5 per cent. or more continuously. In fact, there was continuous growth throughout the lifetime of the last Labour Government. We then saw a dip in the early years of the Tory Government and then a continuation to exactly the same slope. Therefore, we can project that the future is likely to be like the past. Obviously if there is a collapse and a crisis, that transforms everything, but we can expect 2·5 per cent. plus economic growth every year into the foreseeable future—[Interruption.] Of course, we can.
  Mr. Smith: That illustrates the fallacious assumption upon which much of Labour party policy is based. Indeed, the last Labour Government's approch to spending was, "Spend now, and worry about where the money is going to come from later." It was that approach that led to the arrival in this country of the International Monetary Fund in November 1976.
  Page 37 of the report of the Occupational Pensions Board that was published in February 1989 contains two revealing tables. They illustrate the absurdity of the statement of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Indeed, it has been the most remarkable feature of the debate because the hon. Gentleman made a revealing statement about Labour party policy. I suppose that he has been told that in future he should not make any further commitments that would increase public spending, so he has decided to direct himself to private pension schemes and to imposing a huge additional cost on them.
  The two tables show the key factors that affect the performance of pension funds. The first column of each relates to average earnings growth each year and the other column to dividend flows each year. One table covers the period 1975–81 and the other covers 1982–87. Although the pattern is irregular, the net result is that in the period of the Labour Government the increase in average earnings was well in excess of the increase in dividend flows. That is why the OPB stated in 1981:
  "The picture was discouraging as far as pension scheme finance was concerned, and it is easy to understand why the Board did not suggest a course which would place once-for-all past service burdens on schemes."
  670
  The next paragraph is headed "Finance now" and states:
  "The growth in dividend flows has greatly outstripped the growth in average earnings. We think it unlikely that many schemes are hard-pressed as far as their general finances are concerned, and we therefore consider that they should be able to shoulder the modest costs involved in our proposal."
  Those two tables show the transformation in the finances of pension schemes over the past decade. In the 1970s, I was a trustee of a private occupational pension scheme. It was a constant struggle to keep it solvent. When there was a deficit, one could not ask—one would not expect to ask—the employees to make up the difference, so when there was a deficit the employer had to increase his contributions. It follows that, when there is a surplus, it is not unreasonable for the employer to say that he will reduce his contributions.
  I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that we had a debate in the House only last week on our pension scheme when it was agreed that the contributions of the employer, which in this case is the Treasury or the taxpayer, should be reduced from 18 per cent. to 4·4 per cent., while our own contributions were to remain at 9 per cent. That is right when there is a pension scheme surplus. However, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) assumes that that position will continue come hell or high water. He is hoping that hell will come soon because he is hoping for another Labour Government. If that happens, there will be an immediate collapse in investor confidence and the escape clause that he described will be called into play. He has announced a policy which amounts to fraud and which, if it were persisted with for long, would cripple most private sector pension schemes. Everybody should understand the implications of that policy.
  I welcome the proposal for a pensions ombudsman. That is a better idea than the tribunal suggested by the Occupational Pensions Board. Like the other ombudsmen posts in the financial services industry, it should be financed by the industry rather than the taxpayer. My right hon. Friend said something along those lines. There are quite a number of ombudsmen in the financial services sector, and I wonder whether the new post could be combined with one of those. There is a proliferation of them. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that the ombudsman should publish reports. That would be helpful.
  The Bill proposes a pensions scheme register. That will be helpful because of the proliferation of schemes and because many people change their jobs many times. They may have difficulty discovering who is responsible for paying their pension. I hope that it will not be necessary to place the cost burden on the taxpayer. Perhaps the register could be operated by Companies house, which has great experience of registering companies. Many of the companies that register with Companies house also run pension schemes. It might be possible to operate along those lines, but the cost should be paid by the pension schemes, perhaps through an annual registration fee.
  We have already discussed at some length the question of early leavers. I am glad that, because of the improvement in the financial position, it is now possible for the Government to accept something that was not acceptable only five years ago in 1985, which is substantially to improve the lot of the early leaver. There must be a sensible balance. Employers set up occupational

  671
  pension schemes to encourage employees to stay, not to leave. It is part of the remuneration package and employers hope that their employees will remain with them. However, it is important for the national interest that people do not feel that their pension scheme is such that they cannot afford to leave. Job mobility is important and early leavers should have a decent deal. The proposal strikes a sensible balance and should be welcomed.
  I welcome the changes in self-investment that my right hon. Friend announced just before Christmas. The changes originally proposed went too far. It is sensible to omit from the proposal those who are self-employed directors because clearly they are in a different category. I understand the more general reservations about large amounts of pension fund money being invested in the company because employees then have too many eggs in one basket. The proposal is just right. I welcome that part of the Bill that deals with occupational pensions and also the proposals on social security.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: Like other hon. Members, I shall be brief.
  Clause 1 deals with the six-month rule for attendance allowance but, unfortunately, it does not go far enough. I shall give one or two examples of the problems that I have encountered with the implementation of that rule.
  Under the six-month rule the applicant who is diagnosed as being entitled to receive attendance allowance has to wait for six months, which gives rise to a number of problems. In particular, if the illness is serious the applicant and his family may need assistance quickly. That relative—perhaps a husband or wife—might have to give up work to care for the applicant, which means an immediate loss of income to that family. The illness could involve certain expenses such as travel to hospital and special diets. When the applicant is elderly, there could be the expense of paying for extra nursing and other help.
  The saddest problem with the rule is where the applicant dies after being diagnosed as qualifying for the allowance, but before the end of the six month period when the benefit would be put into payment. Since 1987, I have dealt with three such tragic cases. It is extremely distressing to experience the tragic death, after serious illness, of a relative at a time when an application for attendance allowance has been granted, but before the end of the six-month period the applicant dies and a letter arrives from the Department of Social Security saying that the benefit is not payable.
  I know of a tragic case of an elderly couple where the husband had to employ MacMillan nurses to look after his wife. She was not diagnosed as terminally ill, but she died before the end of the six-month period. He had been put to particular expense only to find that he did not qualify for receipt of the benefit because his wife had died. The only value of the six-month rule is to determine the seriousness of the condition of the person making the application, and to determine whether the illness is serious enough to warrant payment. A six-month period can be classed as too long to determine whether a person is sufficiently seriously ill to qualify for the benefit. Many applicants regard the rule as a Government device to save money on the attendance allowance. Failing the abolition of the six-month rule—which would perhaps be the best way to deal with the matter—any amendment to it should
  672
  ensure that it takes into account genuinely seriously ill applicants rather than simply using the definition of terminally ill, which is too narrow a definition in this context.
  There are problems in diagnosis. A person might be seriously ill, but not diagnosed as terminally ill. A diagnosis might be made at the time of the application and the terminality of the illness might occur later. It puts a responsibility on doctors, delegated medical practitioners and the attendance allowance board to determine what is or what is not terminal illness. I suggest that the criterion should be genuine serious illness rather than terminally ill.
  In support of that, I refer the Secretary of State to a letter that I received in June 1988 from the attendance allowance unit of his Department in Norcross in Blackpool, which referred to a claim with which I was dealing. It states:
  "Any system of short-term social security support—over and above the present State sickness benefit and statutory sick pay schemes—for people who might die before completing the six month qualifying period for attendance allowance would involve their classification as terminally ill. Quite apart from the practical difficulties, in some cases doctors can, for good reasons, withhold or delay telling patients and their relatives about the diagnosis of terminal illness. Again, given the many advances in medical science and knowing the spirit of some patients, doctors may be reluctant to commit themselves to such a firm prognosis."
  The Secretary of State's Department is casting some doubt on the usefulness of the definition of terminally ill for the six-month qualifying period for attendance allowance. Although it is welcome as a step forward in alleviating the problems with the six-month rule, rather than using the definition of terminally ill, a definition of a genuine serious illness, whereby the attendance allowance board can determine that the illness is likely to extend beyond the six-month period, should be included in the Bill.
  Clause 3 abolishes the reduced earnings allowance, which was formerly the special hardship allowance. It is interesting that the Department removed the emotive word "hardship" from the definition of the benefit and now it has decided to remove the benefit. That will have a major effect on certain industrial sectors, for example, the mining industry. For eight years I dealt with compensation claims for the industry—social security benefits and common law damages claims. Many serious injuries would automatically mean deployment of an injured miner to light work, with the inevitable consequence that he would be deployed to light wages as well. Reduced earnings allowance was a necessary benefit to enable an injured miner to maintain his income level during the period of his disability and on recovery.
  As the Secretary of State is probably aware, serious injuries that would qualify a miner for reduced earnings allowance and disability benefit extend over a long period. I have dealt with cases that extended over a number of years. If a case is contested, the period can be as long as 12 years. The mining industry has a long history of severe injuries and a large compensation sector. The British Coal Corporation and the union employ staff to deal with compensation claims. Although some 90 per cent. of cases have been settled amicably through negotiation, a proportion have had to be dealt with through tribunals and the courts.
  The negligence issue raises the question whether common law compensation would do away with the need for reduced earnings allowance, and I suggest that it would

  673
  not. There is always a litigation risk in a negligence claim and such claims are not aways successful. A compromise settlement might mean that the compensation awarded to an applicant is reduced by up to 50 per cent., even though he still needs the same treatment. It might not adequately cover future loss of earnings.
  British Coal has a no-fault liability scheme, incorporating a loss of earnings allowance for miners who are diagnosed as suffering from pneumoconiosis. Unfortunately, the loss of earnings allowance under that scheme is restrictive, and it is not used often. Pneumoconiosis is a progressive disease. There are problems with diagnosis; often the disease is not diagnosed until late in a workman's working life. To qualify for loss of earnings allowance under the pneumoconiosis compensation schemes, the workman has to work in a dust-free environment, which usually means on a colliery or unit surface, which again means light work and light wages.
  A few weeks ago, the case was raised with me of a common law wife who, obviously, did not qualify for widow's benefits or widow's allowances. I ask the Secretary of State to consider the position of that young lady. She visited me, having lost her partner with whom she had been living for the previous 15 years. To all intents and purposes, the lady was in the same position as a married woman in all but the marriage certificate. The occupational pension was awarded to her as a partner. She did not qualify for widow's benefits. It seems hypocritical that, when she went to live with her partner and immediately declared that fact to the social security office, the couple was classed by the Department as, to all intents and purposes, a married couple, yet, when it comes to paying out money on the death of a long-term common law partner, there is no entitlement to benefit.
  I welcome the clause on energy efficiency, on which, I presume, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will touch. As a member of the Select Committee on Energy, I welcome this measure. It is good to see that at least one Department recognises the value of energy efficiency, especially as this follows the Energy Committee's report on the greenhouse effect.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. James Cran: I support the Social Security Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, of course. No doubt the Opposition will do the opposite. I intend to confine my remarks to that part of the Bill about which I know rather more, on the principle that I have listened to others speak about state benefits who clearly know more than I do. Such expertise as I have on this subject emanates from the fact that, before becoming a Member, I was—as an Opposition Member remarked during one of my interventions—the man from the CBI. It is equally true to say that, before that, I was the man from the National Association of Pension Funds. From that experience, I gathered some facts, none of which, regrettably, was reflected in the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). The hon. Gentleman made a number of extravagant, insupportable statements. I assure the House that many Conservative Members will read his remarks carefully when they are printed tomorrow, because they were startling.
  674
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West misunderstands the principle of an occupational pension scheme or, for that matter, a portable pension. That was illustrated by his dissertation—"dissertation" is far too kind a word—on inflation proofing. He made promises without cost implications, saying that it could all be paid for out of surpluses. Anyone who knows anything about this subject realises that that is not how it is done. A pension fund must meet long-term obligations, which means financial discipline—about which I heard nothing from Labour Members.
  I suspect that the occupational pension fund movement is not worried about the Government, who have produced single-figure inflation. I associate myself with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that inflation is too high at the moment. The occupational pension fund movement is worried about the return of a Labour Government—I know that we will not have a Labour Government, but let us postulate for a moment—and inflation of 27·5 per cent. I assure the House that the corollary of that would be bankruptcy for the occupational pension fund movement. If I am wrong, and if I am lucky enough to be on the Standing Committee, I shall be interested to hear what actuarial advice the hon. Member for Oldham, West received to lead him to make his statement. I will want to learn which bodies he has consulted and what detailed advice he has been given, because my view is that his remarks are insupportable.
  Labour Members may not wish to accept this point, but an occupational pension or a portable pension is a prized possession, as is easily seen by statistics. By 1986, about 70 per cent. of newly retired people had such a pension. Between 1979 and 1986, the incomes of occupational pensioners rose in real terms by 56 per cent.—a staggering performance by any standard in terms not just of the investment managers but of increased returns to pensioners, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). That is a real benefit. I concede that the maximum benefits in occupational schemes accrue to those who stay in them. Not all workers stay in their occupational pension schemes. They move round. That is why the reform introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was an epoch-making measure. The whole system was freed up in a way that many people in occupational pension schemes appreciated.
  My conviction and the conviction of my right hon. Friend is that, if possible, we must induce people through occupational schemes, portable schemes and other devices to make provision while they work for the time when they will not work.
  Ms. Short: I presume that the hon. Gentleman has read the report of the Occupational Pensions Board which laid the basis for the reforms in the Bill. Many individual pensioners who have lost out and who are increasingly impoverished gave evidence. I accept the hon. Gentleman's average performance figures. Does he agree that we must protect everyone from being conned into disastrous pension schemes that will impoverish them in old age? We need a system of regulation so that that will not happen.
  Mr. Cran: When the hon. Lady bandies about words such as "disastrous schemes", she must come forward with evidence.
  Ms. Short: It is in this report.
  Mr. Cran: I mean evidence from individual schemes. I was a member of a fairly good scheme for several years, but a few years later I moved to another scheme. Difficulties occurred about the transfer payment and all the rest. That is where the problem occurs in the occupational pension fund movement. It is perfectly clear that the hon. Lady does not understand the basis of the occupational pension fund movement. I look forward to hearing her evidence in Committee, and we shall consider that evidence when it is presented to us.
  Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman has not read the report. If he had, he would have seen the evidence laid out in a table. Several individuals wrote in to say that their pensions had been eroded in value over time and that they were angry about it. They believe that Government regulation is needed. The report also makes it clear that money purchase schemes depend on cashing in the moment that someone retires. If that coincides with a drop in the stock market, the members lose out. The hon. Gentleman must be aware of those examples, and I could give more. The question is whether the Government should regulate to protect people from falling into schemes that provide glossy brochures suggesting that they will be fine in old age only to find that they are impoverished. Regulation is needed to protect everyone to a minimum standard.
  Mr. Cran: To clear up one anomaly, I have read the report. The problem with reports is the construction that one puts on them. I fear that the Opposition have put the worst possible construction on that report. One must go beyond the report and consider individual schemes. When the hon. Lady makes such allegations, we must see the detailed evidence for them.
  If I am lucky enough to be chosen to serve on the Committee, I shall return to the problem of inflation-proofing. The problem will not be solved by a dictum of the Secretary of State that inflation is 11 per cent. so members of all schemes must be indemnified for it. We live with occupational schemes which are funded, and obligations can be paid only from the earnings that the scheme makes. That is why I believe that, rightly or wrongly, Opposition Members profoundly misunderstand what occupational pensions are all about.
  It does not elevate the argument to bandy about extravagant words. Of all the schemes that I have known in my lifetime—I am no longer associated with the occupational pension fund movement—some have been good and some bad, but none has been disreputable—or whatever word the hon. Lady used.
  I am in favour of occupational and portable pensions because we should make provision while we work for the time when we do not work. The great advantage of such schemes is that they take the burden off the state—the taxpayer—and release moneys for the social security budget, which is currently about £56 billion. Resources are freed for the people who need them rather than being spent on those who do not. That is absolutely correct, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has my support in that.
  676
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right to introduce a pensions ombudsman. Such a provision is long overdue. I remember such an initiative being discussed in my days in the National Association of Pension Funds. It is a pity that that great industry did not have the courage to set up an ombudsman to consider matters on which individual pensioners disagree with those who run the schemes. I am therefore delighted that we shall legislate to provide an ombudsman.
  The great problem, however, is deciding what constitutes a dispute between a scheme and an individual. My experience tells me that all members are in dispute at some time with their schemes. I have had such a dispute. The last time that I wanted to transfer a pension I thought that the transfer payment was too low. Is that a dispute? It might be. I remind the House that in this business, dissatisfaction emanates from unfulfilled expectations, which are endless in the pension fund movement and, from what I have heard, on the Opposition Benches.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to set up a tracing service. Again, it is long overdue. From my time with the NAPF, I remember people sitting round board room tables saying that it would be a good idea, but they did not have the courage, foresight or ability to go ahead and set it up. Indubitably, they should have done. I am heartened to hear that my right hon. Friend intends to set up the service with the co-operation of the industry, and I expect that that co-operation will be forthcoming. He may rely on some of us to put our weight behind some bodies in the movement to help him.
  I understand what the Government are trying to do about asset deficiency in winding up schemes and the consequential obligation to revalue benefits. That is correct, even though the Opposition would like to do more. All Oppositions want to do more and to spend more of everyone's money. That is entirely understandable. My right hon. Friend is advancing the conditions of pensioners a little further. His gradualist approach is correct. But I do not understand why the Government have decided to adopt the view that when a scheme is wound up a debt should be imposed on the employer. The OPB suggested that improved preserved rights should be a first charge on the surplus of a wind-up. That is a more appealing solution than the one that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has chosen. I hope that he will be prepared to listen to some of us, as we are prepared to listen to the justification for his proposal.
  On the ceiling on self-investment, one is tempted to ask why, in heaven's name, it has not been done before. I do not say that about large self-administered schemes. I used to hear stories of some large and medium-sized self-administered schemes that were unhealthily self-invested. Clearly, for all the reasons that my right hon. Friend gave, it is wrong that pensioners should rely unduly on the fortunes of one company. He is correct to incorporate a provision to deal with that. With his usual perspicacity, he recognises that there is a problem with small businesses. There is no doubt of that. We cannot proceed at the speed at which some would like, so I welcome the concession that he has made.
  However, perhaps on another occasion in the House or in Committee my right hon. Friend will explain the problem of small self-administered schemes where the benefits are for people who may not be 20 per cent. directors but less than that and who do not operate the

  677
  scheme for anybody but themselves. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could address that deceptively important point.
  In conclusion, the past four years has seen a stream of legislation and regulations on the occupational pension fund movement and portable pensions. I support most of it. It was forced on the Government, although many of the problems could have been solved by the movement years ago if it had tackled the problems of early leavers. It did not and the Government stepped in. But a balance must be struck in these matters. I suspect that many employers are beginning to say to themselves that occupational pensions are becoming administratively complex and therefore costly. My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the time may come when many employers will ask themselves whether the establishment of occupational pension schemes solves more problems than it creates. I put that thought into my right hon. Friend's mind for him to consider.
  Apart from the few small caveats that I have mentioned, these pension provisions are absolutely right, and my right hon. Friend has my support.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friends, particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). The £300 million for the disabled is a drop in the ocean when considered against total social security expenditure of over £50 billion.
  It is said that one can judge a society by how it treats old people. If we look at how the Government have treated our old people in the past 10 years, our judgment is, indeed, harsh. The social security changes resulted in £4·5 billion being lopped off the budget, while Ministers gave us platitudes about how they cared for people in a non-existent society.
  My right hon. Friend said that he had spoken to disabled groups. Last week I spoke to senior citizens in my constituency and they gave me the same message for the Secretary of State. This is an inconsequential Bill. It is turning the ratchet and making people poorer by the day, the month, the year. If that were done through neglect, it would be shameful enough, but it is being done by design. The source of that is the Social Security Act 1986. What did the Government do? They broke the link between pensions and average earnings. It has been said before, but needs repeating, that if that link, which the Labour Government introduced, had been maintained, the single pension would be £12 a week more and the married pension £18 a week more.
  The Institute of Fiscal Studies investigated pensions. If pensions and benefits had been linked only to prices from 1948 onwards, the single pension today would be, not £41·40, but only £17·37—only 42 per cent. of what it is now. If we project that 20 or 30 years forward, we can see how much money the Government will save in the long term and their disregard for keeping pensioners' benefits at a decent level.
  It is no use just linking pensions to prices or to inflation. That is inadequate. For low income groups the inflation rate is greater than that of the retail prices index. Another study was carried out into the poorest and richest 10 per
  678
  cent. of the population. Between 1974 and 1982 the retail prices index for poor people was 17 per cent. greater than it was for rich people simply because people on lower income must spend a higher proportion of their incomes on basics, such as food, housing and fuel. Age Concern compared the amount of fuel needed to heat a home in Glasgow and Aberdeen with that for a home in Bristol and found that it took 20 per cent. more in Glasgow and 30 per cent. more in Aberdeen than in Bristol. Yet the Government ignore that evidence.
  In the past few years insult has been added to injury. In May 1988 the Prime Minister emphasised that "everyone" had benefited from increased prosperity. The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) said that only a "tiny minority" of pensioners were disadvantaged. Those right hon. Members escaped relatively unscathed from their callous, indifferent comments. Not so the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) who, when he was Secretary of State, tried to get the Government off the hook, but came unstuck when he said that poverty no longer existed. For him, poverty must mean death through malnutrition, if he was serious in claiming that there was no poverty.
  Those unfortunate comments must be seen against the comments of Tory guru, Adam Smith, who stated that necessities were
  "not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for support of life, but also whatever the custom of the country renders it decent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, not to be without."
  Adam Smith talks about the lowest order, but the Government do not even mention it because they treat everyone as being of the lowest order. If the Government cannot be persuaded by that high Tory pantheon, Adam Smith, they will surely be persuaded by what the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), now the Minister for Overseas Development, said in 1979:
  "it is not sufficient to assess poverty by absolute standards; nowadays it must be judged on relative criteria by comparison with the standard of living of other groups in the community."
  If the Secretary of State should learn anything from the debate, it is that he should look into the issue of poverty. He and the Cabinet have studiously avoided it. Let him define what poverty is and what a man or woman needs to get by in life. Then he can start to convince people that the Government are concerned about people's needs and how they live.
  Elderly folk, including disabled people, come to my surgery and tell me time and again that they cannot live on the state pension. They know that their visits are futile, but they say, "I am here only to talk to someone. I want to tell you how hard it is to get by, but I know you cannot do anything for us." Tonight the Government could do something for those people if they gave a commitment to study the incidence of poverty and if they realised that there was a relative condition of poverty. If that definition was returned to the political agenda, it would do a lot to improve the Government's credibility and to improve the welfare of our people.
  We are all aware of the Government's lack of concern for the day-to-day needs of honest people, but I cannot believe that they are unaware of the inadequacy of the state pension. That pension does not allow pensioners to participate in society. To prepare for this debate, I studied a report produced by Eric Midwinter, of the Centre for Policy on Aging, concerning pensioners in London. He

  679
  analysed the involvement of pensioners in society and found that 2 per cent. of pensioners participate in adult education classes and 1 per cent. go to the cinema. One could argue that those percentages are low because many pensioners are infirm, but infirmity affects 4 per cent. only of those aged between 65 and 74 years. Pensioners' participation in adult education classes and their attendance at the cinema is low as they have been excluded from a social life because of poverty. The statistics are there for the Secretary of State to study.
  Last week Age Concern told me of an elderly gentleman who buys items such as toilet rolls or washing up liquid every week as he must plan his budget on that basis. The Secretary of State fails to realise that to take a few pounds from such people represents a dramatic loss.
  The Secretary of State has discussed occupational pensions. He should remember those individuals who receive an extremely small occupational pension. Some people who come to my surgery receive a pension of £20 a month, but, because of that, they are disregarded for other benefits. They find that they are worse off after a miserly rise in their benefits due to receiving a small occupational pension for which they have worked all their lives.
  The statistics prove that pensioners spend less on fuel and housing, not because they can cope better, but simply because they cannot cope. In the past 12 years in Scotland 3,000 people have died from hypothermia. That is on their death certificates, but the figure may be even greater as doctors are reluctant to put hypothermia on the official forms. Nevertheless, 3,000 people have been officially recognised as having died from hypothermia, and surely that is enough for the Secretary of State to realise that there is a great problem.
  We should not concern ourselves with any academic debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central. We should be determining the appropriate pension level on which people can live. We should face up to the reality that our pensioners die younger than elsewhere in Europe or in the United States because they receive insufficient money on which to live every week. There is no doubt where the blame lies.
  The King's Fund Research Institute looked at statistics produced by the World Health Organisation and its conclusion was clear enough when it spoke of
  "severe poverty and disadvantage among a substantial minority"
  of British pensioners. The Government have studiously ignored that substantial minority.
  The Government should consider why 50 per cent. of our pensioners must depend on means-tested benefits. In a comparison of present pension levels as a proportion of average earnings, Britain is bottom of the European league. We spend less on social security—on which 50 per cent. of old people depend—relative to gross domestic product than any other country. The proportion is getting smaller month by month.
  Pensioners are also dependent upon key services which are under attack from the Government—the Health Service, housing and transport. Pensioners have seen cut not only their living standards but the link between average earnings and pensions. Is that miserliness or mendacity? Who knows?
  If pensioners cannot get what they need, they must go to the social fund. The recent changes in that fund show that the number of social fund payments represents a third
  680
  of what was paid out under the single payment regime which operated before the Social Security Act 1986. I have spoken to the staff in social fund offices in Scotland. When people approach the officers for help, they are asked, "Can you pay it back?" If it is judged that they cannot pay back the money, help is refused. They also consider whether applicants will be dependent on the state in future or whether they will go into an institution. If a person is institutionalised, the money will be paid out, but if that person plans to stay in the community the money will not be given as such people are considered a burden on society. That is the reality behind the social fund in Scotland; and the same is true in other regions.
  The Government cannot escape their responsibilities because social fund officers deny that money in the Government's name. The number of claimants has reduced, but there has been no corresponding reduction in the needs of society; rather those needs have increased.
  The Government talk about targeting, but that is yet another euphemism for cuts. Pensioners in Scotland already face difficulties with the poll tax, which has yet to come into operation in England and Wales. A Scottish pensioner couple on income support will be worse off in any area where the poll tax is more than £299. The Government have made transitional arrangements to pay £3 per week in assistance, but that arrangement is based on a notional tax figure; it is not based on actual tax. Such arrangements will result in increased hardship.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that under the Labour Government the value of pensions rose by 20 per cent. in real terms. The Secretary of State had no adequate answer to that. If pensions had continued to rise by a similar amount under the Government a single pensioner would be £12 better off and a married couple would have received £18 a week more.
  The Secretary of State should take up the issue of poverty. The Government should recognise what elderly people require not only to live on but to participate fully in society. They need that money to heat their homes, to have a healthy, varied diet and to afford decent clothing. We are witnessing the erosion of their living standards.
  The Bill is a nonentity as it does not address poverty. It takes us further along the path set in 1986 and, as such, it deserves to be thrown out.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made an extraordinary speech, which contained many promises. He attacked the Bill for being incoherent, but his speech was guilty of that.
  The hon. Gentleman must have had his beady eyes on the £50 billion accumulated in private pension schemes and I assume that he saw that as a source of money for providing the comprehensive disability scheme that he described. He did not quantify the money involved and it is significant that when the Labour party was in power it failed to introduce such a scheme.
  This is an important week for the disabled in Parliament. We have today's debate and another one on Wednesday. Tomorrow the Autumn Statement debate will indicate the public funds available for the next three years. The Bill covers both pensions and disability benefits, as well as the insulation grants scheme. The Opposition say

  681
  that the Bill does not go far enough, but it already overlaps the important National Health Services and Community Care Bill which is being discussed in Committee.
  I wish to speak mainly about the aspects of this Bill dealing with the disabled, but I shall first touch on some other aspects. The insulation grant scheme allows for advice to be provided. Will that advice extend to cover problems of dampness? I have seen far too many council houses in my constituency with severe damp problems. The council is far too quick to condemn tenants for their lack of housekeeping and blames condensation and fuel poverty as the cause of the dampness. In many cases, the causes are much more fundamental: lack of damp proof courses, leaking roofs and gutters or, worse still, major structural defects. There are even cases in which houses have been built over water courses. The tenants should have a good source of independent advice.
  The Bill's long title suggests that it covers a host of social security matters. Only yesterday, I did an early morning radio broadcast. I was asked by the Salvation Army in Bolton to raise the issue of social security payments for hostel tenants. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware of the large £7 million deficit which is being run up by the Salvation Army. I should be grateful for any suggestions of help he can offer.
  Anyone responsible for running a pension scheme would be terrified by some of the points made by Opposition Members, especially by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The thought that someone can grab the £50 billion accumulated savings in the pension schemes and use them for other purposes and the assumption that employees can have something for nothing—a pension without having to pay anything in—are ridiculous. We must remember that every pension has a price. The Confederation of British Industry has rightly said that extra costs and less flexibility for pension funds could well mean a loss of jobs. I should like to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) about the need for small self-administered pension schemes to have full flexibility.
  Opposition Members have called for a lot more on disability issues than exists in the Bill. The hon. Member for Oldham, West promised an unspecified amount for a comprehensive disability benefit. Why did not his own party do that when it was in power? Why does he not specify the amount that he has in mind? The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who has done so much for disabled causes, says that he wants gigantic steps to take the disabled into the 1990s.
  Opposition Members have condemned the Bill for not going far enough, but the Government have gone much further than did the Labour party when it was in power. Total spending on the long-term sick and disabled is now £8·3 billion—100 per cent. above the real level of Labour spending—and there is an increase each year of 75 per cent. more than the increase provided when the Labour party was in power. I, too, should like there to be more spending for the disabled, but the Bill's measures should be welcomed and not criticised. Surely Age Concern was wrong to say in a letter dated 19 January which I received today from Jane Clarkson, parliamentary officer:
  682
  "we believe that these measures should not be introduced until a comprehensive review of benefits and proper consultation have taken place."
  That is absurd. Why should 58,000 terminally ill people have to wait for consultation when the Government are offering them £35 million now? They will not be alive to know the results of further consultations if the Government have to wait instead of acting now.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) criticised the Bill because it benefited only 1 million people instead of the 6 million people who suffer from some sort of disability. Surely it is far better to provide some benefit now and then consult further in the future. The Disability Benefit Consortium says that it is angered by the White Paper. I am sorry to hear that comment. Surely the Government have been right to commission the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' survey as the bedrock of future intelligent discussion about the further development of the benefit structure.
  The White Paper calls for comments from the disability groups, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues intend to go further than hearing comments. I hope that they will want full consultation and that my right hon. Friend will confirm to Mencap and other organisations that full consultation with disabled persons and their organisations will take place to determine the development of new benefits.
  The OPCS surveys cast light on our ignorance of the disabled. The number of severely handicapped children in institutional care because their families cannot care for them was provisionally estimated at 2,500. The survey shows that there are more than 5,000 children in institutional care. The first OPCS survey shows that there are more than 200,000 people in the most severely disabled category—category 10—but that half of them are living at home and being looked after by their families. If my right hon. Friend and his colleagues would like to visit Bolton, they could see just one of my constituents, a severely disabled young adult called David Cummings, being looked after by his family and would appreciate the need for more benefits and services. The OPCS survey showed that 70 per cent. of disabled people live on 75 per cent. or less of average incomes, but their living costs are above average.
  Public opinion will not allow a two-tier benefit structure to continue. Under such a system those with legal claims or industrial injury benefits have a relatively high income, while many of those whose disabilities arise as an accident at birth or who cannot make claims for compensation have to exist on a standard of living which is far too low, by any reckoning.
  The Bill is right to bring in some benefits without delay. I look forward to further steps being taken in full consultation with disability organisations to provide the further benefits which are so desperately needed. Voluntary unpaid care in the community has been valued at about £12 billion per annum. Much more of that should be paid by the taxpayer. The challenge facing us all, especially the disability groups, is to accept each step as a positive development, while working with the Government to gain full public acceptance for further increases in disability benefits within the limits of the increasing expenditure which a successful economy can afford. I support the Bill and welcome its provisions.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: Anyone wanting to know the views of disabled people and others on the Government's record and the Bill should have been with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and I outside the luxurious offices of the Department of Social Security earlier today. I was strolling towards my office when I saw a large group of people. I subsequently learnt that many of them were from the National Federation of the Blind, the Disability Alliance and other disabled groups. They were with guide dogs and in wheelchairs, and were extremely angry. They were handing in a petition to the Department.
  I remind all taxpayers that we have spent about £50 million building luxurious offices in which Ministers of the Department of Social Security preside over this country's social security system. The Government spent £400,000 on paving stones around the offices, and the expenditure that caught my eye was the £40,000 for pot plants and other adornments for the offices.
  This morning the petitioners were handing in a petition headed, "The way ahead for disabled people? Or a way out for the Government?" It stated:
  "The Government has failed to understand the needs of disabled people.
  The Government has failed to respond to the gross inadequacies in current benefit and service provision for disabled people.
  The Government has failed to accept that the way to eliminate poverty amongst disabled people is by the introduction of a comprehensive disability income scheme."
  They handed in the petition and spoke to a small group of journalists who were there to record its presentation.
  Next, a group of 20 or 30 people started walking across Whitehall, and in the middle they decided to stop. For 15 minutes they held up the flow of traffic from Trafalgar square to Whitehall, protesting about the Government's record on helping the disabled, protesting against the inadequacy of this Bill, and affirming their rights.
  I spoke to a number of people who told me that this was the only effective action that they could take, and that nobody would listen to them unless they took it. Newspapers and television and radio, they said, rarely report anything that they do—unless they take this sort of action—and Ministers take no notice either.
  As other hon. Members have said, this is a miserable failure of a Bill; in no way does it meet the challenge that the Government face after 10 years in office. In 1979 the Government's election manifesto said that they wanted to
  "move towards a coherent system of disability benefits … as rapidly as the strength of the economy would allow".
  Since then, billions upon billions of pounds have been given to the richest in the land, to people who do not need the extra money. Billions have been spent on arms, and in the past 12 months we have seen that that expenditure was wholly unjustified—as the vast majority of people now recognise. They want the resources spent on those who are most in need—those whom we are discussing tonight.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) complained about ministerial sleight of hand and about being hoodwinked by figures given to the House about new money which, on investigation, turned out to be old money. He had every justification for complaining. I shall point out three measures that the Government have slipped through by stealth, with no approval—still less discussion—by the House. They will hit many of our constituents hard in the coming weeks and months.
  684
  The Secretary of State referred to the statutory sick pay scheme and gave the impression that these changes were marginal, affecting only a few people. I do not take that view; I understand that in April the Government are introducing changes to the scheme which will affect more than 2 million people who depend on statutory sick pay for help in the event of falling ill. I understand that those who earn between £46 and £83 a week, and who now receive £36·25 a week under the scheme, will get an increase in April of £3, to £39·25. Those earning £125 and above and who now receive £52·10 will get an increase of 40p in April, to £52·50. But the group of people about whom I am most concerned, those earning between £84 and £124 who now receive £52·10, face a cut in April to £39·25—a drop of £12·85 a week. I am advised that that will save the Government—or rob our constituents of—about £70 million or £80 million a year.
  I come now to the changes made to the entitlement to unemployment benefit of those forced into short-time working. I have raised this matter several times recently in debate and in parliamentary questions. There are 9,000 workers on short time in the textile and clothing industries, many of them in Bradford. If they earn more than £43 a week they will not be able to apply, as they have done in the past, for unemployment benefit to top up their wages. I wonder whether Ministers in their luxurious offices could live on £43 a week. I doubt it. Most of them spend much more than that on lunch every day, yet my constituents and thousands of other people on low incomes who are forced into short-time working because of trading conditions will be compelled to live on that sum and be unable to receive the unemployment benefit that they formerly got.
  I have read the proceedings of the Committee that dealt with this matter and discovered that no Minister mentioned that many short-time workers would be adversely affected by the changes that crept in on 10 December.
  Probably few hon. Members have heard of the welfare milk scheme. I had not until I started receiving a stream of letters from those who deliver our milk daily and from a number of organisations which are concerned about the likely effect on recipients of not receiving welfare milk on the doorstep.
  The welfare milk scheme has been in existence for 40 years. It sets out to provide free milk to pregnant women, single parents in receipt of family credit who have children under five, and the long-time unemployed. These people are provided with a weekly token which can be exchanged for seven pints of milk. The milk is usually delivered by a roundsman, although tokens can be used in shops and supermarkets. Tokens have a nominal value equivalent to the suppliers' current normal retail price. Typical doorstep prices outside London result in a token value of seven times 30p, which is £2·10.
  Without discussion in the House, still less with real negotiations with the industry, the Government are proposing to reduce the amount of the token value to the roundsmen, making it uneconomic in many constituencies, including mine, for the milk to be delivered daily to the doorstep. That will result in roundsmen going out of business, especially in areas where they are financially dependent on supplying welfare milk, and many pregnant mothers and women with large families will be forced to buy their milk daily at the supermarket or corner shop, with all the inconvenience of having to bring it home. I

  685
  understand that these changes will be introduced on 28 January, and I urgently appeal to the Minister to make it clear that that will not happen.
  I am indebted to Mr. J. T. Blackburn, managing director of Northern Dairies, who wrote to me earlier this month as follows:
  "In areas of high density of welfare milk tokens, which admittedly affect a relatively small number of rounds, the introduction of this discount could threaten the viability of the service. For example, we are aware of customers of ours who collect over 200 tokens per week. The impact of the proposed discount of 21p per token is to reduce that individual's income at worst by £42 per week. This could make the difference between viable or non-viable business in areas where doorstep delivery is often already not without its difficulties."
  I urge Ministers to get a grip on this matter. I am aware of correspondence sent out by bureaucrats in the Department in which they claim that these matters have been extensively discussed with the the trade. My information is that that is untrue. Ministers must suspend the scheme that is due to take effect later this month so that proper negotiations can take place.
  My last point is about elderly people in Bradford. We are involved in great controversy over the council's closure of 12 elderly persons' homes. Local residents have attended two large public meetings about Upper Syke home and made clear their wishes in a community ballot. Of more than 1,000 people who voted, 97 per cent. voted to keep Upper Syke as an elderly person's home and to keep the grounds round it as an open space. They did not want it sold for development into eight luxury bungalows that will sell for £250,000 each. That home and the others should be kept.
  I have been told about a gentleman aged 87 who is of Ukrainian origin and speaks little English. He suffers from a range of physical complaints that plague him daily with a great deal of pain. He has been in care—if that is the right term—of Bradford social services for the past fortnight. His neighbour wrote to me and said:
  "The arrangement was that an attendant would come to him three times daily, and alas, this has not happened.
  On Saturday morning one visit included a breakfast, (porridge only) and a few sandwiches for later, a repeat performance occurred on Sunday morning after a lapse of 24 hours.
  This morning I inquired why this was and was informed that this is regarded as weekend cover.
  I think you will agree that this is totally inadequate for a person this age, and whose mental confusion can lead to tragic consequences, especially when left alone for long periods.
  Although he is waiting for a place in which he can be given respite care, this has not so far been available, and the events leading up to it are turning out to be dismal."
  I spoke to that neighbour tonight by telephone and was told that the old gentleman is still in exactly the same plight. He has every right to proper respite care, which was available at Upper Syke and which would be available at the other homes if our Conservative-controlled council were not busy selling them off at less than market value.
  I hope that Ministers will heed what has been said in debate and will not ignore it as the blind, the disabled and others who were outside their offices this morning were ignored and will continue to be ignored unless they take action. The Government will have great difficulty painting those blind and disabled people as Left-wing extremists, subversives and agitators. They speak for the decent
  686
  people of this country who want resources put into the pockets of those who are most in need and not into the pockets of rich and privileged people who can look after themselves. That is the message of the debate. For 10 years the Government have turned a deaf ear to that message and I plead with them to heed some of the points made in the debate. I hope that they will pay heed quickly, not for our sake but for the sake of those whom we seek to represent.
  8.2 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: In his statement of 10 January my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services identified three main strategic needs. He said:
  "The third is to help those disabled people who can and wish to work by making it easier for them to keep or take up jobs."—[Official Report, 10 January 1989; Vol. 164, c. 941.]
  He went on to describe the two new benefits by which he would achieve those goals. One was the disability allowance which would address itself to the care needs and mobility needs of those of working age and below, and the other was the disability employment credit which is aimed at supporting those in work and those who would like to work and could do so but whose earning capacity is low. That followed his October 1989 package which aimed to improve the benefit structure for those who choose to go on to employment, rehabilitation courses or beneficial employment.
  In this debate the Secretary of State spoke of his desire and purpose to help those for whom the system does least at the moment. To me, that shouts immediately about the young disabled seeking work and I want to bring to the attention of the House some small points which might sink into people's hearts and minds and make them think a little harder about how the Secretary of State can achieve his goals.
  Only one third of young disabled people seeking work after leaving school or college manage to find it. That compares with nearly three quarters of their peers—the non-disabled of the same age group. Some 51 per cent. of them end up not in work or in youth training schemes. That is one in two, whereas less than one fifth of the non-disabled find themselves in that position—17 per cent. This is where the issue impinges on the Secretary of State. Some 49 per cent. of the young disabled rely on social security benefits as their main source of income, and that compares with 16 per cent. of the general population. All those people had less than half the income of those with a job—£31 a week as opposed to approximately £78 a week. I take issue with Opposition Members because poverty and disability are relative. I have just been in India where the definition of poverty is different from the definition here. I strongly support the Secretary of State when he talks about relative poverty. There is also relative disability.
  The tragedy for these youngsters is that most of them want and deserve to work and they have much to offer. Disabled people have great motivation, an ability to plan and a knowledge of how to use scarce resources to reach a goal in a prescribed time. They are good at those things, because for them they are the stuff of everyday life. They may have a lower physical or mental capacity than other people, and in order to achieve their goals they have to plan and work with scarce resources. Those are the hills that they climb every day.

  687
  Nearly 80 per cent. of all disabled people are unemployed compared with about 6 per cent. of the general population. I suggest that that is the real discrimination in our society and that we face a psychological barrier in society's perception of the disabled. The title of that popular BBC programme "Does he take sugar?" sums it all up.
  The needs of the disabled are shared by three Departments—the Department of Health, which looks carefully at prevention and treatment, the Department of Employment, which cares for the job provision of the disabled, and the Department of Social Security, which, in today's world, defines how we treat people with needs other than those that we have ourselves. That is why the Secretary of State for Social Security has to be the brand leader in changing society's perception and in supporting the disabled in their initiatives to enter the outside world.
  The psychological barrier is particularly profound in the world of work where employers deliberately turn aside from tapping this deep vein of marketable skills and energies, yet little is asked of the employer. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 set a quota of only 3 per cent. of registered disabled to be met only by companies employing more than 20 people. In 1965, a total of 53·2 per cent. of companies met that target. In 1980 it was 35 per cent. and in 1989 it was 26 per cent. The percentage of employers not meeting the quota at all because they were issued with exemption permits—and that includes Parliament and the BBC—was 27 per cent. in 1965, while in 1986 it was well over half. One fifth of all employers neither meet the quota nor have permits. They just ignore the system. The scheme has failed the disabled and thus they are not registering.
  In 1950 just under 1 million disabled people registered as opposed to 389,000 today. That is 1 per cent. of the total population. Perhaps our failure in offering employment to the disabled accounts for the huge gap between those who are registered disabled and the number that the OPCS survey found as disabled—6·5 million, more than 10 per cent. of our total population.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Lady confirm that Government Departments number among those organisations that have not employed their quota of disabled people?
  Miss Nicholson: I know that Government Departments have not employed their quota of disabled people. Society as a whole has failed disgracefully.
  Much is being done, and I am proud to support the Government's many initiatives. We have a fund for employers to adapt premises, which has been quite widely used, although not widely enough. We have a fund to provide for a disabled person's introductory period at work, which I welcome. There is a fund for special equipment—such as a wheelchair, or a computer for a blind person perhaps. We have a fares-to-work scheme for peole who cannot use public transport, and that, too, is a welcome initiative.
  Into that pattern fall the large new proposals introduced by the Secretary of State. There is so much that my right hon. Friend can do. I call on him to undertake a large and widespread educational programme to change the public's perception of disability. I call on him to ensure that knowledge of his new initiatives is widely disseminated in a form or forms that disabled people
  688
  themselves can understand. Disability so often means lack of educational opportunity. Many deaf people cannot read properly or have other similar problems. Many blind people also have problems of perception.
  I challenge the Department of Employment, and call on the Secretary of State to do the same in his leading role in this crucial matter, on the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. How many prosecutions have there been under that Act? None that I can trace. Although it is not a crime to be under quota, it is a crime not to take on a disabled person for the next vacancy when one is under quota. Who has been prosecuted? No one that I can find.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security and his Department should take credit for the extent of their achievements to date. The Secretary of State is not present, but I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that his perception and sensitivity have been great, although he has much more to do. I support the Bill.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: We have been told that we should congratulate the Government on the Bill, but, in my opinion, it is an absolute disgrace. Many of my constituents have written to me about the original version of clause 1, which deals with the attendance allowance. That has now been amended, and the person who suggested the six-month qualifying period must have been a Rasputin. The clause caused a great deal of concern and indignation to people who have watched their parents dragged out of bed by a rude, abrupt or abrasive doctor. As recently as 12 January I received a letter from one of my constituents to whom that had happened. Sometimes medical practitioners get it all wrong, and it is difficult anyway for them to determine whether a person will live or die. One of my constituents was told by the doctor whom she had called out that she should not be wasing his time—that she should not have called him out because an emergency call-out cost £40. That was on a Friday. My constituent did not bother to call him out the following Sunday and the patient was dead by Sunday night. People who live in poor areas tend to believe what their doctors say.
  Last week another constituent wrote to say that her father had been reduced to tears by a doctor who had been called out to try to get the question of the six-month qualifying period out of the way. The Government did not change the clause because of compassion; they were shamed into changing it. In May I tabled an early-day motion which was supported by many of my hon. Friends who had also received letters from their constituents. It was some time before I received a letter from Lord Skelmersdale, who was very sympathetic and who told me that there were plans to change the clause.
  What about the psychological effects of the provision on those suffering from terminal diseases? Some children do not like to tell their mothers or fathers—or any other member of the family—that their time is up. How will they claim the allowance? Is it not sad that the financial tally-up in the Bill allows for only 52,000 of the 150,000 people who are dying to claim, at a possible cost of £18 million? What about the other 100,000 people? And what about sons and

  689
  daughters who do not bother to tell their terminally ill parents or grandparents that they are not claiming any allowance? The Minister did not mention such cases.
  Clause 2 deals with the age-related addition to the severe disablement allowance. What a pittance that is—at £10, £6·50 and £3·10. That illustrates the way in which we are treating the disabled. Look at all the legislation that has been passed about which nobody cares. People are not really interested. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1972 is one example. A great deal of time was spent amending that Bill and telling local authorities what they should do. The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). The Government gave the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities instructions regarding that Act—that Scottish local authorities should implement only those provisions which did not involve expenditure.
  That is why disabled people do not trust the Government. To implement that Act fully would have cost about £26 million. Thousands of pounds remain unclaimed under the Act and thousands of chronically sick and disabled people have never even been interviewed by the social workers of their local authority because there is a large backlog. The chronically sick and disabled do not owe this Government any favours.
  The extent of poverty in this country is a scandal. I remember the miserable excuse that Ministers gave when we last debated child benefit, which has remained frozen for three years—that the Government do not want to subsidise people who do not need the benefit. The Government claim that they cannot afford to do that, yet they can afford to lose £1·6 billion by not lifting the national insurance ceiling for higher-paid workers and a further £2·1 billion by reducing the top tax rate from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. That is how hypocritical they are.
  When I was a regional councillor, I was chairman of the monitoring group in Strathclyde, and I remember how the disabled felt then. They produced a document called "Living in a Hostile Environment". Those disabled people were not looking for a pittance of £10, £6 or £3·10, but wanted an independent centre so that they could live a normal life. They wanted better access to local authority and private buildings. The proposals to improve access and to form advisory panels were not implemented because the Government did not make available money for that purpose.
  Clauses 2 and 3 are a cause of concern to many disabled groups, especially the provision in clause 2 affecting attendance allowance, which is to be abolished, and the earnings-related element of clause 3. What will be done for the people who will suffer as a consequence of those measures? What will be done for those people who will lose security benefits and housing allowance? They have not been mentioned. Where will they go to? The poor suffer all the time.
  What of the poverty that has been created by the Government? They have a golden opportunity to do something for the poor. Instead, they introduce in clause 10 insulation grants for low-income families. Last year, 16,000 people in Scotland had their electricity supply cut off. What will the Government do about that situation?
  690
  Why has this Bill of shame been brought before the House? It does nothing for the homeless or for those in poverty. Despite everything that has been said in this House, in London 30,000 people still live in cardboard boxes. What kind of heat insulation do they enjoy? The Bill should aim at clearing up the streets of London and of Scotland, where thousands of people are homeless and have little chance of getting a meal at night. Amendments to the Bill should have those purposes in mind. If the Government have any intention of acting, they should introduce a Bill of compassion and pay the money that is needed to resolve the problems that I have described.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Timothy Wood: I support the Bill for a variety of reasons. It improves the conditions of entitlement to attendance allowance, which is why I was surprised by the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). Although some of his criticisms relating to those who care for the terminally ill were justified, the Bill addresses them. He may disagree with certain details of the Bill's drafting, but it will bring a major improvement in an area that has been the subject of complaints that I and many other right hon. Members have received over the years.
  I welcome also the modifications to the help available for the disabled. The Government have a good record, contrary to the suggestions made by Opposition Members, of increasing the money provided to the disabled over the past 10 years by more than 100 per cent. in real terms—and many benefits are given more efficiently.
  Ms. Short: That is not true.
  Mr. Wood: I believe that it is true.
  Ms. Short: In fact, there has been a 90 per cent. increase in spending on the disabled, but 90 per cent. of that is accounted for by increased take-up of benefits that were in place before the present Government took office.
  Mr. Wood: I thought that even the hon. Lady would be delighted at greater take-up of benefits for the disabled. A huge sum is being spent, and will continue to be spent, for that purpose.
  Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition are being ungenerous in disputing the value of the Government's new measures? One of the benefits will allow a family with a disabled child to enjoy an income £65 more than anything previously in existence. It is untrue to say that there are no new benefits. There are, together with improvements to existing benefits. Together, they have brought about a huge increase in expenditure in real terms on disability benefits.
  Mr. Wood: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend's comments. The truth is that there are more benefits and that greater assistance is given to the disabled, which I welcome. I hope that in coming years help will be given as and when new problems are identified.
  I welcome also the insulation grant scheme, which will give valuable assistance to low-income households as well as being an energy-efficient measure in itself. Together, those provisions are ample justification for the Bill.
  I want to concentrate my remarks on occupational pension schemes, which have also been the subject of problems that the Bill seeks to address. I commend the

  691
  Government for developing pensions provisions over recent years. In moving away from the state earnings-related pension scheme, the Government recognised—though after it had been recognised by many actuarial advisers—that SERPS could hit major problems during the next century. It would be absurd to keep in place a scheme that might run into severe funding difficulties. It is no use making pie in the sky provision for the next century if, when it comes to the pinch, it cannot be financed. A number of actuaries responsible for examining pension schemes feel that the Government have still not moved far enough away from SERPS and that there are risks inherent in the level of commitment that remains even now.
  At the same time, the Government have enabled and encouraged a wide variety of new private pension provision. In particular, they acknowledge the need to ensure proper job mobility. A considerable number of people, when contemplating a job move, were inhibited from moving because they were nervous of the effect that such action would have on their pensions. Despite the fact that that aspect was widely debated both within the pensions industry and within companies themselves, little was done until the Government took action. Therefore, the legislation covering portable pensions and company schemes is most welcome.
  The Bill makes important improvements to the provision for and the protection of members of occupational pension schemes. I join my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) in welcoming the proposal for a pensions ombudsman. The creation of that office would assist and reassure pension fund members who feel that they have been given a raw deal. At times, those members have gained the wrong impression, but it will be immensely valuable for them to be able to refer to an objective, independent observer of the scene. That would serve to increase members' confidence in schemes and in the trusts that run them.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has encountered cases similar to those that have affected my own constituents. When a firm is taken over by another, obviously existing pension rights should remain with the employees, but responsibility for them should move to the new employer. In such circumstances, difficulties can arise, which, in my own experience, are difficult to overcome. Will the new Bill help right hon. and hon. Members better to assist constituents who find themselves in the circumstances that I have described?
  Mr. Wood: The ombudsman may be able to take up a difficult issue, and the Bill makes provision for when problems arise if a company takes over another and that company's pension fund is ended or combined with that of the company taking it over.
  I hope that the pensions ombudsman will be required to produce an annual report. That would be immensely valuable as it would demonstrate the problems that arise. Many members of pension funds will believe that they have been mistreated in some way because they have insufficient understanding of how their pension fund operates. If the ombudsman can clarify such difficulties in
  692
  his report so that pension funds and their advisers can draw the necessary information to members' attention, that would be a great help.
  The Government's intention to increase protection and to revalue pension fund rights for early leavers from pension funds because they move company or because their company is taken over is admirable. Improvements have been made in such arrangements, but they can be enhanced. They are being enhanced by the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) waxed long on whether pension fund provision could be increased completely to cover inflation. We have to reach a rather more careful balance than he suggested. We have to consider commitments and obligations to pension fund members, but we have also to consider the risks and liabilities that might fall on employers. It is all very well to say, when there is a surplus—I have some sympathy with what has been said about surpluses—that the first call must be to improve inflation protection, but it would be wholly unreasonable to say that if a pension fund is unable to meet all those things that people might desire, the employer could foot the bill. That would put a wholly unreasonable liability on employers in some circumstances.
  While it can legitimately he argued that employers are good at providing pension funds for their employees, if we increase the risks and liabilities on employers excessively, they might be reluctant to provide pension funds. That applies to the changes that we have made with portability. Some of the attraction for employers, and some generous pension fund provision, has already disappeared. We must tread carefully so as not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
  I cannot conceive of how the hopes and ambitions of the hon. Member for Oldham, West could be sustained, in view of the increasing commitment to pensioners. I believe that the pensions industry will be appalled at his commitment concerning liabilities that may fall on pension funds. It would be wholly unreasonable to put all those liabilities on pension funds and the companies that provide finance for them.
  The Government are right to propose constraints on self-investment, but I wonder whether the relaxation concerning directors of small companies is sufficient. For a small company with four or five directors and two or three others—or perhaps slightly larger—the proposed constraint on self-investment may be excessive. That should perhaps be considered further in Committee.
  The Government have taken several useful steps forward to ensure that we have improved pension provision, taking account of the desirability, in many cases, of employees moving firms. The Government have not followed the unwise course suggested by Opposition Members, who have said that we should put unreasonable and unfair obligations on pension funds or the employers who provide them. Overall, I am delighted to be able to welcome the Bill.
  The Government's record on pensions and social security matters is good. The Opposition may scoff, but the finances available to pensioners, albeit on average, have increased substantially. I admit that that is substantially the result of occupational pension funds and the private savings of some individuals, but the Government, to complement that, have rightly concentrated their attention on helping those in most need who may not be properly provided for by occupational pension

  693
  schemes or savings. The Government have taken important steps to continue the policies they have pursued for the past few years.
  I am worried, however, about people with small private occupational pensions. Some constituents tell me that, because they have small schemes, they are just above the level at which they can receive income support benefits and that they miss out on various passported benefits. We should encourage people to provide for their old age when possible through a pension scheme or private savings, but, if we create a system in which those who have done their best are deprived of benefits with the result that they are worse off than if they had not saved or taken out occupational pensions, we shall damage our policy of encouraging people to provide for themselves. Although I disagree with much of what Opposition Members have said, I thought that one element worth taking up. I hope that it will be borne in mind.
  Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest enemy of savings is inflation? That is one of the reasons why we should give priority to dealing with it. When Labour was in power inflation reached an average of 14 per cent. per annum, with a peak of 27 per cent. That is why it is so important for us to keep it strictly under control, so that the value of savings is not eroded; and that is why the people of this country have so much more confidence in the present Government's ability to manage the economy than they ever had in the ability of the Labour party to do so.
  Mr. Wood: My hon. Friend is right. One of the most damaging experiences for pensioners was the substantial destruction of the value of their savings under the last Labour Government. Furthermore, modest pensions that appeared to be adequate turned out to be inadequate, because of the fall in the value of money engineered by the Labour party.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I believe that the Government's spending on social security has now reached £1 billion a week. Can my hon. Friend envisage that amount being spent if the Opposition had been in charge of the economy for the past 10 years?
  Mr. Wood: If a nation is not generating wealth, it is not possible to help those who are in need. One of the great developments over the past few years has been the generation of more wealth by our nation, which has enabled us to make adequate provision. That is revealed by the various figures giving the average position of pensioners.
  Ms. Short: There is a steady growth pattern.
  Mr. Wood: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) may say from a sedentary position that there is a steady growth pattern, but nothing could be further from the truth: the unsteadiness of the pattern is one of its characteristics, and often reveals which party is in power. I hope that such sedentary interventions will be treated with less than full regard.
  I welcome the additions and modifications to the major social security legislation that has already been enacted. I look forward to their implementation, and hope that in the coming years it will be possible to make further
  694
  refinements to improve both occupational pension schemes and the provision for those who are most in need when they reach old age.
  8.42 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I shall not comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood).
  This cannot really be described as an "election Bill"—except, perhaps, vis-a-vis the Opposition. Given the growing number of pensioners in the community, we must face the fact that there is a good deal of discontent among them and that they are asking for more. Some elements, certainly, have done remarkably well, but a large percentage, including members of the Public Service Pensioners Association, have been pleading with Members of Parliament to take their worries on board. If public service pensioners are worried, we must assume an even deeper concern on the part of those who are simply on state pensions—although their number may be declining proportionately—and we must ask whether we are doing enough for them.
  I welcome some of the proposals in the Bill, and I echo the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) to the caring attitude of the Secretary of State. Over the years, he has sought to improve provision generally. I agree, however, with the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) about the comment by Age Concern that nothing should have been done until a review had been conducted. It may be thought, however, that it is better to give some people something until we have got everything right. We have been waiting since the mid-1980s for a comprehensive review of social security and the disabled, and I believe that disabled people feel increasingly dissatisfied that their cause has not been dealt with more speedily.
  I want to mention two aspects of the Bill in particular. First, let me again make a plea for carers. At a meeting of the all-party disability group that I attended last week, a carer described the problems that she had had to face over the years in looking after a young disabled person. She welcomed some improvements in the system—as do we—but pinpointed a perceived need. She had been granted an allowance to care for her disabled child, and was later able to obtain qualified respite help. She then discovered that the helper was being paid £5 an hour, while the allowance with which she was provided worked out at only 15p an hour.
  Surely that is not a proper benefit for those who carry the burden of community care. Does the Department really value a loving family relationship at £4·85 and then pay 15p for care, while paying £5 an hour to someone who comes in from outside, is not related to the disabled person and is not capable of the same individual, personal love? I ask for more attention to be paid to those who carry that weight, whether they are parents, sons or daughters—and some are themselves growing elderly.
  An article in Saturday's Belfast Telegraph, headed "New benefits under scrutiny" and dealing with the disability allowance—which is intended to combine the old attendance allowance and the mobility allowance—observed:
  "So far from simplification, we seem to be due another complex benefit unless it is changed before 1992 when it comes in.

  695
  I can't help thinking that (praise God) I am strong and in sound mind, but can barely understand this lot."
  As we are seeking to improve the benefits system, should we not bear in mind those for whom it is intended, and create simpler and more helpful arrangements for their needs to be met?
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I want to refer particularly to clause 10, which mentions energy efficiency. I give it one small half-cheer, on a "better late than never" basis.
  The Government must surely admit that the clause is an attempt to disinter energy efficiency from the knackers' yard into which it has fallen over the past 18 months. The Minister of State, Department of Energy is not here now, although he was earlier; he will probably recall the oral question that I asked him 11 months ago about the state of play regarding the collapse of the community insulation schemes for local authorities and voluntary organisations. The schemes enabled them to arrange draught proofing and loft insulation in the houses of low-income families.
  The Minister told us about the high-powered negotiations that were proceeding between his Department and the Department of Energy to preserve the good work that had been built up under the scheme in the years it has been in existence, and the tremendous enthusiasm that must be maintained. We all knew, however, that, after the last of the community programme schemes disappeared in August 1988, employment training unfortunately came in. Community insulation was no longer of value in the mighty massage parlour that goes under the name of the Department of Employment—or the bureau of unemployment statistics. I am pleased to see that the Minister has now returned.
  The Prime Minister used to heap praise on the noble Lord Young for bringing her answers while other Ministers brought her problems. I do not think that she says that now, but at that time he was thought to be the person who could dream up wizard wheezes for apparently bringing down the unemployment. When the Government thought that they had a good tale to tell about unemployment, all these bright ideas for killing two birds with one stone, achieving energy efficiency in low-income households on the cheap, and massaging the unemployment figures in a downward direction by giving everybody three days' work a week if they were under 25 and did not have family responsibilities—all that went by the board in August 1988.
  The Secretary of State, perhaps understandably, tried to elide the 17 or 18 months that have gone by since then. In his introduction he said that when the community programme came to an end we would have to do something about it. But that was 17 or 18 months ago. This is one of the outstanding examples of interdepartmental cross-sterilisation, even for this Government. It has resulted in 18 months being taken to come up with a clause in a Bill. We welcome it on this basis, but it will take another few months for a scheme to become operational. But for the first time energy-efficiency projects in low-income households will be separated out from the employment training or community programme rules for giving temporary work to the unemployed.
  I suppose it could be said that the Bill has some of the same characteristics as the policy on pension funds, income support and social security. The Government
  696
  cannot quite make up their mind what they mean by targeting and what they mean by generalised support for a wholesale objective—in this case, energy; in another case, prosperity in old age. In this case, what does targeting really mean? The Government do not want something that old-age pensioners or people on low incomes can regard as an entitlement; they themselves want to be Lord and Lady Bountiful distributing the windfall apples in the autumn and feeling very good about it. This is not an entitlement; it is a device from which the Government will extract the maximum benefit at the next election.
  As it has taken so long, Ministers will have to excuse some scepticism on our part. We have to ask what the Bill is intended to achieve. What, after all, is a low-income family? Is it a family with a below-average wage? Is it a family on income support? Or should it perhaps be related more specifically to people in whose case the absence of heating will hurt most? That will not necessarily be the people on the lowest incomes. It may be people with children or with particular health or disability problems; or the oldest pensioners. They are not necessarily the same thing. A family comprising two people in their thirties or forties with no health problems and on income support would not be as much a priority as a couple with a much greater income and with four small children or something of a health problem. The Government need to tell us exactly how they will get round the problem of defining exactly what constitutes priority in the context of low income.
  We also want to know more about the administrative mechanism that will be used. Will we have another fiasco like the student loan scheme? Can the Government tell us in what financial year they intend to come to an agreement with the contracting-out agency—clearly they intend to contract it out—to administer the scheme for them? We ought to know what is their target for getting something going. After all, they have told us that they have only £12 million this year because it is the tail end of the Department of Employment expenditure, but they have not told us what expenditure they will assume in a typical financial year when the scheme is up and running and when they have a contracting agency to administer the scheme for them.
  We have been told that they have indicated to some of the voluntary agencies that might get involved a budget of £20 million in a typical full financial year. I shall be very glad if the Minister who replies to the debate says something about that matter. The proposals should be efficient in energy terms and in administrative terms, and not simply an attempt to say, "We have done something on the energy-efficiency front for low-income households" when, in the end, it will not amount to anything more than the neo-brutalism of the sadly-departed junior Minister at the Department of Health, who told everybody to lag their grandmothers' legs for winter. I hope that the Minister who replaced her will adopt a more profound attitude to the means of dealing with problems of hypothermia amongst the elderly, the problem of cut-offs for families with young babies to look after, and so on.
  I want to make two final points. First, this appears to be a three-part scheme, starting simply with continuation of the draught-proofing and loft-insulation schemes that formed a classical part of the community insulation schemes that have been going for five or six years. The Bill contains a promise that it will go on to a stage two and a stage three. Stage two will involve cavity wall insulation

  697
  —not so far covered—room thermostats, improvements to heating systems, and so on. Will that be in the next financial year, or in the great blue yonder?
  Finally, there is the reference—great so far as I am concerned, if it ever comes about—to advice and practical assistance as regards more efficient domestic appliances in low-income households. I am not sure how many low-income households have, say, dishwashers or freezers, but those which have should obviously have appliances that operate on a low-energy-consumption basis to keep electricity bills down. Obviously very few low-income households are in a position to buy new domestic appliances. For the purpose of achieving lower heating bills they usually buy the cheapest appliances, which are the ones that result in the highest fuel bills. When will this come about? Will it be in six or seven years' time? Or do the Government envisage it happening next year?
  We want to know the aim of this scheme. Will the Government try to sell it, completely fraudulently, as a measure that will contribute to a solution of the greenhouse gases problem and the overall question of energy-efficiency improvement in this country? If that is the case, it is a fraud, because there is nothing in the Bill that indicates that energy consumption overall can be reduced. The poorer the family, the more likely it is that it will derive benefit from improved insulation for greater warmth and comfort rather than from reduced energy consumption.
  If this is part of the great drive by the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for the Environment to reduce Britain's contribution to the greenhouse gas problem, it is absolute nonsense. Yet again we are in serious danger of the Government merely confirming their overall policy on pensions, on social security and now on energy efficiency. They are walking straight into the trap of Reagan's America and creating a two thirds, one third society. This is energy efficiency for the under-class; we want a lot more than that.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I wish that we had a big blackboard in the Chamber tonight—we have heard so many facts and figures. However, we have not had much compassion from Conservative Members about what is happening to the ordinary men and women who live on state benefits. I was surprised to hear the argument about the relative poor here and in India. Do the Government not understand what poverty is all about? Do Conservative Members not walk the streets of their constituencies?
  In recent months I have spoken to many organisations about poverty and about the struggle to live. The churches have got together to produce a document entitled "Hearing the Cry of the Poor", and subtitled "A Declaration by Church Action on Poverty." Some of the statements in the document are most revealing. The Church has not been known as a radical organisation, supportive of Socialism, but it is nevertheless concerned about what is happening to ordinary men and women in this country and to their families. The document states:
  "It cannot be right:

  —that some have to survive on less than £60 per week while others receive pay rises of £3,000 per week.

  698

  —that benefit levels are so low that loans are needed for essential items.

  —that more people are begging in the street.

  —that young people are living in cardboard boxes ‖

  —that the mentally ill are discharged from hospitals without adequate support.

  It cannot be right:

  —to cut taxes as an incentive to the rich but reduce incomes to spur on the poor.

  —that economic growth is paid for by those excluded from its benefits."

  The Minister and the Secretary of State must have read that document. It is an indictment of the Government if the churches are saying, "Enough is enough. It is time for the Government to do something to help the poor."
  I believe that I know my constituents. I know the problems that they are experiencing because I have lived in poverty. I know what it is to use up a week's wages the day one receives them paying high rents, and for food and clothes. I challenge the Minister or any Conservative Member to answer some questions. My first relates to pensioners' food. What is the cost of half a dozen eggs, a loaf of bread, a large tin of beans and 2 lb of potatoes? If any Conservative Member can tell me the cost, I should be delighted to have their intervention.
  I ask the Minister to answer these important questions because the Minister and the Secretary of State and their party's supporters should be asking the public, "What does it cost to heat your house?" How much is a bottle of Calor gas and how long does it last? What does a hundredweight of coal cost? I challenge any Conservative Member to tell me that, yet they should all know it if they claim to represent the people and especially the poor. How much does a gallon of paraffin cost and for how long does it heat an average-size room? How much does a week's electricity cost in Glasgow?
  I challenge the Minister or any Conservative Member to answer my questions. Do Conservative Members know the cost of those essential commodities? I will even allow the Minister's civil servants to give her the prices, but I am sure that they will not. Until Ministers and Conservative Members in general understand the needs of our elderly people and of the families that we represent, the Government will never get their figures right or eliminate poverty or inequality.
  What does a pair of shoes cost? I spent a full year leading a team investigating the needs of elderly people in areas of priority treatment—in places where deprivation was found in such multiples that even the Government recognised that they had to provide some money. We visited most of the pensioners' groups and asked them about the problems that they were facing. The pensioners' problems were simple. They could not afford to eat properly. They could not afford to buy proper food. They could not heat their houses. They could afford to heat only one room.
  Does the Minister know where those areas are? I should be delighted to take the Minister or the Secretary of State to them if I thought that they could do something for the people there which would make it worth my spending time with them.
  I have met elderly men and women whose suffering would have broken the Minister's heart. They could not go out to buy a pair of shoes when they needed them. They could not afford to buy a heavy overcoat in the winter. They did not have sufficient finances to clothe themselves, to heat their homes or to eat.

  699
  My local authority had to set up a winter care centre in Strathclyde. We had to take elderly people into a heated hall to give them bowls of soup. Who would have believed that in this day and age in Britain we would have to heat halls so that we could take our elderly folk there to give them bowls of soup? We had to do that because in the previous year people had died of hypothermia in their homes.
  The Government recognise that there are areas of priority treatment, so why do they not recognise that our pensions are almost the worst in Europe? I have visited parts of Europe such as Germany and France. My mother and my mother-in-law are elderly and both live alone on their pensions. My late father fought in the war. I am not a warmonger, but I wonder who won the war. The Germans provide their folk with decent housing, decent health services and a decent education system. The German Government treat their elderly people with compassion, love and understanding. It is time that the Government realised that if we do not look after our elderly, there is nothing worth living for.
  The Bill is a miserable package delivered by miserable people. I plead with the Government to have some goodness in their hearts and assist our people who are at the bottom of the pile. They should stop helping the champagne charlies and the designer-wearing wimps and help the ordinary people who put the Government into power. I hope that those same people will put the Government out at the next general election.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I shall make a brief contribution to this important debate. I do not recognise the picture that has been painted from the Opposition Benches. As has been pointed out by Conservative Members, the payment of more than £1,000 million per week in social security benefits is a testament of the Government's concern for those in society who are in real need.
  Clause 1 includes an act of great compassion. It makes the attendance allowance available at an earlier stage to those who are terminally ill, bringing an additional 58,000 people into benefit. That is a measure of how the Government are trying to improve the social security system. It is also a demonstration of the Government's commitment to organisations such as hospices. I should be grateful for confirmation that the attendance allowance will be available to people who are dying in their own homes as well as people in hospices. The greatest thing for somebody who is faced with death, perhaps through the tragedy of cancer, is the ability to die with dignity. Agencies such as the MacMillan nurses and other caring groups, who can be afforded by the availability of the benefit, will enable those people to die with dignity. I saw the type of nursing care that can be administered by those people when my father-in-law died from cancer of the liver. It is real care that counts and it is greatly appreciated by the families. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill.
  I and other hon. Members have received representations about the position of carers and several hon. Members have referred to that this evening. Although the Bill does not specifically deal with that matter, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to think again about the various forms of help for carers. There seems to be a
  700
  difference between the treatment of those of retirement age and those who are below retirement age who care for loved ones. There should be some consistency. The Government, rightly, are encouraging those of pensionable age to contribute to society. They have removed the effect on a person's pension of his going out and doing some work. Work in the home—caring—is just as valid as work in the community for other rewards. If my right hon. and hon. Friends can find time in Committee to consider that aspect, it would be warmly welcomed.
  The Government have recognised some of the growing pains caused by the increasing mobility of people with pensions. I am glad that the ombudsman and register provisions have been made. Many people who move from job to job sometimes forget that they have a pension entitlement. In a way, I am a little sad that the Bill does not go further. Some issues in the pension industry need attention—for example, surpluses in company pension funds and pension holidays. As the pension industry grows—encouraged by the Government, enabling people to make the right self-help provisions for their old-age—people will say, "Perhaps we, too, have some claim on the surpluses of the pension funds." If a company seeks a pension holiday, perhaps we should gain from that—[HON. MEMBERs:"Oh!"] Despite the derisory calls from the Opposition, I believe that that is right and proper. Anything that can be done to enhance the private provision of pensions allows more money from the state system of help for those without occupational pensions to be targeted carefully. There is still an underlying problem in that not enough people have good-quality company pension schemes.
  I commend the Bill to the House. I congratulate the Government on making progress in their treatment of those who are in genuine need of help.
  9.11 pm
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Unfortunately, in the Social Security Bill the Government are doing what they have done in many other Bills—they identify a vulnerable group and use it to disguise their meanness and their callousness.
  I am sure that every hon. Member will welcome the automatic right to attendance allowance for those who are terminally ill. We need reminding of the debates on attendance allowance in other social security Bill Standing Committees. In 1987, the Committee on the Social Security Bill discussed the two qualifications then in place—the six-month qualification and the age bar, whereby any child under two, however severely disabled and however much care was needed, was not entitled to attendance allowance. I understand that the Minister has removed that age bar. By far the most sensible thing to do would be to abolish the six-month rule. Rigorous criteria on attendance allowance determine whether people qualify.
  The Government are attempting to put into legislation an objective definition of "terminally ill". It is difficult to do that, because doctors' diagnoses vary. What is more, the legislation states that a doctor must be sure that a person is likely to die within the six-month period. What happens if, as occasionally occurs, patients recover from the diagnosed illness after the six months has elapsed and

  701
  they have been in receipt of attendance allowance because the doctor thought that they were terminally ill? Will such people be required to pay back the attendance allowance?
  What happens in cases where the doctor cannot be absolutely sure that the illness is terminal? Who decides then, even though the person may be in agony? What happens if the patient does not accept the diagnosis, even though the family accepts it? What happens if the person says to the family that he or she does not want them to apply for attendance allowance? The family will be left in exactly the same position as before. The attendance allowance will not be claimed and yet the care will have to be undertaken. What happens if the doctor decides, for the best of psychological reasons and in his or her best judgment, not to tell the patient or the family that the patient is terminally ill?
  I am dealing with a case now in which the doctor decided not to tell the husband, wife or family that the husband was terminally ill because the doctor felt that it was best for them. The family is making a complaint against the health authority and the doctor. What happens if there is no one to claim attendance allowance for supplying extra help and nursing to someone who is identified as terminally ill? This vitally important matter is fraught with problems that are not clarified in the Bill.
  The provisions take the Government into incredibly dangerous territory, simply because they are too mean to say that the criterion for paying attendance allowance is whether the patient is allowed day and night provision. In recent statements, the Government have said that the next stage in developing their criteria and streamlining the system is to merge the mobility and attendance allowances. What happens with the definition within that of terminally ill? What happens if the doctor gets it wrong and the person is not terminally ill, but has been in receipt of attandance allowance? The Department has amazing powers in legislation to retrieve money that has been paid erroneously over any period.
  It would be much better if the Government agreed that the criteria of day and night provision for attendance allowance was all that was required and that there was no need for a six-month qualification period or a legislative definition of terminally ill. The Government should give these people the money. They desperately need it and they deserve it. The Government will take us into an area of such complexity that they will cause great misery to the very people that they claim to want to help. Why cannot the Government give way on this point? Will it really hurt the Minister that much?
  9.18 pm
  Ms. Clare Short: This is the 12th Social Security Bill introduced since the Government took power 10 years ago. That is more than one every year. It is important to set it in the context of the cumulative effect of the changes in benefits and taxes during the past 10 years.
  We are all familiar with the way in which the Government have abused official statistics, which are manipulated and deeply unreliable. However, the speeches that we have heard from Conservative Back-Bench Members today about what has happened in the benefit system have no connection whatever with reality. The
  702
  realities are set out in a useful book by John Hills called, "Changing Tax: How the tax system works and how to change it". It is a handbook to help any of us to design our tax and benefit system. He reviews the combined effect of tax and benefit changes since 1979 and finds:
  "The cuts in direct taxes have been entirely paid for by cuts in the generosity of benefits ‖ Overall, the bottom 60 per cent. of the income distribution has lost, while the top 30 per cent.—especially the top 10 per cent.—has gained … The losses for the bottom 50 per cent. average out at nearly £8·50 per family"—
  a substantial proportion of their net incomes—
  "while the top 10 per cent. have gained nearly £40 per family. Overall, the bottom half of the population has lost £·6 billion, of which £5·6 billion has gone to the top 10 per cent.; indeed, £4·8 billion has gone to the top 5 per cent."
  That is the reality and it sets the debate in context, so let us hear no more about there being not enough money to go around.
  Over the years the Government deliberately and systematically have taken away benefit after benefit and handed out the money in massive tax cuts to the wealthiest people in society. The Government are in favour of redistribution. They have redistributed massive wealth successfully and deliberately from the least wealthy to the rich.
  Several hon. Members commented on the quality of the Ministers in the social security team and I agree with them. We probably have the nicest collection of individuals of any Department.
  Mr. Bill Michie: I am not so sure about that.
  Ms. Short: There is no doubt about it. I am willing to believe that some of the problems and worries that my hon. Friends outlined concern them, too, and that they struggle to do better, but they are a joke played by the Prime Minister on the wets, as she calls them, in the Tory party. She thought, "Let us find some of the nicest people, put them into a Ministry which is supposed to care for people and make sure that they do not have a cent. The Treasury is in charge and we shall force them to reduce the benefits to the poorest." These nice guys and one nice woman are forced to do the dirty work of the nastier elements in their party.
  Clearly, the British people do not approve of or support the Government's strategy on redistribution from the least wealthy to the rich. It has been made clear in every opinion poll and every report of the survey of British social attitudes compiled since the Thatcher Government came to power that the British people think that our society has become too divided and too unequal. The various packages of change in our pensions and benefits arrangements introduced in successive Social Security Bills have created part of that growing inequality which the British people reject.
  About a week ago the Prime Minister made an extraordinary speech about the needs of children of lone parent families. There is no dispute between the two parties that we should have a system that encourages fathers to maintain their children. We strongly believe that fathers should have an incentive to do so and mothers an incentive to claim. All the money paid out in benefits should not be clawed back, as happens now, which makes us deeply suspicious that the Prime Minister is not concerned about lone parents or children in those families,

  703
  but is simply seeking another cut in the benefit system. We sincerely hope that that is not so and that we can achieve all-party agreement on that part of the package.
  In that speech the Prime Minister made an amazingly tasteless comment. She said that the attitudes of the 1960s caused the change in the family structure which had led to an increase in homeless young people in our cities. That was amazing, tasteless and disgusting. Her Government have deliberately deprived young people of any right to benefit, so that there is nothing for vulnerable young people, particularly those who have grown up in care and who have no relatives or friends to whom to turn if they get into difficulties. There are many of them on the streets of our cities and that shames our country. The Prime Minister is responsible for that.
  Mr. Allen McKay: A young man in my constituency is celebrating his birthday today. He is one of two chidren in a one-parent family. This should be a day of great joy, but it is not. As he happens to be 19, he loses his income support and his mother loses family benefit. He has a choice between leaving technical college, where he is hoping to take a degree in metallurgy, or sponging on his mother and taking from his sister. Other than that he could take up a place on the youth training scheme and ruin his career.
  Ms. Short: I had two such cases at my advice bureau last weekend. Two young men from poor families are struggling to do A-levels and hope to go on to university. They have hit the same barrier as that faced by my hon. Friend's constituent. They may have to leave college to go on some kind of scheme and they will therefore lose out in the future. What a way to run a society.
  If the Prime Minister is concerned about the quality of life for lone parents and their children, or even if she is concerned about the cost to the Exchequer in benefits for such families, she might examine the poverty traps with which our system is now deeply riddled.
  A useful briefing had been provided by the Gingerbread Association for One Parent Families. In its appendix it clearly shows that no allowance is made for the costs of child care, and a lone parent with two children must earn more than £150 a week to be better off than living on benefits. The system is nonsense as it traps lone parents and causes them to live on benefits when they do not want to. Under the Government the number of lone parents living on benefits has risen sharply. If the Government want to put it right, the answer is simple.
  We shall be watching for the package that is introduced as a result of the Prime Minister's speech. Once we have that package, presumably in another Social Security Bill, it will become clear exactly what are the Government's intentions. I hope and pray that that package is not simply further cuts in benefit as that would be too cruel.
  The Government's record and all the statistics contrast starkly with the detailed proposals set out in the Labour party policy review for a fairer system of taxes and benefits. It concentrates on creating pathways out of poverty for pensioners, children, lone parents, people with disabilities and the low paid. We aim to be in power in the 1990s and to leave behind the miserable and mean 1980s. We aim to organise a society based on fairness and opportunity so that everyone can participate as full citizens and can train, work and live in dignity. That is possible given the resources and wealth of our country, but
  704
  the Government have deliberately chosen to increase inequality. There have been many victims of that policy and many people are struggling to survive week in, week out, to provide enough food and heating for themselves and their families.
  The Bill does nothing to create pathways out of poverty for anyone. I shall concentrate on its three major parts. We shall want to address many other issues in Committee, but I cannot attend to all of them tonight. The first part of the Bill implements part of the Government's woefully inadequate disability package which was announced recently. It seems to be announced, reannounced and re-reannounced by the Secretary of State every other week. Perhaps he is trying to give people with disabilities the impression that the Government are doing something to help them.
  The disability package is set out in the White Paper "The Way Ahead". The blue cover should perhaps be taken as a warning that the contents are mean and disappointing. The Government will be aware of the deep anger and disappointment of all organisations representing the disabled about the proposals. It is no good the Government trying to suggest that there is something carping about Labour's attitude. Disabled organisations in Britain are bitterly disappointed by the package and angry that they have had to wait so long for so little.
  For 10 years the Government have promised a review of benefits for people with disabilities. At first, they said that they could not move to implement their manifesto promise because they had no money. They had to continue to pretend that they had created an economic miracle, even though we all knew that that was not so; then they said that they had the money, but not enough information about people with disabilities. They commissioned the OPCS to provide a major survey which was published in six reports. The survey found that there were 6·5 million disabled people in Britain. The Government produced a package which they say will help 850,000 people, including 3,000 carers. There is no doubt of the anger of carers' organisations which were expecting some help and protection from the package.
  The Government have completely ignored the needs of the biggest group of people with disabilities in this country—the 4·2 million people of pension age who have disabilities. They are the largest group, but constitute a minority of pensioners, the majority of whom are fit and well. For some reason, the Government have written them off. The package contains nothing—it is as though they had no needs. It gives them no help with the extra cost caused by their sickness and disabilities. The Government seem to have forgotten the pensioners who are completely excluded from any help.
  The OPCS survey found that, on average, disabled people are £39 a week worse off than non-disabled people. It said that its figures should be treated with caution because it is difficult to measure the exact costs of a disability. The figures were challenged by other surveys which put the figure for people with severe disabilities as high as £66 a week.
  It is obvious that if we want a civilised society which gives equal opportunities for people with disabilities, we must provide additional money to cover the extra costs of the disability so that those people are equal citizens. Disability and poverty should not be linked and should

  705
  not prevent people from having the opportunity to move about, participate in social life and be treated with equal dignity.
  What we need for a civilised society is set out in Labour's policy review. If I had more time I should describe it in detail. However, it is available and I hope that Conservative Members will read it. The reason why the Labour party has got the policy right and the Government have failed is that we consulted the organisations representing disabled people before we put together our package.
  What is most offensive about the Government's proposals on disability is that, having said that people with disabilities must wait until the Government had money, and then having said that they had money, the Government's package finds no new money and introduces cuts in some benefits to fund the package. I noted with care the way in which the Secretary of State described the extra costs and savings of the package. He well knows that, if projected far enough, it is a net minus package. He made that clear when he announced a £1 billion saving by the year 2025.
  The Disability Alliance has trawled through the figures and estimates that
  "net 'new money' is actually a saving of £20 million.
  This estimated saving does not take account of the projected saving of £350 million on the earnings-related addition to Invalidity Benefit. The eventual saving will, therefore, be dramatic.
  The above figures"—
  the Disability Alliance's figures—
  "are based on the Government statements in the October 1989 uprating statement and in The Way Ahead."
  There is some possibility that the Select Committee will look into the costings of the package, and I hope that it does.
  The Government's package for people with disabilities is clever. We would expect nothing less from the Secretary of State and his team. It appears to do something, but it is a con. It fails, and it fails to spend any extra money on people with disabilities. That is an outrage.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Can the hon. Lady say what the costs would be of Labour's package for the disabled?
  Ms. Short: We shall provide detailed costings of our entire programme before the next election, which we hope will be sooner rather than later—the work is going on now.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Short: No; the hon. Lady has just come in and has not been listening to the debate.
  The second major part of the Bill introduces limited regulation of occupational and private pensions—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady made an inadvertent error by saying that the Bill helps 3,000 carers. In fact it helps 30,000, and it would be a pity to leave that wrong on the record.
  Ms. Short: I understood that there were 3,000—
  Mr. Scott: There are 30,000.
  Ms. Short: Good, but unfortunately that means that we can take that number off the total number of people with disabilities. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).
  As I was saying, the Bill introduces limited regulation of occupational and private pensions, based on the February 1989 report of the Occupational Pensions Board. We are all well aware of the Government's general attitude to pensioners. The Social Security Act 1980 deliberately cut the link between state pensions and prices or earnings, whichever were higher—the scheme laid down by the Labour Government in 1974.
  As a result, according to figures provided by the Library, single pensioners have lost £13·10 a week and married pensioners £20·70. Those figures are shocking. Conservative Members do not seem to understand that the British economy has grown every year since 1945—it did not start in 1979—and as it grows pensioners will fall further and further behind. As we become better off, they will become relatively poorer. On top of this, the Government have reduced the protection afforded by the state earnings-related pension scheme, which was introduced by the Labour Government with all-party support. There was a more civilised Tory party in 1975.
  The effect on low-paid workers—overwhelmingly women—who are not covered by occupational schemes is that they return to poverty in old age. The Secretary of State has not realised yet that two thirds of all pensioners are women and about three quarters of them are forced to claim means-tested benefits. We constitute a majority of pensioners because we live longer, and we are forced to claim means-tested benefits because women are concentrated among low-paid workers and do not enjoy decent pensions. So women have low pay throughout their working lives and re-enter poverty when they become pensioners. Government moves against SERPS have exaggerated this problem. Our policy review commits us to restoring the link with earnings and to restoring and improving SERPS.
  The limited regulation of occupational pension schemes in the Bill is largely welcome; we shall come to our detailed criticisms in Committee. We know why such regulation is necessary—because there has been a change in employers' attitudes to pension schemes. They now believe that, faced with a takeover, companies in difficulty can raid the pension fund and take back the money. Conservative Back-Bench Members have reflected that attitude tonight: surpluses exist for companies to take back and do not belong to the pensioners for whom they have been accumulated by agreement with the employers over the years.
  This is a matter of enormous importance. The market value of British companies is £500 billion; the market value of pension schemes and pensions in insurance companies is £250 billion. So half the capital in Britain belongs to pension schemes. We need to regulate them more and exert much more democratic control over them to ensure that they are invested so as to benefit not only people's pensions but their regions, children and grandchildren. Detailed proposals are in our policy review and we shall give employees in companies 50-50 control, so that they can control the way in which pension funds are spent.
  The third major item in the Bill concerns the new framework for grant-based energy conservation schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr.

  707
  Morgan) has already spoken about that and there is no doubt that insulation and energy conservation are the most important steps that we can take to protect the environment and to make heating cheaper for people on low incomes. It is a superb programme and we should firmly embrace and encourage it. We are committed to it in our policy review and welcome the Government's new framework. However, we recognise that they had to introduce it because their disastrous employment training scheme has failed so badly.
  We note that once again there is no new money. The £12 million that is available will be taken from the Department of Employment budget. It was already available for this kind of work but was not being taken up because the employment training scheme was incapable of doing the job.
  Any reasonable person must conclude that the Bill is mean and duplicitous. It lets down people with disabilities and will take money away from them. It will do nothing to make up for the harm that the Government have done to pensioners and it introduces unfunded measures for energy conservation. I recommend as an alternative framework the policies outlined in Labour's policy review. As I said before, thank heaven the 1980s are over. We look forward to a better future in a fairer Britain in the 1990s under a Labour Government.
  9.40 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I wish the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) well with her dreams. I share with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the blushes at the compliments that the hon. Lady paid us. We learn to be wary of Greeks bearing gifts and we did not expect her subsequent remarks to bear out her compliments.
  The hon. Lady spent much time talking about lone parents and homelessness, neither of which is addressed in the Bill. She dramatically oversimplified both those issues. They are matters which have not started in the recent past but have their origins decades or years ago and are immensely complex issues. They are related not simply to social security benefits but to all sorts of social and behavioural changes that have taken place in our society. Some of those changes may be welcomed by the Opposition while they may regret others. The Government are minded to address those matters constructively.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) intervened in the hon. Lady's speech to talk about a constituent. Power is available to local authorities to pay educational maintenance allowances so that young people in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described can complete their education.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The constituent is in receipt of a minor award of £600 a year. According to rules and regulations, that minor award has to run its three-year course before he may receive a major award for university.
  Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman has made the position clear, but when he intervened he did not do so. I frequently encounter cases in which young people of that age are unable to complete their education because of the rules. In each case it is ignored that EMAs are available. If the hon.
  708
  Gentleman will write to me about details of the case, I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science looks at it.
  The hon. Member for Ladywood laid great stress on the argument that there is no new money in the package. I make it absolutely clear that it does contain new money. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that clear in his opening speech. For every remaining year of this century there will be more money spent as a result of the disability package than there was before the package was announced. There will be £300 million of new money in 1992–93. That cannot be contradicted. The hon. Lady knows that it is true and should not continue to assert that it is not.
  The House will know that the Department of Social Security is uniquely fortunate in being able to introduce at least one Bill dealing with social security matters every year. I suppose that all of them share one characteristic —this is about the only thing on which I agreed with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), whose remarks were echoed by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—which is their lack of theme. It is common for social security Bills to include a variety of matters. When I arrived at the Department I was told that social security Bills were normally described as Bills to amend mistakes—the vernacular was slightly different—in former social security Bills.
  The Bill addresses some important matters. It is right that we should take a frequent look at social security legislation. The society in which we live is dynamic and changes frequently, and social security provision has to change as well. I welcome the fact that we can regularly examine the pattern of social security policy.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy, is here to listen to the energy aspects of the debate. We have taken on board a measure that the Department of Energy wanted to introduce, rather than introducing a separate Bill to cover that. The details of the scheme will be outlined in regulations introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and the House will have ample opportunities to debate those in due course. There are provisions on tort, on widows arid on the recovery of penalties.
  Three important subjects are covered in the Bill. First, more protection is afforded to the growing number of people in occupational pension schemes. Secondly, necessary, effective and logical changes are made in the national insurance fund and, thirdly, significant moves of profound long-term importance are made in the balance and structure of benefits for disabled people. I realise that some hon. Members who have taken a careful interest in the fortunes of disabled people and the structure of benefits for them are dissatisfied with what we have achieved, but I hope that the House will be prepared to examine in depth the structure that has been created, which I believe is infinitely preferable to the structure that it will replace in due course.
  Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will have full consultations with the various disability organisations? Is not it important that those discussions should not be soured by talk of cuts from the Opposition, as that is simply untrue? Such talk sours the atmosphere just when we are trying to encourage public opinion to accept the need for greater disability benefits.
  Mr. Scott: Now that we have put forward our proposals in the document, I expect my door to be open to disability organisations to come and discuss these matters. We shall need provisions both in this Bill and in a subsequent social security Bill and that will enable all those who are interested in the matter to have their say. I agree with my hon. Friend and, like him, I hope that that will be on the basis that the rules for consultation and discussion will be fair. I hope that it will be recognised that the Government are putting significant extra resources into provision for disabled people. Representatives of the interested organisations can come to talk about the priorities that people should have in these matters.
  Ms. Short: Why did not the hon. Gentleman say that before?
  Mr. Scott: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, nobody would have wanted us to withhold provisions for the terminally ill or the provision to include deaf and blind people in the provision for mobility allowance or other matters pending prolonged consultation. It took five years for the review of social security to reach the legislation stage. We did not want to wait, so we decided on a three-tier process. The most urgent matters were dealt with and announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in October. Some of the provisions in the Bill set the pattern for the longer term and in a subsequent Bill, to be introduced when there is time in our legislative programme, we shall legislate for the disability allowance and the disability employment credit. That is the right way to tackle the problem.
  Mr. McFall: The Minister said that his door had been open. Earlier in the debate, mention was made of a powerful letter from Professor Peter Townsend regarding the human rights of the disabled, and of the fact that the Government have ignored that. Will the Minister's door be open to people such as Professor Townsend to go along and talk about the rights of the disabled—and in particular to those who have been advocating for years that the Government should adopt a definition of poverty so that we all know what people can live on?
  Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have already met representatives of the Disability Alliance, and I have met representatives of other organisations for the disabled. Anyone who has fairly observed my time as Minister with responsibility for the disabled will know that I always listen to representations with care and understanding—and that is true also of my right hon. Friend. I shall continue to do so, and I hope that there will be fair recognition of the resources that the Government are devoting to the disabled and of the better structure being put in place.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Ladywood when she describes the general position of pensioners in society today. It is not true that they have suffered increasing deprivation or poverty under the present Government. Their overall standard of living has increased by 23 per cent.—twice as fast as that of the population as a whole. The standard of living of pensioners who are totally dependent on state benefits has improved by 25 per cent. —faster than that of pensioners generally. The Government have concentrated help not only on pensioners as a whole but on those wholly dependent on state benefits as well.
  Ms. Short: We acknowledge that pensioners not entirely reliant on state pensions have seen their standard of living improve. One reason is that SERPS is beginning to take effect, lifting more and more pensioners away from reliance on state benefit, which is precisely what we intended. Another reason is high interest rates, which the Government hope will be a temporary phenomenon. Nevertheless, the Government cannot hid the fact that they have deliberately cut the standard of living of pensioners dependent on a state pension.
  Mr. Scott: That is not true. The hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends hate the fact that we have taken specific steps to target help at the poorer, older and disabled pensioners. That is why we have been able to increase their standard of living as well. If we were to follow Labour's pattern and spread extra money across the whole range of pensioners, regardless of the capital or other income they might have, we would be unable to help poorer, older or disabled pensioners in the way that we can. Targeted help is the sensible way forward.
  We are concerned today not with the general position but with the Bill's provisions for occupational pensions. I am glad that my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), for Beverley (Mr. Cran) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) were able to welcome the provision for an ombudsman. We are still considering with the industry how the costs of that innovation will be managed. However, I give a clear undertaking that the ombudsman will report each year, and that that report will be published.
  I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton that, in the past, early leavers' rights were not properly protected. We are moving in the direction of improving on that situation. Too often in the past employers regarded occupational pensions as a golden ball and chain with which to retain employees, rather than given them freedom to move elsewhere.
  The point was made that pensions should be made fully inflation-proof. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I agree with that principle and that it is desirable that schemes should, wherever possible, protect not only early leavers but all those in payment against normal rates of inflation. It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Oldham, West to accuse the Government of not going far enough. A Labour Government presided over far higher rates of inflation than have the present Government, but did nothing to protect the rights of those in pension schemes from the consequences. We have provided a minimum base, or springboard, for pension schemes through statute, but we want all schemes to protect members fully against inflation.
  Pensioners want to know that, in retirement, they will have security. The hon. Member for Oldham, West nods, but in his opening speech he said that, in exceptional circumstances, a retired person on a pension with the expectation of a certain rate of pension might experience a cut because of exceptional economic circumstances. What sort of security does that give members of occupational pension schemes? I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has thought through the implications of that rather rash statement.
  The Labour party, by allowing inflation to reach such a high level, by changing the method of forecasting pensions and the method of calculating the rate of pensions when it took £l billion from them, and by twice

  711
  being unable even to pay the £10 Christmas bonus, altered pensioners' expectations without notice and affected their standard of living. Now the hon. Member for Oldham, West says that pension funds should have the right to cut the rate of pension that people can expect. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that if his promises were implemented and Labour were ever to get back into office, the stock exchange would react in such a way that there would be no surpluses in pension funds—he would be worried about coping with the deficits.
  The House will have another, fuller opportunity to discuss disability in a couple of days' time, but I can tell the House that I am prepared to listen to representations on this issue. I must emphasise that the parliamentary process will provide ample opportunity for such representation.
  I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton the view that the structure that we are putting in place is one about which we can be confident. I do not share his view about the complexity of the system, however, bearing in mind what will be in place when the next social security Bill is enacted. As is suggested in "The Way Ahead: Benefits For Disabled People", mobility allowance and attendance allowance are to be combined and expanded to form a new disability allowance with common medical and adjudication procedures. The system will be much simpler.
  Terminally ill people have been mentioned. I know that the issue is complex and that several hon. Members are concerned about it, but I hope that the House will recognise that we are right to move in the direction of removing them from the six months' waiting period. We are still discussing the implications of the move. We intend that anyone who is given the terminally ill allowance will keep it for life.
  Carers have been mentioned. We have introduced a carers premium in the Bill. It should be recognised that, with the extension of attendance allowance, more people will gain invalid care allowance, which will help carers as well. We shall return to this issue. We recognise the important role that carers play.
  Under this Government, expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled has gone up by some £370 million a year in real terms, compared with £220 million a year under Labour. The Labour party has attacked us today on the Bill. I hope that the country will recognise that having a social security Bill every year has two advantages. One is that we can observe the changes in society and trim and fine tune the social security system. The second is that we can force the Opposition to face up to the reality of some of these issues. Of course they will criticise us; once in a while they may even propose alternatives. The fact that those alternatives will turn out to be unrealistic and ruinously expensive for the country is something they do not like to think about. They are prepared to spend billions on earnings-linked retirement pensions, billions on disability and billions on SERPS. They will be doing just what Lord Barnett said that they did when they were last in government: they will spend two years' spending money that they have not got.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 217.

  Division No. 41]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Alexander, Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Allason, Rupert

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Amess, David

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Amos, Alan

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Arbuthnot, James

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ashby, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Atkins, Robert

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Atkinson, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Baldry, Tony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Hannam, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Harris, David

  Benyon, W.

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hayes, Jerry

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hayward, Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Boswell, Tim

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hill, James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Bowis, John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

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

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Brazier, Julian

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Bright, Graham

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

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

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Irvine, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Jack, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Jackson, Robert

  Butler, Chris

  Janman, Tim

  Butterfill, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Carttiss, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Chope, Christopher

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Colvin, Michael

  Knowles, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Knox, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lang, Ian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Latham, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Cran, James

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Critchley, Julian

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lightbown, David

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

  Lilley, Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Day, Stephen

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Lord, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Dover, Den

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Dunn, Bob

  Maclean, David

  Durant, Tony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dykes, Hugh

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Evennett, David

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fallon, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Favell, Tony

  Mans, Keith

  713

  Maples, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Marlow, Tony

  Shelton, Sir William

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Mates, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Sims, Roger

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mellor, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mills, Iain

  Speller, Tony

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Squire, Robin

  Moate, Roger

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Steen, Anthony

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stern, Michael

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Hertz N)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mudd, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Sumberg, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Summerson, Hugo

  Neubert, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Norris, Steve

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thorne, Neil

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thurnham, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Paice, James

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tracey, Richard

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Tredinnick, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Trippier, David

  Pawsey, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Viggers, Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Price, Sir David

  Walden, George

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Redwood, John

  Ward, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Watts, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Riddick, Graham

  Whitney, Ray

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wilkinson, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wilshire, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Rost, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wood, Timothy

  Ryder, Richard

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Yeo, Tim

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beith, A. J.

  Allen, Graham

  Bell, Stuart

  Alton, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Donald

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Blair, Tony

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Blunkett, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Boateng, Paul

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Boyes, Roland

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Bradley, Keith

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Battle, John

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  714

  Buchan, Norman

  Janner, Greville

  Buckley, George J.

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Caborn, Richard

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys MÔn)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cartwright, John

  Kilfedder, James

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clay, Bob

  Lambie, David

  Clelland, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Leighton, Ron

  Cohen, Harry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Coleman, Donald

  Lewis, Terry

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Litherland, Robert

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Corbett, Robin

  Livsey, Richard

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cox, Tom

  Loyden, Eddie

  Crowther, Stan

  McAllion, John

  Cryer, Bob

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cummings, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dalyell, Tam

  McFall, John

  Darling, Alistair

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McKelvey, William

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McNamara, Kevin

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

  McWilliam, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Madden, Max

  Dixon, Don

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Doran, Frank

  Marek, Dr John

  Douglas, Dick

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Martlew, Eric

  Eastham, Ken

  Maxton, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Meacher, Michael

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Meale, Alan

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Michael, Alun

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flannery, Martin

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Flynn, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foster, Derek

  Mullin, Chris

  Fraser, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Nellist, Dave

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  O'Brien, William

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gordon, Mildred

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gould, Bryan

  Parry, Robert

  Graham, Thomas

  Pendry, Tom

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Prescott, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Radice, Giles

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Randall, Stuart

  Heller, Eric S.

  Redmond, Martin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Richardson, Jo

  Home Robertson, John

  Robertson, George

  Hood, Jimmy

  Rogers, Allan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Howells, Geraint

  Ruddock, Joan

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Short, Clare

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Sillars, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Illsley,Eric

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Ingram, Adam

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

  715

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

  Walley, Joan

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Soley, Clive

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wilson, Brian

  Strang, Gavin

  Winnick, David

  Straw, Jack

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Turner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Wallace, James

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  SOCIAL SECURITY BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session resulting from the Social Security Bill it is expedient to authorize—

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

  (a) any expenses incurred under the Act by a Minister of the Crown;

  (b) any sums payable out of money so provided into the National Insurance Fund under the Act;

  (c) any increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act; and

  (2) the making of payments into the Consolidated

  Fund.—[Mr. G oodlad]

  Toxic Waste Disposal (Tyneside)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Neville Trotter: There are at present no toxic waste disposal plants in the north-east region, yet suddenly we are faced with at least three applications for planning approval to construct such sites. One of the proposed plants would be situated at Howden, in the middle of the Tyneside conurbation, surrounded by 1 million people. It is a joint venture by Northumbrian Water and the United States company ITC. That partnership is also putting forward a second, similar proposal for Teesside. The plan is to burn sewage and industrial waste together. It is described as economical. and much is made of the way in which it will consume sewage that is at present dumped by barge at the mouth of the Tyne. About 160,000 tonnes of sewage a year would be consumed, together with 83,000 tonnes of industrial waste. That is a lot of industrial muck to go to Howden which would contain a host of hazardous toxic substances.
  It is proposed that that activity should take place in the heart of Tyneside, surrounded by 1 million people. The site would be unacceptably close to centres of population, in the middle of Tyneside with homes and schools nearby. The scheme is also in danger of damaging the regeneration of a wide swathe of Tyneside for which imaginative plans have been prepared by the urban development corporation. Those plans are not just about restoring derelict land; they are also intended to benefit existing adjoining communities. What a contrast that is with the proposals for a large toxic waste plant.
  I am well aware of the prevalence of the attitude that has been described so well as NIMBY—not in my backyard. But here we are talking about a site in the backyards of close to 1 million people. It is utterly inappropriate for the purpose suggested and public opinion on Tyneside is wholly against the proposal. A petition was presented to me containing many thousands of names. I put a questionnaire through the door of every household in my constituency and, not surprisingly, only a handful of people replied saying that they were in favour of the scheme.
  In its editorial, the Newcastle newspaper The Journal described the proposal as being geographically, socially and environmentally the wrong site. The chairman of the Tyne and Wear joint waste disposal committee has said that, in his judgment, the proposal is absolutely appalling and the site is totally unsuitable. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the plans were thrown out on environmental grounds by the urban development corporation as planning authority.
  Just before Christmas an appeal was launched. It was a sad Christmas present for Tyneside. A lack of civic responsibility was shown by those who again put forward a proposal that had proved to be so offensive to the local comnunity and that caused such grave public concern. Who is the best judge of the issue? The Government believe that waste disposal matters should be decided by local opinion. Local opinion has spoken with a resounding voice against this proposal.
  Ms. Joyce Quin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same objections—the lack of

  717
  consultation, the lack of taking people's views into account and the worries about siting such a venture in the middle of a built-up urban area—also apply to the proposed clinical waste incinerator at Wardley, in Gateshead, on Tyneside in my constituency?
  Mr. Trotter: It is astonishing that there are presently so many proposals for plants such as these in the urban areas of the north-east. They have suddenly appeared from nowhere. The problem is certainly a serious one for the urban areas of Tyneside and Teesside.
  I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the Blackpool conference. He said:
  "When I make planning decisions, I will always start from the assumption that local communities have an instinctive understanding of what their areas need and how they can best develop. I want local authorities, local communities, to take as many of the decisions about their character and their future as possible."
  I commend those views in terms of the proposals for the north-east for toxic waste plants. Surely the best judge of the issue is the local community.
  The chief executive of Northumbrian Water confirmed to me that there would be some PCBs—a particularly dangerous substance—in the industrial waste at Howden. He then tried to reassure me by saying that the incinerators would use the latest technology. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I did not find that reassuring. I was surprised to hear only this afternoon that Northumbrian Water is now not proposing to deal with PCBs there. It is surely no coincidence that that announcement should be made on the day on which I am raising the matter in this debate.
  Let us look into the figures. There may be no intention to deal with PCBs at Howden, but 80,000 tonnes of toxic muck will still go to the site every year. Only part of the sewage would be burnt in the toxic waste plant. Two thirds of that which is at present dumped off the mouth of the Tyne would still have to be dumped either in the sea or on land. Many water authorities dispose of their sewage by landfill. Some have no access to the sea. This proposal would leave most of the sewage to be dealt with by other means. Clearly, other solutions are therefore possible.
  Only some of the hazardous waste would be fed into the incinerator. Half the 80,000 tonnes would go nowhere near the furnace. It would be taken to Howden and after being chemically treated the 15,000 tonnes left as a residue would be taken away and, presumably, disposed of by landfill somewhere else.
  From where are all these nasties to come? One of the arguments put forward in favour of the plant is that it could be used for the burning of waste which is now burnt at sea—an activity which will be prohibited in future. It is surely extraordinary to suggest that, once banned at sea, this activity should instead take place in the middle of our Tyneside community. That it can be put forward as an argument in favour of the scheme is an example of the crassness of some of those arguing in support of the Howden plant. It is perhaps illuminating as an example of how they appear to approach environmental issues.
  From where is all the muck to come? Northumbrian Water cannot tell me. The authority cannot say that it will definitely come from within our region. It cannot give an assurance that it will not treat waste from other parts of
  718
  the country, although, to be fair, it has said that it has no plans to import waste from overseas. The authority cannot say that about waste brought into the region from elsewhere. Northumbrian Water has told me that if local companies did not use the facility, it would find it necessary to take toxic waste from other parts of the country. I suggest that, against that background, the proposal can only be described as somewhat speculative. I remind the House that the same partnership has a similar proposal for a further huge toxic waste plant on Teesside.
  Northumbrian Water stresses that this means of sewage disposal would minimise costs. I am sure that the people of Tyneside would willingly pay a little more to have the problem solved in other ways—to think otherwise would show an appalling lack of judgment. It is wholly wrong that such an issue should be decided on other than environmental grounds. Any extra cost of alternative solutions will have to be accepted.
  There are some fundamental questions to be asked. What is the need for such massive toxic waste plants in the northern region? What is the scale of the existing problem? From where do the wastes come? What happens to them now? We do not know the answers. I do not know whether Northumbrian Water knows the answer, but certainly I do not. The information has not been made public.
  There is great uncertainty, but what is sure is that Howden must be the wrong location for a massive toxic waste plant. There are only three or four toxic waste plants in the United Kingdom. None is in the north-east. The plans for at least three to be constructed in the north-east are astonishing. They envisage a massive increase in the United Kingdom's capacity to dispose of toxic waste. They will be among the largest such plants in Europe. It is hard to understand why the north-east should need so many such plants. I imagine that a great deal of money can be made from operating them. We must ensure that decisions are taken in the interests of the community on environmental grounds rather than for any economic reasons.
  I understand that an appeal is now pending. I understand that therefore, in his reply tonight, my hon. Friend the Minister cannot comment on the arguments for or against the proposals. However, I urge him speedily to establish a public inquiry into all three applications. It is essential that the issues are aired publicly and fully. The water authority should have no fear of such an inquiry. It is only right that there should be a full examination of the issues involved.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Does my hon. Friend agreed that, in view of the applications on Tyneside and the four applications on Teesside, the time has come for the Government to decide a national strategy for the placing of toxic waste incinerators? As he rightly says, it is unacceptable for such establishments to be sited in major centres of population. We on Teesside are every bit as worried as the people of Tyneside about the prospect of such plants being sited in our community.
  Mr. Trotter: My hon. Friend raises a most interesting point. I am very much in agreement with him. It must be right to have a national plan on an issue such as this. I hope that the Government will take that point on board.
  I am, however, worried about the blight hanging over Tyneside as a result of this most unfortunate appeal. I do not believe that there will be a national policy within the

  719
  timescale that is necessary if we are to remove as soon as possible the blight caused to the major redevelopment schemes which are planned for next door. Nor must we forget the ongoing fears of the local community.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that there should be a linked inquiry so that all the applications in the north-east can be considered together. We may not obtain a national solution in the timescale that we seek, but perhaps we can at least obtain a regional solution. I hope that my hon. Friend will give serious consideration to that proposal.
  I hope that the inquiry will be held as speedily as possible. As I said, it is harmful that in the meantime there should be a blight hanging over our community. If all three applications are considered together, at least we shall establish the genuine requirements of our region and the best way of solving the problems.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Does not the hon. Gentleman fear that in some quarters a view is held that the north-east is a soft touch in these matters because the people are not aware of the environmental dangers? Does he agree that that view is entirely mistaken, as he highlighted by revealing the strength of feeling in north Tyneside? Does he accept that there is a great deal of support throughout the north-east region for the campaign being fought by north Tyneside on this issue?
  Mr. Trotter: I agree entirely that the matter unites the community throughout Tyneside. I am sure that the same applies to Teesside. That reinforces my argument for a linked inquiry to consider the issue for the region as a whole.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that environmental issues will be paramount in considering the appeal. I am confident that, if that is the case, the decision of the local community on Tyneside, expressed by the urban development corporation in refusing permission, will be upheld. The plans for the plant will end up in the dustbin, as they deserve.
  10.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the
  Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on securing this debate on such an important topic. Waste disposal is a subject which some people find unattractive. That may be one reason why it has been neglected in past years. We do not make that mistake in the Environmental Protection Bill which is currently before the House. That Bill will contain major reforms to the present framework for control of waste management.
  It will always be the case that waste disposal activities have a wide impact on our environment, and proposals for siting such facilities should be carefully considered. This is not the first time that my hon. Friend has raised the matter in Parliament and I pay tribute to him for his skill and persistence in ensuring that his constituents' anxieties are properly considered.
  I know that the subject is of great interest to other hon. Members. The hon. Members for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) have already intervened. I am pleased also to see that my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) are attending the debate.
  720
  They have been active in promoting the interests of the north-east generally and have not been slow to draw the Department's attention to specific anxieties on this topic.
  Mr. Don Dixon: So that I, too, may get my name on the record, may I remind the Minister that my constituency is across the river from Tynemouth, and borders on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) at Formby? I support the applications of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am the first to recognise that the hon. Gentleman is a doughty fighter for the region and I apologise if I inadvertently overlooked his interest in the debate.
  I shall start by putting waste management in a wider environmental context. We produce large quantities of household, commercial and industrial waste, perhaps some 80 million to 100 million tonnes a year. Most of it goes to landfill, but we also rely on incineration for some disposal. Only a small proportion of that large total is toxic, perhaps about 2 million tonnes. Such special waste comes under the ambit of the Special Waste Regulations 1980 which ensure close monitoring of movement and disposal under a system of advance notification to waste disposal authorities. The final disposal outlets must be suitably licensed under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
  Only a limited number of landfill sites are suitable geologically for hazardous or special wastes. We also have only a limited number of high-temperature industrial waste incinerators. To my knowledge, there are four with a total annual capacity of about 80,000 tonnes, so there are substantial pressures of demand on those facilities.
  Environmental trends will place additional and increasing burdens on existing facilities and hasten the search for alternatives. For example, Ministers agreed at the 1987 North sea conference that dumping harmful industrial waste at sea should cease and that there should be strict ceilings on the disposal of sewage sludge. Inevitably, such decisions place additional burdens on landfill sites and encourage those concerned with waste disposal to look more closely at alternatives, such as incineration.
  It is fair to point out that the north-east region as a whole is a net exporter of waste to other parts of the United Kingdom. Both Cleveland and Tyne and Wear produce more hazardous waste than they can dispose of within their areas. That suggests that there is a demand for additional waste disposal facilities in the region.
  Those dilemmas over disposal options for waste generally are highlighted in the Tyne and Wear waste disposal plan, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth will be familiar. The plan was drafted in 1986 to cover a 10 to 15-year period and the final stages of completion are now a matter for the Tyne and Wear authorities, acting through their joint committee on waste disposal. The draft plan notes the increasing public concern about hazardous waste disposal and the pressures arising from the loss of marine disposal outlets and tighter land-based incinerator standards. This could leave some hazardous waste without a viable means of disposal. The plan identifies the need for establishing alternative waste treatment facilities for hazardous waste and for monitoring the effects of these developments. It

  721
  acknowledges that, without more facilities, the pressure could lead to even greater amounts being exported from the region.
  Difficult choices must be made. It is important that the disposal option in any particular case represents the best practical environmental option and that the standards set by the regulatory authorities are the ones that properly protect the environment and embody best domestic and European standards.
  Against that background, I well understand that no one likes the prospect of having a waste disposal facility in their neighbourhood, whether it is a landfill site or a new incinerator. I appreciate fully the concerns that have been expressed by Opposition Members and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth tonight.
  A number of applications for waste incinerators have been made in the north-east in the past year and it is for the local planning authority, in the first instance, to determine those individual applications.
  Two appeals relating to waste incinerators are now before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. One is from Ocean Environmental Management Ltd. in respect of its proposed incinerator at Seal Sands. The other is from Northumbrian Water with International Technology Europe Ltd. in respect of their proposed incinerator at East Howden in north Tyneside, which is the application that particularly concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. I understand that a further application by Northumbrian Water and International Technology Europe in respect of an incinerator at Portrack is currently being considered by the Teesside development corporation.
  Hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot comment upon the appeals now before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth has put forward the proposition that the appeal cases should be looked at together. I think that can help my hon. Friend.
  Although the proposed incinerators are some 40 miles apart, I recognise that there are common aspects involved. Both applicants have referred to the regional need for the facilities that they wish to develop and there is a significant overlap in the waste streams which both incinerators would deal with. Consequently, I am happy to be able to
  722
  tell my hon. Friend that it is indeed our intention that those cases should be examined at linked public inquiries. Dealing with them in this way would allow issues common to both, such as regional waste treatment capacity, movement of waste and environmental impact, to be dealt with at a plenary session attended by both inspectors and all the participants. All those issues have been raised this evening. Once those matters had been dealt with, the site specific and land use planning issues would be considered at separate, consecutive inquiries. The report of the plenary session and the separate inquiries would be considered together by the Secretary of State in making his decisions.
  Mr. Trotter: On behalf of the north-east, I thank my hon. Friend for so readily accepting our proposal for a linked inquiry. I understand the considerable practical difficulties involved, but can he ensure that the utmost speed is shown in establishing that inquiry for the reasons that I outlined earlier?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Should any further appeal be made relating to proposals for similar kinds of installation in the region—one or two have been mentioned tonight—or if my right hon. Friend decides that a particular application should be called in for his decision, it would be possible to include them, too, in the linked inquiry procedure I have described.
  In answer to my hon. Friend, he will appreciate that it will take some time to tackle the necessary arrangements to set up those inquiries. We shall press ahead as quickly as possible, and we hope to have the inquiries under way during the latter part of the year. A linked inquiry procedure means, of course, that the final outcome will be delayed until all the applications have been considered. Our aim is to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to make their views known. But I confirm our intention to follow the code of practice for those inquiries set out in annex 2 to the Government's response to the fifth report of the Select Committee on the Environment, 1985–86, which sets out ground rules for ensuring maximum public participation.
  I shall be writing to hon. Members, to the planning authorities and to the applicants in the next few days setting out the arrangements in more detail.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the past 10 years, how many tonnes of radioactive material were(a) imported and (b) exported through the ports of (i) Barrow, (ii) Dover, (iii) Felixstowe, (iv) Harwich, (v) Liverpool (vi) Portsmouth, (vii) Southampton and (viii) Workington; and, in each case, what method of transport was used to convey the material to or from the port.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not collect this information, and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year for the last 10 years(a) the sources and (b) the destinations, of radioactive material (i) imported and (ii) exported through the port of Immingham-Hull.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not collect this information on a routine basis and it can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for the publication of the safety requirements of the Channel tunnel design together with the supporting calculations.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on 15 January,Official Report, column 45, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) on 19 December, Official Report, column 195. The general characteristics of the Channel tunnel are specified in the concession agreement (Cmnd 9769). It is for Eurotunnel to prepare detailed designs and submit them for approval by the Channel tunnel intergovernmental commission. On safety matters, the commission is advised by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, which has recently published its annual report for 1988–89. I understand that the authority intends to publish further reports in due course. The commission's recent decision on the non-segregation of passengers from their vehicles was accompanied by a number of binding safety requirements.

  Light Rapid Transit Systems
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the current amount allocated for the development of light rapid transit systems for the financial year 1990–91, excluding London;
  490
  (2) what is the amount currently budgeted for allocation for the development of light rapid transit systems for the financial year 1991–92, excluding London.

  Mr. Portillo
  Total provision of about £50 million in 1990–91 and £40 million in 1991–92 has been made for the Manchester Metrolink project. No decisions have yet been taken on resource allocations for any other light rail schemes outside London.

  Tamar Estuary Crossing
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends announcing details of the proposed study of a second road crossing of the Tamar estuary as outlined in his May 1989 "Roads for Prosperity" strategy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I aim to invite tenders this spring from consultants experienced in this kind of study. I shall make an announcement when an appointment has been made.

  A27
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to construct a road of motorway standard north of the existing A27 in East Sussex.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have no present plans to do so but we are putting in place a major study into the need for an east-west strategic route running from Kent to Hampshire within a corridor between the M25 and the south coast.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy not to allow construction to begin on a new roundabout at the junction of the A27 and A26 at Beddingham until such time as a projected route has been announced for the proposed improvements to the A27 between Lewes and Polegate, and a full public consultation period has elapsed.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. Provision of this roundabout is considered good value for money in the medium term and will not pre-empt consideration of options for improving the A27.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy not to approve a final route for the A27 Folkington link until such time as a projected route has been announced for the proposed improvements to the A27 between Lewes and Polegate, and a full public consultation period has elapsed.

  Mr. Atkins
  The issue about which the hon. Member is concerned has been raised by others in the context of public consultation on our Folkington link proposals and will be considered before we decide how the matter should be taken forward. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide details of traffic flows along the A27 between(a) Lewes and Beddingham, (b) Beddingham and Alfriston and (c) Alfriston and Polegate for any of the last 15 years for which figures are available; and if he will indicate the division between HGV and other traffic.

  Mr. Atkins
  The annual average daily traffic flows for the years 1985 to 1988, for which information is readily available, were as follows. Percentages of heavy goods vehicles are shown in brackets:
  491

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Lewes to Beddingham

  17,500 (8·3 per cent.)

  18,600 (8·3 per cent.)

  18,800 (9·7 per cent.)

  20,300 (9·6 per cent.)

  Beddingham and Alfriston

  11,600 (7·5 per cent.)

  12,300 (7·4 per cent.)

  12,700 (6·6 per cent.)

  13,200 (10·3 per cent.)

  Alfriston and Polegate

  9,400 (9·2 per cent.)

  10,000 (9·0 per cent.)

  10,200 (7·9 per cent.)

  11,000 (7·8 per cent.)

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer in the Official Report, 16 January, column 154, what the possible option identified by East Sussex county council involved with regard to (a) the dualling of the present A27 road, (b) the demolition of houses along the A27 and (c) the construction of a flyover.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is not our policy to release information from scheme identification studies in advance of public consultation. To do so could be misleading and cause unnecessary planning blight for which there might not be a satisfactory recourse under existing legislation.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last corresponded with East Sussex county council in respect of projected improvements to the A27; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  There is regular contact between my Department and East Sussex county council about our four major A27—and seven A259—schemes in addition to a number of other schemes in our regional programme.

  Rear Seat Belts
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in which European Community states the installation of rear seat belts is mandatory; and from what date this took effect in each case.

  Mr. Atkins
  The table gives the available information on the mandatory fitment of rear seat belts in cars for each European Community member state.

  Member state

  Rear belt requirement/Date

  Belgium

  First registered from January 1987

  Denmark

  First registered from April 1989

  France

  First registered from October 1978

  Federal Republic of Germany

  First registered from May 1987

  Greece

  None

  Italy

  First registered from April 1990

  Ireland

  None

  Luxembourg

  First registered from 1988

  Netherlands

  First registered from January 1990

  Portugal

  First registered from January 1992

  Spain

  First registered from October 1990

  United Kingdom

  First registered from April 1987

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect on the number of fatalities and injuries occurring in the United Kingdom if rear seat belts were worn in all vehicles.

  Mr. Atkins
  Our latest estimate is that if all rear seat car passengers wore seat belts, some 200 deaths and 9,000 injuries would be prevented each year.
  492
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current position of draft European Community legislation 9228/88; and when the wearing of rear seat belts will become mandatory.

  Mr. Atkins
  Member countries have not yet taken a decision on this Commission proposal. In the United Kingdom it is already mandatory for children to wear available rear restraints where appropriate for their use. In the case of adults we have no plans to introduce mandatory wearing before a sufficient proportion of cars has the equipment fitted as standard.

  M40 (Widening)
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has considered responses to the environmental statement for the widening of the M40 motorway between High Wycombe and Stokenchurch; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have carefully considered the responses to the environmental statement issued on 15 September 1989 containing proposals for widening the M40 motorway. The Department has made various changes to the design of the scheme, in particular to take account of the interests of the environment in this attractive area. The improvements will make the best use of established planting and minimise the effects on wildlife. "Cut-off" lighting will be used to avoid unnecessary glare away from the highway. We shall be making full use of our discretionary powers to provide noise insulation for residential properties. The Department is about to invite tenders for the work.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had concerning the proposal by the National Association for Pastoral Care in Education to set up a national standing conference for educational responses to child abuse; and if he will made a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations.

  Disabled Students' Allowance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce new proposals arising from the review of the disabled students' allowance.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend hopes to announce the outcome of his review of the disabled students' and other supplementary allowances in the spring, in time for any changes in the mandatory awards regulations to take effect from 1 September 1990.

  European Parliament Reports
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the response of Her Majesty's Government to resolution A2-327/88 of the European Parliament on genetic engineering known as the
  493
  Rothley report and resolution A2-372/88 of the European Parliament on artificial insemination known as the Casini report.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government have noted these resolutions, but have not responded.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to ensure that there are sufficient teachers to teach the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 12 December 1989 at column 553.

  Medical Research Council
  Ms. Primarlo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to increase the budget allocation to the Medical Research Council for 1990–91.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend announced his decision on the science budget allocations for 1990–91 including that for the Medical Research Council in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on 10 January at columns 623-24.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance is given by his Department as to supply teachers' salaries; whether local education authorities are required to pay supply teachers additional increments in accordance with years of service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Teachers employed on short-notice contracts are paid for the duration of each contract at the rate the LEA considers appropriate in the light of local needs and circumstances. In circular 12/89 the Department drew local education authorities' attention to the interim advisory committee's views on the dangers of setting a standard low point on the main scale and endorsed the suggestion of the IAC that such teachers should always be offered the opportunity of being involved in other duties as well as teaching pupils.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many letters he has received from parents of children with special learning difficulties, including dyslexia, on the issue of assessment and provision of statements under the Education Acts; and how many of these were in respect of children in Essex.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I regret that it is not possible to identify this information from the Department's records.

  Alpha-rated Research
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would have been the extra money required by each research council to have funded all the alpha-rated research projects in the financial year 1988–89; and how much money was spent by each research council on alpha-rated projects in that financial year.
  494
  Mr. Jackson
  The additional amounts that would have been required to fund all alpha-rated research grant applications in the academic year 1988–89 were as follows:

  £ million

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  0·3

  Medical Research Council

  17·9

  Natural Environment Research Council

  0·7

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  63·6

  Economic and Social Research Council

  5·0

  87·5

  In the 1988–89 financial year the councils' spend on alpha-rated research projects was as follows:

  £ million

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  9·1

  Medical Research Council

  44·5

  Natural Environment Research Council

  4·6

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  123·0

  Economic and Social Research Council

  4·3

  185·5

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in acquiring premises for the Student Loans Company, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 November 1989, column 5]: The Student Loans Company Limited has reached agreement with landlords on the terms of a lease on premises at 100 Bothwell street in Glasgow. I have been requested by the landlords to guarantee the company's obligations under that lease. I have considered the lease and the terms of the guarantee requested. I have concluded that I should give such a guarantee in accordance with the departmental minute laid before Parliament on 22 November 1989 and have indicated to the Student Loans Company that I will do so.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the decision will be taken on the exact location in Glasgow of the headquarters for the Student Loans Company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the pursuant reply that my right hon. Friend gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). The headquarters of the Student Loans Company Limited will be at 100 Bothwell street, Glasgow.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Social Security
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases were heard by the social security commissioners in the last year for which statistics were available; how long on average each hearing took; and on what number of occasions the Department of Social Security and the appellant, respectively, was legally represented.

  The Attorney-General
  A total of 442 cases were heard by the social security commissioners in 1989. On average, each hearing took 2·25 hours. Statistics on the representation of parties are not kept.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what arrangements will be made to obtain evidence and advice from the solicitors' profession on legal aid, for the purposes of the review of the financial conditions for legal aid announced on 13 November 1989.

  The Attorney-General
  The solicitors' profession will be consulted as appropriate for information and for its views.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what is his estimate of the percentage of the population now potentially eligible on income grounds for legal aid for non-matrimonial cases; what was the equivalent figure obtaining in 1979 and each successive year; and whether he will place a summary of relevant calculations of the data used in the Library;

  (2) what progress has been made in the study of family expenditure survey data and the conclusions to be drawn from it in relation to eligibility for legal aid since his answer of 20 March 1989, Official Report, column 449.

  The Attorney-General
  Estimates indicate that at present about 56 per cent. of the population is eligible on income grounds alone for civil legal aid in non-matrimonial cases. This estimate does not take account of the improvements announced on 13 November 1989,Official Report, column 3, which will be introduced in April. It was based on data obtained from the family expenditure survey—in relation to income for each household type and deductions for housing costs, tax and national insurance payments and allowances for dependants—grossed up and uprated to current level equivalents through a computer model. Such calculations cannot be made for earlier years except at disproportionate cost.

  Legal Advice and Assistance
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will take immediate steps substantially to increase the capital limit of £890 which applies to the legal advice and assistance green form scheme.

  The Attorney-General
  The capital limit for a single person for legal advice and assistance will be increased to £935 in April.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Electricity
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of Nuclear Electric; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Baldry
  My hon. Friend has met the chairman of Nuclear Electric on a number of occasions to discuss aspects of the nuclear industry.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out those guarantees which were sought by the private sector in regard to nuclear stations in the negotiations over electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 14 November 1989 at column 139.
  496
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to ensure that the operational expertise of the electricity supply industry in running its nuclear plants will be retained when the non-nuclear sector of the industry is privatised.

  Mr. Baldry
  Nuclear Electric will inherit all the CEGB's nuclear-related assets, expertise and support, including its expertise in health and safety. The chairman of Nuclear Electric has stated that safety is a paramount priority of Nuclear Electric.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what payments have been made by his Department to British Nuclear Fuels plc over the past five years in regard to post-operational decommissioning work on facilities at Sellafield used to carry out contracts for his Department; what proportion of the work required arose from the pre-1971 period when Sellafield was operated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority; and over what period of time negotiations were entered into over the payments for the work.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. My Department has no liabilities to British Nuclear Fuels plc for decommissioning.

  "Energy Policy in the Greenhouse"
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to obtain a copy of the recently published study "Energy Policy in the Greenhouse" prepared by the international project for sustainable energy paths.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department already holds a copy of this study.

  Waste Tips
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will make it his policy to promote methane extraction for useful energy generation of all controlled waste tips of over 1 million cu m of refuse;

  (2) what is the most up-to-date estimate available to him of the minimum size, measured by cubic metres, of controlled household refuse tips, to sustain viable commercial methane extraction.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  As I explained to the hon. Member in answer to his question of 18 January, my Department has a substantial programme to promote exploitation of methane from landfill sites. This work is not limited to sites with more than 1 million cu m of waste capacity. Landfill gas exploitation is being encouraged at all landfill sites containing a large proportion of biodegradable refuse providing such exploitation can be shown to be economic.

  The minimum size of landfill sites for viable commercial methane extraction does not depend on volume alone. Factors such as locality of potential users are also important. For example, a small-scale greenhouse scheme could be supported by a site of only a few thousand cubic metres in volume. Hence, it would not be appropriate to suggest a minimum value, in terms of cubic metres of refuse on a landfill site, to sustain a viable extraction project.

  Subsidence (Compensation)
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Scretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive British Coal's second annual report on its administration of the system for subsidence compensation and repair.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have today placed copies of this report in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list for each local authority district the number of outstanding subsidence claims lodged with British Coal.

  Mr. Wakeham
  British Coal has no operational need to compile details of subsidence damage claims on a district council basis. Details of claims broken down by British Coal area are contained in British Coal's annual report to the Secretary of State for Energy. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced today in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), copies of the most recent report were today placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The provision of further information is a matter for British Coal.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list proposals for opencast working made by the Opencast Executive of British Coal to the appropriate planning authorities, giving the name, location and proposed capacity in each case'

  (2) if he will list the applications for licences to operate opencast mines presently being considered by British Coal, giving the name, location and capacity in each case;

  (3) if he will list the names, locations and capacities of each opencast mine being operated by the Opencast Executive of British Coal;

  (4) if he will list the names, locations and capacities of each opencast mine being operated by a private company under licence from British Coal;

  (5) on how many occasions in each of the past 10 years British Coal has withheld repayment of a bond it held from licensed opencast operators; and what were the reasons in each case.

  Mr. Wakeham
  These are matters for the British Coal Corporation, and I have asked the chairman to reply to the hon. Member.

  Fuel Exports and Imports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now provide the information given in his answers of 9 November 1989,Official Report, column 767, 19 December 1989, Official Report, columns 118-19 and 12 January, Official Report, columns 768-69, relating to fuel exports and imports at 1990 constant prices.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I regret that the information requested (on the basis of 1990 constant prices) is not available. The procedure used to provide figures at 1985 constant prices in the previous answers referred to in the question was to apply the 1985 unit value for exports and imports to the relevant volumes for the years concerned. The equivalent export and import unit value figures for the whole of 1990 will not be available until February 1991 at the earliest.

  Nuclear Power (Overseas Production)
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the examples of economic production of nuclear power abroad, referred to in his statement of 9 November 1989,Official Report, column 1182; and what information he possesses on how the cost of such nuclear electricity is calculated in each case.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend's remarks were informed by the IEA/NEA study "Projected costs of generating electricity from power stations for commissioning in the period 1995–2000", which gives information on the economics of nuclear power in a number of countries. The study will be published shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cults
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's mechanisms for the monitoring of cults in the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are aware of the distress that can be caused to individuals and families as a result of involvement with certain cults, particularly where young people are concerned. Provided these groups operate within the law, however, it would not be right., in the Government's view, for us to place restraints on freedom of expression or freedom of religion and belief. Any evidence of illegal activities should he referred to the police who will take appropriate action.

  The Government believe that the best way of dealing with these cults is through public exposure of their true nature. For this reason the Home Office has been providing start-up funding since October 1987 over three years for INFORM—Information Network Focus on Religious Movements. Its work is supported by the major churches. Under the terms of its grant, INFORM is required to produce a report annually on its activities. The report for the calendar year 1988 was received in May 1989, and the report for 1989 is expected in due course.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to discuss the future of the scheme for student loans with the chairman of Barclays bank.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will dismiss the Secretary of State for Education and Science for his conduct in relation to the banks' decision to pull out of the student loan scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. I was very disappointed that the banks decided to react to external pressure and withdrew from the memorandum of understanding with the Government to administer the student loans scheme. It is the students themselves who will now not have the benefit of access to the banks' branch networks to obtain the loans. But the banks' withdrawal does not affect in any way the objectives, principles or funding of the scheme. Preparatory work is well in hand.
  499
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government have any plans to take fiscal or other action against those banks which pulled out of the Government scheme for student loans; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have expressed strong disappointment at the banks' withdrawal from the memorandum of understanding: at no stage has there been any question of action against the banks.

  Hong Kong (Ivory Stocks)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reasons responsibility for the Hong Kong ivory stock rests with the Foreign and Commonwealth office.

  The Prime Minister
  Matters related to the CITES Convention are the prime responsibility of the Department of the Environment. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible for questions arising from the administration of Hong Kong as a dependent territory.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Footwear
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he intends to take to reduce the current imbalance of tariff and non-tariff barriers in footwear trade with(a) Thailand, (b) Brazil, (c) Australia, (d) India and (e) Japan.

  Table 1

  Trade balances in manufactures1

  United States $ billion

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989 January to November

  Japan

  With:

  World

  134·7

  160·3

  163·4

  176

  n/a

  EC

  12·7

  20·1

  22·7

  27

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  3·4

  4·7

  6·0

  7

  n/a

  Federal Republic of Germany

  With:

  World

  67·5

  89·4

  104·9

  113

  n/a

  EC

  24·5

  38·1

  50·6

  60

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  7·4

  9·9

  12·9

  15

  n/a

  United States of America

  With:

  World

  -112·9

  -144·9

  -152·1

  -146

  n/a

  EC

  -22·5

  -29·0

  -27·4

  -20

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  -1·3

  -3·0

  -1·9

  —

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  With:

  World

  -7·5

  -11·8

  -16·1

  -30·8

  -31·0

  EC

  -12·3

  -15·9

  -18·2

  -23·9

  -23·0

  1 Standard International Trade Classification, sections 5 to 8.

  n/a—Not available.

  Note: Imports valued inclusive of insurance and freight, exports valued exclusive.

  Sources:

  United Kingdom—Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Others—OECD except 1988 which are estimated from national sources.
  500
  Mr. Redwood
  We and our Community partners fully support the objectives of the Uruguary round of multilateral trade negotiations in GATT, which include the specific aim of reduction or elimination by all participants of high tariffs and non-tariff measures.

  The European Commission negotiates for the Community in GATT. It has details of all the concerns expressed to us by the United Kingdom footwear industry, and these will be carefully taken into account in formulating the Community's position in these negotiations.

  Trade Surplus
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish in the Official Report, a table showing in dollars for each year since 1985, and for 1989 to the latest available date at an annual rate, the trade surplus in manufactures and the balance of payments surplus for Japan, Germany, the United States of America and the United Kingdom with the world, the EEC and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  The available information is in the tables. Care should be exercised in comparing trade balances in manufactures with current account balances because of inconsistencies in valuation. The figures for 1989 relate to the periods shown because annualised figures can be unreliable as a guide to the outturn for the year.
  501

  Table 2

  Balance of payments

  US $ billion

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989 January to September

  Japan with:

  World

  49·2

  85·8

  87·0

  79·6

  46·7

  European Community

  8·0

  14·8

  17·7

  19·8

  n.a.

  United Kingdom

  0·3

  1·5

  2·0

  1·4

  n.a.

  Federal Republic of Germany with:

  World

  15·2

  35·2

  45·1

  48·5

  44·4

  European Community

  -0·4

  9·9

  18·7

  25·4

  n.a.

  United Kingdom

  3·2

  7·3

  10·5

  14·0

  n.a.

  United States of America with:

  World

  -115·1

  -133·2

  -143·7

  -126·5

  -85·2

  European Community

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  United Kingdom

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  United Kingdom with:

  World

  4·2

  0·1

  -6·0

  -26·0

  -25·8

  European Community

  -4·1

  -13·6

  -21·0

  -29·1

  n.a.

  n.a. = not available.

  Sources: OECD and national statistics.

  Accounting
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether he has asked the accountancy profession to develop any standard on price level accountancy;

  (2) whether he has any plans to introduce a system of current value accounting for company accounts.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government support the new accounting standards arrangements recommended by the Dearing committee in 1988, including the creation of a Financial Reporting Council and an Accounting Standards Board. In determining the work programme of the board, the council will no doubt take note of the existing commitment of the Accounting Standards Committee to explore effective means of developing a standard on accounting for the effects of changing prices.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make it his policy not to appoint inspectors from firms of accountants which have been criticised in inspectors' reports.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. My right hon. Friend will continue to appoint competent inspectors.

  Export Services
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will supply figures for spending by his Department on export services, in constant prices, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following figures show gross and net expenditure by the Department on export services in constant price terms:

  £ million (1979–80 prices)

  Year

  Gross expenditure

  Net expenditure

  1979–80

  25·7

  21·2

  1980–81

  19·5

  15·8

  1981–82

  19·4

  15·4

  502

  Year

  Gross expenditure

  Net expenditure

  1982–83

  21·0

  16·6

  1983–84

  20·8

  15·5

  1984–85

  124·6

  118·8

  1985–86

  224·6

  217·4

  1986–87

  24·6

  15·5

  1987–88

  323·4

  314·7

  1988–89

  425·4

  416·6

  1 Expenditure on publicity and promotion was transferred from the COI budget with effect from 1984–85. On a constant price basis, the expenditure amounted to £1·4 million in 1984–85.

  2 Export Intelligence Service revenue was transferred to the exports budget from another DTI budget with effect from 1985–86. On a constant price basis this reduced net expenditure by £0·3 million in 1985–86.

  3 Includes expenditure on publications for the then Statistics and Market Intelligence Library previously treated as part of general library expenditure (value £0·2 million on a constant price basis).

  4 Figures for 1988–89 include grant-in-aid to the International Customs Tariff Bureau (value £0·038 million on a constant price basis), and the "New Products from Britain" service transferred from the FCO in the second half of the year (value £0·2 million on a constant price basis).

  All figures have been converted using the implied GDP factor cost deflator.

  Car Exports
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received assurances from each member state of the EEC that they will permit the import, without restriction, of cars produced in the United Kingdom by firms in Japanese ownership; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  The European Commission received an assurance from the French Government in April last year that cars produced in Sunderland by Nissan Motor Manufacturing UK Ltd. would be allowed to enter France without restriction and quite independently of the level of car imports into France from Japan.

  No member state currently restricts in any way the import of cars produced in the United Kingdom.
  503
  The Commission has suggested that, during the transitional period over which it envisages that existing restrictions on imports of cars from Japan should be phased out, it may be necessary to take into account in some way the production of cars by Japanese-owned firms in the EC. The Government have made it clear that there is no question of the United Kingdom accepting any arrangement in which cars produced by Japanese-owned firms in the United Kingdom, or anywhere other than Japan, count towards ceilings on imports from Japan.

  Japanese Car Imports
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the purpose of the voluntary restraint arrangement which limits Japanese car imports to 10·8 per cent. of the United Kingdom market; when it was introduced; and if he will now take steps to remove it.

  Mr. Ridley
  The voluntary restraint arrangement on imports of cars from Japan came into operation in 1975 following discussions between the vehicle industries of the United Kingdom and Japan.

  The Government will consider the future of the arrangement within the context of Community-wide moves toward liberalisation of the European car market.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what restrictions are imposed on the import of Japanese cars by each member of the EEC; and if the EEC has any plans to remove these restrictions.

  Mr. Ridley
  In addition to the United Kingdom industry's arrangement, France has an unofficial limit on Japanese penetration of the market. There are formal quotas in Italy, Portugal and Spain. Although the Commission has not yet put forward detailed proposals, it envisages that restrictions should be phased out progressively over a transitional period which would extend beyond 1992.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the directives on financial services which have been issued by the European Communities in the last year and the directives that are still required to be issued during the next six months to achieve a fair competitive environment in such services in the member countries.

  Mr. Redwood
  The second banking co-ordination directive, the solvency ratios directive, the own funds directive, the insider dealing directive, the bank branches directive and the prospectus directive have been adopted by the Council of Ministers in the last year.

  The investment services directive, the life insurance services directive, the directive on the annual accounts of insurance undertakings, the motor insurance services directive, the third motor insurance directive and the mutual recognition directive (of stock exchange listing particulars) might be adopted by the end of 1990. The Commission has indicated its intention to submit to the Council of Ministers during 1990 texts of a capital adequacy directive for investment business, a non-life insurance framework directive and of a life insurance framework directive.

  Adoption by Council of these further directives would represent important progress towards completion of the
  504
  single market through a fair competitive environment in financial services. The investment services and insurance directives are especially important to British businesses wanting to do business on the continent of Europe.

  Environmental Technology
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to meet the Ministers for Planning and the Environment of the Soviet Union to discuss opportunities for the sale of environmental clean-up and pollution abatement technology developed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is planning to visit the Soviet Union in the near future and will discuss all the main commercial opportunities available with Soviet Ministers during his visit.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has indicating the percentage of the population supporting a change in legislation to strengthen consumer protection.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]: No such information is available.

  Consumer Guarantees
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received from bodies opposed to the definition of a consumer guarantee in legislation; and how many of these bodies did not give evidence on the subject to the National Consumer Council.

  Mr. Forth
  A formal public consultation exercise has not been undertaken, but, following publication of the National Consumer Council report "The Consumer Guarantee", representations have been made both for and against the proposed overall approach and on various detailed aspects. It would be inappropriate to quantify the bodies involved in the same way as it would be to name them, since their views have been expressed in confidence.

  Juno Project
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will outline progress in raising funds for the Juno project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]: The Juno project is being financed entirely by the private sector. While I wish it every success, Her Majesty's Government are not a sponsor and the hon. Member will need to seek the information he wishes from the project organisers.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Brazilian Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit to Brazil of Dr. Synott of the Oxford Forestry
  505
  Institute in November/December 1989, to discuss details of projects in sustainable forestry management and genetic resources of forests; and when such projects are likely to begin.

  Mrs. Chalker
  During this visit a number of possible projects were discussed with Brazilian institutions. These included the Tapajos forest management project, a tropical forest research project, a project to assist biological research in the Ducke reserve and a Varzea (floodplain forest) management study. Project proposals are currently being prepared for ODA consideration which will need to be cleared with the Brazilian Government. Implementation of these projects could begin in the second quarter of this year. Proposals for further projects are awaited from Brazil.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether work has begun on the joint five-year project by Brazilian scientific institutions and the Institute of Hydrology to improve knowledge of the critical effect of rainforests on climate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have submitted a detailed proposal for this project to the Brazilian Government for their agreement. While we understand that the proposal is generally acceptable to the Government, we still await confirmation of their agreement to proceed. We hope to receive this within the next few weeks, in time to allow the participating institutions to start the first field season in July as planned.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit to Cambodia by officials of the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  During their visit to Cambodia officials identified a number of areas for potential ODA support, in co-operation with British non-governmental organisations and multilateral agencies. These included priority sectors such as food production, primary education and health care. There are also increasing opportunities for NGOs to extend their activities beyond Phnom Penh into the provinces. Severe skill shortages among Cambodians could be alleviated by the provision of volunteer experts (VSO) and by appropriate technical training. The ODA is actively discussing possible projects with the NGOs. In addition, as I announced in answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on 8 January, I am making available a further £1 million to multilateral agencies for their programmes inside Cambodia in 1990–91.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation on the famine in Ethiopia; and what steps the Government have taken to alleviate starvation.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The international relief effort continues to be hampered by the civil conflict in northern Ethiopia. The most pressing need is to secure free access for relief supplies across the battle lines. We have been active in recent diplomatic efforts to try and secure this. It was 506
  reported on 18 January that agreement had been reached between the Ethiopian Government and the joint relief partnership of local church organisations on the necessary arrangements, but further details are awaited. We are meanwhile continuing to provide food and other emergency aid via British non-governmental organisations. The total value of our food and emergency aid in 1989 was nearly £18·5 million, including our share of the cost of assistance provided by the European Community.

  Aid
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the proportion of gross national product given in aid by British Governments to developing countries, excluding commercial aid packages, in 1975, 1978, 1983, 1985 and 1989.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The aid and trade provision has been an integral part of Britain's aid programme since its inception. However, excluding aid reported to the development assistance committee of the OECD under the heading "Grants and Loans included in Associated Financing Packages", the figures are:

  per cent.

  1975

  10·35

  1978

  0·45

  1983

  0·33

  1985

  0·31

  1 No associated financing was reported in 1975.

  The figure for 1989 is not yet available.

  Britain's bilateral aid programme finances sound development projects and programmes of benefit to the recipient country. The bulk of it is tied to the procurement of British goods and services.

  Forestry
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits he plans to make in order to evaluate the effectiveness of Britain's support for sustainable forestry projects.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I plan to visit East Africa and India in the spring. I expect to discuss our ongoing and planned forestry assistance during both these visits. The subject will also be covered during other visits later in the year.

WALES

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the overall expected change in rateable values in Wales as a result of the publication of the provisional list of revised valuations for the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Rateable value of business properties in Wales have increased by a factor of 8·4 overall.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the operation of the uniform business rate in Wales and its effect upon small business.
  507
  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have received a number of representations.

  Rechem
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a further statement on the arrangements for the incineration of toxic waste at the Rechem plant.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has been assured by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution that the plant is operating to current requirements.

  Welsh Language Board
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what reponse he has made to the proposals of the Welsh Language Board for a new Welsh Language Act.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend is considering the proposals.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from bodies concerned about river pollution in(a) Clwyd and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  We have received a number of representations from organisations through Wales.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet the chairmen of the health authorities; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Grist
  The date and agenda for the next meeting have not yet been agreed.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the ambulance services in Wales; and when he plans to meet them again.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend met a group of ambulance men during a visit to Merthyr on 7 November, while I talked to members of the Clwyd service in December. There are no plans for any further meetings.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the shares in the recently privatised Welsh Water share flotation was allocated to applicants resident in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on Tuesday 19 December.

  Ronald Greedy
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the decision to transfer Ronald Greedy to Whitchurch hospital, the basis on which he was accommodated, the physical security arrangements and his subsequent escape.
  508
  Mr. Grist
  My officials have already instituted inquiries of the district health authority into the discharge of the conditions which attached to Mr. Greedy's transfer to Whitchurch hospital. I shall write to my hon. Friend when I have considered its advice.

  Batteries and Accumulators
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what steps his Department has taken to promote research aimed a reducing the dangerous substance content and increasing the use of less-polluting substitute substances in batteries and accumulators, and into methods of recycling;

  (2) what steps his Department has taken to reduce the volume of spent batteries and accumulators in household waste.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs on Friday 19 January, at column 444.

  North Wales Initiative
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors changed during the previous six months which led him to announce his new north Wales initiative in early December.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I announced in the Welsh Grand Committee in December 1988 that I had asked the Minister of State to discuss with local authorities and other bodies in north Wales how the opportunities presented by the upgrading of the A55 could best he grasped. These discussions resulted in the document "A55—The Road of Opportunity" which sets out the developments which will take place in the next few years and indicates the decisions and activities required to maximise the potential brought by the road. As I said to the hon. Gentleman in my answer on 26 May a formal initiative for north Wales is unnecessary as existing mechanisms are adequate to allow continued improvement.

  National Museum of Wales
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish in the Official Report the attendance figures for 1989 reported by the National Museum of Wales, including its outstations, with the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1988.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  A total of 482,080 people visited the National Museum of Wales during 1989—42 per cent. fewer than the attendance reported for 1988. The difference is largely accounted for by the lower recorded numbers at the main Cathays park museum and, in this connection, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 6 November 1989. The transfer of responsibility for the former national museum outstation, Yr Hen Gapel, Tre'r Ddol, from 1 January 1989 has also affected the totals.

  Local Government
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons are employed in Welsh local government and what were the corresponding figures for 1970 and 1980.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The numbers of persons employed in Welsh local government in 1980 and 1989 are shown in the table. Corresponding information is not available for 1970.

  Number of employees as at September

  1980

  11989

  Full-time

  107,135

  99,108

  Part-time

  46,646

  55,670

  Total full-time equivalents

  126,100

  121,753

  1 Provisional.

  Out-patient Clinics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what number of patients in each county in Wales had to travel distances of(a) over 10 miles, (b) over 20 miles and (c) over 30 miles in order to attend hospital out-patient clinics in 1988 and 1989;

  (2) what percentage of patients in each county in Wales had to travel distances of (a) over 10 miles, (b) over 20 miles and (c) over 30 miles in order to attend hospital out-patient clinics in 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not available centrally.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) holdings and (b) sheep, remain subject to post-Chernobyl movements and sale restrictions in north Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Approximately 416 holdings and 300,000 sheep.

  Radiation Monitoring
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether his Department has received any correspondence from the Friends of the Earth's radiation monitoring unit about post-Chernobyl contamination in north Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) whether his Department will review its sheep monitoring programme in the derestricted area between Bala and Lake Vyrnwy.

  Mr. Grist
  No correspondence has been received by the Department from the Friends of the Earth's radiation monitoring unit about its recent report about post-Chernobyl contamination in north Wales.

  The area between Bala and Lake Vyrnwy referred to in the report was derestricted in 1986 and monitoring then and subsequently has shown that radiation levels in sheep are well within the action level of 1,000 bq/kg.

  Llanelli General Hospital
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the new Llanelli general hospital will open.

  Mr. Grist
  East Dyfed health authority advises that, on current programming expectations, the new Llanelli 510
  hospital should be open for out-patients at the end of February 1990 and for in-patients towards the end of April 1990.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the general managers of family practitioners committees, their qualifications and their date of appointment.

  Mr. Grist
  All eight family practitioner committees have now appointed general managers. The table indicates the dates on which appointments were or are to be taken up.

  Family Practitioner Committee

  General Manager

  Date of Appointment

  Gwent

  Mr. H. T. Watkins

  10 November 1989

  Gwynedd

  Mr. R. A. Thomas

  10 November 1989

  Mid Glamorgan

  Mr. M. V. Jenkins

  1 January 1990

  Powys

  Mr. R. G. T. Phillips

  10 November 1989

  South Glamorgan

  Mr. B. A. Ruddy

  10 November 1989

  West Glamorgan

  Mr. G. Plunkett

  1 December 1989

  Clwyd

  Mr. C. N. Last

  1 May 1990

  Dyfed

  Mr. J. P. French

  1 May 1990

  Information about the academic, professional or other qualifications of individual general managers is a matter for each family practitioner committee as the employing body.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to meet the statutory wages councils to discuss the rates of pay set for categories of workers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. Statutory wages councils are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Cerebral Palsy
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research he has commissioned to investigate the causes of cerebral palsy.

  Mr. Grist
  None, but results of research funded by the Department of Health are available to Wales.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps his Department is taking to monitor trends in cerebral palsy.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office does not maintain a central statistical record of the incidence of this condition.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of children born in Wales, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available, who have been diagnosed as having cerebral palsy.

  Mr. Grist
  Cerebral palsy is not necessarily diagnosed at birth, so information on the number of children born in Wales each year and diagnosed with this condition is not available centrally.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has received any representations from teachers in West Glamorgan about the county council's policy of reducing the salary of supply teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Representations have been received from the West Glamorgan supply teachers' association. The pay of supply teachers is a matter for local education authorities to decide in the light of local circumstances and within the guidelines we have issued. LEAs have discretion to pay supply teachers at any point on the main scale provided that it is no lower than the minimum entitlement appropriate to the teachers' qualifications.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ulster Museum
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will publish in the Official Report the attendance figures for 1989 reported by the Ulster museum, including its outstations, with the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1988.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1989 a total of 270,100 people visited the Ulster museum and the Armagh county museum—a decrease of 24 per cent. on the attendance figure for 1988.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Electoral Registration
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to amend the electoral registration form A so that persons registering can indicate if they are willing for the information to be available for sale by the registering authority.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 15 January at column 27.

  Replica Firearms
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ban the advertising, importation and sale of replica firearms in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The sale in England and Wales of any replica gun which can be readily converted to fire live ammunition is, under the Firearms Act 1982, subject to the same stringent controls as those imposed on actual firearms by the Firearms Acts 1968 and 1988. In addition, it is already an offence to use an imitation firearm to commit a crime or resist arrest the maximum penalty for which is life imprisonment.

  Advertising on independent television and radio is, under the Broadcasting Act 1981, the responsibility of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The authority has a duty to draw up and maintain a code of advertising standards and practice, and from time to time to consult me about the kind of advertisements which must not be
  512
  broadcast. My right hon. and learned Friend has no power to take such a decision unilaterally. However the policy of independent television and radio companies is not to accept advertising for firearms whether replica or otherwise. Advertising in other media is a matter for the Advertising Standards Authority.

  The importation of imitation firearms is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  We have no plans to introduce further controls on the sale of replica firearms in England and Wales.

  Responsibility for firearms legislation elsewhere in the United Kingdom rests with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Football Safety
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 789, to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, when he now expects to write with further details about the Middlesbrough-Leeds United game on Sunday 9 December, and whether the reply will refer to any safety agreement between Middlesbrough football club and Cleveland police.

  Mr. John Patten
  I hope to be able to write to the hon. Member within the next few days. I do not think that I can usefully comment in advance on what the letter will say.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the earliest date after which the men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings will be eligible for parole.

  Mr. Mellor
  Life sentence prisoners are not eligible for parole, but may be released on life licence at the discretion of the Home Secretary if this is recommended by the Parole Board. In accordance with our policy that no life sentence prisoner should be detained for more than 17 years without an independent review, consideration of these cases will begin in November 1991. However, such a review does not necessarily mean that the board will recommend release or that my right hon. and learned Friend would accept such a recommendation if it were made.

  Mr. John Stalker
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an independent judicial inquiry, with full powers to compel witnesses to attend and give evidence, into the circumstances surrounding those matters concerning Mr. John Stalker, the former deputy chief constable of the Greater Manchester police, and Mr. Kevin Taylor, and into the wider implications of those matters.

  Mr. Waddington
  I see no grounds for instituting a judicial inquiry into matters relating to Mr. John Stalker or Mr. Kevin Taylor as a result of the failure of the recent prosecution of Mr. Taylor. It will be for the chief constable of Greater Manchester to consider whether the proceedings indicate any misconduct on the part of officers of his force and if so to institute appropriate disciplinary or criminal investigation.

  Video Surveillance
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to change the regulations governing video surveillance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans, at present, to change the guidelines on the use of equipment in police surveillance operations. Our information is that the guidelines work well and that the police service accept that they provide a clear statement of operational policy, with strict safeguards for the public. In the absence of evidence of abuse of the use of video surveillance, we have no plans to introduce regulations governing its general use.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about concessionary television licences for retirement pensioners.

  Mr. Mellor
  In 1989 we received 212 letters and four petitions calling for reduced price or free television licences for pensioners. One hundred and one of the letters were from hon. Members and three of the petitions were submitted through them.

  Efficiency Scrutiny
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he hopes to publish the efficiency scrutiny into Government funding for the voluntary sector.

  Mr. John Patten
  The question of publication is at present under consideration.

  Crime and Compensation
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time between a crime and compensation being paid to the victim; and how many cases remain to be resolved as at 31 December 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 31 December 1989, a total of 96,177 cases were awaiting resolution by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The board does not keep information on the interval between the dates of an incident and the application for compensation. Information about the proportion of cases resolved within certain times of application is given in the board's latest annual report (Cm. 900).

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) spouses and (b) children were awaiting entry clearance as at 30 November 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is available only for the Indian sub-continent, where 5,800 spouses and 4,300 children were awaiting a decision on their application for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom at 30 November 1989.

  Drugs
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of seizures of illicit drugs occurs at British ports of entry.

  Mr. Mellor
  Seizures at ports and airports from persons, luggage, private vehicles and freight, and from ships and aircraft, represented about 7 per cent. of a total of 38,235 seizures of controlled drugs in the United Kingdom in 1988. Such seizures are, however, often of large amounts: in 1988, port seizures accounted by weight for 76 per cent. of the cocaine, 55 per cent. of the heroin, 12 per cent. of the amphetamines and 87 per cent. of the cannabis seized in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the ports of arrival in Britain and state(a) the street value, (b) amount and (c) type of each drug seized in every month for 1989.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that this information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from magistrates concerning juvenile crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the past 12 months the Magistrates Association and individual magistrates have made representations about various matters relating to juvenile crime and juvenile offenders. These include parental responsibility, cautioning, remands, suspended custodial sentences, custodial sentences for girls and the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that regional police forces have adequate resources to deal with computer crime.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The allocation of resources to particular forms of crime is an operational matter for chief officers. However, over the last 10 years we have approved 6,800 additional police officer posts for provincial police forces.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the Government's plans for legislation on Sunday trading in the light of recent representations from the public and retail trade.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 17 January 1990 at column 266.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the recent higher than average increases in crime statistics in(a) South Yorkshire and (b) Barnsley.

  Mr. John Patten
  Two hon. Members have recently tabled questions on aspects of crime in South Yorkshire. The Department has received many other representations about crime levels. Some of these relate to crime in particular areas, including South Yorkshire.

  Video Recordings Act
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he collects on the number of(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions, for contravention of the Video Recordings Act.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information is collected from the police on all defendants proceeded against under the Video Recordings Act 1984 and the result of these prosecutions. In 1988, 27 defendants were prosecuted under the Act and 17 convicted. Information for 1989 will not be available until autumn 1990.

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is proposed to start the DNA testing scheme for applicants for settlement in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on 27 November at column 108.

  Prisons (New Technology)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales that have and use a fax machine or a computer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  All prisons in England and Wales have computers and 77 also have fax facilities. The prison service aims to improve IT support for the achievement of its objectives.

  Mail Bags
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons in England and Wales still have inmates working on the sewing of mail bags; and how many inmates were doing this work on 5 January.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 5 January 1990 there were 715 inmates employed in the manufacture of mail bags, in the following establishments.:

  Acklington

  Birmingham

  Bristol

  Canterbury

  Camp Hill

  Gartree

  Gloucester

  Haverigg

  Hull

  Lancaster

  Leeds

  516

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Oxford

  Preston

  Stafford

  Swaleside

  Swansea

  Wandsworth

  Prisons (Recruitment and Training)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the officers of the Prison Officers Association to discuss recruitment and training.

  Mr. Mellor
  Recruitment and training were among the wide range of subjects discussed when my right hon. and learned Friend met the chairman and general secretary of the Prison Officers Association on 18 December. These matters also regularly arise when my right hon. and learned Friend and I meet local branches of the POA in the normal course of visiting prisons. Recruitment and training issues are regularly discussed with the POA at official level within Whitley council procedures.

  Policing, Newham
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of policing the London borough of Newham in 1984–85; and what it is expected to be in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not available on the actual cost of policing individual boroughs. However, the estimated local manpower costs, increased by 30 per cent. to reflect non-manpower and central service costs, suggests a figure of £9 million is the cost of policing Newham in the current year. The data to produce a similiar estimate for 1984–85 are not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has undertaken regarding the consequential numbers of immigrants into the United Kingdom following the grant of the right of settlement in the United Kingdom to an immigrant from the New Commonwealth.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the Immigration Rules (HC 388) a person settling here may normally be accompanied or joined by his or her spouse and any children under 18 but other relatives are admitted only in strictly limited circumstances. The available information on immigration patterns from New Commonwealth and other countries is published in the Home Office volume "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1988" (Cm. 726). More detailed information is collected for the Indian sub-continent and published in "Home Office Statistical Bulletin" issue 44/89 "Immigration from the Indian sub-continent—1988". Copies of both publications are in the Library.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Hong Kong citizens will be eligible for British citizenship under the British Nationality Act, section 4(5) in return for rendering Crown services.
  517
  Mr. Waddington
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]: There are currently some 180,000 Hong Kong British dependent territories citizens in Crown service under the Government of Hong Kong who are eligible to apply for discretionary registration as British citizens under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981. An unknown additional number are eligible on the basis of past service. In accordance with the policy announced when the British Nationality Act was before Parliament, the limited powers under this provision are used sparingly.

  Apart from a number of former members of the armed services in respect of whom certain assurances were given, there have been 540 applications from Hong Kong under section 4(5) since it came into force, of which nine have been granted. In view of the special scheme recently announced, I have no plans to change the policy within which section 4(5) applications are considered.

EMPLOYMENT

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement regarding the future of jobcentres in(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough.

  National monthly return—Actively seeking referrals and disallowances Refusal of employment referrals and disqualifications Period ending 24 November 1989

  Actively seeking employment

  Refusal of employment

  Regions

  Claimants issued warning letters

  Claims referred to adjudication officer

  Allowed

  Disallowed

  Claims referred to adjudication officer

  Not Disqualified

  Disqualified

  Northern

  293

  24

  1

  4

  17

  3

  9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  337

  47

  1

  5

  49

  5

  0

  East Midlands and Eastern

  318

  39

  21

  2

  55

  2

  7

  London and South East

  1,704

  261

  31

  20

  340

  15

  23

  South West

  350

  58

  8

  12

  26

  1

  1

  Wales

  384

  61

  3

  8

  30

  4

  4

  West Midlands

  319

  33

  5

  0

  43

  10

  0

  North West

  562

  40

  11

  5

  28

  3

  7

  Scotland

  553

  30

  7

  3

  26

  5

  2

  National

  4,820

  593

  88

  59

  614

  48

  53

  Form UB672
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will instruct his officers to give claimants a copy of the UB672 form in cases where there are doubts about an unemployed claimant's availability for work or whether he is actively seeking work at a Restart or any other counselling interview, if the claimant or their representatives requests it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  If a UB672 has been completed because of doubts that the claimant is available for work or actively seeking it, current instructions provide that claimants or their representatives may receive a copy of the form on request at any time.

  Employment and Training Schemes
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the participants in his training schemes and special employment measures referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North of 14
  518
  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 15 January,Official Report, column 614. When decisions are taken about the future of offices in Doncaster and Mexborough he will be informed.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed claimants since 9 October 1989, and for each region, and for Great Britain as a whole, have been(a) issued with warning letters for not actively seeking work, (b) had their claims referred to an AO for not actively seeking work, (c) had their claims allowed or disallowed and (d) have been referred to an AO for refusing suitable employment; and how many of those in (d) have had their benefits disqualified.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows the statistical information for the period 9 October to 24 November 1989 on questions of actively seeking employment and refusal of employment.

  November 1989, Official Report, column 148 (a) went on to get regular employment and (b) have started for a second or subsequent time.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on the number who went on to regular employment after attending a training opportunities scheme (TOPS) in 1979–80 is set down in the Manpower Services Commission's annual report 1980–81 filed in the House of Commons Library.

  Of the young people on YTS in 1988–89, 66·8 per cent. were in regular employment three months after completing their programme.

  In the period April 1988 to March 1989, 12 per cent. re-entered YTS.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the total expenditure on Government training schemes since 1972 at current and at 1989 prices; and what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the expenditure.
  519
  Mr. Nicholls
  Records are kept on the basis of the standard financial year for Government expenditure, which runs from 1 April to 31 March.

  The Manpower Services Commission was established in 1974. The total spent on training schemes since 1974 by the Employment Department Group Training Agency (and its predecessors, the Training Commission and the Manpower Services Commission) is as follows:

  £ millions

  cash value

  constant 1988–89 prices

  1974–75

  96·4

  376·1

  1975–76

  171·7

  525·2

  1976–77

  256·0

  682·9

  1977–78

  292·0

  693·4

  1978–79

  373·6

  793·6

  1979–80

  451·4

  848·8

  1980–81

  560·4

  889·0

  1981–82

  749·1

  1,080·8

  1982–83

  868·5

  1,169·2

  1983–84

  1,049·5

  1,337·5

  1984–85

  1,144·1

  1,382·8

  1985–86

  1,256·9

  1,441·7

  1986–87

  1,441·4

  1,609·8

  1987–88

  1,613·1

  1,716·4

  1988–89

  2,062·3

  2,062·3

  The figures shown at constant 1988–89 prices were calculated by use of the GDP deflator index.

  Figures are inclusive of expenditure on the following programmes:

  Training for the Needs of Industry.

  Training for the Needs of Individuals.

  Improving Training Effectiveness and Efficiency.

  Training Opportunities Scheme.

  Skillcentre Training.

  Youth Opportunities Programme.

  Occupational Training.

  Adult Training.

  Industrial Training Organisations.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative.

  Non Advanced Further Education.

  Youth Training Scheme.

  Scientific and Technical Equipment in Schools (STEPS).

  Employment Training and all related administration costs net of receipts.

  Figures are taken from the appropriation accounts for all years except 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 for which appropriation accounts do not provide the necessary detail. For those three years the Training Commission annual report has been used.

  This growth in expenditure has been taking place at a time of rising unemployment as the economy adjusts to the demands of international competitiveness. Training schemes have provided unemployed school leavers and adults with the skills necessary to assist them back to work and help the economy.

  The value for money of training schemes is monitored carefully. Cost-effectiveness will be a key aspect in the development of training and enterprise councils, when payments will be increasingly geared to the achievement of specific results.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report those travel-to-work areas which have an unemployment rate of 4 per cent. and less.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is available from the Library and is contained in the following table.
  520

  Unemployed claimants as a percentage of the total workforce December 1989 (Not seasonally adjusted)

  Travel-to-work areas

  Percentage rate

  Crawley

  1·2

  Winchester and Eastleigh

  1·4

  Tunbridge Wells

  1·4

  Newbury

  1·6

  Andover

  1·6

  Aylesbury and Wycombe

  1·6

  Guildford and Aldershot

  1·6

  Blandford

  1·7

  Cirencester

  1·7

  Basingstoke and Alton

  1·7

  Bury St. Edmonds

  1·7

  Reading

  1·8

  Cambridge

  1·8

  Bicester

  1·9

  Kendal

  1·9

  Clitheroe

  2·0

  Evesham

  2·0

  Woodbridge and Leiston

  2·0

  Oxford

  2·0

  Chichester

  2·0

  Windermere

  2·0

  Slough

  2·1

  Settle

  2·1

  Penrith

  2·2

  Devizes

  2·3

  Welshpool

  2·3

  Skipton

  2·3

  Harrogate

  2·3

  Chippenham

  2·4

  Chelmsford and Braintree

  2·4

  Kettering and Market Harborough

  2·4

  Hertford and Harlow

  2·4

  Worthing

  2·4

  Milton Keynes

  2·5

  Heathrow

  2·5

  Warwick

  2·5

  Malton

  2·6

  Watford and Luton

  2·6

  Bedford

  2·6

  Ripon

  2·6

  Leek

  2·6

  Northallerton

  2·6

  Pickering and Helmsley

  2·6

  Haverhill

  2·6

  Northampton

  2·7

  Shaftesbury

  2·7

  Hitchin and Letchworth

  2·7

  Cheltenham

  2·7

  Newtown

  2·8

  Wellingborough and Rushden

  2·8

  Salisbury

  2·8

  Macclesfield

  2·8

  Newmarket

  2·8

  Diss

  2·8

  Wareham and Swanage

  2·8

  Eastbourne

  2·8

  Chard

  2·8

  Stamford

  2·8

  Stafford

  2·9

  Trowbridge and Frome

  2·9

  Swindon

  2·9

  Ipswich

  2·9

  Huntingdon and St. Neots

  2·9

  Banbury

  2·9

  Melton Mowbray

  3·0

  Brecon

  3·0

  Matlock

  3·0

  South Molton

  3·0

  Stroud

  3·0

  Uttoxeter and Ashbourne

  3·0

  Rugby and Daventry

  3·1

  Ludlow

  3·1

  Pools

  3·1

  Honiton and Axminster

  3·1

  521

  Travel-to-work areas

  Percentage rate

  Yeovil

  3·1

  Spalding and Holbeach

  3·1

  Wells

  3·2

  Taunton

  3·2

  Colchester

  3·2

  Aberdeen

  3·2

  Shetland Islands

  3·2

  Bath

  3·3

  Shrewsbury

  3·3

  Warminster

  3·3

  Ashford

  3·3

  Malvern and Ledbury

  3·3

  Exeter

  3·3

  Beccles and Halesworth

  3·4

  Sudbury

  3·4

  Gloucester

  3·4

  Loughborough and Coalville

  3·4

  Worcester

  3·4

  Carmarthen

  3·5

  Buxton

  3·5

  Sleaford

  3·5

  Bridport

  3·5

  Kidderminster

  3·5

  Grantham

  3·5

  Okehampton

  3·6

  Tiverton

  3·6

  Hexham

  3·6

  Whitchurch and Market Drayton

  3·6

  Galashiels

  3·6

  Fakenham

  3·6

  Hereford and Leominster

  3·7

  Torrington

  3·7

  Norwich

  3·7

  Medway and Maidstone

  3·8

  Thirsk

  3·8

  Llandrindod Wells

  3·8

  Llandeilo

  3·8

  Thetford

  3·9

  Gosport and Fareham

  3·9

  Richmondshire

  3·9

  Stoke

  4·0

  Bournemouth

  4·0

  Newton Abbot

  4·0

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many travel-to-work areas in(a) England and (b) south-east England has an unemployment rate of (i) over 10 per cent., (ii) between 5 and 10 per cent. and (iii) below 5 per cent. in October, November and December 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is available from the Library, and is contained in the following table.

  Numbers of travel-to-work areas, categorised by unemployment rate1

  South-East

  below 5 per cent.

  5-10 per cent.

  over 10 per cent.

  October

  33

  6

  0

  November

  33

  6

  0

  December

  33

  6

  0

  England

  October

  147

  73

  8

  November

  146

  74

  8

  December

  140

  79

  9

  1 Work force rates, not seasonally adjusted

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has concerning the impact on people's earnings of not receiving statutory sick pay or sick benefit for the first three days of any absence from work due to illness.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available.

  Private Mines
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on 15 January,Official Report, column 67, which of the prosecutions listed followed (a) an accident and (b) routine inspections by the mines inspectorate.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Prosecutions at Ystrad, Lassodie, Saline, Darran, Hall of Auchincross, Wrytree Drift and Robin Rock mines followed accidents. Prosecutions at Dan-y-Graig and Nantmelyn were the result of inspections.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research projects are currently being carried out under total or partial sponsorship of his Department; by whom they are being carried out; and when they will be completed and published.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]: Because of the amount of information sought, I will be writing to the hon. Member.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in which 20 parliamentary constituencies the largest percentage fall in unemployment occurred in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 January, c. 783]: I regret that the information given in my reply of 12 January was incorrect due to problems caused by a mistake in operating the computer system from which the data were extracted. The correct information is contained in the following table. The figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Percentage change in the number of unemployed over the year to November 1989

  Constituency name

  per cent·

  Montgomery

  -48·7

  Westmorland and Lonsdale

  -45·0

  South Derbyshire

  -40·3

  Harrow West

  -40·2

  Amber Valley

  -39·8

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  -39·3

  North Wiltshire

  -39·2

  Stoke-on-Trent North

  -39·2

  Stratford-on-Avon

  -38·7

  Harrow East

  -38·5

  Old Bexley and Sidcup

  -38·5

  Devizes

  -38·3

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  -38·1

  Kincardine and Deeside

  -37·9

  South Worcestershire

  -37·5

  West Hertfordshire

  -37·5

  Hornchurch

  -37·5

  Grantham

  -37·5

  523

  Constituency name

  per cent·

  Wyre Forest

  -37·3

  Mid-Staffordshire

  -37·2

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chemical Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any recent representations from the International Federation of Chemical, Energy and General Workers' Unions concerning the development of verification techniques for a chemical weapons ban.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Not directly. A report of chemical weapons prepared jointly by the International Federation of Chemical, Energy and General Workers' Unions and the International Confederation of Trade Unions was forwarded last October by the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress.

  Romania
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during the visit of the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) to Romania, he raised the issues of(a) the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and nuclear technology aid available under article IV of the treaty and (b) acid rain abatement technology available from United Kingdom suppliers for retro-fitting to fossil fuel power plants.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Neither of these matters were raised though doubtless both will be as our relations develop. I did discuss Romania's acute environmental problems, in particular with members of the new Romanian Ecology party.

  Hong Kong
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 11 January, column 697, who gave the authorisation for force to be used against the boat people in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Maude
  Authority to use the minimum degree of force necessary during the operation to search for weapons in the Chi Ma Wan detention centre on Lantau island on 29 December 1989 was given by Police General Orders 29-01, made by the Commissioner of Police under section 46 of the Police Force Ordinance.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Hong Kong.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made in the House on 17 January at col. 291.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of secondary immigration he would anticipate to arise from primary immigration of 225,000 on the basis of past experience.
  524
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 12 January 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  Experience in other contexts cannot be a basis for assessing the implications of the scheme to grant British citizenship to people in Hong Kong in a unique arrangement intended to give beneficiaries the confidence to remain there.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what time, on what day and by what means the Swiss Government were informed of the British Government's decision to enter an exemption to the ivory ban on behalf of Hong Kong; and when the CITES Secretariat learnt of the decision.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The reservation was deposited with the Government of the Swiss Confederation at 10 am on Wednesday 17 January by the delivery of diplomatic notes to the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs in Berne and to the embassy of Switzerland in London. Notification of our decision was faxed to the CITES Secretariat by the Department of the Environment at 4.50 pm on 17 January.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with representatives of the ivory trade during his recent visit to Hong Kong.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has received during the last three months regarding the fate of the Hong Kong ivory stocks.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We received a number of representations over the past three months, both in favour and against the entering of a reservation on behalf of Hong Kong. We took all these into consideration. We received no formal representations from other countries.

  Eastern Europe
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the proposal by the Hansard Society to establish, through moneys made available in the know-how funds, a course for politicians from Poland and Hungary to learn about the British parliamentary system.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received various proposals for training courses for politicians from Poland and Hungary to be financed by the know-how funds. We are evaluating all such proposals with a view to tailoring them to Polish and Hungarian requirements. We have recently received more specific requests from the Polish Senate for training on several aspects of the United Kingdom system: parliamentary, legal, political and administrative and educational.

  The Hansard Society will be involved in organising seminars to meet these requests along with the IPU, the Great Britain Eastern European Centre, the British Council, and other appropriate bodies.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial assistance and other advice he is considering offering to the Government of Yugoslavia to aid their efforts to broaden democracy and achieve economic stability.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have been helping the Yugoslavian economy by participating in the rescheduling of the principal and interest due on debts in the Paris Club. We believe that a new agreement with the IMF will be of central importance for the future of Yugoslavia's programme of economic adjustment and liberalisation. We have agreed with our partners within the European Community that, once an IMF agreement is reached, we will be ready to examine further aid measures and increased cooperation.

  Immigration
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct the chief immigration officer at the British High Commission, New Delhi to issue immediate entry clearance to the close relatives of the late Mr. Sekhon, a constituent of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 19 January advising him of the action which Mr. Sekhon's relatives should take if they wish their applications to be considered further.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the spouse of a British subject can be refused a visa to settle in Britain; which of these reasons was used in rejecting the visa application by Mrs. Pianov, who is a Polish national married to a British citizen, Oleg Pianov; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The spouse of a British citizen applying for an entry clearance to settle in this country must satisfy the relevant requirements of the immigration rules; these are set out in paragraph 50 of HC 388.

  Mrs. Pianov has not been refused a settlement visa. She applied for a visit visa which has been granted.

  EEC Overseas Territories
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names and populations of overseas territories of members of the EEC; if he will further indicate what plans there are to allow persons from such territories the right of abode within the EEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The list of member states' overseas territories and their populations (estimates for the year in brackets) is:

  Numbers and year

  United Kingdom:

  Anguilla

  7,000 (1985)

  Bermuda

  56,000 (1985)

  British Antarctic Territory

  1Nil

  British Indian Ocean Territory

  Uninhabited

  British Virgin Islands

  13,000 (1985)

  Cayman Islands

  23,400 (1987)

  526

  Numbers and year

  Falkland Islands

  1,916 (1986)

  Gibraltar

  29,692 (1987)

  Hong Kong

  5,736,100 (1988)

  Montserrat

  11,900 (1988)

  St. Helena

  5,564 (1987)

  Tristan Da Cunha

  311 (1988)

  South Georgia

  2—

  South Sandwich Islands

  Uninhabited

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  14.000 (1988)

  France:

  Overseas Departments

  Martinique

  336,952 (1988)

  French Guiana

  11,0000 (1989)

  Guadeloupe

  334,000 (1988)

  Reunion

  578,500 (1988)

  Territorial Collectives

  St. Pierre et Miquelon

  6,500 (1987)

  Mayotte

  67,000 (1985)

  Overseas Territories

  French Polynesia

  188,814 (1988)

  French Southern Antarctic Territories

  3Nil

  New Caledonia and Dependencies

  164,173 (1988)

  Wallis and Futuna Islands

  13,100 (1985)

  Netherlands:

  Aruba

  60,312 (1981)

  Netherlands Antilles

  175,395 (1981)

  Portugal:

  Macao

  500,000

  1 Populated by scientists and technicians.

  2 Army unit and staff at British Antarctic Survey, Bird Island.

  3 Population only 200 scientists and staff.

  The Overseas Departments and the Territorial Collectives are part of metropolitan France and their citizens are therefore EC nationals. Gibraltar forms part of the EC and its citizens are therefore EC nationals. Citizens of the other territories listed in the table do not have rights of entry into the Community unless they hold a passport of a member state which specifically entitles them to entry.

  We are not aware of any plans by other EC member states to amend the existing rights of entry to the Community for their overseas territories.

  On Hong Kong, I refer my hon. Friend to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made in the House on 20 December.

  Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's assessment as to the number of countries in the middle east that are capable of delivering(a) chemical and (b) nuclear warheads on ballistic missile vehicles; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: The following middle east countries are believed to possess or to be developing ballistic missiles which would be technically capable of delivering either a chemical or nuclear warhead.

  Egypt

  Iran

  Iraq

  Israel

  Libya

  Saudi Arabia

  527

  Syria

  Yemen Arab Republic

  Yemen, People's Democratic Republic of

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's latest assessment as to the number of countries that have deployed ballistic missiles; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: The following countries are known or believed to have deployed ballistic missiles:

  Afghanistan

  Belgium

  Bulgaria

  China

  Czcechoslovakia

  Egypt

  France

  German Democratic Republic

  Germany, Federal Republic of

  Hungary

  Iran

  Iraq

  Israel

  Italy

  Korea, Republic of

  Libya

  Netherlands

  Poland

  Romania

  Saudi Arabia

  Soviet Union

  Syria

  United States of America

  Yemen Arab Republic

  In addition, North Korea, which is not recognised as a state by Her Majesty's Government, is believed to have deployed ballistic missiles.

  School Fees
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of allowances and the total amount paid by the Government for the day school fees in both the United Kingdom and overseas for the education of the children of(a) members of his Department, (b) members of the Diplomatic Services communications division and (c) the Overseas Development Administration including children of technical co-operation officers, for the latest which figures are available.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]: The amount paid in boarding school fees during the last academic year was £7,600,000 for 956 children of members of the Diplomatic Service (including £744,000 for 101 children of members of the communications division) and £1,613,000 for 582 children of employees of the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the schools from which receipted bills were submitted in the last convenient year to facilitate the payment of allowances for the education of the children of diplomatic staff and the number of children attending each school.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]: A list follows of those boarding schools for which receipted bills were submitted in the last academic year for the education
  528
  of children of members of the Diplomatic Service. A composite list of the number of children attending each school is not kept.

  Name

  Abbotsholme School

  Aldenham School

  Aldro School

  All Hallows School

  Ampleforth College (Giling CS)

  Ardingly College

  Ashdown House School

  Ashford School

  Ashley Moor College

  Atlantic College

  Badminton School

  Battle Abbey School

  Beaconhurst Grange

  Bearwood College

  Bedales School

  Bedford High School

  Bedford School

  Bedgebury School

  Bembridge School

  Benenden School

  Bentham Grammar School

  Berkhamsted School

  Berkhamsted School for Girls

  Bethany School

  Bishop's Stortford College

  Bloxham School

  Blundell's School

  Box Hill School

  Bradfield College

  Brambletye School

  Bramcote School

  Brandeston Hall

  Brentwood School

  Brighton College

  Brockhurst

  Bromsgrove School

  Brooke House 6th Form

  Bryanston School

  Burgess Hill School

  Caldicott

  Cambridge Arts Tutors

  Cambridge Centre

  Canford School

  Cannock School

  Cargilfield

  Carmel College

  Caterham School

  Charterhouse School

  Charters-Ancaster College

  Cheadle Hulme

  Cheltenham Ladies College

  Christ College

  Claremont Fan Court School

  Clarendon School

  Clayesmore School

  Clifton College

  Cobham Hall

  Combe Bank School

  Cottesmore School

  Cranbrook School

  Cranleigh School

  Croftinloan School

  Cumnor House

  Dauntseys School

  Dean Close School

  Dollar Academy

  Douai School

  Dover College

  Downe House School

  Downside School

  Dragon School

  Dulwich College Preparatory School

  Dulwich College

  Durham School

  Eastbourne College

  529

  Edgeborough

  Edinburgh Academy

  Edinburgh House School

  Ellerslie School

  Ellesmere College

  Elstree College

  Epsom College

  Eton College

  Farleigh School

  Farringtons School

  Feltonfleet School

  Fernden School

  Fettes College

  Forest School

  Forres School

  Framlingham College

  Frensham Heights School

  Friars School

  Friends School

  Giggleswick School

  Glenalmond College

  Godstowe School

  Gordonstoun School

  Great Walstead School

  Greenacre School

  Greshams School

  Grove School

  Handcross Park School

  Hanford School

  Harrow School

  Harrowgate College

  Headfort School

  Headington School

  Heathfield School

  Highfield School

  Holmewood House School

  Holy Family (Convent of the)

  Hordle House

  Howell's School

  Hunmanby Hall

  Hurstpierpoint

  Hurtwood House

  Indefatigable

  Ipswich School

  James Allen's Girls' School

  Kelly College

  Kent Col.

  Kent College

  Kilgraston School

  King Edward's School

  King's College

  King's School

  King's School (The)

  Kingham Hill

  King's School

  Kingswood School

  Lambrook School

  Lancing College

  Lavant House School

  Lawnside School

  Leys School

  Lomond School

  Loretto School

  Maltman's Green

  Malvern Girl's College

  Marlborough College

  Marlborough House School

  Marshcourt

  Mary Erskine School

  Mayfield College

  Merchiston Castle School

  Methodist College

  Michael Hall School

  Mill Hill School

  Millfield School

  Moira House School

  Monkton Combe School

  Moor Park School

  Morrison's Academy

  New Hall School

  530

  North Foreland Lodge School

  Northaw School

  Notre Dame Convent School

  Oakdene School

  Oakham School

  Oratory Prep School (The)

  Oratory School (The)

  Oswestry School

  Oundle School

  Pangbourne College

  Papplewick

  Parsons Mead School

  Pennthorpe School

  Philpots Manor School

  Pierrepont School

  Pilgrims' School

  Pipers Corner School

  Plymouth College

  Polam Hall

  Port Regis

  Princess Helena School

  Prior Park College

  Prior's Field School

  Priors Court

  Queen Anne's School

  Queen Margarets School

  Queens College

  Queenswood

  Rannoch School

  Reading Blue Coat School

  Reed's School

  Rickmansworth Masonic School

  Rishworth School

  Roedean School

  Rosemead School

  Rossall School

  Royal Alexander and Albert School

  Royal Naval School

  Royal Russel School

  Rugby School

  Rydal School

  Rye St. Antony School

  Sacred Hearts School

  Sandroyd School

  Scarborough College

  Seaford College

  Sevenoaks School

  Shapwick School

  Sherborne School

  Sherborne School for Girls

  Shiplake College

  Shoreham Grammar School

  Sibford School

  Sidcott School

  Slindon College

  St. Edmund's School

  St. Helen's School

  St. Mary's Hall School

  St. Andrew's School

  St. Antony's-Leweston School

  St. Augustine's College

  St. Bede's School

  St. Bees School

  St. Catherine's School

  St. Christopher School

  St. Christopher's School

  St. Denis School

  St. Edmund's College

  St. Edmund's School

  St. Edwards School

  St. Felix School

  St. George's College

  St. George's School

  St. George's School for Girls

  St. John's School

  St. Joseph's College

  St. Lawrence College

  St. Leonards-Mayfield School

  St. Margaret's School

  St. Mary and St. Annes

  531

  St. Mary's

  St. Mary's Convent

  St. Michael's

  St. Neot's School

  St. Paul's School

  St. Peter's School

  St. Stephens College

  St. Swithuns School

  Stanbridge Earls School

  Stoke College

  Stonar School

  Stonyhurst College

  Stover School

  Stowe School

  Strathallan School

  Streete Court School

  Summer Fields School

  Sunningdale School

  Sutton Valence School

  Swanbourne House School

  Taunton School

  Temple Grove School

  Terrington Hall School

  The Blue Coat School

  The Nak Centre

  Tockington Manor School

  Tonbridge School

  Towers School

  United College of the Atlantic

  Upper Chine School

  Victuallers School

  Vinehall School

  Wadhurst College

  Walthamstow Hall School

  Warminster School

  Wellesley House

  Wellingborough School

  Wellington College

  Wentworth Milton Mount

  West Heath School

  Westbourne House School

  Westminster School

  Westonbrit School

  Winchester College

  Windlesham House School

  Wispers School

  Wolborough Hill School

  Woldingham School

  Worth Abbey School

  Wycombe Abbey School

  Yardley Court

  Holiday Visit Passages
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the approximate cost of holiday visit passages paid in respect of(a) children of his Department's personnel being educated in the United Kingdom and in receipt of education allowances and (b) members of the Diplomatic Service communications division being educated in the United Kingdom and in receipt of education allowances, and of any further travelling expenses paid for the latest available year.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]: The total cost, with travelling expenses, of holiday passages for the children of staff serving overseas on Diplomatic Service terms, including those of the communications division (for whom separate statistics are not kept) was £1·05 million in 1988–89.

THE ARTS

  Curatorial Staff
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what percentage of public musuem and gallery curatorial staff have received recognised curatorial training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The information requested is unavailable at present. I understand that the newly established museums training institute is currently researching the training needs of museums and galleries staff as part of its overall review of training requirements.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet Mr. Palumbo regularly to discuss various matters of mutual interest.

  Admission Charges
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has met the chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission to discuss the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee's report on charging for admission to national museums.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission on a regular basis to discuss matters of mutual interest. I have not met him since the Select Committee's report was issued on 10 January 1990.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he intends to reply to the report of the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee on charging for national museums; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he plans to respond to the Education, Science and Arts Committee's report on charging for admission to national museums.

  Mr. Luce
  I am studying the report and will issue a response in the near future.

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his policy on admission charges to national museums.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards charges for admission to national galleries and museums.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his policy on charging for admission to national museums.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Wrexham, (Dr. Marek).

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Minister for the Arts, what steps he is taking to increase access to the arts by disabled people.
  533
  Mr. Luce
  I announced in December 1988 that I was giving £150,000 to the ADAPT fund which the Carnegie Trust is setting up to improve the accessibility of arts venues for disabled people. I am pleased to say that the work of the trust is now well under way. In addition to this initiative, the Arts Council has a disability officer to ensure that the needs of disabled people are taken fully into account in the work of the council and its clients.

  Wilding Report
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he intends to publish his response to the Wilding report on funding of the arts.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he intends to announce his reponse to the Wilding review of arts funding.

  Mr. Luce
  I expect to make an announcement as soon as possible after I have had an opportunity to consider the responses to the report.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many responses he received to the proposals in the Wilding report on altering the boundaries of regional arts associations.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received nearly 5,500 responses which include comment on this issue.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has had from the east midlands on the Wilding report on arts funding.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received a number of representations from individuals and organisations in the east midlands area about the Wilding report.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received concerning the amalgamation of the east and west midlands arts organisations.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received a number of representations from individuals and organisations on this matter. I have met the chairmen and directors of the two organisations to hear their concerns.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister for the Arts, what representations he has received on proposed reorganisation of regional arts associations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received almost 6,000 responses to the Wilding report of which approximately 4,500 are postcards. I shall be announcing my response to the report as soon as possible.

  Tours
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to encourage arts bodies to tour both at home and abroad.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council is responsible for actively encouraging touring within the United Kingdom. The council has established a Great Britain touring fund to encourage arts bodies to tour throughout the country. The 534
  fund's budget has gone up from £1·5 million last year to £2 million for this year and for 1990–91. Support for overseas touring is the responsibility of the British Council.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make special provision for the arts in London to take account of the revaluation of business premises and the impact of uniform business rate.

  Mr. Luce
  The aim of my three-year settlement is to give arts bodies a clear view of the Government resources available, so that they have a firm basis on which to plan their activities and meet their final commitments. I see no reason to make special additional provisions to take account of the revaluation of business premises and the unified business rate.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what increase in the funding of the Arts Council is proposed for the next two financial years.

  Mr. Luce
  I announced in November that next year the Arts Council's grant-in-aid will be set at £175 million, an increase of 12·5 per cent. over 1989–90. In 1991–92 that will rise by a further 4·6 per cent. to £183 million. Over the next three years, the overall increase will be 22 per cent.

  Museums and Galleries (Refurbishment)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what increase there has been in provision for the refurbishment and maintenance of museums and galleries for the year ahead.

  Mr. Luce
  I am providing £48 million in the current financial year for the building and maintenance programmes at the national museums and galleries which I sponsor. I announced on 16 November last year that this provision will increase by 19 per cent. to £57 million, in 1990–91.

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will list the allocations made to public institutions in the United Kingdom during the half year ended 31 December 1989 of individual works of art and museum objects pre-eminent for national, scientific, historic or artistic interest which have been accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax or capital transfer tax, together with information, where applicable, as to conditions or wishes expressed in the matter of allocation by testators or executors; whether he will list the works of art and museum objects which are still awaiting allocation, with the respective dates of their acceptance in satisfaction of inheritance tax or capital transfer tax; and whether a press notice will be issued from the Office of Arts and Libraries covering the information given in his reply.

  Mr. Luce
  The information the hon. Member requests is as follows:
  535

  Items allocated

  To whom allocated

  Conditions/wishes expressed

  Portrait of Sir Alexander Carew attributed to Gheerhaerdts

  The National Trust

  Conditional upon remaining in Antony House, Cornwall

  Painting by Pissaro

  University of Manchester

  Conditional

  Eight Islamic Pottery tiles

  British Museum

  Wish expressed that they be allocated to the British Museum

  Items accepted but not yet allocated

  Date of acceptance

  "Allée à Chantilly" by Cezanne

  23 March 1989

  A press notice is being issued.

  Works of Art (Exports)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will list the items for which the issuing of export licences was withheld on the recommendation of the reviewing committee on the export of works of art during the half year ended 31 December 1989, specifying in each case the valuation and whether an item was eventually exported or retained, with particulars in the latter event of the acquiring institution; whether he will list any items for which licences have been withheld but the final disposal of which is not yet decided, specifying in each case(a) the

  Description of item

  Valuation (£)

  Outcome

  A painting "The Fall of Phaeton" by Rubens

  2,046,939

  Export licence granted

  Album of early photographs collected by Reve Calvert Jones 1839–44

  234,150

  Export licence granted

  Two decorated colt percussion revolvers

  475,000

  Decision deferred for 3 months until 10 March 1990

  "The Three Graces" by Canova

  7,600,000

  Decision deferred for additional 3 months until 12 March 1990

  George II Royal Wine Coolers, Makers mark of Paul de Lamerie overstruck by Paul Crespin

  750,000

  Retained. One each acquired by the National Museums of Scotland and the Victoria and Albert Museum

  Museums and Galleries (Attendance)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish in the Official Report the attendance figures for 1989 reported by the national museums and galleries in England for which he is responsible, broken down into the individual institutions but including their outstations, with figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1988.

  Mr. Luce
  The estimated number of visitors during 1989 to the 11 national museums and galleries for which I am responsible are as follows:

  Estimated attendance in 1989

  Percentage change from 1988

  British Museum

  4,686,454

  +12·3

  British Museum (Natural History)

  1,549,676

  - 7·3

  Imperial War Museum

  1,204,310

  +10·8

  National Gallery

  3,368,217

  + 4·3

  National Maritime Museum

  423,858

  -40·1

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  1,348,570

  -11·6

  National Portrait Gallery

  625,197

  - 2·1

  Science Museum

  2,607,724

  -32·5

  Tate Gallery

  1,940,004

  - 7·2

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  1,378,546

  - 3·6

  Wallace Collection

  129,010

  -18·1

  Total

  19,261,566

  536
  valuation and (b) the relevant time limit; and whether a press notice will be issued from the Office of Arts and Libraries covering the information given in his reply.

  Mr. Luce
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry accepted my recommendation, following consideration by the reviewing committee on the export of works of art, to defer making for a specified period a decision on an export licence application in respect of the items listed. Details of the items listed were given in press notices issued at the time the Secretary of State decided to accept the recommendation; however, a further press notice will be issued.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Servants (Resignations)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants of grade 7 and above have left the Civil Service in the last three years to take jobs in industry.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Crown Allegiance
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what response he has made to the representations of the First division Association protesting about the new guidelines on allegiance to the Crown and Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Luce
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

  Civil Service Unions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions he has had with Civil Service trade union leaders in Nottingham.
  537
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent meetings he has had with Civil Service trade unions; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).

  Code of Conduct
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he has any plans to change the present Civil Service code of practice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Privatised Businesses
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the major businesses privatised since 1979 were in profit in 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  Of the 29 major businesses privatised since 1979, the following were in profit in 1979: British Petroleum, British Aerospace, Cable and Wireless, National Freight Consortium, Britoil, Amersham International, Associated British Ports, Sealink, British Telecom, British Gas, British Airways, Royal Ordnance, Rolls-Royce, BAA, Northumbrian Water, South West Water.

  Public Sector Pensions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those instances in which a retrospective amendment has been made to public sector pension schemes.

  Mr. Ryder
  A distinction has to be drawn between, first, amendments where the effect is backdated to cover the elapses of time between agreement on, or the announcement of, a change and the making of regulations to give effect to it and, secondly, amendments which have effect prior to an agreement on, or announcement of, a change.

  There have been many amendments of the first kind. They are acceptable because they ensure that scheme members are not deprived of agreed improvements in benefits for the time that it may take to finalise the necessary amendment of the scheme's rules. It would entail disproportionate cost to provide a complete list of such amendments.

  It has rarely been possible to amend schemes to provide for retrospection of the second kind because of the costs that may be involved and considerations of equity and administration. It has, therefore, been the policy of successive Governments not to allow such retrospection, save in the most exceptional circumstances. In the past 20 years, the only major instances of which I am aware have been the amendments made in the 1970s to bring the public services generally into line with the Civil Service by
  538
  allowing war service to count at half rate for pension purposes; and, in 1979, for the armed forces pension scheme to provide pensions for pre-1950 widows.

  Commercial Accounting and Auditing
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North on 9 January,Official Report, column 576, which specific sectors of the public sector in which normal accountancy and auditing methods (a) are already employed, (b) are being developed and (e) are considered to be inappropriate.

  Mr. Ryder
  The position in different parts of the public sector is as follows:

  (a) Government Departments
  Some Departments already produce commercial-style accounts. These include the existing trading funds (The Royal Mint, Her Majesty's Stationery Office and The Crown Suppliers) and some other Departments with major trading functions, for example, Ordnance Survey, ECGD and the Forestry Commission.
  The Government's White Paper "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies" sets out plans for the future. The arrangements proposed for agencies which become trading funds are described in paragraphs 5.9 to 5.13. The arrangements proposed for those which remain under full Vote accounting are described in paragraphs 5.14 to 5.17. Normally only cash-based appropriation accounts will be published for Departments or parts of Departments which do not become next steps agencies.

  (b) Non-departmental public bodies (NDPBS)
  NDPBs are bodies which have a role in the process of national Government-but which are not Government Departments. Many NDPBs which are classified as executive bodies already produce commercial-style accounts on an accruals basis. The expenses of NDPBs which arc classified as advisory and judicial bodies are generally brought to account in the cash-based appropriation accounts of their sponsoring Department.

  (c) National Health Service
  In the National Health Service accounting has been developed along more commercial lines over recent years, with the exception of accounting for capital. It is intended to implement capital accounting, including the preparation of balance sheets for the financial year 1991-92. It is planned that the Audit Commission should take over the audit of the NHS under the provisions proposed in the NHS and Community Care Bill, and the Local Government and Housing Bill.

  (d) Local Authorities
  In February 1989 the local authority associations and CIPFA published "Capital Accounting in Local Authorities", containing proposals to change the way local authorities account for capital receipts and expenditure, and to secure improvements in local authority accounting. These proposals could form the basis of a code of practice for local authority capital accounting which would apply to all authorities from 1991-92. The proposals would move local authority accounting closer to commercial accounting principles. But they reflect legal constraints: for example, those applying to grants and rates, which do not apply to the private sector.

  (e) Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised industries produce accounts on a commercial basis.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many(a) first-time buyers in the first five years of home onwership and (b) other home owners, would be expected to benefit from an increase in the ceiling for mortgage interest tax relief above the current £30,000

  539
  limit; what percentage of all home buyers in each category this would represent; and what would be the cost of the increased benefit to each group were the ceiling to be raised to (i) £35,000, (ii) £40,000 and (iii) £50,000, respectively;

  (2) what would be the cost of adjusting the maximum ceiling for mortgage interest tax relief to (a) £35,000, (b) £40,000, (c) £45,000 and (d) £50,000, on the assumption that (i) relief continues to be available at the higher marginal tax rate where applicable, and (ii) that relief is restricted to the standard 25 per cent. rate of income tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that information on mortgage interest relief for first-time buyers in the first five years of home ownership is not available. Provisional estimates of the costs of increasing the ceiling are given in the table. All estimates exclude behavioural effects, which would be substantial for the higher ceilings.

  Direct revenue costs at 1989–90 income levels of raising the ceiling for mortgage interest relief

  Ceiling

  Relief at marginal tax rate £ million

  Relief at basic rate of 25 per cent. £ million

  £35,000

  320

  -140

  £40,000

  580

  90

  £45,000

  770

  270

  £50,000

  900

  390

  Increasing the ceiling for mortgage interest relief 1989–90

  Total Income £

  Number of beneficiaries thousands

  Average gain if ceiling is increased to

  £35,000£

  £40,000£

  £45,000£

  £50,000£

  Up to 5,000

  20

  160

  250

  290

  330

  5,000—10,000

  140

  130

  230

  290

  320

  10,000—15,000

  360

  150

  260

  330

  380

  15,000—20,000

  520

  160

  270

  360

  410

  20,000—25,000

  400

  160

  290

  390

  450

  25,000—30,000

  220

  160

  290

  390

  470

  Over 30,000

  390

  190

  350

  470

  580

  TOTAL

  2,050

  160

  280

  380

  440

  If relief was restricted to the basic rate at the same time as the ceiling was increased, the number of beneficiaries with incomes above £30,000 would be reduced. About 190,000 basic rate taxpayers would still benefit, and about 70,000 higher rate taxpayers with mortgages above £48,000 would be net beneficiaries if the ceiling were raised to that level or above.

  Capial Loss Relief
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to change the availability of capital loss relief for transactions in oil rights and oil assets.

  Mr. Lilley
  For disposals made on or after today, the Government intend two changes to stop unwarranted loss relief being available on certain oil assets. These are assets of an essentially wasting nature, whose value in 1982 was very high because of the high oil price at that date but where no actual loss compared with acquisition cost arises. First, unquoted shares deriving the larger part of their value from United Kingdom and United Kingdom continental shelf oil rights and assets will no longer be eligible for an election that rebasing to 1982 for capital gains tax purposes shall apply to all disposals. Secondly, in certain circumstances where oil assets, rights and
  540
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the additional average relief receivable by those people with incomes of(a) up to £5,000 a year, (b) between £5,000 and £10,000 a year, (c) between £10,000 and £15,000 a year, (d) between £15,000 and £20,000 a year, (e) between £20,000 and £25,000 a year, (f) between £25,000 and £30,000 a year, and (g) over £30,000 a year if the ceiling on mortgage interest tax relief were to be raised to (i) £35,000, (ii) £40,000, (iii) £45,000, and (iv) £50,000; and how many beneficiaries there would be in each income band, assuming (x) that relief would continue to be available at the higher marginal tax rate where applicable and (y) that relief was restricted to the standard, 25 per cent. rate of income tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is given in the table. All estimates exclude behavioural effects which would be substantial for the higher ceilings.

  unquoted shares are disposed of, indexation allowance will be calculated on the acquisition cost rather than the 1982 market value. The necessary legislation will be included in the 1990 Finance Bill. Further details are in a press release being issued by the Inland Revenue.

SCOTLAN

  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the implications of the findings of the European Commission's PAGIS study into the suitability of Scottish 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.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her on Thursday 18 January at column 363 by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside.

  Teenage Smoking
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department is planning any additional expenditure during the current year for a teenage smoking prevention programme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In Scotland the main responsibility for promotion of health education and prevention of ill health lies with the Scottish health education group. It currently expects to spend about £297,000 on antismoking material and campaigns during the current financial year—an increase of £17,000 over its original estimate for the year. The Scottish committee for Action on Smoking and Health will receive grant-in-aid of £40,000 in 1989-90. Both organisations undertake anti-smoking initiatives directed at teenagers.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the Scottish Development Department's draft circular on indicative forestry strategies.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have placed a copy of the draft circular and related material in the Library. I am most grateful for the many valuable comments received from a wide range of interests on this proposed advice on the preparation of indicative forestry strategies by regional authorities in Scotland. This confirms the value of these strategies as a framework for future decision-making on forestry planting. The final version of the circular and related technical advice, taking into account the comments received, will be issued shortly. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the five largest hospital building projects in Scotland currently under construction; and what is the projected cost of each.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Royal Cornhill hospital, phase 1, Aberdeen

  8·5

  Perth Royal Infirmary, Perth

  21·2

  Western Isles hospital, Isle of Lewis

  22·1

  Acute hospital, Ayr

  23·8

  St. John's hospital, phase 11, West Lothian

  30·1

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the five largest hospital building projects completed in Scotland since 1979; and what is the cost of each.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  St. John's hospital, phase I, West Lothian

  30·4

  Raigmore district general hospital, Inverness

  31·0

  Borders district general hospital, Huntlyburn

  32·2

  Glasgow Royal infirmary phase I, Glasgow

  55·3

  Royal Alexandra hospital, Paisley

  56·5

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish in the Official Report the attendance figures for 1989 reported by the national museums and galleries in Scotland, broken down into the individual institutions but including their outstations, with figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1988.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is as follows:

  1989

  Percentage change since 1988

  National Galleries of Scotland

  709,582

  +39·0

  National Museums of Scotland

  899,351

  +30·7

  Attendance figures for the national museums of Scotland for 1989 are inclusive of visitors to the Scottish United Services museum at Edinburgh castle which were not previously attributed to the museums. In 1988 there were 156,614 visitors to the Scottish United Services museum.

  The national galleries of Scotland comprise the National Gallery of Scotland, the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art and the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. The national museums of Scotland comprise the Royal Museum of Scotland buildings at Chambers street and Queen street, Edinburgh, the Scottish Agricultural museum, the Scottish United Services museum, the Museum of Flight and the Shambellie Museum of Costume.

  Pesticide Alternatives
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in the use of sea-lice and ctenolabrus rupestris as alternatives to pesticides.

  Mr. Lang
  A full evaluation of the Sea Fish Industry Authority's initial trials of gold sinny wrasse to reduce sea lice infestation is not expected until the end of the year. Further trials may be needed before commercial viability could be established.

  Work on the development of a possible vaccine treatment, which is being co-ordinated by scientists from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, is also at a very early stage.

  Lupus Group
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking as a result of the Fife, Lothian and Borders Lupus group letter to the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I responded to the points raised in this letter in a reply which I sent to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 17 November 1989. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Kelvin Central plc
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has granted financial assistance to the management team of Kelvin Central plc in its bid to purchase the company; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Financial assistance has been offered by the Scottish Transport Group to the
  543
  management-employee buyout team led by the managing director of Kelvin Central Buses Ltd. The assistance, which will not exceed £48,750, will cover 75 per cent. of professional advisers' fees up to £65,000. In the event of the bid being successful, no assistance will be paid.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide to the employee-led consortium the equivalent financial assistance to that provided to the management-led consortium in its bid for Kelvin Central plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Financial assistance is being made available by the Scottish Transport Group to one management-employee buyout team per company. In the case of Kelvin Central Buses Ltd. this assistance has been offered to the management-employee team led by the managing director.

  Conveyancing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Scottish-based organisations which have supported his proposals for reform of the law and procedures related to conveyancing; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following Scottish-based respondents to the consultation paper "The Legal Profession in Scotland" expressed support for some or all of the proposed changes to the conveyancing market in Scotland:

  Citizens Advice Scotland

  Clydesdale Bank plc

  Confederation of British Industry, Scotland

  Dunfermline Building Society

  National Association of Estate Agents, Scottish Branch

  Scottish Consumer Council

  Stuart Wyse Ogilvie, Estate Agents

  All representations on the proposals for reform were taken fully into account before the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill was introduced.

  New Building Regulations
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what grounds it was decided not to introduce the new building regulations concerning the conservation of fuel and power in Scotland in April 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The building regulations which will come into effect in April 1990 were made under the Building Act 1984, which applies only to England and Wales. I have included similar improvements for the conservation of fuel and power in a major revision of all parts of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations, made under the Building (Scotland) Act 1959, which I intend to lay before Parliament later this year.

  Land and Property Holdings
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to publish a schedule of the land and property holdings of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.

  Mr. Lang
  I have no plans to publish such a schedule.

  Eastern Scottish Bus Company
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to privatise the Eastern Scottish bus company.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Sales of the subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group will begin soon and it is expected that the whole programme will be completed early in 1991. It is not possible to say at this stage when Eastern Scottish Omnibuses Ltd will be offered for sale.

  Cerebral Palsy
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he has commissioned to investigate the causes of cerebral palsy.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Home and Health Department has not funded any research specifically to investigate the causes of cerebral palsy. It has funded some research which might be relevant to this condition. Funds are available and applications for soundly based research will be sympathetically considered.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department is taking to monitor trends in cerebral palsy.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards monitor the numbers of children with cerebral palsy who are less than 16 years old. The information is held by the information services division of the Scottish Health Service's common services agency in the handicapped children's register.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of children born in Scotland, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available, who have been diagnosed as having cerebral palsy.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Children with cerebral palsy new registrations in year ending 31 December

  Year

  Number

  1978

  79

  1979

  n/a

  1980

  69

  1981

  78

  1982

  124

  1983

  75

  1984

  69

  1985

  100

  1986

  70

  1987

  92

  Homelessness
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made on the latest annual report by Shelter on homelessness in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The reported results of Shelter's recent survey on homelessness in Scotland have been given careful consideration within my Department. Shelter does not make it clear the basis on which the statistics it presents have been collected, and its figures do not accord with those provided by local authorities to the Scottish Office. Nevertheless, both Shelter's and our own figures show that the number of households applying to local
  545
  authorities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, and the number of them assessed as being homeless or potentially homeless, has remained fairly stable over the last three years.

  The figures quoted by Shelter represent its estimate of the number of applications made to local authorities over a full year. Most of those households are found accommodation by local authorities, and others arrange their own accommodation. The figures are not an indication of the number of households without a home at any one time.

  Court of Session
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings he has attended with Lord President Hope since 1 November 1989; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Since 1 November 1989 I have had one meeting with the Lord President of the Court of Session, at which a range of matters were discussed.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he was informed that Lord Dervaird was resigning from the Court of Session; and who informed him.

  Mr. Rifkind
  By letter dated 21 December 1989, Lord Dervaird advised me that for personal reasons he wished to resign his appointment as a Court of Session judge from 1 January 1990.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what part the Lord Advocate took in initiating by advice or otherwise the meeting between Lord President Hope and senior members of the Scottish media.

  Mr. Rifkind
  None.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions, and on what dates, the Lord Advocate held with the Lord President of the Court of Session about impending vacancies in the membership of the court.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Lord Advocate has regular discussions on judicial matters with the Lord President of the Court of Session.

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs

  1984–85

  69

  8,169

  1,274

  9,443

  1985–86

  58

  4,663

  3,554

  8,217

  1986–87

  50

  4,106

  978

  5,084

  1987–88

  84

  6,363

  4,856

  11,219

  1988–89

  55

  4,846

  2,243

  7,089

  The figures for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 relate only to projects where there was direct involvement by Locate in Scotland or the Industry Department for Scotland. Locate in Scotland is aware of a further four projects which came to Scotland in 1987-88 without such involvement and of a further five in 1988-89.

  Civil Service Relocation
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the number of actual jobs created in each of the last five years by new companies and organisations or Government Departments locating in Scotland;
  546
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent meetings he has held with judges of the Court of Session.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have meetings with judges of the Court of Session from time to time.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent meetings the Lord Advocate has had with judges of the Court of Session.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Lord Advocate has meetings with judges at the Court of Session from time to time.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any recent information has been given by Crown Office officials to the Lord President of the Court of Session.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information on a wide range of matters is made available on a regular basis by officials of the Lord Advocate to the Lord President of the Court of Session and to his officers of court.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether being a practising homosexual within the law bars the nomination and appointment of persons to the Court of Session, or requires resignation from among those presently appointed.

  Mr. Rifkind
  There is no such legal bar.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each of the announcements made by his Department on new planned jobs locating in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  Details of every inward investment decision cannot be published as information-is supplied by some companies on a commercially confidential basis.

  The following table gives information on inward investment in Scotland for the years 1984–85 to 1988–89, as previously announced. The planned job figures are based on company forecasts.

  (2) what is the number of civil service posts relocated to Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information on non-Government employment is not available for the first question and the information on Government Departments is not available in the form requested for both questions.

  In the five years since 1985 around 1,490 posts were transferred to Glasgow under the Government's earlier dispersal programme; of these, 1,400 were in the Ministry of Defence and the remainder in the Passport Office. In

  547
  addition there have been some minor moves by Departments to Scotland taken on their own initiatives, but no central records are kept.

  Mentally Ill Patients
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost of undertaking an individual assessment of the needs of all long-term mentally ill patients in Scotland over a two-year period.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The cost of undertaking an individual assessment of the needs of long-term mentally ill patients will vary depending on the particular circumstances of the person involved and it is not possible to give an estimate of the costs.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that all long-term mentally ill patients in Scotland will have an assessment made of their individual needs within the next two years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  People with mental illness have individual care plans to meet their needs while they are receiving treatment in hospital. The White Paper "Caring for People" indicates that health boards and local authorities will be required to complete an assessment of the needs of each person with a long-term mental illness due to be discharged from hospital and prepare joint care programmes for them. The intention is to introduce these care programmes from 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what extra resources will be available to local authorities to pay for the individual needs assessments for long-term mentally ill patients in Scotland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what extra resources will be made available to local authorities to develop community care for long-term mentally ill patients in Scotland;

  (3) what new resources are currently being planned to offset the reduction in long-term beds for patients who are mentally ill.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 16 January 1990 to his earlier questions on the same subject. (Official Report, Vol. 165, col. 208-09.)

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the proportion of long-term mentally ill patients currently in Scottish hospitals that could satisfactorily be cared for in a community context.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Whether a long-term mentally ill inpatient could be satisfactorily discharged into the community is a matter of clinical judgment. No comprehensive estimates of the likely proportion involved are currently available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to develop a system of bridging finance to develop services for the provision of community care of long-term mentally ill patients in Scottish hospitals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under the arrangements set out in the White Paper "Caring for People", health boards and local authorities will each prepare a community care plan. As a basis for these plans, the White Paper recognises a548
  need for planning agreements between boards and authorities setting out shared assumptions and objectives. A key requirement of planning agreements will be funding agreements setting out the basis on which health and social care will be funded. The details will be the subject of consultation in due course.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to establish an independent body to undertake any needs assessment of individual long-term mentally ill patients in hospitals in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. The needs assessment of mentally ill patients in hospital is a matter for the relevant health boards. The Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland has a statutory duty to inquire into any case where there appears to be any deficiency of treatment or care and to follow this up as appropriate.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to reduce the number of inappropriate hospital admissions for patients who are mentally ill.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proposals in the White Paper "Caring for People" are designed to help the mentally ill to be cared for in a community setting and to ensure that they are admitted to hospital only where, on the basis of clinical judgment, it is necessary for the purposes of treatment.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he plans to develop systems of community and institutional care for long-term mentally ill patients in hospitals in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The White Paper "Caring for People" sets out in detail the Government's proposals for the provision of comprehensive community facilities for the long-term mentally ill and other priority groups. At the same time we are providing the necessary resources to develop and improve hospital facilities for those whom this remains the most appropriate form of care.

  Judges
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Lord Advocate will initiate a review of the system of appointment and of the terms of service of Scottish judges.

  Mr. Rifkind
  There are no plans to do so.

  Businesses
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of new businesses registered and bankruptcies in Scotland in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Lang
  The table shows the number of new companies registered in Scotland and the number of liquidations notified for Scottish registered companies in each year between 1984 and 1989. The table shows the number of bankruptcies. Bankruptcies are awards of sequestration and relate solely to individuals, partnerships, clubs etc and exclude limited companies.
  549

  Companies registered and liquidated and bankruptcies in Scotland

  Year

  New companies registered1

  Liquidations1

  Bankruptcies2

  1984

  4,976

  757

  296

  1985

  5,417

  757

  298

  1986

  5,999

  762

  437

  1987

  5,860

  636

  3826

  1988

  6,879

  651

  1,420

  1989

  6,779

  674

  2,294

  1 Source Companies House

  2 Source Accountant and Bankruptcy Office

  3 New legislation was introduced in 1986, which affected the number of sequestrations.

  Living Elsewhere Grants
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students receive grants based on living elsewhere than in the parental home; and what proportion this is of the number of students receiving grants.

  Mr. Lang
  The latest available figures are for the academic session 1988–89, when 31,981 Scottish domiciled students received the elsewhere rate of maintenance grant. This represented 65·8 per cent. of the total number of students receiving a maintenance grant.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect of the imposition of the poll tax on the workload of sheriff officers; and if he anticipates a need for any increase in the number of sheriff officers as a result of the poll tax.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Sheriff officers are independent contractors and it is for them to consider how best to respond to requests for their services.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many summary warrants were issued by Scottish regional councils for non-payment of the poll tax at the most recent date for which figures are available; and what was the equivalent number of summary warrants issued by Scottish regional councils for non-payment of rates on the same date in the previous year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 January 1990]: Information on the total number of persons subject to summary warrant procedure for non-payment of domestic rates or community charge is not held centrally. The use of the summary warrant procedure is a matter for regional councils.

HEALTH

  Teaching Hospitals
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what exercises have been carried out by his Department to determine the excess costs of teaching hospitals; and how often these exercises have been repeated.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the last 15 years the Department has several times sought to determine the excess costs of teaching hospitals, and to establish what proportion of this excess is attributable to teaching—as 550
  opposed to research, the tendency to treat more complex cases, or other factors. Exercises have been undertaken on four occasions: for the Resource Allocation Working Party (RAWP) in 1975, and again in 1976, and subsequently during reviews of the RAWP formula in 1978–80 and 1986–88.

  For the future, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has accepted a recommendation from the Steering Group on Undergraduate Medical and Dental Education that the basis and level of the service increment for teaching (SIFT), which is intended to compensate hospitals for those excess costs, should be re-examined in 1992.

  Service Increments for Teaching
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the changes in the service increment for teaching formula since 1980.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The formula used to calculate the service increment for teaching (SIFT) has been changed on two occasions in this period; following the work of, first, the Advisory Group on Resource Allocation which reported in 1980, and the NHS Management Board's review of the Resource Allocation Working Party (RAWP) formula, which reported in 1988. The changes on each occasion were:

  In 1980-81:
  Expansion to cover new medical schools at Cambridge, Leicester, Nottingham and Southampton;
  Expansion of the number of teaching hospitals covered by the formula;
  Replacement of the previous method of compensating for higher London costs; introduction of the London weighting addition in its place;
  Introduction of separate recognition for dental hospitals' excess service costs—equal to 85 per cent. of their average outpatient expenditure.

  Recommendations of the RAWP Review: to take effect in 1990–91:
  Increase in the proportion of excess service costs met by medical SIFT from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent.;
  Recalculation of the average amount by which teaching hospitals' service costs exceed those of other hospitals, on the basis of an updated survey;
  Recalculation of dental SIFT in recognition of increased costs in dental hospitals, relative to the rest of the NHS.
  In addition to these changes to the formula, in November 1989 important new advice was issued to the regional health authorities on the principles which should govern their allocation of SIFT to individual hospitals.

  AIDS
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year for the last eight years, for each regional health authority, the number of people who have died from AIDS; and if he will show in his answer, their sex and age by categories(a) aged under 20 years, (b) aged 20 to 30 years, (c) aged 31 to 40 years, (d) aged 41 to 50 years and (e) aged over 50 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In line with the procedure followed in reports under the AIDS (Control) Act, to safeguard confidentiality numbers below 10 in tables showing AIDS data are represented by an asterisk. A table showing the breakdown requested would include so many asterisks that it would be uninformative. The data have therefore been aggregated to some extent.
  551

  AIDS cases by region of report and year of death for those known to have died to 31 December 1989

  Year of death

  Region of report

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Unknown

  Northern

  0

  0

  0

  *

  *

  10

  *

  *

  *

  0

  Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  *

  *

  14

  14

  11

  0

  Trent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  *

  *

  *

  10

  11

  0

  East Anglia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  0

  North West Thames

  0

  *

  *

  19

  53

  103

  125

  135

  142

  16

  North East Thames

  0

  *

  *

  *

  23

  51

  73

  57

  70

  *

  South East Thames

  0

  *

  *

  *

  11

  22

  32

  49

  60

  0

  South West Thames

  0

  0

  *

  *

  *

  *

  14

  20

  11

  0

  Wessex

  *

  0

  0

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  12

  0

  Oxford

  0

  0

  *

  0

  *

  *

  *

  10

  11

  0

  South Western

  0

  0

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  0

  Mersey

  0

  0

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  0

  North Western

  0

  0

  0

  *

  *

  *

  14

  21

  14

  *

  WALES

  0

  0

  0

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  12

  0

  SCOTLAND

  0

  *

  0

  *

  *

  *

  12

  17

  23

  *

  NORTHERN IRELAND

  0

  *

  0

  0

  *

  0

  *

  *

  *

  0

  CHANNEL ISLANDS

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  *

  0

  TOTAL

  *

  *

  16

  47

  118

  260

  335

  383

  420

  25

  AIDS United Kingdom: Age distribution of AIDS cases known to have died by December 1989

  Age group (years)

  Male

  Female

  Total

  0-19

  18

  10

  20-29

  251

  26

  30-39

  609

  14

  40-49

  423

  11

  50 plus

  213

  *

  Unknown

  29

  *

  Total

  1,543

  69

  1,612

  Vaccine-damaged Children
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of children receiving immunisations have suffered vaccine damage, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; how many received compensation; and what was the total amount of compensation paid each year.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not available in the form requested, but in the last 10 years over 25 million 552
  childhood vaccinations have been given. Over the same period there were 556 successful claims for a vaccine damage payment. The table sets out the numbers of awards and the expenditure of the scheme.

  Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme: Number of Awards and Expenditure 1980 to 1989

  Year

  Awards

  Expenditure(£)

  1980

  1273

  2,730,000

  1981

  1109

  1,090,000

  1982

  1 45

  450,000

  1983

  42

  2670,000

  1984

  29

  2440,000

  1985

  26

  2220,000

  1986

  15

  2240,000

  1987

  10

  2290,000

  1988

  4

  2140,000

  1989

  3

  2 70,000

  1 Figures are for the number of payments made in these years.

  2 Includes payments in respect of awards made in earlier years.

  Vaccine damage payments are not compensation-that is an entirely separate matter to be pursued in the courts.

  Chernobyl
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any communication from his counterpart in Norway concerning new evaluations by the Norwegian Food Control Authority over the health effects of Chernobyl radioactive fall-out.

  Mr. Freeman
  No, neither the Department nor the National Radiological Protection Board have received any information from the Norwegian Food Control Authority about new evaluations of the health effects of Chernobyl fall-out.

  Environmental Medicine Foundation
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department makes any funds available to the Environmental Medicine Foundation.

  Mr. Freeman
  No funds are provided to this foundation by the Department of Health.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of his report to Parliament on the development of community care services to be published under section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultations Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Freeman
  The report was laid in draft before Parliament on 21 December last year. Copies will be placed in the Library as soon as they are printed.

  Personal Stereos
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the dangers to public health of loud music played on personal stereos.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on 15 January at column 89.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money the national ambulance service raised by public donation in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not held centrally on the extent to which the individual ambulance services raise money by public donation.

  Hospital Cleaning Standards
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to take to ensure that adequate cleaning standards are guaranteed at(a) Guys hospital, Southwark, (b) Battle hospital, Reading and (c) St. John's hospital, Chelmsford.

  Mr. Freeman
  The setting of such standards, and their maintenance, is a matter for the health authorities concerned.

  Cervical Screening
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority, the family practitioner committees that do not issue the Health 554
  Education Authority's leaflet, "The Cervical Smear Test, Why You Need It", to accompany the invitation letter sent to women for a National Health Service cervical cytology screening.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority, the percentage of women who did not attend for a cervical cytology screening when invited for the last year for which he has figures, under the categories(a) inaccessability, (b) ineligibility, (c) unsuitable, (d) failed communication, (e) incorrect classification and (f) refused to attend.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Although the information will not be available in exactly the form requested, it is hoped shortly to be able to give information about women screened in 1988–wing the introduction of a new cancer screening return from April 1988.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to reduce the interval time between cervical cytology screening to three years for all women.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have recommended to health authorities a maximum interval of five years between tests, which we know can reduce deaths among women screened by more than 80 per cent. We know that the majority of women who die from cervical cancer have never had a smear test. We therefore believe that it is more important to achieve as a first priority a high response rate from all women in the eligible age group rather than aim to reduce the interval between screening. The recommended recall interval is kept under review.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority, those district health authorities that do not send notification to women who have had a cervical cytology screening, when the results are negative.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority, those district health authorities that do not offer cervical cytology screening at the age range recommended by his Department; and if he will show in his answer the age range applied by each such district health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have asked district health authorities to invite all women aged 20 to 64 for cervical cancer screening by March 1993, unless their general practitioner has indicated that they should be excluded. We do not have information on the age ranges currently being invited in each district health authority.

  Kent Contract
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Kent contract for general practitioners conforms with the Statutory Instruments approved by Parliament.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Kent contract for general practitioners conforms with the Statutory Instruments approved by Parliament.
  555
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Some reports have appeared in the medical press which appear to suggest that Kent FPC is proposing to remunerate its GPs and modify its terms of service in accordance with a local contract rather than the contract approved by Parliament. Such suggestions are inaccurate. There is no question of any FPC drawing up an alternative contract to that set out in the NHS (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations as amended last year. Kent FPC has always understood that and is making its preparations on that basis.

  Paramedics
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether ambulance paramedics trained under local schemes such as that operated by Torbay health authority will qualify for the £500 award.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Only staff with extended training to NHS training authority standard and required to use paramedical skills will be entitled to an additional payment of £500 a year under the terms of the management side's final offer. But the management side has also offered to discuss with the staff side recognition of staff with intermediate training with any payment agreed backdated to 1 April 1989.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report those health authorities in the South East Thames regional health authority which (a) maintain a full breast screening service and (b) do not do so.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have asked health authorities to implement breast cancer screening services over the three years to 1990 and services will be provided to all district health authority areas. The table shows the three screening centres serving South East Thames regional health authority, the districts presently served, and the districts to which services will be extended in 1990.

  Screening centre or consortium

  Districts served

  Camberwell

  Camberwell

  West Lambeth

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  to be extended to

  Greenwich

  to be extended to

  Bexley

  to be extended to

  Bromley

  Canterbury

  Canterbury and Thanet

  to be extended to

  South East Kent

  to be extended to

  Maidstone

  to be extended to

  Tunbridge Wells

  to be extended to

  Medway

  to be extended to

  Dartford and Gravesham

  East Sussex

  Brighton

  to be extended to

  Eastbourne

  to be extended to

  Hastings

  Psychiatric Hospital Land
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much land used by psychiatric hospitals in the South West regional health authority and Wessex regional health authority areas was sold in each year from 1985 to 556
  1989; how much money was realised from each of these sales; what proportion of the proceeds was allocated to community care programmes and facilities for people with mental health problems; what these programmes and facilities were; and what the remaining proceeds were spent on;

  (2) what land presently occupied by psychiatric hospitals in the South West and the Wessex regional health authority areas is to be sold over the next five years; what timetable is planned for these sales; and what plans are in place for the utilisation of the moneys produced.

  Mr. Freeman
  Property transactions are delegated to regional health authorities and information on sales and future sales of surplus NHS property and land is not collected centrally by functional group. To do so by means of a special exercise would involve disproportionate cost. The instruction to health authorities set out in "Property Transactions in the NHS" (a copy of which is in the Library) is that closures of hospitals for the mentally ill and handicapped must be preceded by the provision of comprehensive alternative services and that proceeds must be used specifically for the development of the alternative services.

  Severn Clinic
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has made to the request by the charity MIND for an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the closure of the Severn clinic at Wrington near Bristol and the operations of the owning company, Britannia Health Care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department wrote to MIND on 5 January and that letter has been copied to the hon. Member. Health authorities' responsibility for private hospitals is limited to ensuring that there has been no breach of registration requirements. They are not empowered to investigate financial stability.

  Chiropractors
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints his Department received in the last full year for which there are records about chiropractic treatments; and how many of the complaints related to(a) qualified and (b) unqualified chiropractors.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department received one complaint during the past year. It is understood that the practitioner concerned holds a chiropractic qualification.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received from members of the public calling for compulsory registration of chiropractors.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 13 December 1989 at columns 675-76.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what qualifications are required of anyone who advertises treatment as a chiropractor.

  Mr. Freeman
  No qualifications restrictions are placed on chiropractors who are free to offer their services privately to the public subject only to those provisions of statute and civil law which apply.

  Back Pain
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated annual cost to the National Health Service of providing treatment to sufferers from back pain.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available centrally.

  Medicines Directive
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to incorporate the provisions of the European Community directive 89/381/EEC into United Kingdom legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  EEC directive 89/381, which is binding on all member states, was adopted on 14 June 1989 and requires member states to take measures necessary to comply with its provisions before 1 January 1992. We are currently examining what measures are necessary to give effect to the directive by that date.

  Bioethics
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the Council of Europe's ad hoc committee of experts on bioethical issues (CAHBI) and the countries from which they come.

  Mr. Freeman
  The membership of the Council of Europe's Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on Bioethics (CAHBI) is a matter for the member states concerned. At the last meeting in December 1989 the members were:

  Austria

  Dr. Renate Kausek

  Mme Ingrid Djalinous

  Belgium

  M. Philippe Meire

  Professor Armond Andre

  Cyprus

  Mrs. Frosso Parrisiadou

  Denmark

  Mr. Ulrich Horst Petersen

  Finland

  Ms. Paula Kokkonen

  France

  M. Christian Byk

  M. Georges David

  Federal Republic of Germany

  M. G. Fieberg

  Dr. Lydia Mathy

  Greece

  Mrs. Panagiota Dalla-Vorgia

  Iceland

  Dr. Orn Bjarnason

  Ireland

  Dr. Niall Tierney

  Italy

  M. Giovan Battista Ascone

  M. Salvatore Puglisi

  Luxembourg

  M. Arsen Betz

  558
  Malta

  Rev. Prof. Charles G. Vella

  Dr. Joseph Louis Grech

  Netherlands

  Mrs. Johanna H. W. Kits Nieuwenkamp

  Norway

  Mr. Kare Berg

  Mrs. Grete Gjertsen

  Portugal

  Dr. Luis Mendes Graca

  Spain

  Dr. Octavi Quintana-Trias

  Sweden

  Ms. Lena Jonnson

  Mr. Goran Hermeren

  Switzerland

  Mr. Hansjakob Muller

  M. Franz Furger

  Turkey

  Dr. Yaman Ors

  United Kingdom

  Dr. Jeremy Metters

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those who represented the United Kingdom at the Council of Europe's first symposium on bioethics held in Strasbourg in December 1989; and if he will place in the Library papers presented and records of the proceedings.

  Mr. Freeman
  There were no formal representatives of the UK. However, Dr. Jeremy Metters, deputy chief medical officer, Department of Health, attended as chairman of CAHBI. There were in addition a number of independent participants from the United Kingdom at the symposium.

  Papers and records of the proceedings have not yet been published by the Council of Europe. As soon as they become available they will be placed in the Library.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the procedures for appointment by member states of the Council of Europe of members of the CAHBI committee.

  Mr. Freeman
  Members are appointed by the member states of the Council of Europe.

  Council of Europe
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been Her Majesty's Government's response to Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1100; and whether it has passed through the Council of Europe's internal consultative machinery.

  Mr. Freeman
  Her Majesty's Government have not yet been asked to respond to Recommendation 1100 of the Parliamentary Assembly which is still being considered within the Council of Europe's internal consultative machinery.

  Medico-ethics
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any proposals have been submitted by the European Commission on harmonisation of medico-ethical questions following the Ulburghs report adopted by the European Parliament Document A2-78/88.

  Mr. Freeman
  The European Commission has not made any proposals on harmonisation of medico-ethical questions following the Ulburghs report.

  Meningitis
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of meningitis have been diagnosed in(a) under 18's and (b) over 18's in each of the last five years for which figures are available in (i) Suffolk, (ii) Norfolk, (iii) Essex, (iv) England and (v) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, the available information on meningitis notifications is set out in the table.

  Notifications of all forms of meningitis 1984 to 1988

  East Anglia regional health authority

  North East Thames regional health authority

  England, Wales and Scotland

  1984

  Up to 14 years

  27

  39

  884

  Up to 24 years

  32

  60

  1,082

  25+ years

  6

  27

  260

  1985

  Up to 14 years

  36

  35

  1,030

  Up to 24 years

  43

  54

  1,293

  25+ years

  13

  38

  349

  1986

  Up to 14 years

  32

  61

  1,600

  Up to 24 years

  39

  77

  1,941

  25+ years

  8

  21

  384

  1987

  Up to 14 years

  36

  80

  1,827

  Up to 24 years

  46

  109

  2,192

  25+ years

  10

  45

  470

  1988

  Up to 14 years

  42

  85

  1,976

  Up to 24 years

  52

  114

  2,432

  25+ years

  13

  41

  656

  Northern Ireland ( Information is not centrally collected by age groups)

  Year

  All ages

  1984

  182

  1985

  149

  1986

  162

  1987

  102

  1988

  1154

  1 Provisional.

  Source: OPCS.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the notification and action procedure for all doctors in a health authority area once a case of meningitis has been diagnosed.

  Mr. Freeman
  By regulations made under section 13 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, doctors 560
  are obliged to notify cases of meningococcal meningitis or septicaemia to the Medical Officer for Environmental Health or proper officer. The Chief Medical Officer wrote to all regional medical officers on 2 February 1988 asking them to ensure that they had action plans to deal with meningitis (PL/CMO (88)1). He also wrote to all doctors on 3 February 1988 to pass on expert advice on the epidemiology, early management and prevention of the spread of meningococcal infection. A copy of the Gloucester health authority leaflet on meningitis was enclosed with the letter (PL/CMO (88)2).

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice to parents his Department issues about meningitis(a) in general and (b) once a case has been confirmed.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for health authorities to determine their own policy on issuing parents with advice about meningitis.

  The Department recommends Gloucester health authority's "About Meningitis" leaflet and the Meningitis Trust's "Meningitis—the Facts". Both leaflets contain useful and clearly written information on meningitis and include a list of signs and symptoms of the disease. The Department values the work the Meningitis Trust does in promoting awareness of the disease, and the support it gives to sufferers' families.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department will take to curtail a suspected outbreak of meningitis in Suffolk and Essex.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the local directors of public health who are taking action in accordance with guidance issued by the Department's Chief Medical Officer.

  Air Ambulance
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the total monthly running costs for the Cornwall Air Ambulance.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally. I understand that the running costs for air ambulance vary from month to month. The total annual cost is reported to be around £350,000.

  Cerebral Palsy
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned to investigate the causes of cerebral palsy.

  Mr. Freeman
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom is the Medical Research Council. However, the following research, funded by Department of Health, includes investigation of causes into cerebral palsy together with other impairments.The Oxford region child development study was funded by the Department between April 1983 and September 1989. It is a population-based register of pre-school impairment, including cerebral palsy. Data collected in this study established the prevalence rate of cerebral palsy and the register provides a framework for satellite studies which may look at causes of cerebral palsy. This register is currently funded by Oxford region health authority.

  561
  The Department has been funding the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, which coordinates clinical trials as part of its functions, since 1989. Children who as babies participated in some trials have been followed up, enabling study of the causes of cerebral palsy.
  A study at University College London (jointly funded by DH and MRC) is focusing on neurodevelopmental disorders in very small babies.
  A study in Liverpool is looking at the long-term outcome in small babies.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to monitor trends in cerebral palsy.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department does not monitor trends in cerebral palsy on a national basis. However, we observe the results of local population based studies of such trends. Whether or not we need to monitor more closely is being considered in the larger context of the development of child health surveillance policies.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which health authorities have(a) the Army, (b) the police, (c) the Red Cross and (d) St. John Ambulances been deployed on ambulance duties.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 8 January 1990]: (a) On 15 January 1990 military vehicles were deployed in the following regional health authorities.

  Trent RHA

  North West Thames RHA

  West Midlands RHA

  Wessex RHA

  North East Thames RHA

  South West Thames RHA (including London)

  Oxford RHA

  (b) The police are assisting the ambulance services in the above authorities, and also in:

  Northern RHA

  Mersey RHA

  Yorkshire RHA

  South East Thames RHA

  (c) Information on the assistance provided to health authorities by the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance service is not held centrally.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date(a) the Army and (b) the police began performing ambulance duties.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 8 January 1990]: The Army began ambulance duties on 7 December 1989 and the police on 23 October 1989.

DEFENCE

  Laser Weapons
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations his Department has carried out, or is aware of, into the effects of laser or other dazzle light on the eyes and brain functions of human beings; and what are the results of such investigations.

  Mr. Neubert
  MOD research establishments have studied the effects of lasers and other high power light sources on human eyes. This research is continuing, with particular reference to quantifying the impact of such sources, and to devising techniques to counter these effects.

  Faslane
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the incident in early December when a Royal Navy vessel was damaged and had to return to Faslane; and whether any inquiry has been instigated.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No Royal Navy vessel returned to Faslane due to damage during December.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans to insert a magnetic facility in the middle of the loch at Faslane; for how long this facility would be in use per annum; and what restrictions will apply to those who live on boats or sail yachts on the loch.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In order to remove the magnetic signature, which is acquired by all steel-hulled vessels, submarines are required to undergo periodic treatments. While existing arrangements meet the present requirement, these will be incapable of treating the larger Vanguard class of submarine. A new magnetic treatment facility is, therefore, required and this will be permanently located at a position in the Gareloch some 305 metres off Rowmore Point which meets the operational requirement and is sufficiently far away from other constructions with a steel content.

  Following completion, which is planned for the end of 1992, up to 30 treatments per year are expected to be necessary with each treatment likely to last up to two days. It will be necessary to establish an exclusion zone around the facility of 160m to the west and north. To the east, the exclusion zone will join the existing prohibited zone around the Faslane base. The resulting proposed amendment to the Ministry of Defence byelaws will be the subject of consultation and advertisement in the normal way. Outside the prohibited zone, it is not expected that there will be any restrictions on those who live on boats or sail yachts on the loch; a residual channel will allow navigation to and from Garelochhead.

  Gareloch
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans, and for what purpose, his Department has to dredge a channel at the mouth of Gareloch; and what effect this will have upon Rhuspit site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Work has started on improving the existing access channel to the Clyde submarine base Faslane through the Rhu Narrows. The work is necessary in order to permit safe transit in all tidal states by the larger Vanguard class submarines being introduced as part of the Trident programme. The dredging will have no detrimental affect on the nearby site of special scientific interest.

  Soviet Nuclear Test Site
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any invitation from his counterpart in the Soviet Union to visit the Soviet nuclear test site at Semipalatinsk.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Flora and Fauna
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's participation in the project to film a major wildlife documentary series on the fauna and flora of the defence estate.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence takes its responsibilities towards the conservation of its estate very seriously. The diversity of habitats means that many rare and uncommon species are to be found on defence land and a number of wildlife documentary programmes have either already been made, or are in the process of production. It is hoped, in due course, to complement these individual programmes with a major series.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the £9 million increase in his Department's budget relating to the costs of privatisation of the Property Services Agency; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The £9,182,000 increase in the Ministry of Defence's cash limit for 1989–90 to which the hon. Member refers is not connected with the decision to privatise the Property Services Agency announced on 26 October 1989. It is the share borne on Class 1, Vote 4 of additional expenditure arising from the reorganisation of the PSA on more commercial lines in preparation for Government Departments being untied for works services from 1 April 1990. The principal areas of expenditure covered information technology support, the setting up of the Business Development Directorate and the taking over of some functions of the Crown Suppliers such as the Government car service.

  Tyndale Hunt
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action is to be taken following an entry by the Tynedale hunt through Albermarle barracks, Stamfordham, on 1 January.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. The Tynedale hunt has a licence to hunt in this area.

  Trooper Wayne Cross
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will exercise clemency to give early release to Trooper Wayne Cross, found guilty of being absent without leave at a court martial at Tidworth barracks on 16 January.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Trooper Wayne Cross presented a petition to the confirming officers against the sentence of the court-martial court. His case is therefore under consideration by the appropriate military authorities.

  Absences Without Leave
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average term of imprisonment imposed on service men found guilty of being absent without leave over the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There have been no cases in recent years of a court-martial awarding imprisonment for 564
  absence without leave. The usual punishment is military detention, which is a form of corrective training, with or without dismissal from Her Majesty's service.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rights of appeal there are for service men found guilty of being absent without leave.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A soldier found guilty of absence without leave may present a petition against finding and/or sentence to the confirming officer before confirmation. After confirmation, he has the further right to present a petition to the reviewing authority in respect of finding or sentence or both. Finally, he has the right to petition against finding to the Army Board of the Defence Council as a first step to having his case heard by the courts-martial appeal court. A soldier who is convicted by court-martial is required by Queens Regulations to be given a pamphlet explaining his rights of petition and appeal. Comparable appeal arrangements exist for the other two services.

  Ships (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications of the recent experiment on the Black sea, in which short-range passive methods were used to supplement long-range detectors to verify the presence of nuclear weapons on board surface ships for the policy by successive United Kingdom Governments neither to confirm or deny the presence of such weapons on board United Kingdom vessels.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no implications for our policy neither to confirm nor to deny the presence of nuclear weapons in particular ships at particular times.

  Namibia
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any request from the new Government of Namibia to provide training for Namibia's armed forces.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on 10 January at column 939.

  Military Training
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions are issued to those participating in mud runs in relation to heat stress.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: All participants in diver training will have been instructed on the recognition and first aid treatment of heat-related illness, and other preventive measures include regular reminders to instructors of the problems associated with heat exhaustion and heat stroke; a minimum interval of two hours between normal physical training and training across mud; the participants' being bareheaded as an aid to body cooling; and the provision of a standby vehicle in case urgent medical evacuation should be necessary.
  565
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations have been received calling for the cessation of mud runs; and what advice he has received regarding their value and purpose;

  (2) whether mud runs are being used in (a) aptitude tests and (b) training in the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: There may be a requirement, in operations, for divers in the Royal Navy and the Army to cross mud at speed or carrying heavy equipment, and their training necessarily reflects this. Moreover, this form of training is valuable in developing the qualities required generally of military divers, whose work is arduous and potentially dangerous. However, mud runs are no longer used during aptitude tests.

  I am not aware of any representations calling for the cessation of mud runs having been received in 1989, but one letter on this subject has been received from an hon. Member this year.

  Procurement
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's major procurement purchases which have followed competitive tendering in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 January 1990, c. 136]: The following further information is now available:

  Common wheat

  Butter

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  United Kingdom £

  110·67

  110·67

  11475

  2,084·52

  2,084·52

  2,125·83

  Belgium/Luxembourg BF

  8,107·43

  8,107·43

  7,900·53

  150,482·26

  150,482·26

  145,246·99

  Denmark DK

  1,476·73

  1,476·73

  1,461·10

  27,420·56

  27,420·56

  26,861·65

  Germany DM

  404·46

  400·36

  388·36

  7,549·59

  7,472·60

  7,;070·39

  France FF

  1,260·98

  1,260·98

  1,259·49

  23,414·42

  23,414·42

  23,155·19

  Greece Dr

  22,631·60

  22,631·60

  31,250·40

  470,661·30

  470,661·30

  49,307·96

  Ireland Irish £

  140·22

  140·22

  133·60

  2,606·19

  2,606·19

  2,577·14

  Italy Lir

  269,371·73

  269,371·73

  273,730·23

  5,051,916·00

  5,051,916·00

  5,059,456·00

  Netherlands Fl

  453·39

  448·82

  435·36

  8,463·60

  8,333·90

  7,934·65

  Spain Pta

  26,011·66

  26,011·66

  25,231·77

  487,921·75

  487,921·75

  468,604·28

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the EEC proposal in the current general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations that an agricultural price freeze is sufficient to meet its short-term commitment to reduce agricultural support and protection levels in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The United Kingdom expects reforms in the CAP which have been agreed in recent years to result in aggregate levels of support in 1990 consistent with the Community's short-term GATT obligations.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the EEC uses the producer subsidy equivalent for the purpose of calculating total agricultural support; and why its outline proposals for agricultural reform tabled in the general agreement on tariffs and trade Uruguay round, measure reductions against a 1986 starting level.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Commission uses an aggregate measure of support known as the support measurement unit which is based on the OECD's producer
  566
  1989 'AS90' Self Propelled Howitzer.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken by the EEC to fulfil its general agreement on tariffs and trade commitment to participate in substantial progressive reductions in agricultural support and protection.

  Mr. Curry
  The Community, in common with other GATT members, has tabled proposals for reform of agricultural policies. Negotiations in the GATT round are continuing.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the trend in common agricultural policy support prices, expressed in national currencies, for cereals and dairy products in each member state over the past three years.

  Mr. Curry
  The buying-in prices for common wheat and the intervention prices for butter over the last three years are given in the table. Prices are in national currencies per tonne, applicable at the start of each marketing year. No figures are supplied for Portugal, since cereals and dairy products are not supplied to intervention in that country.

  subsidy equivalent. A 1986 starting level reflects agreement that credit is to be given for measures taken since the current GATT round was launched.

  Fish Disease
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of(a) dab, (b) flounder, (c) cod, (d) herring and (e) plaice caught in water around the United Kingdom showed evidence of disease for each of the ad hoc surveys conducted since 1980 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, together with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.

  Mr. Curry
  Since 1980, the Department's surveys for fish diseases in water around the United Kingdom have shown wide differences in prevalence between fish species. For dab and flounder, external diseases are recorded at higher prevalence rates than in cod, herring or any other species.

  The prevalence rates of disease vary not only between species but in relation to abundance, size, sex, spawning state and food availability. For dab and flounder, up to 10

  567
  per cent. prevalence would be expected in some areas, and then fluctuations would be expected according to the season. For cod, diseases are noted only when the migrations occur inshore during the autumn. At this time approximately 10 per cent. has been recorded, but this figure varies between years. Diseases in herring are rare, that is, less than 1 per cent. in all our surveys.

  Monitoring prevalence of disease in marine fish is only useful when it is made over an extended time period, and when all biological and physical parameters have been taken into account. We know that all current diseases in the above species have been documented since the turn of the century.

  Grants
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total cost of grants to farmers from the Agricultural Development Advisory Service for each of the past 10 years, together with equivalent figures in other European Community nations.

  Mr. Curry
  Grants to farmers in the United Kingdom under common agricultural policy and United Kingdom national schemes for the years 1984–85 to 1988–89 (forecast) are set out in the publication "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1988". Figures for preceding years are contained in the annual review of agriculture White Papers. Forecasts for 1989–90 are contained in the Supply Estimates. No comparable figures are available for other European Community nations, but any schemes which they operate have to comply with the appropriate EC legislation or be approved by the Commission under articles 92 to 94 of the treaty.

  Radioactive Contamination
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department will introduce monitoring of the levels of radioactive contamination in sheep sold from derestricted areas bordering those areas where bans have been in operation.

  Mr. Maclean
  Periodic surveys are carried out immediately outside the restricted areas in England and Wales to confirm the continuing validity of the boundaries set. There is no case for special, additional, monitoring of sheep sold from outside the restricted areas.

  Milk Lorries
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet representatives of the Direct Sellers Co-operative Limited to discuss milk lorries.

  Mr. Curry
  I have no such plans.

  Cattle Offal
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions he has imposed on the export of cattle offal from the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have imposed no restrictions on the export of cattle offal from the United Kingdom. Within the limits of Community rules where they apply, it is up to importing countries to determine the conditions under which such imports may take place.

  Microwave Ovens
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he will conduct his own research into the effects of microwave oven heating on food containing amino acids; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will conduct his own research to ascertain the chemical effects of microwave oven heating on milk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. I gave a clear explanation of my Department's views of Professor Lubec's research on 13 December 1989,Official Report, column 698. I have no new information at this time that would justify my Department conducting its own research in this area.

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the amount which the European Economic Community is spending per week on the storage, destruction and dumping of food surpluses; what is the comparable sum actually spent per week, five and 10 years previously; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  European Community expenditure in 1990 on storage, withdrawal and export refunds for agricultural products is expected to be about £9,000 million, or £173 million per week. Comparable figures for 1985 are £6,965 million (£134 million per week) and for 1980 £4,610 million (£89 million per week).

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reasons for refusing the Cumbria county council trading standards department details of the movements in Cumbria of cows found to be suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  The handling and, if necessary, the investigation of cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy is the responsibility of the Ministry. Details of individual cases are held in confidence.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the extent of the use of bovine products in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries; whether such use includes the use of offals banned from human consumption; whether he has any estimate of the amount of such products; and whether there are any controls, either current or proposed, to regulate such use.

  Mr. Maclean
  Returns from the pharmaceutical industry confirm that only a small percentage of their products include materials of bovine and other animal origin. I have no comparable information about the cosmetic industry. Bovine offals account for only a small proportion of the animal material and they are mainly imported from countries where bovine spongiform encephalopathy has not been detected. The Southwood committee concluded that the risk of transmitting bovine spongiform encephalopathy via medicines appears remote and theoretical, but as a precautionary measure, special
  569
  guidelines from the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Veterinary Products Committee on the use of bovine materials in the production of medicines were circulated to pharmaceutical companies last March. If any evidence were to be found that a medicinal product might be unsafe, Ministers have powers under the Medicines Act to revoke or suspend the licence.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those animal species which are currently or proposed to be researched with a view to determining susceptibility to spongiform encephalopathy from scrapie of bovine spongiform encephalopathy sources.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following animal species are currently or proposed to be the subject of transmission experiments to determine their susceptibility to bovine spongiform encephalopathy:

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Goats

  Pigs

  Chickens

  Marmosets

  Mink

  Hamsters

  Mice

  Research on species' susceptibility to scrapie is being funded at the AFRC/MRC neuropathogenesis unit through the science budget.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will detail work being undertaken to develop a diagnostic test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the live and clinically affected animal.

  Mr. Maclean
  Bovine spongiform encephalopathy is currently diagnosed on the basis of histopathology in the brain of clinically infected animals. MAFF is funding research to develop diagnostic tests in the live, pre-clinical affected animal using molecular biological techniques. This research is being carried out at MAFF's central veterinary laboratory, Weybridge and the AFRC-MRC neuropathogenesis unit in Edinburgh. Relevant slow virus research is being funded at the neuropathogenesis unit through the science budget.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is currently researching into the effects of scrapie-infected material being incorporated into feeding compounds for pigs and chickens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Southwood working party pointed out that no naturally occurring spongiform ence-phalopathies had been recorded in pigs and poultry and did not suggest that action was necessary to stop the use of ruminant protein in their feed. However, it was suggested that further research should be carried out and MAFF is conducting transmission experiments to investigate the susceptibility of pigs and poultry to bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends researching into the infectivity of organs and tissues from bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected cattle other than those currently banned from human consumption; and which such organs he regards as his research priority.
  570
  Mr. Maclean
  MAFF will he funding research into the infectivity of the full range of organs and tissues from bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected cattle not currently banned from human consumption.

  Priority will be given to those organs and tissues consumed by humans in significant quantities, to confirm their safety as currently assessed from research on scrapie. Tissues of possible relevance in the transmission of the disease in cattle will also be tested.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he received the interim report of the Tyrell committee on research into bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and why he decided not to make the report immediately available to the public.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report was received on 16 June 1989. It makes many recommendations on a wide range of research topics which necessitated detailed, and inevitably time-consuming, study to enable a properly considered response in respect of the work to be done and its funding. There have, however, been no delays and a good deal of the most important research is already under way.

  Enzymes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy for meat which has been treated with proteolytic enzymes, or which is derived from an animal that has been so treated, to be labelled with the words treated with vegetable enzymes.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to do so. The hon. Member's suggestion does not seem to offer any particular improvement in terms of consumer understanding over the present requirement to describe meat so treated as "tenderised".

  Veterinary Manpower
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will make a decision on the Page report on veterinary manpower.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Minister will be making an announcement shortly.

  Standing Veterinary Committee
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the standing veterinary committee of the EEC is constituted; and how he ensures that Her Majesty's Government's views are represented at this committee.

  Mr. Maclean
  The arrangements for the operation of the standing veterinary committee are contained in a Council decision of 15 October 1968. Attendance by Government officials ensures that the views of the United Kingdom are fully represented.

  Agricultural Products (Trade)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what EEC provision the West German Government have banned the import of beef from the United Kingdom.
  571
  Mr. Maclean
  The German Government have not banned imports of beef from the United Kingdom. I do not consider that the conditions they have imposed on such imports are consistent with Community rules.

  Tyrell Committee
  64. Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the recommendations of the Tyrell committee that the results of all research should be open for scrutiny and published at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 16 January col.217.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is currently being undertaken into the incidence of scrapie; and whether he has any programme to reduce such incidence.

  Mr. Maclean
  Scrapie has existed in this country for many years and no specific research into its incidence is currently being undertaken. Advice is available to farmers from ADAS on the control of the disease and flock owners may participate in a monitoring scheme under the Ministry's sheep and goat health scheme. Work is being undertaken at both the central veterinary laboratory and the neuropathogenesis unit to develop a diagnosis test. Work is being funded through the science budget to evaluate the genetic predisposition of sheep to scrapie. In addition, MAFF continues to fund work on a scrapie-resistant flock to assess the potential of breeding programmes for control and reduction of the incidence of scrapie in sheep.

  Cattle Semen (Exports)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions currently apply to the export of semen from British cattle.

  Mr. Maclean
  The animal health conditions covering the export of semen are established by negotiation with the importing country. These may include confirmation of freedom from certain disease in relation to the collection centre and the donor, its herd of origin or the country as a whole and specific requirements in relation to the method of collection. In almost all cases the importing country will require the semen to be accompanied by an export health certificate signed by an official veterinarian to confirm that the necessary conditions have been met.

  The United States, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and Iran have currently suspended imports of bovine semen from Great Britain because of concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  North Sea Conference
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the proposals he will be putting to the North sea conference later in the current year.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  One of the main objectives of the third North sea conference is to review the work undertaken by member
  572
  states in implementing the recommendations of the second North sea conference held in London 1987. As with its predecessor, the third conference will review all the major activities with an impact on the marine environment, including discharges of dangerous substances via rivers and the atmosphere, nutrients, dumping, shipping and offshore installations. The United Kingdom has taken a very full part in preparations for the conference and I am confident that the conference declaration, which will be the product of work by all the North sea states, will include valuable new measures, including a number proposed by the United Kingdom.

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made an assessment of the reason for the deaths within the last 12 months of seals in the Liverpool bay area.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  An assessment carried out by Liverpool university department of veterinary pathology on the basis of post-mortem examinations shows that viral or bacterial pneumonia was the commonest cause of death in seals washed ashore in this period.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what species of cetaceans are known to inhabit the Liverpool bay area; whether any species previously logged within the last 25 years are now thought to have disappeared from the area; and if he will provide any readily accessible information to indicate changes in estimated population levels of all species of cetaceans in the Liverpool bay area over the past 25 years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  In United Kingdom waters generally there is as yet no reliable population and status information on small cetacean species although valuable data are available from sightings and strandings reporting schemes. Recent reports do not suggest that cetaceans are resident in Liverpool bay, but migratory animals are reported. In the last five years Liverpool university department of veterinary pathology has examined stranded animals from the following species:

  Pilot whale

  Bottle-nosed dolphin

  White-beaked dolphin

  White-sided dolphin

  Common porpoise

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether dead seals from the Liverpool bay area within the last 12 months showed evidence of blocked uterine ducts.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that work carried out by Liverpool university department of veterinary pathology indicates that two out of a total of 12 dead seals washed ashore in the Liverpool bay in the last 12 months have been found to have blocked uterine ducts. There is no evidence that this contributed to the animals' death.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Hardship Payments
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people under 25 years have received hardship payments from his Department's office in Durham since October 1988.

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

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list by month since 1986 to date, for his Department's offices in(a) Doncaster and (b) Wath on Dearne (i) the number of independent living fund payments made and (ii) the amounts paid;

  (2) if he will list by year since 1986 to date for his Department's offices in (a) Doncaster and (b) Wath on Dearne what surplus has remained from the independent living fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The independent living fund was established in June 1988. It is a charity which is administered centrally from Nottingham under the guidance of its trustees. Information on the number of payments and amounts paid is not available by local office area.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether any reviews are being made by his Department of the independent living fund.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 10 January at column 657.

  Actors
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from actors reluctant to accept contracts in excess of eight weeks for

  Number of IS claimants

  Lone parents

  Disabled1

  Pensioners

  Unemployed

  000s

  000s

  000s

  000s

  000s

  Budgeting loans

  1989

  January

  243

  106

  24

  12·0

  86

  February

  265

  117

  24

  13·0

  95

  March

  284

  126

  25

  14·0

  104

  April

  301

  135

  25

  15·0

  110

  May

  314

  141

  25

  15·0

  111

  June

  326

  148

  25

  15·0

  120

  July

  332

  152

  25

  16·0

  122

  August

  336

  154

  24

  16·0

  125

  September

  339

  157

  24

  16·0

  124

  October

  344

  161

  24

  16·0

  125

  November

  351

  167

  23

  16·0

  128

  December

  344

  166

  22

  16·0

  124

  Crisis loans

  1989

  January

  40

  8

  1

  0·5

  27

  February

  45

  9

  1

  0·5

  30

  March

  47

  9

  1

  0·5

  36

  April

  48

  10

  1

  0·5

  33

  May

  48

  9

  1

  0·5

  33

  June

  49

  10

  1

  0·5

  33

  July

  49

  10

  1

  0·5

  34

  August

  50

  10

  1

  0·5

  34

  September

  50

  11

  1

  0·5

  33

  574
  fear of losing full entitlement to the payment of mortgage interest if subsequently unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department has no record of any such representations.

  Mrs. I. E. Hart
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he hopes to make a decision with regard to the back payment of the widow's pension for Mrs. I. E. Hart of 21 Greenswood road, Brixham, Devon; and if he will make a statement as to the reason for the delay.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention. Mrs. Hart's case is a complicated one which involves inquiries going back a number of years. However, I have to say that there has been an unacceptable delay in the handling of her case, and for this I offer Mrs. Hart my apologies. Urgent action is now being taken to put this right. A member of the Department's management at Torbay local office will visit Mrs. Hart today to explain the reasons, and apologise for the delay. The local office manager will write to my hon. Friend as soon as the case has been resolved.

  Budget and Crisis Loans
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number of claimants on income support were repaying a budgeting or crisis loan for each month since January 1989; and what number of(a) one-parent families, (b) sick and disabled claimants, (c) pensioners and (d) unemployed claimants on income support were repaying a budgeting or crisis loan for each month since January 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  The information available is given in the table. The figures represent the number of loans being repaid on the last day of each month.
  575

  Number of IS claimants

  Lone parents

  Disabled1

  Pensioners

  Unemployed

  000s

  000s

  000s

  000s

  000s

  October

  52

  11

  1

  0·5

  35

  November

  53

  11

  1

  0·5

  36

  December

  47

  10

  1

  0·5

  32

  1Applicants receiving a disability premium. It is not possible to identify separately applicants who are sick and not receiving a disability premium.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount of budget or crisis loans to claimants on income support for each month since January 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  The information available is set out in the table. The information represents the amounts outstanding on the last day of each calendar month.

  Budgeting loans £ million

  Crisis loans £ million

  January 1989

  46·491

  4·485

  February 1989

  51·897

  5·132

  March 1989

  56·595

  5·751

  April 1989

  60·944

  6·330

  May 1989

  63·596

  6·789

  June 1989

  65·893

  7·189

  July 1989

  66·549

  7·583

  August 1989

  66·958

  8·055

  September 1989

  67·111

  8·388

  October 1989

  68·173

  8·840

  November 1989

  71·201

  9·619

  December 1989

  70·095

  9·523

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has concerning the impact on people's incomes of not receiving sick benefit or statutory sick pay during the first three days of any absence from work due to illness.

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

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

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The total cost of advertising in the year 1987–88 was £0·.82 million; in 1988–89 it was £4·57

  Large self-administered schemes

  Number of schemes

  Schemes reporting in

  with surplus over 5 per cent.

  with surplus under 5 per cent.

  wound up

  Aggregate value1 £ million

  1987–88

  127

  176

  12

  530

  1988–89

  481

  853

  26

  2,040

  April—December 1989

  443

  596

  15

  1,830

  1 Surplus for those reporting on surplus of over 5 per cent.

  Note: The amount shown in the final column represent for schemes reporting to the Inland Revenue in each year. They do not provide a basis for estimating the aggregate level of pension fund surpluses.
  576
  million. In 1989–90 the planned expenditure is expected to be £7·16 million; the estimate for 1990–91 is £4·1 million. The forecast for 1991–92 is £7·4 million.

  Social Fund (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local Department of Social Security offices have reported overspending on money allocated for social fund payments in Wales in each county; and which offices have overspent by more than 10 per cent.

  Mr. Scott
  No social security office has overspent its allocation for social fund loans and grants for 1989–90.

  Earnings Limit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether unemployed people were given advance warning of the effect that the £43 earnings limit might have on their benefit entitlement if they worked for one or more days in the week preceding 10 December 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  People are only required to declare their earnings at the end of the benefit week in which they work. It would not have been possible to identify individuals who may have had earnings in the week commencing 3 December 1989 prior to the declaration of these earnings in week commencing 10 December 1989.

  Pension Fund Surpluses
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he estimates has been the level of aggregate pension fund surpluses each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information is not available in the form requested. The table gives information on large self-administered pension funds reporting to the Inland Revenue action which they propose to take to remove surpluses following the provisions of the Finance Act 1986.

ENVIRONMENT

  Chemical Discharges
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reply to the letter of 27 November 1989, from the hon. Member for Stretford in his capacity as honorary secretary of the north-west group of Labour hon. Members of Parliament, requesting a meeting with him and a delegation from that group to discuss accidents involving the discharge of harmful chemicals; and if he intends to meet a delegation.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have written to the hon. Member today.

  Hylands Park, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to the answer on 15 January concerning the date of the public inquiry on the Hylands park, Chelmsford, planning application, what negotiations he is referring to in his answer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The negotiations are being undertaken by Chelmsford borough council with the Sue Ryder Foundation and other parties, in the light of the objections to the present planning applications, and with the aim of submitting revised proposals. Those revised proposals are expected to reduce the issues which need to be considered at the public inquiry, with savings on its duration and costs.

  Catnip
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking concerning the smoking of the herb catnip.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. The herb catnip is not a controlled drug and I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that it gives rise to such harmful effects that it ought to be considered for control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the average delays for elderly people waiting for housing benefit determinations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that information is not collected in the form requested. Local authorities have statutory responsibility for determining housing benefit claims. Returns for the financial year 1988–89 have not yet been received from all local authorities, but the information available indicates that 75 per cent. of all claims for housing benefit have been processed within 14 days.

  Source: Housing benefit management information system.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated level of unified business rate payments due to metropolitan district councils in 1990–91; and what was the income from the business rate in 1989–90.
  578
  Mr. Chope
  Tables placed in the Library on 11 January show that under our proposals business rates payable to metropolitan district councils from the non-domestic rate pool total £2·4 billion in 1990–91. The estimated amount to be raised from non-domestic properties in metropolitan districts in 1989–90 is £2.1 billion.

  Electrical Contractors
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reach a conclusion about the proposals of the Electrical Contractors Association for reciprocal recognition of electrical contractors in the single European market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  We are considering the proposals put forward by the association and hope to reach a conclusion shortly.

  Energy and Environment Research Unit
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he, or any ministers in his Department, have any plans to meet the director and staff of the energy and environment research unit at the Open university.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to visit the energy and environment research unit at the Open university in the immediate future.

  Private Bills
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Nature Conservancy Council on the use of private Bills to circumvent planning issues.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend has had no discussions with the Nature Conservancy Council on the use of private Bills to circumvent planning issues. The Government's initial response to the Joint Committee's report on private Bill procedures (HC 625, Session 1987–88) was given by the Leader of the House in the debate on 20 April 1989.

  Conservation Programmes
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what curtailment has taken place in the programmes for(a) marine conservation and (b) urban nature conservation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The development of marine and urban nature conservation programmes is primarily for the Nature Conservancy Council. It is for NCC to decide where its priorities lie and to implement them in accordance with its corporate plan, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals for the protection of drinking water in the light of the recommendations of the report of the Lowermoor incident health advisory group.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Following publication of the report of the Lowermoor incident health advisory group
  579
  (LIHAG), the Department wrote to all the water undertakers in England drawing their attention to its conclusions and recommendations. The substance of LIHAG's recommendation No. 8 requiring a water undertaker to notify the relevant health authorities without delay of any incidents such as Lowermoor had already been included in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 (SI. No. 1147). The water undertakers were asked to confirm that the remaining recommendations, Nos. 7 and 9, relating to water supply had been or were being incorporated into their standard procedures. I am pleased to report that they have confirmed that these recommendations had been or were being implemented.

  Environmentally Friendly Building Materials
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce an incentive scheme for developers, builders and specifiers to use environmentally friendly materials and techniques when maintaining the existing building stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to introduce such a scheme.

  Occupiers of domestic, commercial and industrial buildings are increasingly demanding evidence of the "green" credentials of their properties. Many of the nation's major developers, builders and specifiers have recognised this and are responding to this market demand.

  Compensation
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report the time scale for making changes to current compensation arrangements for those individuals and institutions affected by road and rail building projects.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We are currently considering proposals for changes in land compensation arrangements in the light of the responses received to the Department's consultation paper of 7 March 1989. Any proposals to change the law will be introduced at the earliest suitable opportunity.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what accounts and bill-paying functions are currently performed by the Property Services Agency at Hastings; how many staff are engaged on this work; and what arrangements are being considered for the future of this work and the staff.

  Mr. Chope
  Currently 366 staff are employed on the following accounts and bill-paying functions by the Property Services Agency at Hastings:

  a. Payment of contractors' accounts for construction and maintenance work at civil central Government properties and defence establishments, including United States bases, in the United Kingdom.

  b. Payment of fees to consultants engaged by PSA and suppliers of materials and equipment.

  c. Payment of gas, water and electricity accounts for the central Government civil estate.

  d. Payment of rents for leasehold civil estate properties.

  e. Calculation and payment of salaries to PSA and DOE non-industrial staff.

  f. Payment of travelling etc claims to PSA employees.

  580

  g. Invoicing clients for works services supplied on payment terms, tenants for rents and services charges, and government departments for accommodation, gas, water and electricity charges on the civil estate.

  h. Maintenance of costing, management information and vote accounting records, the latter incorporating expenditure by PSA overseas.

  i. Supply of information about expenditure on properties and projects, administration cost budgets, vote subheads to PSA divisions.

  j. Supply of expenditure information to other departments.

  k. Operation of resource costing management information systems, and supply of information.

  Firm decisions have not yet been taken about the location of the accounting functions which will support the operating divisions of PSA Services and Property Holdings, but it is likely that some functions will be dispersed to local units of the operating divisions. Responsibility for the payment of gas, water and electricity accounts is currently being transferred to Departments. The agency will make every effort to find other posts, in PSA or in other Departments, for staff whose posts are no longer required as a result of these changes.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what work DITMOS is carrying out for the Property Services Agency; how many staff are engaged on this work; when the work will be complete; and what arrangements will be made to find alternative work for DITMOS staff.

  Mr. Chope
  PSA's directorate of information technology management and office systems (DITMOS) provides the agency with a range of IT and business support services. Its headquarters is in Hastings and it currently has some 490 staff in post. This number is likely to reduce over the next two to three years. It will then stabilise at a level reflecting the need for continuing systems support.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to keep open the option of compulsorily transferring the Property Services Agency's executive, administrative and support staff to the Government-owned company.

  Mr. Chope
  If PSA is incorporated as a Government-owned company it is intended that the staff in it will be transferred by a scheme under clause I of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill. The PSA will use its best endeavours, in advance of that incorporation, to find other posts within Government for staff who do not wish to transfer.

  Politically Restricted Posts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what date local authorities must complete the list of politically restricted posts referred to in section 2(2) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  By section 2(4) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, local authorities must deposit their first list under section 2(2) with the proper officer of the authority by 29 January. Thereafter they must maintain the list, and from time to time deposit any necessary modifications with the proper officer.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he issued the consultation document
  581
  "Restrictions on Public Political Activity by Senior Local Government Staff", what was the last date for submissions on the document; and when he will issue his response.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The answers are as follows: 2 October 1989; 27 November 1989 (although we agreed to consider later submissions); soon.

  Local Government and Housing Act 1989
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Government amendments were made to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The figure is 1,037.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 was published.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The date was 6 December 1989.

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

  Mr. David Hunt
  As soon as possible.

  Sellafield (Waste Discharges)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consents are held by British Nuclear Fuels plc for the discharge of non-radioactive toxic wastes from Sellafield; what is the annual volume of each such waste discharged from Sellafield; and what changes in consents have been necessitated by the Water Act 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  BNFL Plants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are taken to ensure that British Nuclear Fuels plc plants at Sellafield, Springfields, Capenhurst and Chapel Cross are operated within the appropriate regulations under the Alkali Works Regulation Act 1906, the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Control of Pollution (Special Wastes) Regulations 1980 and the Treaty of the European Atomic Energy Community (the 1957 Euratom Treaty).

  Mr. Trippier
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Radioactive Waste (Clifton Marsh)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what volumes of radioactive waste are currently disposed of at Clifton Marsh; what radionuclides are deposited; how many bequerels of(a) gamma, (b) beta and (c) alpha radioactivity are at the site; and when disposal of radioactive waste was first begun at Clifton Marsh.

  Mr. Trippier
  Radioactive wastes disposed of at Clifton Marsh originate from British Nuclear Fuels plc's plant at Capenhurst and Springfields and are measured by weight (tonnes) not by volume. In 1988 a total of 10,000 tonnes was disposed of which equates to approximately 6,600 sq. m.
  582
  Uranium and its short-lived daughter radionuclides are authorised for disposal at Clifton Marsh.

  It is estimated that for the period up to 1988 0.7 terabecquerels of alpha activity and less than or equal to 0.7 terabecquerels of beta/gamma activity have been disposed of at Clifton Marsh.

  Disposals at Clifton Marsh commenced in 1974.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the highest sums(a) per local authority and (b) per community charge payer, being paid under the safety net arrangements to (i) a London borough and (ii) non-London local authorities in England; what is the sum being paid or received in the London borough of Newham (1) in total and (2) per community charge payer; and if he will illustrate his calculations relating to the levels of each of these receipts or payments.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 17 January 1990]: Under our proposals the highest sums to be paid under the safety net arrangements to a London borough is £32·96 million to Greenwich; and to a non-London local authority in England is £38·57 million to Sheffield.

  When divided by relevant population, the highest amounts paid are £212 to Greenwich and £138 to Calderdale.

  The London borough of Newham would contribute £3·06 million to the safety net, a payment of £ 19 per charge payer.

  A description of the calculation of the safety net contributions and receipts can be found in the annex to the revenue support grant transition report (England) laid before the House on 11 January 1990.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local education authority in England the standard spending assessments in the categories and sub-categories(a) education, (b) under-fives, (c) primary schools, (d) secondary schools, (e) 16 to 19-year-olds and (f) other.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 January 1990]: I have today placed in the Library a table showing 1990–91 standard spending assessments for under-fives education, primary education, secondary education, post-16 education, other education and all education services; for each local education authority in England.

  Lancashire County Council
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount his Department estimated Lancashire county council should have collected from commerce and industry in rates during 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]: The amount expected to be raised by Lancashire county council from commercial and industrial ratepayers in 1989–90 is £101 million.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his best estimate of the total cost in 1990–91 of exempting all YTS trainees from liability to pay the poll tax.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 16 January 1990]: The gross cost of exempting all YTS trainees before any
  584
  allowance for community charge benefit would be about £20 million. This assumes a total of 73,250 YTS trainees liable to pay the community charge.

  Virtually all non-employed trainees, and a proportion of employed trainees, would be entitled to community charge benefit.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Education Resources
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that sufficient resources are made available to all education authorities to comply with their duties to provide every child with proper teaching facilities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government believe that, given effective management of resources, including staff, the resources made available should be sufficient to allow proper provision to be made in every local education authority.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Perhaps I may also congratulate her on her appointment and commiserate with her on the extremely difficult task that she has been given. Is she aware that the current teacher loss is damaging the fabric of education? Those who leave create extra burdens for those who stay; those who stay then become fed up and they in turn obtain alternative employment and there are therefore fewer teachers. It is a vicious circle, with extremely dangerous elements, which might have a very serious effect on education.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations and commiserations. I think that I shall need them in good measure in the current weeks. It is important to put the matter into perspective. There is no teacher shortage which would cause a crisis. Vacancies have stayed within a narrow range for many years. Secondary vacancies in January 1989 were 1·2 per cent., the same as in January 1979. Resignations, which are running at about 10 per cent., are not out of line with previous years. About half of those resigning move on to other teaching posts. The proportion of teachers leaving full-time service in maintained schools has remained constant in recent years. Many initiatives are being introduced to address the issue of teacher supply.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box. Although the market place is a very important factor in deciding who goes into employment, does she agree that the Government should make more resources available in terms of pay to encourage more teachers into the profession?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no. I do not agree. The Government's record on teachers' pay is considerable. Teachers' pay has risen by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. In cash terms, since 1986
868
it has risen by 40 per cent. The number of incentive allowances available has increased rapidly since they were introduced in 1987 to a total of nearly 175,000.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I offer my congratulations and all that. How does what the noble Baroness states apply to Tower Hamlets?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations and all that. Indeed I thank the previous noble Lord for his congratulations. There are two particular problems with Tower Hamlets. One is housing, and I know that the Government are trying to address that problem in consultation with the education authorities. Another is that Tower Hamlets has not made the proposition a very attractive one for teachers.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Baroness from these Benches. Is the situation not patchy, with great shortages in the South-East, while in Scotland and parts of the North-East schools are being closed? Is that not a reflection of the inadequacy of a regional policy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the problems for schools will be different in different places. It would be wrong to have one policy to cover the United Kingdom. The problems in Scotland would be very different from those in England. The range of the policies provided by the Government reflects the differences between regions. It would be for local education authorities to reflect the nature of the problems in their areas.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, it is about time that my noble friend received some congratulations from these Benches. What are the Government doing about good propaganda for teaching services? Teaching is not just a matter of pay but of vocation. The desire is to encourage men and women to go into this noble service. I ask the question because I am a school governor.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his congratulations. I hope that they will continue to come from my side of the House. He raises an interesting point. The Government are involved in a great deal of promotion to encourage teachers back into the profession and indeed to encourage those already in the profession. But there is a good deal of negative comment on these matters which I believe does no service to the marvellous work done in many of our schools.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I cannot think of anything original to say on the congratulations line except that I totally agree with the noble Baroness that she ought to be looking for a modicum of support from her own side when one considers how two of her noble friends have reacted to certain prospective legislation in the education field. I understand that the reply about sufficient resources being available is yes. In that case, can the noble Baroness say why even her right honourable friend the Secretary of State appears to be worried to a very considerable

869
degree about the effects of the national curriculum on our schools and in particular the extent to which the examination for such assessment seems to be overburdening them? If there are sufficient resources, how can there be the problem about which her right honourable friend is worried?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his unoriginal but nevertheless very welcome congratulations. I understand his concern about the national curriculum. It relates not only to funds but also to the time involved and the enormous challenge that the national curriculum presents to teachers. However, it is important to say that teachers are not starting from scratch. There are considerable skills and resources already available within the teaching profession. The hope is that, together with the new resources that are to be applied, such skills and resources will be adequate for the task in hand. The sooner that these proposals and reforms are put into place to benefit all the children, the better.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the noble Baroness and ask an original question. Is she aware of the enormous drain that is likely to be made on our educational system by the events which have occurred on the other side of what used to be called the Iron Curtain? Has she noticed that Poland is asking for 40,000 teachers of English, that other countries are likely to add considerably to the total and, therefore, that we may experience a considerable drain?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his kind words but his question strays from that on the Order Paper. However, I should be pleased to deal with it if he would be kind enough to table it.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister enlarge on the reply that she gave to my noble friend Lord Mellish, which was that Tower Hamlets has not presented an attractive proposition to teachers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, teaching in inner London has not been the most attractive proposition. That is, first, because of the housing difficulty and secondly, because of the difficulty presented by the attitude of some LEAs to education in inner London. I shall leave my comments on the report at that.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend have any information to give to the House about the demographic trend in relation to pupils, because that must have a bearing on the future demands of teachers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I have understood the question correctly, my noble and learned friend refers to the movement of children around the country. It is a matter for individual LEAs, which are constantly coping with demographic change. In some areas enormous pressure will be applied for the closure of schools while in other perhaps developing areas —such as my own in East Anglia—pressure will be applied for the building of new schools. I am
870
impressed by the way in which many LEAs are grappling with the problem.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have already congratulated the noble Baroness. In relation to the national curriculum, what does she think about the argument put forward by CIPFA, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, that implementing the Government's education reforms and other new policies could add 1·5 per cent. to inflation? Does the Minister agree with that and, if so, how will the Government cope with the situation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not in a position to say immediately whether I agree with the statement. However, when in local government I was trained to treat the comments of CIPFA with caution, but always to take them into account and certainly to use them as a starting point. Again, in deciding whether the statement applies to it, each LEA must make up its own mind in terms of managing its resources.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I add my words of congratulation to the avalanche which is descending on the head of the noble Baroness and say that I exempt her from replying to that part of my question. However, when considering the provision of adequate teaching facilities for all young people, will she bear in mind the great importance of providing adequte residential accommodation in the form of centres and camping opportunities outside school premises, because they are an essential provision?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord asks me to take that into account and I give him an unequivocal yes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to consider recommending to her right honourable friend that the cash limit suggested by the Interim Advisory Committee should be lifted and that a conference of representatives of students, who are becoming angry, local authorities and teachers could make a contribution towards resolving that serious problem in education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is wide of the original Question. I do not intend to ask my right honourable friend to increase the sum of money suggested by the Interim Advisory Committee. All the issues relating to its remit were taken into account.

London Underground: Automatic Barriers
2.48 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the result of installing automatic barriers at Underground stations in terms of reducing fare evasion and economising on staff, and whether serious delays have occurred.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I understand from London Underground that the installation of gates was largely completed to plan and that, since the gates have come into operation, revenue from ticket sales at stations with gates has increased by £3 million. The gates have enabled London Underground to redeploy staff away from ticket collecting to tasks which help passengers and ensure their safety. London Underground has not reduced the overall number of staff.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Is he aware that, as a regular user of the Underground during peak times, I have observed the new barriers working satisfactorily? Is he further aware that the London Underground authority should take credit for installing the automatic barriers, which have led to an obvious advantage? Does he agree that the saving of £2 million is less than I expected, because fare evasion was known to be occurring on a very large scale? Does he anticipate that the figure will be improved upon? Will my noble friend answer my last Question about problems of congestion?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I too have found a considerable improvement since the barriers were introduced during the past year. They have had a considerable effect in reducing the level of fraud —the figure I gave was £3 million. However, London Underground estimates that fraud costs it and honest passengers over £20 million per year and, therefore, there is still scope for further reductions. London Underground is working on that issue.
As regards congestion, it is true that the gates are helping. When two trains arrive at the same time at the same station and all the passengers disembark, the gates can be opened automatically and thus congestion is relieved.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in terms of inflation is my noble friend aware that the £3 million saved by London Underground is rather less than would be expected? Is he also aware that many regular users of the Underground would have preferred London Underground to have concentrated its energies on securing the mechanical efficiency of the trains and proper working of the escalators instead of installing that expensive machinery which it is perfectly possible to avoid?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on to the chairman of LRT the comments of my noble friend. All estimates of fraud should be treated with a certain degree of scepticism. It should be emphasised that they are estimates by London Underground and not by the department.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, have the Government any information about the safety record of these automatic barriers? There are stories of accidents occurring and people being squashed. Do the Government have any figures on that and, if so, what are they?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government may have figures but I do not have them today. If there are such figures I shall make sure that the noble Lord is advised of them. However, independent consulting engineers have declared that the gate system is safer than previous ticket barriers and safer even than open stations because, as I have said, gates can be used to control overcrowding. The Railway Inspectorate and the London Fire Brigade accept that view.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Viscount but I do not understand how the gates can be safer than open stations.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, because they can be used to control overcrowding.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, has the Minister seen a report in a Sunday newspaper that the Secretary of State for Transport has made a journey on the London Underground in order to familiarise himself with the problems which many of us face more frequently? Will other members of Her Majesty's Government follow that admirable example?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I read that in the newspaper yesterday. I understood that he was going to travel on the Underground every day and not merely make one journey. I assure my noble friend that as spokesman for transport, I travel regularly on the Underground and I have seen a great improvement over the past year.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the noble Viscount indicate whether it is a rule that a member of the staff of London Transport should be present wherever those barriers are installed in case anything goes wrong?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes. Regulations specifying fire prevention measures at sub-surface Underground stations were introduced last September. Regulation 10·4 requires that stations must have at least two staff on duty at any time otherwise that station is closed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that frequently that does not happen? As somebody who travels a great deal on the Underground, very often with a large suitcase, can he tell me what one is supposed to do if one has a large suitcase, there is no member of staff present and one cannot get through the gate? When my noble friend travelled on the Underground, perhaps he had his Red Box with him and suffered with that.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not have a Red Box. However, I can tell my noble friend that each station has next to the other gates, special manual gate facilities for passengers who are disabled, who have heavy luggage or who are accompanied by small children. If any of your Lordships find difficulty, I suggest that you should write to the chairman of LRT.

Package Holidays: Consumer Protection
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the arrangements in place to protect the British holidaymaker abroad in the event of default by tour operators or travel agents.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, in addition to statutory rights, the majority of holidaymakers who travel abroad will benefit from the new codes of practice announced by the Association of British Travel Agents to take effect during 1990. I understand that the Bus and Coach Council and Passenger Shipping Association have also implemented improvements to their vouluntary codes. EC Ministers have now reached a common position on the package travel directive.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. But can he tell me the line Her Majesty's Government took regarding the EC directive, particularly as regards liability for compensation of the whole of the package and as regards compensation protection for the contract once it is signed with the travel agent to the point of delivery?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is an extremely complicated matter. I have the information in front of me but perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to write to her.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, do I understand that those who book a holiday through a tour operator who is a member of the Association of British Travel Agents is automatically covered for default? If that is true, why is it not made a condition that all tour operators must be a member of ABTA?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is intended to bring the EC directive into force in the near future. That will have the effect of imposing control upon the operation of all kinds of package holidays. We do not believe that it is right that all tour operators should belong to ABTA which does not necessarily cover the requirements of all branches of the travel trade. However, there will certainly be new provisions resulting from the directive.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, bearing in mind that the maxim caveat emptor—let the buyer beware —still prevails in the holiday market place, are the Government satisfied that the travel business is doing all in its power adequately to train staff in order to guide the travelling public on matters about which they should be wary? Can the Minister say something more in response to the point made by my noble friend Lady Fisher? When the Government find themselves in debate with their European colleagues and have to come down on the side of either the travel industry or the consumer, which side do the Government favour?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are on the side of both sets of people to whom the noble Lord referred. We do not believe that the two are necessarily not coincident. A flourishing travel business will be to the benefit of the consumer. There is no purpose in putting the travel business out of business —if I can describe it in that way. Equally, we must be sure that the consumer receives a fair deal. I believe that that will be the benefit of the European Community directive on which member states have reached a common position. The directive has now to be formally adopted by the Council of Ministers and approved by the European Parliament. In due course it will come before the United Kingdom Parliament.
Staff training is for the travel industry, but the Association of British Travel Agents and the other bodies to which I referred in my Answer will have the matter as an important part of their codes of practice.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I was rather disappointed with the noble Lord's reply to my Question. I should have thought that if he has the information before him he could stand up and give it so that the whole House will be aware of it and not just myself.
Can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government have made compromises to the detriment of the consumer? The noble Lord talks about ABTA. A noble Lord answering a similar Question on a previous occasion agreed with me from the Government Front Bench that there are cowboys in the travel industry. Would not the noble Lord therefore agree that in this instance the consumer should be paramount?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if there are cowboys in the travel trade, they will be covered by the implementation of the new directive, to which I have referred, when it comes into force. As to the earlier point made by the noble Baroness, I have a page and a half of information on the subject. It might unduly weary your Lordships if I read that out. Pehaps the noble Baroness will table a Question for Written Answer and all your Lordships can then benefit from the reply.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I am quite willing to talk to the noble Lord outside the Chamber at the end of Question Time.

Christmas Road Accidents
2.59 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the numbers of deaths and serious injuries respectively attributable to drink-driving over the recent Christmas and new year holiday period.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, accidents resulting in death and injury over the period totalled 5,715 an increase of 11 per cent. over the previous year. The extent to which alcohol and other factors played

875
a part in the accidents, and the casualties resulting from them, is not known.
While the number of breath tests was 30 per cent. higher than over the previous Christmas, the proportion of drivers found to be over the limit fell from 10 per cent. to 8·5 per cent.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of that deeply disturbing Answer, which demonstrates to me at least the inadequacy of the present legislation, does not the Minister think that the time has arrived for a new approach to the problem? Will the Government now introduce static testing; that is, where the police are authorised to stop, say, one in 10 vehicles —a predetermined number which can be agreed —to carry out breath testing? In considering this matter will the Minister look at the remarkable success of that procedure in Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia and America? When is this slaughter of 1,000 people killed annually by drunken drivers to stop?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I thought the figures I gave were encouraging. While 30 per cent. more tests were carried out than in 1988, the proportion of drivers failing the breath test fell from 10 per cent. to 8·5 per cent.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will announce shortly the Government's response to the police request for wider powers to stop and breath-test drivers. Clarification of the law by the Attorney-General last month confirmed that the present powers are extensive. The Christmas campaign has shown that they were widely used. It is lawful for the police to stop vehicles at random for the purpose of investigating whether the driver has alcohol in his body. We urge the police to make the fullest possible use of those powers.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that of the fatal accidents only one-quarter are drink related and one-third of those are drunken pedestrians? Does my noble friend agree that more people are killed or injured on the road through defective vision than through drink-driving? Eyesight should be taken more seriously, but because it is respectable to have faulty eyesight and not respectable to have one drink too many, Her Majesty's Government do not appear to be doing anything about it.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not wish to enter into this particular debate, but your Lordships will be interested to hear that an on-going programme of research is being carried out by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. Trial surveys took place last year in Wiltshire and the previous year in Warwickshire and Sussex and a survey is to go ahead on a national basis later this year. This research project will tell us more about the extent of the drink drive problem and will assist in monitoring the success of our efforts to tackle it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister certain that he is justified in the encouragement he draws from the figures for Christmas? If the percentage
876
being tested has gone up, one would expect a percentage of those found to be drunk to go down, because presumably previously the police tested the people who were obviously tipsy. They are now testing some who are less obviously tipsy. Among those you would expect to have a higher proportion who were not drunk. Is that not correct?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my mathematics do not quite come up to scratch to answer the noble Baroness. I shall have to go home and do some homework. I will see if she is right, and if so I will write to her.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, presumably the figures given by my noble friend cover Scotland since the Question on the Order Paper is not limited to England and Wales. Have the Government formulated any views on the situation in Scotland, because press reports indicate that breath test results there have been disappointingly worse this year?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not have the figures for Scotland. I will have to write to my noble friend.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that no matter what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says, the figures for Christmas drinking and driving are quite appalling? Does he agree that one of the reasons why the figures are so appalling is the enormous cost of non-alcoholic and soft drinks, which often cost more than alcoholic drinks, which have duty upon them? Is it not possible for the Government to prevail upon the brewers and others to sell soft drinks and non-alcoholic drinks at considerably reduced prices?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on getting in that question, but I think it is a long way away from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has my noble friend any further information on the total figure for serious accidents given in the first sentence of his original Answer? Can he show what relation, compared with previous years, those serious accidents bear to the number of vehicles registered on the road?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the figure I gave was for the Christmas period this year. I do not think figures are yet available to break that down.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that at least 82 per cent. of the deaths and injuries on our roads are caused by sober drivers, about one in 10 of whom, incidentally, are under the influence of drugs, mainly medicinal drugs? Is it not time, therefore, to abandon the notion that drink is the sole cause or even the main cause of road accidents and to concentrate more on the bad driving habits of the 82 per cent.?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot agree with that. Everybody is aware that drinking and driving

877
causes many unnecessary accidents. I can tell the House that a campaign has been developed with the support of police and local authority road safety officers. Other bodies also involved are the Department of Health, health education authorities, Alcohol Concern, the Brewers Society, AA —both AAs, I suppose —and many others. Work will continue to draw in as wide a range of interested organisations as possible and we intend to continue with it.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, important as alcohol is in causing accidents, the general standard of driving in this country is much too low? Unless it is improved, alcohol will only make it worse.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have to agree with my noble friend. The standard of driving is far worse than it used to be. Whether or not that is due to the increased number of people driving, I do not know.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, following the question of my noble friend Lord Strathcarron, can the Minister say whether the police, when they apprehend people for drunken driving of motor vehicles at any time of day or night, also test eyesight or have reason to ask the drivers to have their eyesight tested? Many of us on this side of the House —and I think the whole House —know that defective eyesight is a cause of accidents.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly inform my right honourable friend at the Home Office of what the noble Baroness has said.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the form of random testing which I suggested be considered is supported by the National Council for Civil Liberties, the British Medical Association and by opinion polls? Does he therefore appreciate that the fear, which I understand, of people being harassed and bias being applied in some cases is quite simply unfounded?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I have already said, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will announce the Government's response to the police request for wider powers to stop and breath-test drivers. I cannot go further than that today.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the provisions of the Gaming Act 1968 relating to premises licensed or registered under Part II of that Act. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Consolidation Bills Joint Committee
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That pursuant to Standing Order 49 the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

Airedale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gisborough, L.

Grey, E.

Hanworth, V.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Lockwood, B.

Lowry, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Renton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS SEROTA in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [United Kingdom evidence for use overseas]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment. No. 1:
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: There is a part of this Bill —namely Part II —which deals with international co-operation in regard to the investigation and prosecution of offences relating to drugs and terrorism. I should like the Minister to know immediately that he, in moving amendments to Part II, will find full co-operation from these Benches not only with the original measure but with the amendments that he intends to move. I do not know whether that will enable the Minister to

879
shorten his address to the Committee. As I have said, there is complete co-operation and agreement on this side of the Chamber.
However, Part I of the Bill deals with criminal offences generally. The exchange of information and co-operation which should lead to the apprehension of criminals wherever they commit offences is the subject matter of that part of the Bill. My amendment deals with a situation which the noble Earl may be able to clarify.
It will be known to the Committee that in many countries fiscal offences are criminal matters. They are very largely dealt with in this country as civil matters and only the more serious ones become criminal cases. Fiscal matters regarded as criminal offences may come under the aegis of this Bill. If that is so, the Committee and the Minister may feel that it would be quite wrong, for example, to impose on our banks, which rely for their custom on people believing in their confidentiality, a duty to hand over to a foreign authority a copy of a statement of a bank account if it is alleged by that authority that the offence is a criminal one relating to fiscal matters in that foreign country but not in ours.
If this Bill becomes an Act it should enable the Government to ratify the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959. It would also appear to authorise the Government to ratify the additional protocol. It is that protocol which has the effect of extending the scope of the convention to fiscal offences.
There has been a previous pronouncement by the Government regarding these matters. That appears to be irreconcilable with the idea of affording assistance under a convention regardless of whether or not the fiscal matter being investigated is a criminal matter in this country. On 20th December 1988 a press release was issued by the Inland Revenue which quoted the reply of the Financial Secretary to a Written Question tabled in the other place on 20th December. In that reply the Minister said:
"The Government recognises the value which is rightly attached to international co-operation among fiscal authorities and the need to make adequate and effective arrangements to this end which are fair to taxpayers and the Revenue authorities concerned. Such co-operation plays an important part in ensuring the proper determination of tax liabilities on an international level. However, in view of the existing provisions for mutual assistance in this area provided, for example, by our extensive network of double taxation treaties and our European obligations, we have concluded that the UK need not become a party to the Convention".
That refers to the OECD and Council of Europe Convention for Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. Therefore I ask the Minister, through this amendment, whether it is correct that fiscal matters are covered by Part I. If they are, does the Minister agree that, regarding fiscal matters, we should extend this co-operation and cause banks to disclose information which is otherwise confidential only where the offence alleged is an offence according to our own criminal law? I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said. I shall not try to repeat his
880
arguments which have been so admirably and clearly stated. I know it is the strong view of the banks of this country that an amendment of this kind is necessary. Frankly, a moment's thought on what is involved would support that view.
Lord Monson: I had not seen this amendment until about three minutes ago. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has made out an excellent case for it. We have to recognise that the United States of America in particular is claiming more and more jurisdiction over what goes on outside its own frontiers. That is a development which worries a great many people. I do not believe that we should do anything to facilitate it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not wish to express a view on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, until I have heard what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has to say. We wish this Bill to be as rigorous as possible because of the scale of money-laundering that is now taking place. I am grateful to the Minister for the letter which I received earlier this afternoon dealing with a point of some importance. As far as I am concerned, he has dealt with the matter satisfactorily.
I wish to raise a particular point on this amendment which could also be raised on other amendments. It concerns a different issue. What happens if a bank or another financial institution also operating in the United Kingdom is convicted partly as a result of the provisions of this clause? In my view there is little doubt that the American authorities would have found the provisions of this clause particularly helpful in a prosecution which took place last week in Tampa, Florida. The Bank of Credit and Commerce International was convicted. It pleaded guilty to three charges of conspiracy and money-laundering. An associate bank —
Lord Mishcon: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him and not think me discourteous. Everything that he has said so far has nothing to do with this amendment, but it might be extremely relevant to a debate on clause stand part.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am perfectly prepared to deal with the matter in that way, but the speech I am about to make will be brief and there would be no purpose in repeating it later. Therefore perhaps I may continue. An associate bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas), pleaded guilty to another 29 charges. Those two banks agreed to pay a fine of 14 million dollars, which is the largest fine that has ever been imposed in such cases by a court in the United States.
The BCCI operates worldwide and it has no fewer than 40 branches in the United Kingdom. What action will the Bank of England, as the regulatory authority, take against the BCCI in this country as a result of what happened in Tampa, Florida last week? As the noble Earl and his officials will be aware, it has power to take action under the provisions of the Banking Act 1987. As the noble Earl will realise from the debate we had at Second

881
Reading, there is serious concern about the quantity of drugs' money still being laundered in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reminded us at Second Reading, that the National Drugs Intelligence Co-ordinator said that about £1,800 million derived from drug trafficking was still washing around in the United Kingdom. He also said that, despite the passage of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the United Kingdom continues to be a major centre for money-laundering.
In those circumstances I am sure that the noble Earl will appreciate that when a bank, which operates on a substantial scale in the United Kingdom, is convicted of such serious offences in the United States, many of us will assume that prompt action will be taken by the Bank of England to deal with the situation. I realise that this matter is outside the competence of the Home Office, but I shall be very grateful if, in the light of what happened last week, the Minister were to write to me about the problem and to put a copy of that letter in the Library of this House.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his final remarks. The question he posed is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, slightly outside the terms of the amendment. The noble Lord said that it was outside the competence of the Home Office. The Home Office is a fairly competent organisation and I have no doubt that we shall be able to find the answer to his specific question. I shall find the answer and write to him. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he would reserve judgment on the amendment until he had heard what I have to say. I have the fullest confidence that, having heard what I have to say, he will agree with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was kind enough to say that we would have full co-operation from his side of the Committee on Part II of the Bill. I am grateful to him for that because it is an important part of the Bill. I appreciate the concerns expressed by the noble Lord and by my noble friend Lord Selkirk and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I appreciate too the concerns on the part of the banks. However, I hope that I shall be able to reassure the Committee that the Bill is drafted in such a way as to meet those concerns. I hope it will be agreed that the amendments are not necessary.
As the Committee will recall, one of the main advantages we hope to obtain from the Bill is that it will enable us to participate with other countries in Europe in the full range of mutual legal assistance arrangements provided for in the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Part I of the Bill is intended to make it possible for us to co-operate with other countries in relation to any kind of criminal offence, subject to the Secretary of State's general discretion to refuse to act upon any particular request from overseas where it appears to him right to do so. The Bill does not specifically refer to fiscal offences, a matter about which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked, but it is the Government's intention to accede to Chapter 1 of the additional protocol to the European
882
convention, the effect of which will be to require us to provide assistance to other European convention countries in relation to fiscal offences just as with any other criminal offences.
The European convention itself set out, in Article 2, the main grounds upon which a request for assistance can be refused. Under the terms of the convention, it is only possible for parties to the convention to require that the activity giving rise to a request for assistance should amount to an offence in both the country which makes the request and in the country which receives it if the request will involve the exercise of powers of search and seizure. This matter is dealt with in Clause 7 of the Bill, not in Clause 4 to which the present amendments refer.
In effect, this means that acceptance of the amendments would, since they impose a dual criminality requirement as a prerequisite to the grant of assistance under Clause 4, make it impossible for us to accede to the fiscal provisions of the additional protocol. However, the United Kingdom stands to gain by accession to the protocol because it will open up to us new sources of evidence for use in our own criminal proceedings against tax offenders. It is important, as the free market in capital draws nearer, that the United Kingdom should co-operate in ensuring that that free market does not make tax evasion easier. The ability to seek evidence overseas or to provide evidence to our partners in the Council of Europe is a useful addition to our defences. There is no reason in principle why assistance should be denied in the case of a fiscal offence when it is offered for every other kind of criminal offence. The Bill involves no breach of taxpayer confidentiality.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press his amendment. I hope too that I can give him some reassurance that the Bill's provisions do all that is necessary to meet the genuine concerns which lie behind the amendment. Acceding to the protocol will, after all, only oblige us to provide assistance in fiscal cases to other European convention countries. I do not think that it is with such countries that the noble Lord is primarily concerned.
Our dealings with countries which are not parties to the European convention or any similar treaty will be subject to the general provisions of the Bill alone, and, as I have already indicated, Clause 4 confers upon the Secretary of State a broad general discretion whether to comply with any particular request for assistance received from overseas. It would therefore be open to him to refuse to comply with any request if he judged it right to do so. We would not wish to be committed to a general policy of refusing any request which we might receive from a non-convention country in relation to a fiscal offence where there is no dual criminality but any such requests which we might receive will be examined carefully. If it is felt that there is, for example, any reason to doubt the integrity of the overseas judicial authority which made the request, or any other reason of public policy why the request should not be complied with, it will be open to the Secretary of State to take no action upon it.
I believe that the discretion which Clause 4 confers upon the Secretary of State will be sufficient to meet

883
the concerns indicated by the noble Lord, and I hope that, on the basis of my explanation of the circumstances in which this discretion might be exercised, he will not wish to press the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I wish I could feel content with the noble Earl's courteous reply but I found it singularly unsatisfactory. I wish to tell the Committee why. On every conceivable occasion where there has been a question of hitting at serious international crimes the Government have had support from this Dispatch Box. They have had support when they have sought extraordinary powers in regard to banks and in regard also to matters affecting personal liberty. We have talked in terms of the confidentiality of banker and customer and have said that that has to be invaded in view of the universal threats of terrorism and drug offences. From this Dispatch Box too I have ventured humbly to say that we must be careful to see that the floodgates argument does not apply —that once having allowed certain things to happen in our criminal law, we stop short of things which otherwise will come rushing through by way of alteration to old traditional and valuable concepts.
The relationship of banker and customer in this country is a sacred one. Because it is a sacred one, foreign depositors who are not as fortunate in their own countries —I am referring to countries in Europe which are members of the European convention —prefer to do business with our banks. The strength of their confidentiality is often the strength that enables them to obtain custom where banks in other countries are not able to do so from those self-same customers.
What did the Minister say when I talked about fiscal matters which are not criminal offences in this country but about which, possibly because of our passing this clause unamended, banks will be made to give information which they otherwise would have protected? The noble Earl referred to Clause 7 and fairly said that where there is dual criminality the matter relates to powers of entry, search and seizure. It has nothing to do with affording information and disclosing copies of bank statements.
The noble Earl referred to Clause 4 to which I seek to add this subsection. The clause gives a general discretion to the Minister. If he will only say, as I now invite him to do, that it will be the intention in the exercise of that discretion not to give such assistance where the fiscal offence was not a criminal offence in this country, I shall not press the amendment. However, the least I expect is an assurance that the discretion will be exercised in that way; otherwise we shall not be protecting bankers. It is strange for those on this side of the Committee to be trying hard to defend the interests of bankers. However, those of us on this side are equally interested in the confidentiality that exists by tradition as between bankers and customers. We are also interested in the prosperity of the City of London.
It is in those circumstances that I invite the noble Earl to give that undertaking; namely, that where the fiscal matter complained of by the other country
884
is not a criminal offence in this country, we shall not force our banks to afford information which would otherwise be covered by confidentiality. We are not dealing with drugs and trafficking offences. As I said, those of us on this side of the Committee have invited the Government to go ahead with as forceful measures as they can in that direction because we are at one with them in their endeavour to defeat these evils.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like to ask my noble friend whether he will consult again with the British Bankers' Association. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, particularly as regards the significance of the banking system on the economic side of our life in this country, cannot be ignored. The bankers have not made these comments because they wish to evade anything; they say that this protection is a matter of great importance.
Can my noble friend at least undertake to consult with those who strongly hold that view? It is perhaps difficult for those who are not in the banking business to appreciate how significant are certain steps. Perhaps he can give an undertaking that this matter will again be considered so as to determine how the matter stands.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I certainly have no objection to the Government consulting the bankers. However, I hope that at the same time they will also consult other people. We are concerned about the public interest in this matter; not the interests of just the banking community. We are faced with a major criminal problem; that is, the quantity of illicit money raised by people involved in the drugs industry on both sides of the Atlantic. If this power will strengthen our position in terms of dealing with the matter, then I think we should give it to the Government.
However, when the noble Earl replies I hope that he will deal with one particular point. From his remarks, I was not clear about this matter, although that is probably the result of a misunderstanding on my part. I understood him to say that if the Bill were amended in this fashion we would not be able to ratify the convention. Am I correct in that assumption?
Earl Ferrers: Yes.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I thought that that was so.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for drawing our attention to that point. There are many issues here and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, should feel any sense of shame in supporting the bankers, if indeed it is shame that he feels. There is a real issue here and I can quite see why people are concerned about the matter.
One of the matters which is of particular importance is the fact that in the Bill dual criminality refers to "search and seizure" only. That is the only occasion when dual criminality comes into effect. If we want that provision to apply to other matters, as

885
suggested by the noble Lord, then the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is right: we would not be able to sign the protocol. Of course it is most important that we do so because there are many benefits to be gained from so doing.
The protocol will oblige us to provide assistance in fiscal cases to other European countries. Therefore there are great advantages in signing the document. I think it would be a great pity if we were to accept the amendment and insert into the Bill a provision which would actually prevent us from so doing.
The noble Lord was also concerned, as indeed was my noble friend Lord Selkirk, about the position of British bankers. Consultations are continuing with the British Bankers' Association. I am quite happy that these should continue. If the association feels very concerned about the matter, I am quite content that it should inform us of such concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether I would give an assurance, in relation to any fiscal matter complained of, that the Secretary of State would not give such consent unless a similar matter was a criminal offence in this country. I have paraphrased the noble Lord's question, but I think that that was what he said. I have a great deal of sympathy with that view. However, I am sure he will understand that I cannot give him a blanket assurance which would bind any future Secretary of State. I cannot do so because it would then be necessary to put such provision into the Bill. However, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that any future Secretary of State confronted with this kind of situation would give it serious attention. I cannot, however, give him the blanket assurance he seeks. Indeed I do not think that he would really expect me to do so.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. In view of the assurance given, even though it was given in somewhat guarded language which I appreciate he had to use, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 10 agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 11 [Substances useful for manufacturing controlled drugs]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 28, leave out from ("Convention") to ("under") in line 29.
The noble Earl said: This is simply a drafting amendment which shortens the form in which the Vienna Convention is cited in Clause 11. Because there are several references to the convention in the new clauses which we have tabled for insertion after Clause 12, we have decided to provide a definition of the convention. This is contained in the new clause proposed by Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Concealing or transferring proceeds of drug trafficking
—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) conceals or disguises any property which is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, his proceeds of drug trafficking; or

(b) converts or transfers that property or removes it from the jurisdiction, for the purposes of avoiding prosecution for a drug trafficking offence or the making or enforcement in his case of a confiscation order.

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that any property is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, another person's proceeds of drug trafficking, he —

(a) conceals or disguises that property; or

(b) converts or transfers that property or removes it from the jurisdiction, for the purpose of assisting any person to avoid prosecution for a drug trafficking offence or the making or enforcement of a confiscation order.

(3) A person is guilty of an offence if, knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that any property is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, another person's proceeds of drug trafficking, he aquires that property for no, or for inadequate, consideration.
(4) In subsections (1)(a) and (2)(a) above the references to concealing or disguising any property include references to concealing or disguising its nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership or any rights with respect to it.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (3) above consideration given for any property is inadequate if its value is significantly less than the value of that property, and there shall not be treated as consideration the provision for any person of services or goods which are of assistance to him in drug trafficking.
(6) a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable —

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or a fine or both.").

The noble Earl said: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was kind enough to say that there would be agreement from his side of the Committee to the amendments which we seek to introduce into this part of the Bill. He even suggested that I might truncate my remarks accordingly. Indeed I was tempted to rise and simply say, "I beg to move". However, I think that that may be regarded as a discourtesy. It is only correct that I should give some explanation regarding what are substantial amendments to the Bill.
This is the first of several new clauses which have been introduced into the Bill in order to enable us to implement the Vienna Convention. The proposed new clause seeks to fill the gap between our existing money laundering offence under Section 24 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and the rather wider offence set out in Article 3 of the convention.
The position is as follows. Section 24 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 created an offence of being concerned in an arrangement whereby a drug trafficker is assisted by someone else to retain the benefit of drug trafficking. The key to the offence is that the defendant —the one who is assisting—knew or suspected that the person whose property he was

887
dealing with was a drug trafficker. Section 24 also requires that the arrangement must be for the benefit of the drug trafficker whose proceeds are the subject of the arrangement.
The convention offences, on the other hand, rest on the nature or source of the property itself and not on whether the person himself is a drug trafficker. They cover the situation where anybody, including a drug trafficker himself, deals with proceeds in such a way as to avoid prosecution or the making, or enforcement, of a confiscation order against any person.
Accordingly, subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause give effect to Article 3 of paragraph i(B) and (ii) of the convention. They create new offences of concealment, disguise, conversion or transfer of proceeds for the purpose of avoiding prosecution or confiscation. Similarly subsections (3) and (5) give effect to Article 3(c)(1) of the convention. They create an offence of acquiring property knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that it is the proceeds of drug trafficking.
The effect of subsection (5) is that a person, who provides goods or services unconnected with drug trafficking activities, will not commit an offence by receiving payment for those goods or services even if he knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect that the payment came from the proceeds of drug trafficking. We have in mind here, in particular, tradespeople who supply such goods and services, but, of course, if the goods or services assisted the drug trafficker in his drug trafficking activities, then an offence would be committed.
There are just two other points I feel I should draw to the Committee's attention about this new clause. First, the penalties in subsection (6) for these new offences are the same as for the existing money laundering offences in the 1986 Act. Secondly, by virtue of Amendment No. 19, those offences are made drug trafficking offences under the 1986 Act and consequently the power to make a confiscation order under the Act will apply to them. I beg to move.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: This is highly technical stuff, and I am not in a position to criticise or endorse everything before us. Virtually 10 pages of amendments of a highly technical character have been introduced by the Government in Committee. And one clause —Clause 15—that was in the original draft has been omitted. I wonder how it was that the Bill came to be presented on Second Reading for enthusiastic endorsement in principle when so much required to be done before it reached Committee.
Earl Ferrers: I am not surprised that my noble and learned friend asks such a question. He might not have asked it had he been here on Second Reading, but I do not blame him for that. He had many other things to do. It is clearly a matter of concern when the Government introduce a Bill and then bring forward a number of amendments.
I explained on Second Reading that we were endeavouring to put into statute the requirements of the Vienna Convention which was signed only 12
888
months ago. The Bill provided a wonderful legislative opportunity for immediate implementation of that convention. As my noble and learned friend rightly said, the Bill contains technical matters. It was not possible to have all those technical matters resolved by the time the Bill was introduced. I explained the dilemma that the Government then faced: either we introduced the Bill without the terms of the Vienna Convention or we asked the indulgence of this place to introduce a Bill which was inadequate and incomplete so that the requirements of the Vienna Convention could be immediately introduced. We can take some pride in that, even though it might irk my noble and learned friend. It is only one year since the convention was signed. That is pretty recent to enact enabling legislation. I do not say this with any great pride, but it took 17 years to ratify the 1971 convention. If we have managed to ratify this convention within 12 months with the help and understanding of this place, I believe that that will be of benefit.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: There is a tactic well known to the Home Office and every other department equated with the Home Office. It is one, I am sure, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has practised in the past. If there is a legislative gap, a slot to be filled, and no immediate government Bill, the Home Office can always be relied upon to come forward and provide one. It has a cupboard full of Bills ready to be brought forward at a moment's notice. I dare say that that is what happened on this occasion.
Earl Ferrers: I am not certain whether that is a helpful intervention. On the assumption that it is, I shall take it as being so. On reflection, the noble Lord might think that it was not as helpful as he intended it to be.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 5.
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Interest on sums unpaid under confiscation orders
.—(1) If any sum required to be paid by a person under a confiscation order is not paid when it is required to be paid (whether forthwith on the making of the order or at a time specified under section 31(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973) that person shall be liable to pay interest on that sum for the period for which it remains unpaid and the amount of the interest shall for the purposes of enforcement be treated as part of the amount to be recovered from him under the confiscation order.
(2) The Crown Court may, on the application of the prosecutor, increase the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the confiscation order under subsection (2) of section 31 of the said Act of 1973 (imprisonment in default of payment) if the effect of subsection (1) above is to increase the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under subsection (3A) of that section.
(3) The rate of interest under subsection (1) above shall be that for the time being applying to a civil judgment debt under section 17 of the Judgements Act 1838.").
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 6. The two new clauses have been introduced to enable us fully to meet the requiremnents of Articles 5.1 and 6(c) of the Vienna Convention. Under those articles, we are required

889
to ensure that the maximum possible amount of proceeds of drug trafficking, and any income derived from them is confiscated. We need to make two adjustments to the scheme established under the 1986 Act: one to deal with interest accrued on sums unpaid under confiscation orders; the other to take account of the increase in realisable property which comes to light after a confiscation order is made. Both issues have been raised by our enforcement agencies as priority concerns and the Home Affairs Committee's recent report on Drug Trafficking and Related Serious Crime recommended that the 1986 Act should be amended at the earliest opportunity.
To that end the first new clause makes provision for the addition of interest, at the same rate as that applicable to a civil judgment debt, to the amount remaining unpaid under a confiscation order at the time when it should be paid, either forthwith or on the expiry of any period given by the Crown Court as time to pay. The interest so added is then treated as part of the amount to be recovered under the confiscation order and, under subsection (2), any period of imprisonment in default may be increased accordingly.
The second new clause provides that the amount to be recovered under a confiscation order can be increased, within the limit of the assessed value of the proceeds, where it turns out that the amount that might be realised is greater than was initially assessed by the Crown Court.
Under each clause the Crown Court is empowered to make a consequential increase, where appropriate, in the period of imprisonment to be served in default of payment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Increase in realisable property
.—(1) This section has effect where by virtue of section 4(3) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (insufficient realisable property) the amount which a person is ordered to pay by a confiscation order is less than the amount assessed to be the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking.
(2) If, on an application made in accordance with subsection (3) below, the High Court is satisfied that the amount that might be realised in the case of the person in question is greater than the amount taken into account in making the confiscation order (whether it was greater than was thought when the order was made or has subsequently increased) the court shall issue a certificate to that effect, giving the court's reasons.
(3) An application under subsection (2) above may be made either by the prosecutor or by a receiver appointed under the said Act of 1986 in relation to the realisable property of the person in question.
(4) Where a certificate has been issued under subsection (2) above the prosecutor may apply to the Crown Court for an increase in the amount to be recovered under the confiscation order; and on that application the court may—

(a) substitute for that amount such amount (not exceeding the amount assessed as the value referred to in subsection (1) above) as appears to the court to be appropriate having regard to the amount now shown to be realisable; and

(b) increase the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the confiscation order under subsection (2) of section 31 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act
890
1973 (imprisonment in default of payment) if the effect of the substitution is to increase the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under subsection (3A) of that section.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Offences on British ships
. Anything which would constitute a drug trafficking offence if done on land in any part of the United Kingdom shall constitute that offence if done on a British ship.").
The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to take Amendment No. 7 together with Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 18.
Taken together these maritime provisions are designed to give effect to the requirements in the Vienna Convention which require parties "to co-operate" to the fullest extent possible to suppress illicit drugs traffic by sea. To that end each party is thus required to establish jurisdiction over offences of illicit trafficking on its own registered vessels.
Article 17(2) of the convention identifies the form which such international co-operation is expected to take. With the Committee's permission I will read the following passage from that article:
"A Party which has reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel flying its flag or not displaying a flag or marks of registry is engaged in illicit traffic may request the assistance of other Parties in suppressing its use for that purpose. The Parties so requested shall render such assistance within the means available to them".
Article 17(3) enables a party which suspects that a ship registered in another convention state is engaged in illicit traffic to request authorisation from the flag state to board and search the ship. That implies a regime in which the United Kingdom may be requested or authorised to board vessels flying the flag of another convention state and in which we may ask or authorise others to board our ships. There is, however, no point in boarding and searching a ship unless some form of criminal sanction is attached to the carriage of the illicit drugs which may be found as a result. Thus we need to ensure not only that the carriage of illicit drugs on a British ship is an offence but that the carriage of such drugs on the ship of any convention country is an offence also, triable in our courts. Thus we are proposing to extend the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the British courts in respect of the ships of other countries as well as our own whether on the high seas or in the territorial waters of another country. Any ship not registered in any country may, under the terms of the convention, be treated in the same way as a United Kingdom ship so far as jurisdiction is concerned.
One of two things may happen if illicit drugs are found as a result of searches authorised under these provisions. The ship concerned is likely to be escorted into port, following which either the flag country will seek the extradition home of those suspected of complicity in the offences, or the country in question will institute proceedings locally.
These amendments seek to give full effect to the convention's maritime requirements. Amendment No. 7 extends to British ships all drug trafficking

891
offences (that is, all existing prior to this Bill) as well as those which we are now creating. Amendment No. 8 creates a new offence in respect of the transportation of controlled drugs for the purposes of illicit import or export. This offence will apply to the ships of convention countries and to unregistered ships, as well as to those registered here. Subsection (2) provides that the offence is committed where a person knows, or has reasonable grounds to suspect, that the drugs are intended to be imported, or have been exported, contrary either to Section 3(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or to the law of any other state. Subsection (3) provides for other governments to certify that import or export of controlled drugs is prohibited under their law. The test in respect of this offence is therefore not whether the accused actually suspected the illicit purpose behind the carriage of the drugs but whether a reasonable man would have done so in those circumstances, subject, under subsection (5), to the accused proving that in fact he did not do so.
Amendment No. 9 and the new schedule introduced by Amendment No. 18 create the arrangements whereby the United Kingdom may authorise other countries to board our ships, and we may be authorised to board other ships. No authorisation is required before the United Kingdom may board an unregistered ship. But in the case of the ships registered in convention states boarding may only take place at the request, or on the authorisation, of that country. Actions such as these may also be subject to conditions laid down by the other convention state. Subsection (4) empowers the Secretary of State to seek or authorise the boarding of United Kingdom vessels by other convention states. But in giving his authority the Secretary of State will be able to attach conditionsֵ For example, he might wish to limit local prosecution for any offences discovered, or to ensure that capital punishment is not imposed.
The remaining maritime amendments are largely technical in their effect, or consequential on the principal changes. I hope that these provisions will provide enforcement officers with much needed powers enabling them to deal with ships which moor close to our coasts, but which are nevertheless still in international waters and which tranship supplies of drugs to smaller craft which carry them to the mainland. If these important provisions are enacted they will strengthen yet further our ability to co-operate with other countries in this area. We must do all we can to remove any safe haven from those who organise such a trade. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: As a matter of general interest which may not fit specifically with these amendments, I am interested that we are speedily giving effect to convention decisions made only a year ago. Are other countries doing so? The concluding words of the noble Earl in explaining what these amendments meant were that the changes enabled us to co-operate with other countries to achieve what the convention had in mind. Do other countries need to enshrine that in their legislation as we are doing today? Have they done it?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, clearly the changes have to be ratified. I think I am right in saying that three other countries have done so already: China, Nigeria and one other country whose name I forget. We can consider that we are the first to give such detailed recognition and to alter our law accordingly.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: The Minister is quite right to doubt whether I intended to be very helpful on the last occasion I spoke. My purpose here is purely to seek information. This seems a very desirable provision. The noble Earl said that it would apply to our territorial waters and to the high seas, on request from another state or another flag registered in that state.
I take another example, such as one of our smaller independent territories. If we were asked to move in the case of such a territory without a substantial navy, and supposing we had a frigate within the territorial waters of that state—as we might well do—would we then respond if the suspected drug runner were in the territorial waters of the home state? I see no reason why we should not, but it would be interesting to know whether the provision would apply in that situation.
Earl Ferrers: If the vessel concerned were within the territorial waters of the country we could take such action as we liked because it is within our territorial waters.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I must apologise to the noble Earl—
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may follow the argument through. If I have not answered the noble Lord's point then he can make that clear when I have finished. If the vessel of another country were within our territorial waters then we could take action against that vessel because it was within our territorial waters. It would be the same way as taking action against an individual in our country who infringes the rules of our country.
However, if the vessel of the other state were to be moored not within 12 miles of our frontier, of our coastline—that is, our territorial waters—but if it were one mile outside those waters, then we could take action against that vessel provided we received the request from the country or we had its approval to do so and also provided that the country was a party to the convention.
I said that I had forgotten the third country which had taken action on the convention. It is the Bahamas.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I fully understand the point that we can operate on request within our own territorial waters or on the high seas. I am sorry if I did not make my question plain. Can we operate in the territorial waters of another country which requests us to do so? I am thinking especially of some of the smaller countries in the West Indies which are independent members of the Commonwealth and which have their own territorial waters but which do not have the necessary facilities to prevent some of the drug smuggling going on at

893
present. Supposing such a request came to us because we had a faster or bigger ship, would we be able to operate under this convention in another country's territorial waters? That is the point I am trying to make.
Earl Ferrers: I apologise to the noble Lord. I realise that on this occasion he is asking a helpful question. The answer is yes, we can do so, provided we have the authority of the other country. I am sorry that I did not understand the point to which the noble Lord referred.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 10:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Ships used for illicit traffic
.—(1) This section applies to a British ship, a ship registered in a state other than the United Kingdom which is a party to the Vienna Convention (a "Convention state") and a ship not registered in any country or territory.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if on a ship to which this section applies, wherever it may be, he—

(a) has a controlled drug in his possession; or

(b) is in any way knowingly concerned in the carrying or concealing of a controlled drug on the ship,

knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that the drug is intended to be imported or has been exported contrary to section 3(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the law of any state other than the United Kingdom.
(3) A certificate purporting to be issued by or on behalf of the government of any state to the effect that the importation or export of a controlled drug is prohibited by the law of that state shall be evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence, of the matters stated.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) in a case where the controlled drug is a Class A drug—

(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life or a fine or both;

(b) in a case where the controlled drug is a Class B drug—

(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or a fine or both;

(c) in a case where the controlled drug is a Class C drug—

(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or both.

(5) In this section "a controlled drug" and the references to controlled drugs of a specified Class have the same meaning as in the said Act of 1971; and an offence under this section shall be included in the offences to which section 28 of that Act (defences) applies.").
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Enforcement powers
.—(1) The powers conferred on an enforcement officer by Schedule (Enforcement powers in respect of ships) to this Act shall be exercisable in relation to any ship to which section (Offences on British ships) or (Ships used for illicit traffic) above applies for the purpose of detecting and the taking of appropriate action in respect of the offences mentioned in those sections.
(2) Those powers shall not be exercised outside the landward limits of the territorial sea of the United Kingdom in relation to a ship registered in a Convention state except with the
894
authority of the Secretary of State; and he shall not give his authority unless that state has in relation to that ship —

(a) requested the assistance of the United Kingdom for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above; or

(b) authorised the United Kingdom to act for that purpose.

(3) In giving his authority pursuant to a request or authorisation from a Convention state the Secretary of State shall impose such conditions or limitations on the exercise of the powers as may be necessary to give effect to any conditions or limitations imposed by that state.
(4) The Secretary of State may, either of his own motion or in response to a request from a Convention slate, authorise a Convention state to exercise, in relation to a British ship, powers corresponding to those conferred on enforcement officers by Schedule (Enforcement powers in respect of ships) to this Act but subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, as he may impose.
(5) Subsection (4) above is without prejudice to any agreement made, or which may be made, on behalf of the United Kingdom whereby the United Kingdom undertakes not to object to the exercise by any other state in relation to a British ship of powers corresponding to those conferred by that Schedule.
(6) The powers conferred by that Schedule shall not be exercised in the territorial sea of any state other than the United Kingdom without the authority of the Secretary of State and he shall not give his authority unless that state has consented to the exercise of those powers,").
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Jurisdiction and prosecutions
.—(1) Proceedings under this Part of this Act or Schedule (Enforcement powers in respect of ships) in respect of an offence on a ship may be taken, and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, in any place in the United Kingdom.
(2) No such proceedings shall be instituted—

(a) in England or Wales except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Commissioners of Customs and Excise;

(b) in Northern Ireland except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland or those Commissioners.

(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above no proceedings for an offence under section (Ships used for illicit traffic) above alleged to have been committed outside the landward limits of the territorial sea of the United Kingdom on a ship registered in a Convention state shall be instituted except in pursuance of the exercise with the authority of the Secretary of State of the powers conferred by Schedule (Enforcement powers in respect of ships) to this Act; and section 3 of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878 (consent of Secretary of State for certain prosecutions) shall not apply to those proceedings,").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 en bloc. I have already spoken to them.
Lord Mishcon: Do we have to be as pedantic as it seems we are in subsection (3) of the new clause in Amendment No. 8? The subsection says:
"A certificate purporting to be issued by or on behalf of the government of any state to the effect that the importation or export of a controlled drug is prohibited by the law of that state shall be evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence, of the matters stated".
If the words were "sufficient evidence" for both countries I could understand it. However why is it only "evidence" for us but "sufficient evidence" in Scotland? If there is a difference in the sense that "sufficient evidence" in Scotland means incontrovertible evidence, why cannot it be incontrovertible evidence also in the United Kingdom?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: This is a mystery which is only understood by Scots lawyers. But there is a distinction. I speak from my experience.
Earl Ferrers: I am deeply indebted to my noble and learned friend for giving me the answer. I was about to give it had my noble and learned friend not intervened. I am sure that the noble Lord will be satisfied that that is the answer, Scottish law is very different from English law and the Scots hold great store by the distinction.
Lord Mishcon: Because I know him to be an honest man, I take the noble Earl's word for it that this was exactly the answer he was going to give even if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, had not intervened. I recognise fully that there are different standards of evidence in Scotland as well as different types of pleas. But if Scotland has the terminology "sufficient evidence" and we wish to say that it will be sufficient evidence in the United Kingdom if that certificate is given, why can we not use the one terminology that it shall be "sufficient evidence" in both countries?
4 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am not the person who is competent to speak about Scottish law, but I think the noble Lord will find that if evidence in Scotland is insufficient it does not and cannot prove the case, whereas evidence in England can prove the case, notwithstanding the fact that if it were controverted it might not be sufficient.
Earl Ferrers: I have reason to be deeply indebted to my noble and learned friend. However, to make matters perfectly clear to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I should say—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: We appear to have the answer on a piece of paper.
Earl Ferrers: I was trying to explain that the only reason that I said that my noble and learned friend had provided the answer that I would have given was that when he said what he did I was reminded of what the answer might have been. I might have forgotten that, had my noble and learned friend not said it. Sufficient evidence in Scotland means admissible evidence. The two terms are intended to have the same effect. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who I know is very well versed in these matters, is satisfied with that answer. If he is not, he will no doubt let me know and I shall do my best to give him a long and detailed reply by letter.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Extradition
(1) The offences to which an Order in Council under section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 can apply shall include drug trafficking offences.
(2) In paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989 (extradition offences treated as within jurisdiction of foreign states) after paragraph (i) there shall be inserted "or
(j) a drug trafficking offence within the meaning of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986,".
(3) At the end of subsection (2) of section 22 of the said Act of 1989 (extradition offences under Conventions) there shall be inserted—
"(h) the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances which was signed in Vienna on 20th December 1988 ("the Vienna Convention")."
and at the end of subsection (4) of that section there shall be inserted "and
(h) in relation to the Vienna Convention, any drug trafficking offence within the meaning of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986." ")
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 and 20. This new clause proposed at Amendment No. 11 deals with extradition. Its purpose is to give effect to Article 6 of the Vienna Convention. Article 6 makes provision of a kind commonly found in such international agreements, the essential elements of which are that: first, criminal offences under national laws which give effect to the convention are deemed to be extraditable offences in any extradition treaty between parties to the convention; secondly where a party's extradition law depends on the existence of a treaty and there is no such treaty with another party, the convention may serve as a legal basis for extradition in respect of offences covered by it; and thirdly, a party in whose territory an alleged offender is found shall itself either extradite or prosecute.
United Kingdom extradition law is now largely contained in the Extradition Act 1989. This defines an extradition crime as one which carries imprisonment for a term of 12 months or more. The fresh offences created by the Bill are punishable on trial on indictment with terms of over 12 months, and so no additional provision is required in respect of Commonwealth countries. Nor need we be concerned about states which are parties to the European Convention on Extradition which we intend to ratify shortly and other foreign states with which we establish new treaties under the 1989 Act. But for the time being extradition with the remaining foreign countries with which we have arrangements will continue to be governed by treaties made under the Extradition Act 1870. It is therefore, necessary in respect of the latter to make provision so that new offences are treated as extraditable for the purposes of an Order in Council under Section 2 of the 1870 Act. This is the intention of subsection (1) of the amendment.
Subsection (2) provides that for the purposes of extradition, extra-territorial drug trafficking offences are to be treated as falling within the jurisdiction of foreign states. Subsection (3) adds the Vienna Convention to the list of international conventions in Section 22 of the 1989 Act which permit extradition for relevant offences to or from other parties to the respective conventions if the United Kingdom has no regular extradition arrangements with them.
Amendment No. 17 amends the provisions permitting extension of the Bill to the Channel

897
Islands, the Isle of Man or any colony. The new clause concerning extradition does not require to be extended to the islands by Order in Council because the Extradition Act 1989, which it amends, applies there directly. The amendment, therefore, recognises that it is not necessary to extend the entire Bill by Order in Council and permits exceptions. Amendment No. 20 makes two minor consequential amendments to the Extradition Act, 1989. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I take it that the provision referring to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man means that there will not have to be any legislation passed by the legislatures of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. I assume that it will be done at the instance of the British Government without the need for legislation in each of those three territories because, as the noble Earl will be aware, problems have arisen in the past as a result of rather slow progress in those legislatures on the drug trafficking offences legislation which we have been discussing this afternoon.
Earl Ferrers: As regards extradition, that functions automatically.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Application of ancillary provisions of Misuse of Drugs Act 1971]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 11, line 37, leave out ("section 11 or 12") and insert ("Part II").
The noble Earl said: Subsection (3) of Clause 13 extends Section 21 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Its effect is that, where an offence under Clause 11 or 12 committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or attributable to the neglect of specified officers of the body corporate then the officers shall also be guilty of the offence and liable to criminal proceedings. The effect of this amendment is to substitute for the offences under Clauses 11 and 12 all the offences provided in Part II of the Bill. This includes the new offences provided for by Amendments Nos. 4 and 8. This is really consequential on the expansion of Part II of the Bill by the amendments which we are discussing. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 12, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Earl said: Clause 13(5) of the Bill provides for the extension of Section 27 of the Misuse of Drugs Act so as to give courts power to order the forfeiture of items relating to offences committed under Clause 11. This is no longer needed because Section 27 of the 1971 Act was in fact amended by Section 70 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to cover all drug trafficking offences. This is therefore almost a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14, [Consequential amendments of Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987]:
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Ferrers: By virtue of Amendment No. 19 all the provisions presently contained within Clause 14 are to be transferred into Schedule 3 to the Bill. Clause 14 is, therefore, no longer necessary. This is devised really to tidy up the Bill. I hope that the Committee will approve of such tidying measures. I beg to oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 negatived.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Interpretation of Part II:
.—(1) In this Part of this Act—
"British ship" means a ship registered in the United Kingdom or a colony;
"Convention state" has the meaning given in section (Ships used for illicit traffic) (1) above;
"scheduled substance" has the meaning given in section 11(4) above;
"ship" includes any vessel used in navigation;
"the territorial sea of the United Kingdom" includes the territorial sea adjacent to any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any colony;
"the Vienna Convention" means the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances which was signed in Vienna on 20th December 1988.
(2) Any expression used in this Part of this Act which is also used in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 has the same meaning as in that Act.
(3) If in any proceedings under this Part of this Act any question arises whether any country or territory is a state or is a party to the Vienna Convention, a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be conclusive evidence on that question.").
The noble Earl said: The main purpose of this new clause is to define certain terms used in Part II of the Bill. I think the Committee will agree that these provisions do not need any explanation. The clause also provides for the issue by the Secretary of State of certificates confirming whether any country or territory is a party to the Vienna Convention. That could be relevant, for example, in proving whether or not a foreign vessel was a convention vessel, and as such could have been legitimately boarded on the high seas with the consent of the competent authorities of the country of registration. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I may be making this point out of sheer ignorance, but should there not be a definition of a colony in view of the way in which independence is given to almost every one of the constituent parts of what was our empire? The amendment states:
"British ship" means a ship registered in the United Kingdom or a colony".
In other definitions one should at least define which countries are colonies and name them because they may fast disappear.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that that is probably a good reason for not naming them. However, it had escaped my notice that there is a definition of a colony in the Interpretation Act 1978.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Consequential amendments, repeals and revocation]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 12, line 28, after ("on") insert ("or otherwise relating to").
The noble Earl said: This is a very minor amendment. As the Bill stands at present Clause 16 refers to Schedule 3 of the Bill. Clause 16 indicates that the amendments contained in Schedule 3 are consequential on the remaining provisions of the Bill. After the addition of the further paragraphs to Schedule 3 proposed in Amendment No. 19 it would not be strictly accurate to describe all the amendments contained in Schedule 3 as being consequential. Therefore we propose adding the words "or otherwise relating to". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 12, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the amendment by that Schedule of the definition of "drug trafficking offence" in section 38(1) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 applies to that definition as applied by any other enactment, including this Act.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment is linked with the proposal to amend the definition of "drug trafficking" in Section 38(1) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. In the present print of the Bill that provision is found in Clause 14(1) but as a result of Amendment No. 19 it will be transferred to Schedule 3. The purpose of the amendment is simply to make it clear that the revised term "drug trafficking offence" applies not only for the purposes of the 1986 Act but also for those of other enactments, for example certain provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 12, line 40, leave out from ("that") to ("modifications") in line 41 and insert ("the provisions of this Act shall extend, with such exceptions and").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to the amendment in connection with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 18:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE ENFORCEMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF SHIPS
Preliminary
1.—(1) In this Schedule "an enforcement officer" means—

(a) a constable;

(b) an officer commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under section 6(3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979; and

(c) any other person of a description specified in an order made for the purposes of this Schedule by the Secretary of State.

(2) The power to make an order under sub-paragraph (1)(c) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) In this Schedule "the ship" means the ship in relation to which the powers conferred by this Schedule are exercised.
Power to stop, board, divert and detain
2.—(1) An enforcement officer may stop the ship, board it and, if he thinks it necessary for the exercise of his functions, require it to be taken to a port in the United Kingdom and detain it there.
(2) Where an enforcement officer is exercising his powers with the authority of the Secretary of State given under section (Enforcement powers) (2) of this Act the officer may require the ship to be taken to a port in the Convention state in question or, if that state has so requested, in any other country or territory willing to receive it.
(3) For any of those purposes he may require the master or any member of the crew to take such action as may be necessary.
(4) If an enforcement officer detains a vessel he shall serve on the master a notice in writing stating that it is to be detained until the notice is withdrawn by the service on him of a further notice in writing signed by an enforcement officer.
Power to search and obtain information
3.—(1) An enforcement officer may search the ship, anyone on it and anything on it including its cargo.
(2) An enforcement officer may require any person on the ship to give information concerning himself or anything on the ship.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of those powers an enforcement officer may—

(a) open any containers;

(b) make tests and take samples of anything on the ship;

(c) require the production of documents, books or records relating to the ship or anything on it;

(d) make photographs or copies of anything whose production he has power to require.

Powers in respect of suspected offence
4. If an enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence mentioned in section (Offences on British ships) or (Ships use for illicit traffic) of this Act has been committed on a ship to which that section applies he may—

(a) arrest without warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of the offence; and

(b) seize and detain anything found on the ship which appears to him to be evidence of the offence.

Assistants
5.—(1) An enforcement officer may take with him, to assist him in exercising his powers—

(a) any other person; and

(b) any equipment or materials.

(2) A person whom an enforcement officer takes with him to assist him may perform any of the officer's functions but only under the officer's supervision.
Use of reasonable force
6. An enforcement officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the performance of his functions.
Evidence of authority
7. An enforcement officer shall, if required, produce evidence of his authority.
Protection of officers
8. An enforcement officer shall not be liable in any civil or criminal proceedings for anything done in the purported

901
performance of his functions under this Schedule if the court is satisfied that the act was done in good faith and that there were reasonable grounds for doing it.
Offences
9.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) intentionally obstructs an enforcement officer in the performance of any of his functions under this Schedule;

(b) fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement made by an enforcement officer in the performance of those functions; or

(c) in purporting to give information required by an officer for the performance of those functions—

(i) makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular; or

(ii) intentionally fails to disclose any material particular.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 7.I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: This is only a small point but perhaps the noble Earl will be good enough to consider it. Paragraph 7 of the amendment states that the enforcement officer:
"shall, if required, produce evidence of his authority".
That may be very misleading if it is deemed to be oral evidence. I should have thought that the word "written" before "evidence" would be an improvement. All the enforcement officer would have to do would be to produce his authentication in writing. If it is left as "evidence" that could lead to misunderstanding and possibly to a great deal of argument by barrack room lawyers.
Earl Ferrers: I have little doubt that it means written evidence but I shall certainly look into the point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Consequential Amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 14, line 43, at end insert—
("The Criminal Justice Act 1982
1A. At the end of Part II of Schedule I to the Criminal Justice Act 1982 there shall be inserted—
"Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990
Section (Concealing or transferring proceeds of drug trafficking) (concealing or transferring proceeds of drug trafficking)."
The Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986
1B.—(1) The Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 2(4) after the words "section 24 of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or section Concealing or transferring proceeds of drug trafficking of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990".
(3) In the definition of "drug trafficking" in section 38(1) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
"(d) manufacturing or supplying a scheduled substance within the meaning of section 11 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 where the manufacture or supply is an offence under that section;".
(4) In the definition of "drug trafficking offence" in section 38(1) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—
"(dd) an offence under section 11, Concealing or transferring proceeds of drug trafficking or Ships used for illicit traffic of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990;",
and in paragraph (e) for "(d)" there shall be substituted "(dd)".
The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987
1C. In section 1(6) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—
"(e) manufacturing or supplying a scheduled substance within the meaning of section 11 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 where the manufacture or supply is an offence under that section;" ").
The noble Earl said: The amendment adds to the consequential amendments specified in Schedule 3 three new paragraphs which are numbered 1A, 1B and 1C.
Paragraph 1A proposes an amendment to Part II of Schedule 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. Its effect is to extend the categories of prisoners in respect of which the Secretary of State has no power of early release to include those who are convicted of the offence (proposed by Amendment No. 4) of concealing or transferring the proceeds of drug trafficking.
Paragraph 1B proposes three amendments to the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. The Drug Trafficking Offences Act allows a court, in making a confiscation order against a convicted drug trafficker, to assume that any property which has come into the defendant's possession in the period prior to the institution of proceedings represents the proceeds of drug trafficking. The one situation in which the 1986 Act does not allow that assumption to be made is where the drug trafficking offence is solely that of money laundering. The effect of the first of the amendments is to ensure that the same distinction is preserved in regard to the new money laundering offences created by the Bill. The second and third amendments to the 1986 Act transfer into Schedule 3 what in the Bill as introduced were subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 14 with the addition of references to the new clauses proposed as Amendments Nos. 4 and 8.
The proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 simply transfers into Schedule 3 what was Clause 14(3) in the Bill as printed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 15, line 38, at end insert—

(1989 c.33.

The Extradition Act 1989.

In section 22(4)(f)(ii) the word "and".

In Schedule 1, in paragraph 15(h) the word "or" where it last occurs.").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Scottish Agricultural Colleges
4.16 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements will be made in any reorganisation of the Scottish agricultural colleges to maintain the co-operation now existing between the University of Aberdeen and the North of Scotland College of Agriculture.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the timing of business in this House can be very difficult for someone who lives only 20 miles away and relies upon getting to the House within an hour and then finds a mile of the Embankment torn up and spends half an hour there and arrives almost too late for the debate in view of the speed with which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has dealt with the business today.
The Question concerns the effect which the implementation of the Williams Report might have on the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. Although I have narrowed the Question to that issue I am sure that my noble kinsman will expand on the report as a whole.
To some extent my interest is a family one. My uncle and my father were both chairman of the governors of the college for many years. I was a governor for many years and also served as vice-chairman. I farmed in the area near the college for many years and my family still farms there. I was chairman of the hill farm research farm and saw a great many of the less favoured areas which are referred to in the report. I saw the great help which the college's advisory service gave to those areas, and I should like to emphasise the close contact between those areas and the college. I was a student of the college, taking a certificate course. In all the time that I farmed in the area I received help and advice from the college's advisory service.
It was therefore a great disappointment to me that moves were afoot to upset the system which I knew so well and took part in for so long, particularly on the educational side. I understand that those moves are the result of the Williams Report recommendations being almost rubber-stamped by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Although I have not seen his statement, I understand that he accepts the report's recommendations.
The foreword to the report goes into a fair amount of detail about what is in the report. I should like to read out the first sentence which states:
"Scotland is not well-endowed physically for the pursuit of agriculture. Most of its farming is nothing less than trench and tractor warfare against a hostile terrain".
I should like to repeat that statement, but perhaps I should let it sink in. Has the committee no knowledge of Scotland? Even starting at John o' Groats and taking the coastal strip of arable land all the way to the Black Isle, one cannot say that that is "hostile terrain". The farming there is not trench warfare. When one thinks of the Black Isle, which includes some of the best land and farming in the country, and the easy, beautiful land and climate along the coast of the Moray Firth, one can hardly imagine classifying that as "hostile terrain".
We can go from there into Aberdeenshire where my family has farmed for nine generations over the
904
past 340 years. It is one of the largest farming counties in Scotland and has rightly developed over the years. My ancestors did a great deal of trenching and draining there at one time. As one goes through Aberdeenshire—I am sure that the Minister has been there—one realises that this is not an area of hostile terrain.
There is some of the best land in the country in the Howe of the Mearns where I farmed for 30 years. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, will emphasise that point in relation to the Valley of Strathmore where he farms. There is then the coastal plain from Stonehaven to Perth and the kingdom of Fife with its golden fringe, good land in the centre and good farming.
The Lothians contains the best land in the country. I knew many of the farmers there, including the late Jack Dale who made a reputation for the farming and land of the area. Farming in Berwickshire and the Borders can by no stretch of the imagination be described as:
"warfare against a hostile terrain".
Perhaps I may now cross the country to the noble Lord's homeland of Ayrshire and Dumfriesshire where some of the best grassland for farming is to be found and milk production is the envy of many. I have many friends there and it has never struck me that they struggled against "a hostile terrain".
Quite frankly, that opening sentence is the most extraordinary that I have ever read, especially given that there are two prominent Scottish farmers on the committee. It makes me and many other people suspicious of the report. The statement that 90 per cent. of the land is classified by the EC as unfavourable—I do not know whether it is right or wrong, but I think it must be wrong—prompted me to calculate the gross cash intake per acre available for the remaining 10 per cent. It comes to about £800 per acre. That is a rough calculation, but if that is the case, there is not a great deal coming over that 10 per cent. I do not know where that figure came from; it should be examined carefully.
The second paragraph of the report is simply a statement of fact. The third paragraph is the most revealing. It states:
"This network of agricultural education, research and development and advisory services is the Scottish System which won parliamentary praise as recently as 1983. It is now under threat for various reasons, all reducing"—
I do not understand that piece of grammar—
"to swingeing cuts in the public funds which have been allocated annually in support of the System for the last 80 years".
The report is obviously not concerned with increasing the efficiency of the college services, be they educational, advisory or regarding research and development. It is simply a grant-cutting exercise in line with the Government's dogma of cutting public expenditure irrespective of the harm that might be done. I emphasise that point, but anyone who reads the report will see that that is the case.
The report is most difficult to understand. I have tried to understand it and I am not alone in my difficulties. Professor Jones and his staff sent a letter to the Secretary of State. I do not wish to quote it all; I am sure that the noble Lord must have read it

905
as I believe that it was also sent to him. Professor Jones mentioned the muddled way in which many matters were dealt with.
Chapter 8 contains the committee's main opinions, recommendations and conclusions. There are 82 in all, so it is difficult to sort them out and deal with them. I rely on, as the North-East poet, the late Charles Murray, said:
"Folk wi' better thums thon me to red the ravelled snorl".
He goes on, although I have altered one word to fit the case:
"and tell ye fa be-good the ploy that sae upset the College".
I may have to translate that later. The people on whom I have relied are Professor McNicol, the principal of the University of Aberdeen, Professor Jones—the head of the college—and his staff, and many others interested in the North of Scotland College of Agriculture who have had the time and knowledge to go into that matter in depth.
In a detailed survey, Professor Jones pointed out the committee's naivety on the subject of higher education in paragraphs 7.47 and 7.49 and in paragraph 8.82 which contains its final, overall view. He also pointed out a mistake in costs with regard to the figures for Aberdeen and the West of Scotland College. There was a mere £400,000 difference which I suppose does not worry anyone. The number of times that he uses the expression "This is untrue" leads one to be suspicious of the value of the report.
Its two main recommendations will disastrously affect the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. Professor Jones is not quite so hard on the report as I am. He uses the phrase, "seriously affect".
The first recommendation concerns the centralisation of administration of three colleges at Edinburgh. This recommendation is viewed with great apprehension by the staff of North Scotland College and by the principal of the university. The North of Scotland College is over 100 miles from Edinburgh. If it is put further away, a few miles will be added to that. Large areas of North Scotland College's advisory territory are well over 100 miles away. Therefore there will be an enormous waste of time and money. Staff will be moving about and governors will struggle to meetings. Some people believe that the effect of that recommendation will lead to unworkable conditions. The point is emphasised that the college may close.
The second and most important recommendation concerns the separation of the college from the university. This would be a major tragedy—and I use the word "major" unreservedly. For years the headquarters of the college were at Marshall College. Physical contact with other students of the university has a broadening effect on some narrow-minded farmers' sons and other agricultural students. When the university required this space for medical use an unimaginative Department of Agriculture said: "You have plenty of land at Craibstone. You can build cheaper there". That land is 4 to 5 miles away. The governors, who appreciated the situation, fought against the suggestion. With very good support from the then principal, Professor Taylor, we obtained a
906
site at King's College and the physical connection was continued. This point is also emphasised by the present principal. I cannot stress too strongly how important this contact is. I and my two brothers and my three sons derived great benefit from it. However, my grandson, although he is the tenth generation, has left agriculture and gone into another business.
The tragic proposal to dismantle the present joint University of Aberdeen and North of Scotland School of Agriculture is ably dealt with in the memorandum of Professor McNicol of 16th November and in the letter from Professor Jones and his staff to the Scottish Secretary. I am sure that the noble Lord has read both those letters. It would be presumptuous of me to attempt to enlarge upon them. However, I should like to read paragraph 11 of the principal's memorandum. He writes:
"Account must also be taken of the financial and legal complexities of dissolving the partnership between the University and NOSCA and transferring the College's assets to ACS. The School of Agriculture Building, for example, was financed jointly by the University through a direct grant from the UGC (one-third share) and the College (two-thirds share) but is built on land exclusively owned by the University. The Animal Metabolism Unit, however, was built by the University on College land. This is a good illustration of the extent to which the complementary activities of the University and NOSCA are physically integrated."
The attempt to get students to attend the university and the college could create serious competition. That is a situation which should not exist. There is also the point about waste of manpower. These matters are expressed very clearly by Professor Jones and his staff and the principal.
I do not wish to say any more. I hope that the noble Lord will take into consideration all the points that have been put to him not only by me but by other people.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to back up my noble kinsman in practically everything that he has said. Although he has expanded fully on the foolishness of the opening sentence, I should like to say that it is quite extraordinary that it should appear in a document of this kind. I have farmed in the Howes o Muir for 40 years. I started there as a tenant of the grandfather of the noble Earl sitting on the Front Bench. He will know the quality of that land. It throws a little doubt on the validity of many sections of the report.
The principle that we are pushing is that of co-operation between the universities and the colleges. The system of the three colleges has worked very well, particularly with Aberdeen and the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. There, one has three internationally known research bodies: the Rowett Institute, the Macaulay Institute, and the Craibstone Research Station. All three bodies co-operate closely with the university and have governors on their boards who are members of the other bodies. As a result, one has a complex which is of great value to Scottish agriculture. I dare say that the same is true of Edinburgh, but I do not speak with so much knowledge of that as I do of Aberdeen.
I remember the row that went on just after the war when a professor was appoined to head the

907
college and to be the professor of agriculture of the university. Having taken on the appointment, he became frighened at the amount of work. He set to work to undermine the system and to separate the university from the college so that he could concentrate on his academic navel, or something of the kind. He was successful and the university had to provide a new farm. Happily, he left to go back to Leeds. By this time the university and the college were aware of the harm that had been done by splitting the two functions and breaking the co-operation between the two bodies. The university provides the intellectual and academic background and the college provides the immense range of services which are necessary to produce good advice and good practitioners of agriculture at every level.
It is very important that the principals and the professor of agriculture appreciate that something good is going to come out of the Williams Report, whose main recommendation is that the three colleges should be combined as one college on three separate campus sites. This may well be sensible. Some of the other recommendations are far from sensible. The one which was calculated in the summary of the conclusions—and I cannot understand how any sensible person could have put it in this way—was that the schools of agriculture at Aberdeen and Edinburgh should cease to exist and that their academic function should be taken over by joint boards of studies responsible to the appropriate university faculties and the Academic Policies Committee of the ACS. I cannot think of anything that would be more inclined to send shivers up and down the backs of the people concerned.
Further recommendations in the report state that it is essential that the strong academic links between the existing colleges and their local universities should continue. These are two different interpretations of the facts. It is suggested that the colleges should continue as separate campuses under a central direction. That is sensible. However, I think that other recommendations are enormously dangerous.
There is some evidence, although I do not think it is conclusive, that there is a preference among certain firms in England for employing people with national diplomas from English colleges as opposed to those with a Higher National Diploma from Scotland. That is worrying. A number of Scottish students have gone south. That is not a bad thing so long as a reciprocal number come north. However, it may be more a case for propaganda for the value of the Scottish HND. If the course needs upgrading and a further input of different disciplines, then that should be done in collaboration with the universities. It should not be separated entirely from the universities, as the report recommends. That must be wrong.
I hope that the Minister will study the recommendation with great care and decide against it. It is one of the conclusions reached by the report that must be wrong and needs to be reviewed. It is all very well to say that the college and university can co-operate. But if one has total separation as, for example, with Aberdeen—it is recommended that the principal be appointed entirely by the college
908
and that the university will appoint its own professor—one begins a process of separation that is bound to do harm in the long and the short run to the cause of education and research in the area.
It is recommended that the headquarters be moved from Perth and set up in Edinburgh. That would be overturning a decision taken only in 1987. It is also recommended that the principal in charge of direction of the central board could be a principal of one of the colleges. That must be wrong. If one has three equal colleges co-operating with one another, and the principal of one is made director overall, one will have much bad feeling. Although a good start has been made by the provisional appointment of a good chairman for the new college, we must look carefully at that issue. I believe that Perth should remain the centre. It is always cheaper to adapt an existing establishment than to set up an entirely new one, especially, as in this case, since I am certain that the change will cause a good deal of strife. I should like a comment from the Minister on that aspect.
There are many other points in the report with which I disagree. However, there are some good suggestions. One is that the lower degrees for farm workers in crafts and so on, the courses for which at present are provided by colleges run by the education authorities, should be integrated with the colleges in their area. That is done at present by the East of Scotland College at Oatridge and the local authority. That is sensible.
There are a number of sensible suggestions in the report. The Minister has already allayed some fears in the North by his Statement. I hope that he will consider the central point of the report and accept that the colleges should be combined as one college with three campuses. However, he should then consider the human relations aspect with great care. Human relations are what make any company, college or advisory system work. I hope that in particular he will apply his well known charm and common sense to the academics of Aberdeen University so that the very excellent co-operation that has done so much good for agriculture in the North and over a wider field will be able to continue.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I shall certainly not keep the House from the Minister's reply for more than a few minutes. I was always told that the one subject on which one should not speak unless one knew about it was agriculture. Having listened to the two contributions in the debate I am fully convinced by that advice.
I have studied the report. There were many elementary facts that I was unable to understand because of my totally different background. However, I am concerned about some fairly simple points. The Statement in answer to a written reply by the Secretary of State in another place on 15th December is less than two columns in length. Would it not have been better for the Secretary of State to issue a fuller reply to some of the points raised by the two previous speakers?
I have been trying to find out from colleagues how the Statement has been accepted generally. After a

909
close discussion there has been much greater acceptance than I should have expected, although there are many points in dispute. The Secretary of State might have been able to allay many of those fears, and to get closer to the nitty-gritty, had he made a fuller Statement and analysis of the report and his reaction to it. Perhaps that will be made at some point, although I am not referring to this afternoon.
During my discussions questions were raised about a reduction of staff and the availability of help to small farmers or even crofters. Will the source of information and advice still be available to them?
We are grateful to my noble friend Lord John-Mackie for raising the Question. After the Minister has replied, I hope that we may have a fuller Statement either here or in another place.
Finally, what happens to the report now? Is it merely implemented or will any of the recommendations come back to the House for ratification? Will the report be debated more fully in another place?
4.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, first, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that I am pleased to answer this short but very important Question on the future of the agricultural colleges in Scotland. I know that he and other members of his family—in particular his father—had an important role to play in the agricultural scene in Scotland, in particular in Aberdeen. I shall address most of my remarks to that subject, which has exercised me and the Secretary of State over the Williams Report.
Perhaps I may say that the acceptance of the committee's appointment was welcome. I very much understand the concern of the noble Lord at the opening sentence of the foreword and the impression that it might give. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will understand when I say that the amount of less favoured area in Scotland is considerably greater than in other parts of the United Kingdom. While I accept what the noble Lord says about the Mearns—the noble Lord talks with much authority about the land in Angus and so on—there is a considerable amount of land in Scotland which is of a less favoured type. I know only too well that I have to deal with that when we come to matters such as hill livestock compensatory allowances—a subject that is exercising me at the present time.
With an ex-president of the Scottish National Farmers' Union on the Alwyn Williams Committee, together with Mr. Manson, who farms near Oldmeldrum, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will understand that we did our best to persuade those who are pro-active in Scottish agriculture to take a part in the work of the important committee.
The major recommendation of the Williams Report was that there should be one college, a single board of directors and a single chief executive or executive director. I am pleased that Mr. Sandy Inverarity, who has considerable knowledge and
910
experience of agriculture in Scotland combined with wide experience in the business sector and as a chartered accountant, has agreed to be chairman of the new board. We intend that it should have its full appointment in February.
The creation of the new college will mean that the Board of Governors of the three existing colleges will be wound up, although there will be a place for local bodies deriving their authority from the main board to carry out certain functions locally relating to the individual colleges or "campuses", as the Williams Report describes them. The Secretary of State has also decided that, in accordance with the recommendation of the Williams Report, the educational focus of the new college should shift towards the higher end of the education spectrum. That is a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred.
That will put the new Scottish Agricultural College more in line with other nationally-funded central institutions in Scotland. It means that the college will increasingly provide courses at degree level while reducing provision at National Certificate level, particularly the craft level courses, which can be accommodated in other centres of learning.
It has been suggested that the creation of the new college could have particularly damaging effects in Aberdeen, where there is a long tradition of college and university working intimately together in the framework of the Aberdeen School of Agriculture for the provision of agricultural education. In Aberdeen, as in Edinburgh, there is a single head of the school and arrangements for sharing land, buildings and other facilities. In the West different but equally constructive relationships exist between the West College, which I visited only on Friday, and Glasgow and Strathclyde Universities. There have been, and still are, fears in Aberdeen—clearly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie—that the creation of the new college and the accelerated thrust towards degree-level provision will do damage to this existing relationship.
I must say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have listened very carefully and took a great deal of care especially as regards representations from Aberdeen. As the noble Lord will be aware, I have also seen representatives, Members of Parliament and others from the area. We have concluded that the specific recommendation of the Williams Report—that the existing schools of agriculture should be abolished—would not be in the best interests of university or college, or, more importantly, of the students attending either institution, or of the agricultural industry which they serve. It is essential that there continues to be an intimate association between the college and the university. In the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, it remains desirable for them to share resources.
That brings us to the very nub of the argument presented by the noble Lord: how is co-operation to be maintained between college and university in the new arrangements? There are a number of points that can be made immediately in response to this

911
question. I shall ensure that all noble Lords who have spoken receive a copy of my right honourable friend's Statement because it allays some of the fears expressed.
Taking the example of Aberdeen, there is close co-operation between the university and other higher education research organisations in the area. I am aware of the kind of co-operation that exists, for example, between the university and Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology or, within the agricultural sector, between the university and the Rowett Research Institute in the provision of postgraduate education and research. Therefore, I am confident that one of the earliest tasks of the new board of directors, its chairman and executive director will be to enter into discussion with the principal of Aberdeen University—and with the principals of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde Universities who have generally welcomed the findings of the report—about the arrangements which will operate in the future. They range from the details of course provision to the use of resources, including staff, land, buildings and equipment.
But one point is absolutely fundamental. It is that there must be proper lines of accountability within the college and the university. It is essential that responsibility for appointing the principal or head of the North College or campus should lie solely with the board of directors of the new college, albeit with university involvement; and that the head of the college should be fully and solely accountable to the board of directors through the executive director for the management of the college. The same principles must surely apply to the university where heads of department are accountable to the university principal. It is neither sensible nor desirable—indeed it is quite bad management—for the head of an important organisation to be responsible to two masters.
The argument has been put that such an arrangement—the separation of responsibility for college and university department—was tried before in the 1950s and failed. But that argument fails to take into account the profound changes that have taken place in the college structure over the past five years. That experiment—if that is how it can be described—occurred when all three colleges were quite independent of each other and provided a full range of services—education, R&D and advice—within their local areas. But it was the colleges themselves which in 1985 recognised that their continued existence as purely regional-based organisations could not continue. The creation by the colleges of SAC Ltd., and the establishment of the general advisory and veterinary investigation services on a national basis—that is a Scottish basis—marked a clear and radical break with what had gone before and signalled the determination of the colleges to operate increasingly in the future on a national basis.
Before Christmas I attended an extremely good meeting of the college advisory service personnel in Crieff and the morale and standing of that body I could recommend to anyone. The transformation which has taken place within the set-up since 1985 is quite remarkable. It goes to the point raised by the
912
noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about small farmers. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the determination of the college advisory services is now such that the small farmer, wherever he is in Scotland, is receiving a very good service.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked whether it is a cost-cutting exercise. The answer is certainly not. It was never the intention, nor was it implicit in the terms of reference of the Williams Committee, that we were embarking on a cost-cutting exercise. I hope that, in what I have said and what I have to say, I can demonstrate that we must have a proper set-up for Scotland as regards the Scottish agricultural colleges.
In short, the Williams Committee found that the way forward lay in a national college under unitary management. The new management arrrangements would be incompatible with overall management responsibility of the north or any college or campus by a university-appointed senior manager. That is the major point.
I appreciate that there are necessarily a great many points which require detailed consideration and discussion before a new agreement can be established between the college and the university. That applies not only to Aberdeen but also the other bodies. The discussions must cover staff—a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—including the arrangements for senior academic appointments which are currently jointly funded. They must also cover land and buildings—where the college occupies the greater part of the Department of Agriculture building which was built originally with funds contributed from both sources—and the use of farms and equipment where the university has the use of college-owned facilities. Important questions of policy and finance also arise in relation to the nature of the degree-level courses to be provided and the access of college students to the academic and non-academic facilities of the university such as libraries, sports fields and so on. I know very well the strong representations made by the principal of Aberdeen University and of course Professor Jones on this matter and I have had the pleasure of discussing this matter with him. I am confident that with good will on all sides there will be a satisfactory arrangement on every campus as regards the future.
I can take away the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, on the headquarters of the new operation. That will be a matter for the new board but all three governing bodies of the three colleges suggested that Perth, the present headquarters, should be the place. From those headquarters the successful development of the advisory service has taken place. I also draw attention to the statement by my right honourable friend that the role of the executive director should be separated from that of the campus principal. Therefore, the noble Lord will understand that the Secretary of State and I have not accepted all the recommendations of the Williams Committee.
I shall read to him, because it is vital, the paragraph which concerns the schools of agriculture in Aberdeen and Edinburgh:

913
"So far as the Schools of Agriculture are concerned I am not minded to accept the Williams recommendation that these should cease to exist. While some restructuring of the relationship between the present Colleges and their neighbouring Universities will be an inevitable consequence of the establishment of a single national college, I attach the greatest importance to allowing the strong academic links and the productive sharing of resources established between Colleges and Universities to continue both now and in the long-term. I would therefore in particular wish to see the concept and title 'School of Agriculture' carry on at both Aberdeen and Edinburgh provided that the School was in future headed jointly by its respective campus Principal and by a Professor at the University. I expect the Scottish Committee of the UFC to offer me advice on the balance of provision in agricultural education between the College and the Universities, recognising the Universities main strength lies in the sciences and that of the College in technological and vocational subjects".
As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, said, agriculture is at times difficult to explain to those who are not involved in it. When I started this job I did not know much about it but I know a good deal more now. One thing I know is that in Scottish agricultural circles one must work with the grain and not against it. That is why when I came to this job I was very concerned by some of the problems surrounding the Scottish agricultural colleges. I believe that, with the recommendations which we have accepted from the Williams Committee, we shall make sure that we are delivering into the next century a satisfactory situation in Scotland.
What is most important about the Williams Committee report, although it has not been mentioned by any noble Lord, is that the three-legged stool—the Scottish system, the advisory service and the research and development function—of the colleges in Scotland will be maintained. That is something I should not wish to see in any way jeopardised. I believe that the arrangements which we are setting in train to be brought into effect as fast as possible will achieve that end.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he expand on his statement that the North of Scotland College will continue to exist and that the professor appointed by the university and the principal of the college will work together to run the college? Does that mean that there will be no competition for students, because I believe that that is very important?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the arrangements and the necessary courses will be determined in the light of what the university and the college would wish for agricultural education. The new campus principal, who will be situated in Aberdeen, running the agricultural college on behalf of the SAC, will, it is hoped, at a very early date get down to the provision of the courses required and the arrangements necessary for the use of land, property, farms and so on which will be implicit in that. I believe—and I am sure this also goes for the new chairman of the SAC—that an early start must be made to those arrangements so that we can provide the education required through the right channels.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has some doubts about Williams and his remarks about a degree. But he might wish to have another look at paragraph 3.70, where there is no doubt that, not merely in agricultural education in Scotland but also in the other Scottish CIs, there are problems in relation to degree courses being available in England, That is something on which the noble Lord and I differ. However, there has been a problem in relation to that matter and that is something which the SAC must address.
House adjourned at six minutes after five o'clock.

  ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE RESEARCH COUNCILS
  ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE RESEARCH COUNCILS