Sitting of 24 January 1990

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to British Railways (to be presented under Section 7 of the Act); And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon 30 January and to be printed. [Bill 64.]
  Mr. Roger King: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Does it concern a matter requiring my immediate attention?
  Mr. King: It does, Mr. Speaker. Today's Order Paper shows that there are to be questions to the Prime Minister at 3.15 pm. Is that an innovation—which my right hon. and hon. Friends would welcome, but which would terrify the Opposition—or simply a misprint?
  Mr. Speaker: It is a misprint.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Recycling
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the environment protection technology scheme will include initiatives promoting recycling.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The EPT scheme supports research into technology, which will lead to higher environmental standards. We have decided to extend it to include aspects of recycling, which is a fundamental part of our policy to conserve resources and minimise pollution.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply and the news that recycling will feature heavily in the scheme. The Environmental Protection Bill will encourage local councils to become involved in recycling. My hon. Friend is aware of the problems at Lodmoor near Weymouth where methane is leaking from landfill sites because waste disposal was not dealt with properly in years gone by. Both the local council and the county council are planning to spend community charge payers' money on recycling. Will my hon. Friend assure me that proper funding will be provided, particularly in view of the revenue support grant that is available this year?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Environmental Protection Bill requires waste collection authorities to draw up recycling plans and to report on them. Local authorities will not themselves be required to undertake recycling, and I hope that private sector companies will perform the work that my hon. Friend mentioned. We acknowledge the need to encourage the use of recycled products so that the process can be economical.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that many people take the recycling of paper and of glass bottles as a matter of course, will the Government now place emphasis on plastics recycling?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We intend to include in the EPT scheme research into plastics recycling. It is partly a problem of better collection and sorting, but research is needed also into the use of plastic products. We want to put money behind good research that will help to increase the present low percentage of use.
    Mr. David Martin: Does my hon. Friend agree that environmental protection must be seen increasingly in an international context? As I understand that the European Environment Agency is looking for a home, will my hon. Friend promote the interests of Portsmouth as its location? Portsmouth has excellent links to the continent through its ferry port and roads, which would make it an ideal base for the agency.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Portsmouth would be a strong candidate, but we have chosen Cambridge as the candidate site that we are promoting to the European Commission. We hope very much that the agency will be sited in this country.
    Ms. Walley: Everyone welcomes any recycling initiative, but does not the Minister acknowledge that there is no substitute for a national recycling plan? Will he have regard to the glut of recycled material collected by local authorities? Does he agree that there are at times more important matters than plain market forces, to consider—such as concern for the environment?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Hasty interference in the market has led to a glut of low-grade waste paper. Subsidies and mandatory recycling in West Germany and in certain American states have led to an oversupply of low-grade waste paper. We are anxious to match that supply with increased demand. The American experience shows that interference before planning has the opposite effect.
    Mr. Steen: I am sure that the Minister is aware that we are very conservation minded in south Devon, and that a large number of voluntary groups are collecting litter and paper. Will he explain what help the Government will give them so that they do not collect paper that nobody wants to use, thereby allowing the cutting down of more trees in the tropical rain forests?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I acknowledge the excellent work on recycling that my hon. Friend does. He refers to the glut of low-grade waste paper. I am aware that three investment schemes are in progress to improve the use of and increase the demand for waste paper. I shall draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs to his points.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the most recent survey undertaken by his Department as to the number of homeless people living rough on the streets of London; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Spicer): The most recent count of rough sleepers in London was carried out last year by the department of psychology at the university of Surrey for the Salvation Army. It reported 753 people sleeping rough on the streets of 17 boroughs.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that that is a deplorable reply? A known problem is worsening month by month, and he says that the most recent survey was last year. Does he read the reports of the Salvation Army and the London housing unit, which outline the enormity of the problem? It has been caused directly by the Government—by the lack of low-rent accommodation and the cutting of benefits to those most in need. Instead of the supposed voice of concern, when will we hear from Ministers about real action to end this scandal in London and many other parts of Britain?
    Mr. Spicer: Of course, we accept the seriousness of the problem of the number of people sleeping rough. We have already earmarked £250 million to relieve the problem of the homeless, and that will release some hostel space for people sleeping rough. As a matter of urgency, we are considering further steps to solve this serious problem.
    Sir George Young: Is my hon. Friend aware how much we welcome his appointment and wish him well in his new responsibilities? Does he agree that a vigorous extension of the tenants' incentive scheme, to enable council tenants living in cities to move out and to buy their own home, would enable many homeless people currently living in bed and breakfast accommodation to be rehoused within 12 months? Will he confirm that that scheme will have high priority in his approach to dealing with the problem?
    Mr. Spicer: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The thrust of our policies is to ensure that, first, new homes are built and, secondly, that they are owned by the people who live in them. We have a multitude of schemes for converting tenancy into ownership. That is a combination that will help to solve this serious problem.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that, in addition to his own Department not carrying out surveys, it took the Home Office six months—from July to December last year—to write to me to explain that it does not collect statistics, except a year or a year and a half in arrears, on the number of young people who are being prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act 1824, for homelessness on the streets of London? Does it not behove his Department and the Home Office to organise the statistical collection of information that I get week after week from barristers at the Horseferry road magistrates court, which is only 300 yd from this building, and from elsewhere in London? The evidence shows that every week more teenagers are being prosecuted for lack of money and for sleeping rough on the streets of London. When will the Minister get the facts?
    Mr. Spicer: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman thought the matter through, he would appreciate that facts
    876
    are difficult to come by because of the nature of the problem. There is no disagreement between the two sides of the House about the seriousness of the matter. There is no question about that. The issue is how we are to solve the problem, and we are urgently applying our minds to that.
    Mr. Jessel: What proportion of those people are young people under 18? Could not, and should not, some of that number return to live with their parents?
    Mr. Spicer: It seems that a growing number of young people form part of the increasing population who are sleeping rough. It is certainly part of our policy to do as my hon. Friend suggests and encourage them to go home, and among the first things that the voluntary organisations do are to ask them why they left home and to try to persuade them to return.
    Mr. Cox: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the deplorable nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Housing Grants
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider linking grant rates to a definition of affordability of housing based on an agreed percentage of disposable income; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): Landlords who provide rented housing with the help of public subsidy are already expected to charge rents within the reach of those in low-paid employment, and are best placed to decide what such rents should be.
    Ms. Ruddock: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but it is wholly inadequate. Last year the Government forced the providers of such public housing—housing associations—to put up their rents by 24 per cent., thus compelling them to abandon the very goals that the right hon. Gentleman has just reiterated. Public housing rents are now forcing people into poverty.
    Mr. Patten: I am not sure that the hon. Lady's propositions are entirely correct. As I believe she knows, the rates of grant for housing association schemes are aimed broadly at enabling housing associations to set rents that comply with the tenants' guarantee. We wish to stand by that guarantee, as do the Housing Corporation and housing associations, so that the accommodation that they provide is within reach of those in low-income employment.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the present generous system of housing benefit for those in need, low rents do nothing to help those with housing problems? What is more, do not Labour councils that are engaging in what might be called a rent holiday with the approach of the district council elections care less about housing problems than about gaining votes in those elections?
    Mr. Patten: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's last point: such conduct demonstrates the irresponsibility of some Labour authorities. As my hon. Friend implied, housing benefit covers any increases in rents and, as he knows, we are currently spending more than £5 billion on housing benefits.
    Mr. Soley: The Secretary of State is not only complacent but ill-informed. That is probably why the turnover of Ministers responsible for housing has now reached a rate of more than one a year. Assuming that the present Minister remains in his post for long enough before being evicted, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that housing association rents went up by 24 per cent. last year? No one disputes that figure—except, apparently, the Secretary of State. If the Government really care about housing problems and homelessness, when will they get their act together and adopt a housing policy that delivers homes at prices that people can afford, whether for rent or for sale?
    Mr. Patten: We have been fortunate in having a succession of excellent Ministers responsible for housing, although it would be invidious for me to suggest that each has been better than his or her predecessor. I am sure that my hon. Friend the current Minister is as delighted as I am that we are now set to double the Housing Corporation's programme, and that the money going to the housing associations is to increase twofold over the next three years.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who shout loudest for open government are often the last to divulge details of their own policies, particularly when it comes to housing?
    Mr. Patten: It seems that the Opposition are opaque not only about their housing policies but about some of their other policies, particularly those on local government finance. They all wait avidly for the next appearance of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) in the television studios so that they can learn something about Opposition policies.

    Paint Spray Cans
    Mr. Ashton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to protect the environment from the effects of paint spray cans.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): Damage to property by graffiti—whether caused by spray paint or otherwise—is already an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, attracting a possible maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. However, the scourge of graffiti will be removed permanently only when it is brought home to those responsible that their activities are unacceptable. The role of parents and schools in this educative process is clearly of the utmost importance.
    Mr. Ashton: The Minister is blaming everyone else. What does he intend to do to prevent the walls in practically every city in Britain being covered by disgusting graffiti? The Minister said nothing about that. First, why does he not introduce a simple law that would prevent paint spray cans being sold to people under 18? Secondly, why does he not introduce a law that would oblige people buying paint spray cans to give their name and address to the shop? The police could then easily trace them when graffiti appeared on walls in the neighbourhood. Simple measures such as that would deter children—it is children, not adults—from doing this. The way to deter them is not by Acts of Parliament.
    Mr. Trippier: I share the hon. Gentleman's views about what is clearly a disgusting habit, but he is being uncharacteristically unfair when he says that we are hot doing anything about it. I have heard some of his suggestions before. I do not believe that they would be all that effective. They would be extremely difficult to enforce, particularly the taking of names and addresses. That would place an unduly onerous burden on shopkeepers. Many thousands of paint spray cans are sold for legitimate use every year. It is doubtful whether offenders could be tracked down. The House should acknowledge that the Department of the Environment is spending a sizeable amount of money, through its estate action programme, on helping to combat graffiti on rundown council estates. Under the urban programme, we are spending more than £500,000 on anti-graffiti and anti-vandalism projects.
    Mr. Summerson: Will my hon. Friend consider using his good offices to persuade the manufacturers of paint spray cans to institute a recycling system? That would be much better than the Romanian idea put across by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).
    Mr. Trippier: I am happy to confirm that we are approaching those companies.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to change the rules of local connection in the Government's review of the homelessness legislation.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: We are committed to discussing with local authority associations a thorough overhaul of the "rules" of local connection. It is for local authorities to put forward their views on the most appropriate arrangements.
    Mr. Skinner: I hardly dare ask whether the Minister is aware that, whatever rule changes are made with regard to local connection, they will be insignificant compared with the need for a massive public sector housebuilding programme throughout Britain. When the Minister goes to the Strand and sees people living in cardboard boxes, he will understand the reality of the past 10 years of running down the housebuilding programme. There are millions of bricks in stock, thousands of building workers ready to be employed and millions of homeless people. One does not need to be a Pythagoras to put the three together.
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman and I have been sparring over coal matters for many years. He seems to be as wrong about this subject as he is about coal. A massive increase in funds is going through the Housing Corporation to housing associations. That will double the rate of build by those associations during the next two years. The hon. Gentleman is right that shelter must be provided. That is precisely what the Government are doing by means of a panoply of policies that affect both the private and the public sector. As those policies affect the private as well as the public sector, the hon. Gentleman ignores them.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is sufficient housing accommodation in London to accommodate 10 times the number of homeless people there? The long-term homeless have turned their back on

    879
    society. Young offenders should be the responsibility of their parents, not of this Government. The Government have done quite enough for the homeless. I hope that they will spend no more money on them.
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the problem of homelessness goes much deeper than Opposition Members seem to imply. It has to do, for instance, with the relationship between parents and their children, as my hon. Friend said. It is also an international problem; one of the countries in which it is rife is Denmark. The problem has been in existence for years. I was involved 25 years ago in the setting up of Crisis at Christmas, so homelessness has been with us for a long time. It is a great problem and it will be a great challenge to solve it.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that homelessness goes no deeper than the fact that there are not enough homes at affordable prices for people who desperately need them? One does not need a degree in housing administration to work that out. Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that in the mid-1970s local authorities in London were building about 25,000 units of accommodation a year, whereas last year they built fewer than 2,000? That is the problem of homelessness: the homes are not being built.
    Will the Minister assure us that the Department will carry out a full survey of homelessness in London? As he is new to his job, will he take up the offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and go out to the streets of London to see this critical problem?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised, perhaps, to know that one of the first things that I did in my new job was to go out to see the problem on the streets, as he might have expected of me. Part of the homelessness problem has been caused by the tremendous mismanagement by councils of their estates throughout the country, which has resulted in uninhabitable properties being empty. That is one of the reasons why we are spending £250 million to upgrade those properties—that is a contribution to solving the homelessness problem.

    Thomas Brown (Waste Disposal Licence)
    Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce a decision concerning the appeal by Thomas Brown of Whinfield farm, Pennington, regarding the revocation by Cumbria county council of his waste disposal licence, lodged in summer 1988.
    Mr. Trippier: Written representations have been completed on this appeal, lodged on 16 September 1988, and an official from the Department will make a site visit on 20 February. The Secretary of State hopes to be able to determine the appeal once he has received the site visit report.
    Mr. Franks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having taken a personal interest in this matter since I tabled the question. I am sure that he will agree, if only in private, that it is not only unsatisfactory, but an utter disgrace that it has taken 18 months for the Department to arrange a routine site inspection on a routine appeal. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity provided by this question, and
    880
    by others tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House, to look at the appeals procedure, which is the weakest part of the planning process?
    Mr. Trippier: I am prepared to go further than my hon. Friend expects me to, in that I am prepared to say publicly that I think the delay wholly unacceptable. I am grateful to him for drawing this matter to my attention. There is certainly enormous pressure on staff time, but, as a result of my hon. Friend drawing this matter to my attention, I shall ensure that the process is speeded up.

    Pollution Inspectorate
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the staffing and resources of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution.
    Mr. Trippier: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations, mainly from hon. Members and from, or on behalf of, local authorities.
    Mr. Michael: What will the Minister do about those representations? Vacancies are running at about 20 per cent. across professional grades; there is low morale and poor recruitment; and about 32 staff, compared with Holland's 1,000, are dealing with air pollution. So how does the Minister expect us to believe that the Government are serious about tackling pollution?
    Mr. Trippier: It was the Government's idea to set up the inspectorate in the first place and we are very proud of that. The inspectorate of pollution is a powerful agency, set up by us and staffed by talented and highly dedicated people who are committed to ensuring better protection of the environment. It is very sad that the hon. Gentleman should seek to devalue the currency of that. It is true that there are vacancies now, but as I told the first sitting of the Standing Committee considering the Environmental Protection Bill yesterday, whatever resources HMIP needs to do its job it will have.
    We have been short of applications for the vacancies, but in the past we have been short of people who were up to the necessary quality to fill the vacancies. We have an accelerated recruitment programme, which we hope will end by February, by when I hope to be able to tell the House that we have filled the vacancies.
    Mr. Onslow: Has my hon. Friend received any representations from the chairman of the National Rivers Authority?
    Mr. Trippier: Yes, I have on this specific matter, and we shall have to consider them under the Environmental Protection Bill.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister expand on his statement in Committee yesterday that whatever resources HMIP requires in future will be available? Will he confirm that that has been cleared with the Treasury, and will the same resources be allocated to local authorities, which under part I of the Bill, will share responsibility with HMIP?
    Mr. Trippier: The recruitment of local authority staff is not the responsibility of the Department of the Environment or any other Department. Several local authorities would have much to say if we were so to

    881
    interfere. I think that the hon. Lady prepared her supplementary question prior to hearing my substantive answer to the question on the Order Paper. I clearly said that HMIP will be given whatever resources it needs to do its job.
    Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that noise is one of the problems being considered under the Environmental Protection Bill? Will he further confirm that the Department of Transport appears heavily to have censored the content of the Bill, and will he take this opportunity, if I am wrong, to deny that it has insisted that aircraft noise be excluded from consideration?
    Mr. Trippier: It is true that we have set up a committee to study noise and that we shall consider certain aspects of noise pollution under the Environmental Protection Bill. The Department of Transport is reviewing aircraft noise. Whether it will be involved in considerations prior to the White Paper is another matter.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his latest initiatives to publicise the introduction of the poll tax.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): A public information campaign is currently taking place. It is designed to ensure that as many as possible of the 10 million people who could be helped through the payment of community charge benefit, and of the 6 million people who could be helped through the provision of transitional relief, know whether they need to apply in order to receive such help.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that no matter how much the Department spends on television advertisements, such as the pensioner telling her dog "Flash" about so-called community charge benefit, the reality is that 1 million people in Scotland are not paying the poll tax? They are likely to be joined in April by millions more in England and Wales [HON. MEMBERS: "Including Labour Members?"] Yes, including more than 30 of my hon. Friends. The Minister may think that the battle ended last Thursday with the containment of a few Tory rebels, but, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "He ain't seen nothing yet."
    Mr. Hunt: I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will carefully reflect on what he has just said. He is in a position of authority by virtue of his membership of this honourable House. Will he reflect on the fact that by his action his constituents will have to pay a higher community charge so that he and his cronies can have a free ride?
    Mr. Squire: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have a press release from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) which mentions up to 30 Labour Members of Parliament joining a mass non-payment campaign? Will he accept that those of us who have always been agnostic about the community charge have never suggested that we support non-payment? We fully represent and recognise Parliament's standing in passing laws. Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising that any campaign to encourage the
    882
    non-payment of taxes can only be in the worst interests of this country and, above all, can only reflect badly on the Labour party?
    Mr. Hunt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The privilege of membership of this mother of Parliaments confers on us not only rights and privileges but also duties and responsibilities. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) sets a very bad example to the country in seeking to urge others not to pay as well as saying that he will not himself pay the community charge. It is, however, very much a matter for the Labour party, and I urge the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and his colleagues to join me in condemning the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Blunkett: I do not think that we will have any difficulty in defeating the poll tax at the ballot box.
    Given the Secretary of State's admission last Thursday that the standard spending assessment system on which local authorities' assessment of need is based is inadequate, given that the distribution system was admitted to be flawed and in need of revision for next year and given the undisputed fact that poll tax figures in at least two thirds of local authorities will be somewhere in the region of £60 to £100 above the Government's target figures, will the Minister stop blaming local government and admit that the £3 so-called ceiling on increases is a myth and that the transition system which is being publicised is, therefore, unacceptably flawed when it comes to what people will get? Will he redirect our money away from propaganda and towards telling people the truth?
    Mr. Hunt: I greatly regret that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) did not take this early opportunity of criticising his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East and of making it clear that his hon. Friend would get no support from him.
    As regards the hon. Gentleman's other points, we made it clear in the debate, and I made it clear to the Association of District Councils yesterday, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are perfectly prepared to look at any new evidence that councils wish to adduce as to why their position under the standard spending assessment should be improved. That remains our position. It is now a fact, however, that as the last piece of the jigsaw goes in and every council in the country knows the amount of external finance that it will receive, the level of the community charge is now up to every council to decide.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many well-conducted councils face a tremendously above-average increase in the community charge? After this first year, will he please go into the whole question of the grant formula to see whether councils can be more fairly treated?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) is an effective lobbyist on behalf of his area and the Warwickshire county council. I reiterate that we shall look at any new evidence that he seeks to adduce as to why the standard spending asessment in Warwickshire does not reflect the county's actual needs, but I remind him that nationally the total of the SSAs is 11 per cent. above the equivalent total for grant-related expenditures in the coming year and the external finance goes up by 8.5 per cent.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to tackle the problem of homelessness.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: In consultation with local authority associations and voluntary organisations, we are now taking forward the proposals that my right hon. Friend set out in his statement of 15 November, following our review of the homelessness legislation.
    Mr. Orme: Following the exchanges this afternoon, does not the Minister agree that this issue is now a national scandal? It is not just a London problem but is to be found throughout the cities and towns of our country, including my own area of Manchester and Salford? Will his Department initiate a census and report back to the House within one month on the size of the problem and how to deal with it?
    Mr. Spicer: This is not just a problem in London or the other cities in the United Kingdom, it is an international problem—many countries suffer from the same phenomenon at present.
    It is very difficult to get accurate figures because the population is mobile, but we aim to get as accurate a picture as possible because, as the right hon. Member and many other right hon. and hon. Members have said, the matter is one of considerable urgency to us. There is no question about that. I give the House a firm assurance that we are treating the problem in an urgent manner. The amount of £2 million is available to voluntary organisations to be used to the best advantage.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: As my hon. Friend said in answer to an earlier question, one of the main causes of homelessness is the apparent shortage of rented accommodation, especially in London. Does he recall that last year the Environment Select Committee made it clear that Labour-controlled housing authorities were keeping properties empty for inordinate periods? That is grossly inefficient. What are my hon. Friend and his colleagues doing to ensure that those authorities make better use of their housing stock, thereby reducing homelessness in the capital?
    Mr. Spicer: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have launched many programmes that have that effect. The estate action programme is a highly imaginative scheme which the Government introduced to ensure that, in particular, Labour-controlled council property is put to far better use than it has been recently. I agree with my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that many voluntary organisations catering for the homeless are desperately short of money? How much of the £2 million will be distributed to the north-west of England, where we have a great homelessness problem, or is the Minister leaving it entirely to voluntary organisations to sort the matter out?
    Mr. Spicer: No. The Government will be deeply involved in the allocation of the funds. We may use the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux as a means of co-ordinating part of the distribution of the funds. The Government are taking an intense interest in the allocation.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that anyone in his right mind has much sympathy with people who are homeless? Over the past few weeks, and especially last Thursday, the Birmingham Evening Mail ran 48 pages of job advertisements. All those jobs were available for people who wanted them. People who have the good jobs that are advertised in the Birmingham Evening Mail can afford a home. Let us not think that anyone who is homeless is deprived by the Government—often such people do not want to work and do not want to thrive.
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. It must be said, however, that one of the features of those who are roofless and sleeping rough is, of course, that they find it difficult to get jobs.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Of course.
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend says, "Of course." That is one reason why the problem is unacceptable. Many of these people are children, and our first advice to them is, therefore, to go back to their parents.

    Polychlorinated Biphenyls
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ban the importation of all polychlorinated biphenyls.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I have no plans to ban the importation of all polychlorinated biphenyl waste. To do so would be environmentally irresponsible when we have facilities for safe disposal and effective notification and monitoring controls. But the Environmental Protection Bill contains powers to restrict, and if necessary to ban, imports of waste—including PCB waste—where there are risks of pollution or harm to human health.
    Mr. Livsey: Given that the Government are moving towards banning transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong case for tabling an amendment to the Environmental Protection Bill to prevent toxic waste and PCBs coming to Britain from developed countries?
    Mr. Patten: We have argued within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Community that, by and large, developed countries—the OECD members—should deal with their own toxic waste. We must limit the amount of movement of toxic waste between countries. I do not think that it would be right to press for a ban. If I did that, I would be a Secretary of State whose decisions had led to illegal dumping at sea and on African beaches.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that environmental pollution does not recognise national frontiers? We would like industrial waste, especially toxic waste, disposed of in the country of origin. Nevertheless, because Britain has at its disposal plant that is capable of handling such waste safely, we have a moral duty to the rest of the world to accept it, and that is totally in keeping with our lead on green matters internationally.
    Mr. Patten: We have first-class technology, as my hon. Friend says, for dealing with toxic waste. The House probably recognises that the overwhelming majority of

    885
    waste that we deal with is produced in this country; only about 5 per cent. of it comes from abroad. That is a far smaller proportion than in many other countries.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Secretary of State condemn the practice of Rechem International—the chemical company that imports PCBs—of issuing writs like confetti against anyone who criticises it, thus stifling any possibility of public debate? Fourteen writs have been issued. I must admit a vested interest; I am one of the 14 people being sued. Will not the Minister accept that what he has said is wrong? There are plans for increasing the amount of imports. Will he confirm that between October 1988 and August 1989, 6,700 tonnes of toxic waste came into the country, that Rechem is increasing its capacity for incinerating toxic waste and PCBs from 82,000 tonnes to 150,000 tonnes and that the Government are allowing one shipload of toxic waste and PCBs a week into the country? The Government are ministering purposely over the trade in poison to mask the balance of payments deficit in manufactured goods.
    Mr. Patten: Even by the hon. Gentleman's standards that is average nonsense. I do not want to come between the hon. Gentleman and his solicitors or anybody else's solicitors. The figures that I gave earlier are correct. Only about 5 per cent. of the waste that is dealt with in this country comes from abroad. We have pressed internationally to limit as much as possible the movement of toxic waste. We will continue to press home that initiative.

    New Towns Commission
    Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the Commission for the New Towns.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): The date of my next meeting with the chairman of the Commission for the New Towns has not yet been fixed.
    Mr. Soames: When my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Commission for the New Towns, will he remind him that the commission made an exceptionally successful investment in properties of which it is now disposing in new towns, from which the taxpayer is being paid a handsome return? Will my hon. Friend have a word with the Treasury to see whether it is possible to establish from the proceeds of the sales a charitable fund of a very small amount per annum, the percentage to be agreed, to provide community projects in the new towns concerned?
    Mr. Chope: The commission already has power under statute to make contributions to local charities and other voluntary organisations. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the extent of those contributions. I shall be happy to raise that matter at my next meeting with the chairman of the commission.

    Water Standards
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates of the capital investment required to meet European Community directives on water standards.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have notified the Commission of the £1·8 billion that water undertakers in
    886
    England and Wales will be spending over the next five years to remedy current situations of non-compliance with the EC drinking water directive.
    Water companies also have investment programmes totalling £1·4 billion to improve bathing water quality.
    Mr. Welsh: Why is it taking European court action against the British Government to force the pace in bringing British water supplies up to recommended European standards? Is it not disgraceful that levels of aluminium, lead and other substances above European standards are daily being ingested by millions of people in Britain? As a lead pipe replacement programme would solve the lead problem, is the Minister encouraging his housing colleagues to reverse their present policy of reducing finance for such a project as part of a general scheme to bring British water supplies up to European standards?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman mentioned lead. In fact, our national standards are more stringent than that required under the European directive. He also mentioned aluminium, where the directive standard is aesthetic rather than for health reasons because water containing aluminium can appear cloudy even though it is safe to drink. We have drawn up a comprehensive and fully funded programme of compliance and agreed it with the water service companies
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Richard Holt.
    Hon. Members: Favouritism.
    Mr. Speaker: It is not favouritism, it is compassion.
    Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend may be aware that at lunchtime today I had the privilege of hosting a table of parliamentary guests from Belgium, who are in this country to discuss water because of the excellence of our supplies. They said that Brussels does not have a single water purification plant. In view of that, before the EEC starts telling us what to do with our water, it should get its own house in order.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We understand that the Commission has begun infraction proceedings against virtually every other member state. Even if we do appear before the European Court for an alleged breach of the drinking water directive, it will be our first case. I remind my hon. Friend that 68 other breaches of environmental directives by other member states have already come to court. Instead of being the dirty man of Europe, we have one of the best programmes and records of compliance of any country in Europe.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Is not London water recycled six or seven times? That may go down well with some people—possibly because it is time that people in the city had a pure water supply. Is not that a basic right? Is it not something that the Government should consider with real intent as these basic issues will arise time and again? It is a rip off.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: London water is entirely safe to drink, even if it has been recycled through the hon. Gentleman. The Water Act 1989, by placing those companies in the private sector, has given them access to additional investment finance, while setting rigorous independent scrutiny by regulations.

    Housing Investment
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following the announcement of allocations to local authorities for their housing investment programmes in 1990–91.
    Mr. Chope: Very few representations have been received. While some have been critical, others have welcomed the doubling of HIP allocations in 1990–91 and the better targeting of those resources.
    Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend will be aware that, during progress on last year's Local Government Housing Bill, I made several representations about the specific problems in the urban areas of Taunton Deane. We are grateful for the recognition of those problems in next year's allocations. We also note that the inner cities again receive the lion's share of the new money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) pointed out, Labour councils do not always use their resources effectively. Will my hon. Friend the Minister, do his best to ensure that those Labour councils fill their empty council homes, collect rent and rate arrears and work constructively with the private sector to meet housing need?
    Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his appreciation of the increased HIP allocation for Taunton Deane. It has almst quadrupled for next year and it shows the effectiveness of our new system of targeting. My hon. Friend was right to express frustration at the way that many Labour authorities use the large sums of money that the Government make available to them. I hope that more of them will heed his points and get better value for money.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister confirm that local authority associations have made repeated representations to his Department because the HIP programme has been reduced? Will he also confirm that the reduction during the past 10 years under this Government has meant a reduction in affordable homes and in homes available for the elderly? Even with the increase for 1991, is there not a reduction of more than 25 per cent. on last year because of the way that the housing programme has been manipulated by his Department? When will he give the full facts about the housing investment programme and about the needs and demands of the local authorities that are required to meet the need for affordable housing?
    Mr. Chope: I am sorry to have to tell the House that the hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. HIP allocations next year will be more than £2 billion, which is more than double this year's allocation, and total public expenditure on housing capital next year will be more than £4·4 billion, which is 7 per cent. higher than this year's provision.

    Association of District Councils
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of District Councils; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Chris Patten: My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities addressed the ADC national symposium yesterday. He spoke about the revenue support grant settlement.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Amber Valley has done extremely well out of the safety net arrangements, for which we are extremely grateful to the areas that have contributed? Does he also agree that if the community charge in Derbyshire generally ends up being higher than the estimates, it will be due solely to the profligacy of Derbyshire county council?
    Mr. Patten: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend and I look also for the endorsement of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    Mr. Gould: But what answer can the Secretary of State give to the Tory chairman of the ADC, who said last week on behalf of the association that the Government's poll tax estimates were artificially low? What answer can he give to poll tax payers in Tory-controlled districts and elsewhere who, when their bills arrive on 1 April, will be outraged to find that they are required to pay much more than the Government have so far let on? What answer can he give to his own hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), who know all too well what is in store for their constituents, or does he think that all those people are wrong and only he is right?
    Mr. Patten: I give to those councillors and to others the answer that I gave the House last week—the main determinant in community charge levels next year will be the rate of spending by local authorities. I wonder when the hon. Gentleman will be answering the point put by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities earlier this afternoon. We waited with edge-of-the-seat enthusiasm just now to discover whether the hon. Gentleman would condemn his hon. Friend the free riders of the Militant tendency.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the right-to-buy legislation since 1980.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: The 174,000 sales in 1988–89 bring the number of tenants who have exercised their right to buy their homes to more than 1·1 million.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that complete reply. Does he agree that the sale of council houses represents the greatest shift of assets to the individual that the United Kingdom has ever experienced, and would he care to comment on the Labour party's policy? Although the Opposition say that they would maintain the sale of council houses, they will not confirm that they will maintain the discount system. Does my hon. Friend further agree that, without discounts, the sale of council houses would stop and that the Labour party's policy is typical humbug yet again?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is right on all counts, I think, although the Labour party's policy on the right to buy is a bit of a mystery. It seems that the Opposition have performed a volte face and decided that they now like a policy that they originally attacked, as they attack so many of our policies at their inception. On the other hand, there seems to be no question of the Labour party's giving incentives to buy. Moreover, it would seem from leaks of the Labour party's policy that its new policy on local

    889
    taxation would give a kick in the teeth to those who have bought their council houses. I do not know what sort of a policy that is.
    Dr. Reid: Is the Minister aware that some Labour Members have always been pleased to support the provision of opportunities for working people to obtain their own homes, either by purchase or by rent? What we find criminal is that the selling-off of existing council houses has not been complemented by the building of new council houses for people who cannot afford to purchase their own homes. Is it not a very one-sided and unfair policy that correctly provides for the majority of people in Scotland and throughout Britain to purchase their own homes but at the same time deprives local authorities of the moneys necessary to provide the homeless and those on low incomes, who have no prospect of purchasing their own homes, with a roof over their heads?
    Mr. Spicer: The Government take account of the total housing stock in Britain, and that has been expanding rapidly particularly in recent times. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a massive increase ahead in expenditure in public sector housing by the Housing Corporation and housing associations, which will combine public with private money to build new homes, and that is precisely the way it should go in future.

    Olympic Games
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet those bidding to host the 1996 Olympic games in Manchester.
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I met members of the bid team on 2 October last year to discuss progress on Manchester's Olympic bid and am ready to meet them again at any time. They are well aware of the Government's enthusiastic support for Manchester's bid.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern among those who support this bid that the unofficial cricket tour of South Africa may jeopardise Manchester's chances of hosting the Olympics in 1996? Does he agree that that would be most unfair to Manchester? Will he use his considerable influence with the Olympic authorities to promote Manchester's bid for 1996?
    Mr. Moynihan: I do not think that my hon. Friend's fears will be confirmed. On the contrary, I believe that the bid will be looked at on its merits. Manchester and the north-west of England have a long and illustrious sporting tradition and are well versed in providing for the very best in sport. I am confident that holding the games in Manchester would be a fitting tribute to the centenary of the modern Olympic movement.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Tony Banks: Does anyone not have a point of order?
Mr. Speaker: A good question. Mr. Heffer first.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) raised some points with the Prime Minister in relation to the chairman of the Conservative party, you were quick to rush in and tell him that the Prime Minister had no responsibility. I did not argue with that; we all know she has not.
But today, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) raised the question of Labour party policy. He droned on for some time and you did not make a move, Mr. Speaker, in relation to that matter. If we are to have a decision about Conservative party policy—I do not disagree with that—then the same must apply to the Labour party and—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Heffer: It must apply to the Labour party and—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Heffer: —to any other party in the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. No. This is an abuse. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has been here long enough to know that we frequently discuss party politics across the Floor of the Chamber. What happened yesterday—and I am not prepared to go over what happened yesterday—as the hon. Member for Walton well knows, is that there was a question to the Prime Minister from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) about an individual Member, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). It was not about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Mr. James Pawsey: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the real point at issue—
Mr. Heffer: I had not finished.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to bully me. I have given the hon. Member an answer. Mr. Pawsey.
Mr. Heffer: But, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Pawsey: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the real point at issue the fact that no Member rose from the Opposition Benches actually to say what Labour policy was on the discount of council houses?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a clear continuation of Question Time. I will take points of order now, if they are
892
matters with which I can deal, but we cannot have a continuation of Question Time or, as I have said to the hon. Member for Walton, a continuation of what went on yesterday. That was bad enough.
Mr. Allan Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. News is just coming through that a helicopter on hire by Strathclyde police has crashed on a sheltered housing complex near Eastwood Toll in my constituency. I understand that at least one death has been reported so far. Would you consider sympathetically a request from the Scottish Office for a statement to be made on the matter in the near future?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, although I am sure that the House will be distressed to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say. However, I am sure that his comments have been heard by the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, and understanding your problems, you will be aware that, just before 3.30 pm, you called the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), who asked a very important question about attracting the Olympic games to this country. He associated that point, quite rightly, with the vital question of South Africa and the views of the British Government which will dominate that matter. However, you did not find it possible to call a Labour Member, not even myself. I wonder whether you could exercise a little tolerance so that we can express our views about that matter.
Mr. Speaker: I saw the right hon. Gentleman looking at the clock, which read 3.31 pm. Question Time ends at 3.30 pm, and I am sorry that I was not able to call him.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) or for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) for a statement by a member of the Treasury Front Bench on the apparent unclearness of the Customs regulation?
Mr. Speaker: I have not.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respectfully ask that later this afternoon you obtain a transcript of the Official Report of the last few minutes of Question Time. If you would be so kind, would you read the question from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)—Question No. 15—because I believe that at the time that he asked his question you were being distracted? I could see the Clerks in front of you trying to attract your attention to make the point that I am about to make.
I for one, and I suspect many of my hon. Friends also, do not mind if Tory Members want to raise aspects of Labour party policy, because we are quite capable of answering those points—as long as the application of the rules of the House are wide enough to allow my hon. Friends such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) yesterday, the same rights as—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No. As far as the Clerks are concerned, they were, I think, warning me about the time. It was getting on for 3.30 pm.
Mr. Nellist: You are smiling.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Surely the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is not suggesting that it is open to him and his hon. Friends to attack the Government for their policies, but not to hear an attack from the Government on Opposition policies. That would not be fair.
Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just a simple point: is it in order for an hon. Member to incite people to break the law? If it is, will you at least deprecate that?
Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says here, to ensure that it is in order, and also for his actions.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has put out a press release headed "MPs defy the Poll Tax". The paper on which that press release is printed carries the House of Commons portcullis crest and also a note of a House of Commons telephone number for inquiries about that incitement to break the law. Will you rule whether the rules of the House in any way allow the use of the portcullis and House of Commons telephone lines to incite breaches of the law?
Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows that that is not in order. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of that, he should, as I said yesterday when a similar matter was raised, send that evidence to the Services Committee which deals with such matters.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an Opposition day. If there are points of order with which I can deal, I will take them.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Could not the difficulty manifested in the turmoil today and yesterday be neatly resolved if you were to say that, when hon. Members make points of order they should distinguish between two new categories—television points of order and real points of order?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have my own private thoughts on matters of that kind.
Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have a reputation second to none for safeguarding Members of this House. I wonder whether you could use your position and your involvement with the Commonwealth Speakers Conference to have a word with the Speaker in Singapore about whether he will take steps to ensure that hon. Members visiting Singapore have their affairs safeguarded. In a recent case, three
894
Members fell for a situation in which a shopkeeper gave a very low receipt. This has caused problems in this country. If you, Sir, were to have a word with the Singapore Speaker, and if Members who were overseas were looked after properly, this sort of embarrassment would not occur.
Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that the Speaker in Singapore would relish that added responsibility.
Mr. Robert Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Two and a half years ago, in response to a query from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), you deprecated the Liberals' habit of putting down questions relating specifically to other Members' constituencies. There is a series of early-day motions on the Order Paper that relate specifically to the constituencies of Members of this House. Does your deprecation of questions, both oral and written, relating to specific constituencies extend to early-day motions?
Mr. Speaker: This matter has been drawn to my attention, and I am considering what I can legitimately do about it.
Mr. Barry Field: You, Mr. Speaker, are responsible for the proper conduct in and working of this House. I believe that the influence of Militant Tendency on MPs' conduct is a matter of considerable concern to Members on both sides. You, Sir, will not be aware that the Isle of Wight Labour party has condemned the "Don't pay, won't pay" campaign against the poll tax or community charge—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is seeking to carry on Question Time. The point that he seeks to raise is not a matter for me.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: This is an Opposition day, but I will call Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Harry Cohen: You will know, Mr. Speaker, that there is considerable difficulty in raising questions about the internal workings of government—in fact, it is impossible to do so—yet it has been widely reported that the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is just leaving the Chamber, was humiliated by the Prime Minister when she restored the trade in ivory and thus put the African elephant at risk—a matter which concerns many hon. Members. Would it be possible to table questions about the Prime Minister overruling the Secretary of State for the Environment—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that in this House we will maintain our tradition of debating party policies rather than individual differences within parties. That is not our traditional practice in this House.

Rent Acts (Repeal)
3.43 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Rent Act 1957, the Rent Act 1977 and the Rent (Amendment) Act 1984.
This Bill would repeal what remains of the Rent Acts. My objective is to increase the supply of modestly priced accommodation available for renting in the private sector so that no one need sleep out in a cardboard box or spend years in bed-and-breakfast accommodation while on a waiting list for a council flat, or pay an extortionate amount of key money to obtain a tenancy in what remains of rent-controlled property.
Everyone in this Chamber knows full well that Members of Parliament, at their surgeries, deal endlessly with people who come for help to find accommodation or to shift from one council estate to another. Certainly half of the people who come to my surgeries are in that position.
You, Mr. Speaker, and I know that, when we were young, there was an adequate supply of privately rented housing for people of modest means. My family lived in a flat in the top half of a house, but if we chose to move, we were able to do so. In those days, people even did moonlight flits from one private rented flat to another. There was somewhere for them to go. It is not true that today there is a shortage of low-cost housing; it is just that people who own that property are afraid to rent it out because they see the Rent Acts as an obstacle to their control over the situation.
We must ask ourselves what has happened to the market since the days when you and I, Mr. Speaker, were young people and could find somewhere to rent. Of course, we have retained the Rent Acts which were introduced as emergency measures during wartime.
A Swedish economist has said that, short of saturation bombing, the best way to create a critical shortage of housing is to control property through rent legislation. In Sweden, where there was a similar problem to ours, the Swedish Government took a step forward and removed what remained of rent control. Sweden now has a surplus of housing, and young people can pick and choose in the accommodation market. If Sweden, the Socialist Utopia, can do that, it is surely time that we, under a Government dedicated to the principle of creating markets, should also take that step.
People watching this programme may ask, "How does it affect my tenancy if I am a tenant in the private sector?"
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not a programme for the television; it is a debate in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is speaking to her motion. It is the case that it is in the view of the television cameras.
Mrs. Gorman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
People who rent property may be worried about what remains of the Rent Acts disappearing, but property in the council and private sectors is already subject to market rents. By creating a new pool of rented property, we will help to secure tenancies. When I was Westminster city council's vice-chairman of housing, we examined the
896
census for central London alone, and pinpointed 10,000 units which were under-let, not let or available for let only as holiday rents.
People would rather leave their properties empty than risk losing control over them, which is what currently happens. We have turned the landlord into a bogyman, and we have made it shameful to rent property. Therefore, it is not surprising that people are reluctant to adopt the role when they have a spare room in their homes. I am sure that my proposal would release such property into the marketplace.
Whenever the state seeks to take over the provision of any service—for example, education, health, roads and housing—we get shortages, queues and human misery. We know that, when the free market is allowed to operate—for example, in food, clothing, holidays and leisure pursuits—there is a surplus, because we are catering for people's needs and aspirations.
There is no shortage of privately owned cars, but there is a shortage of roads on which to drive them; there is no shortage of television sets, washing machines and other things to put in the home, but there is a shortage of homes to put them in. My legislation would partially correct that problem.
If the Opposition seek to divide the House on this simple, modest measure, people will conclude only that they wish to continue their doctrinaire attitude that only the state should provide housing for the people. However, my party is dedicated to the idea that, by restoring markets and by giving people the freedom to supply a service without unnecessary encumbrance, we will increase the supply of that service. That is what people want.
I acknowledge what the Government have already done, particularly in the Housing Act 1988, in recreating assured and shorthold tenancies, but people living in cardboard boxes in inner London cannot apply for tenancies because they lack the necessary references or respectability to do so. If we can release the spirit of the kindly landlady—the type of landlady I had when I first left school and rented a room in a private home—we will supply housing that can serve those people's needs.
That principle is the one at which my Bill is directed and to which the Government are dedicated. I commend the Bill to the House.
3.49 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I suppose that it is logical for the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to make the arguments that she has, because her belief in the market is well known to all of us. She does not believe in any form of legislative interference at all and her belief in the free market can be described as being the same as that of any 18th or 19th-century Whig. She has a political attitude of her own that can best be described as the stone age tendency with some fraternal leaping towards ticket touts.
The hon. Lady's Bill refers to the Rent Act 1957. Most Tory Members would not be happy to refer to that legislation, which was piloted through the House by someone whose fervent enthusiasm for the free market is no less than that of the hon. Member for Billericay. I refer to Mr. Enoch Powell, who was then a junior housing Minister.
Mrs. Gorman: He is a brilliant man.
Mr. Minnick: On Second Reading of that legislation, Mr. Powell said—now we shall learn how brilliant he was—
"It will halt the drain upon rented accommodation, it will release additional accommodation which is under-used or wasted, it will arrest the deterioration of millions of houses for lack of maintenance, and it will give to persons who are moving or setting up home the opportunity to find accommodation in the market."—[Official Report, 21 November 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1775.]
Those are almost identical to the words used by the hon. Member for Billericay. Mr. Powell was proved wrong, and not for the first time—just as the hon. Lady herself has been proved wrong.
In June 1956, privately rented dwellings numbered about 6.5 million, but by December 1961, after the Rent Act 1957 had done its work, that figure had been reduced—I emphasise the word "reduced"—to less than 5 million. The abuses that were a consequence of the 1957 Act are known to us all. That legislation brought such misery and hardship to countless people that, when Labour was returned to office in 1964, the then Tory Opposition could not bring themselves to defend it and did not argue against new legislation introduced by the Housing Minister, Richard Crossman.
Recently, Ministers said that the Housing Act 1988 would lead to a revival of the private rented sector, and there were questions on that subject today. We know that there has been no such revival, but a revival only of the practice last seen around the beginning of this century, of people having to sleep in the open, for instance, just five minutes' walk from this House. Night after night, they are forced like people elsewhere to tolerate such conditions because they cannot afford market rents.
The purpose of the hon. Lady's Bill is to take away the legal rights of tenants who were in occupation before the Housing Act 1988 came into force. If her Bill ever became law, the rights of more than 1 million tenants would be denied. There is enough intimidation and pressure on private tenants already, without that happening. I suggest that a more appropriate title for the hon. Lady's Bill would be the Return of Rachmanism Bill.
The 1957 Act failed totally and the Housing Act 1988 is also failing. The Department of the Environment refuses to answer my questions about how many new tenancies have been created by that legislation. The real need is not for a supposed revival of the private rented sector, which will never come about, but for local authorities and genuine housing associations to be permitted once again to do the job that they should be doing, and build new accommodation. It is not just the homeless as such: I have constituents, even families with two children living in council flats, who now have to wait years before they have the opportunity to get a house.
Some Tory Members referred at Question Time today to the number of council dwellings that have been sold. That is fair enough, but why should they not be replaced? Why should people be penalised because they do not have the means to obtain a mortgage or to pay the market rate for private rented accommodation? Why should so many of our constituents be penalised, be inadequately housed, or have to live in the type of accommodation that I have just described, or, what is even worse, in bed and breakfast accommodation?
The solution to the problem will result not from the hon. Lady's Bill but from a Labour Government allowing local authorities and genuine housing associations to build
898
houses. That is the solution to the housing problem, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 167.

Division No. 44]

[3.55 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Alexander, Richard

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Amos, Alan

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Atkinson, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Monro, Sir Hector

Body, Sir Richard

Mudd, David

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Pawsey, James

Brazier, Julian

Rhodes James, Robert

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

Riddick, Graham

Buck, Sir Antony

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Budgen, Nicholas

Shelton, Sir William

Butcher, John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Sims, Roger

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Speller, Tony

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Fox, Sir Marcus

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Fry, Peter

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Gill, Christopher

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Thurnham, Peter

Gregory, Conal

Viggers, Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Ward, John

Hannam, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Hayward, Robert

Wiggin, Jerry

Hordern, Sir Peter

Wilkinson, John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Hunter, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Janman, Tim

Mr. Barry Field and

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Mr. David Evans.

NOES

Allen, Graham

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Alton, David

Dewar, Donald

Anderson, Donald

Dixon, Don

Ashton, Joe

Dobson, Frank

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Doran, Frank

Barron, Kevin

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Battle, John

Eadie, Alexander

Beith, A. J.

Eastham, Ken

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Evans, John (St Helens N)

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

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Blunkett, David

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Boyes, Roland

Fatchett, Derek

Bradley, Keith

Faulds, Andrew

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Fearn, Ronald

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

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

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Fisher, Mark

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Flannery, Martin

Buckley, George J.

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Callaghan, Jim

Foster, Derek

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Fraser, John

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Galloway, George

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Cartwright, John

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Clay, Bob

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clelland, David

Gordon, Mildred

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Gould, Bryan

Cohen, Harry

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Coleman, Donald

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Grocott, Bruce

Corbett, Robin

Hardy, Peter

Corbyn, Jeremy

Haynes, Frank

Cox, Tom

Heffer, Eric S.

Cryer, Bob

Hinchliffe, David

Cummings, John

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Cunningham, Dr John

Home Robertson, John

Dalyell, Tam

Hood, Jimmy

Darling, Alistair

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

899

Howells, Geraint

O'Brien, William

Hoyle, Doug

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Parry, Robert

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Pendry, Tom

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Pike, Peter L.

Illsley, Eric

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Ingram, Adam

Primarolo, Dawn

Janner, Greville

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Radice, Giles

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Redmond, Martin

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Reid, Dr John

Kilfedder, James

Richardson, Jo

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Kirkwood, Archy

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lambie, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Leighton, Ron

Sheerman, Barry

Litherland, Robert

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Livsey, Richard

Short, Clare

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Sillars, Jim

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Skinner, Dennis

Loyden, Eddie

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McAllion, John

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

McAvoy, Thomas

Snape, Peter

McCartney, Ian

Soames, Hon Nicholas

McFall, John

Soley, Clive

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Spearing, Nigel

McKelvey, William

Steinberg, Gerry

McLeish, Henry

Strang, Gavin

McNamara, Kevin

Straw, Jack

McWilliam, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Madden, Max

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Ells

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Marek, Dr John

Wallace, James

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Walley, Joan

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Wareing, Robert N.

Martlew, Eric

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Maxton, John

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Meacher, Michael

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Meale, Alan

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Winnick, David

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Wray, Jimmy

Morgan, Rhodri

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Mullin, Chris

Tellers for the Noes:

Murphy, Paul

Mr. Harry Barnes and

Nellist, Dave

Mr. Tony Banks.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Question accordingly negatived.

Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Schools
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  I do not have the authority to limit speeches to 10 minutes on an Opposition day, when two subjects for debate have been chosen. However, I hope that both Front-Bench and Back-Bench speakers will bear in mind the fact that, if they are able to limit their speeches to 10 minutes, many more hon. Members will be called.
  4.6 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for the divisiveness and failure of its schools policies; notes that Britain now spends a lower proportion of its national wealth on education than in 1979, that fewer children receive nursery education, that a lower proportion of young people stay on in full-time education post-16 than in competitor countries, and that teacher morale has never been lower; and believes that unless there is effective investment in education and training with a properly valued and well motivated teaching profession, the Government will fail the next generation and further undermine Britain's economic prospects.
  The Government's schools policies have clearly failed. Britain's teachers are underpaid, demoralised and leaving the profession. Children have to learn in squalid, underfunded conditions. The whole system is overloaded with hasty and ill-considered changes. Worst of all, the Secretary of State is blind to the scale of the problems that he now faces, as the complacent claptrap of the Government's amendment makes clear.
  When the Secretary of State replies to the debate, he will no doubt feed the House with a series of comforting platitudes about the Government's record and intentions. He will ask us to accept his claim that there has been no deterioration in teacher resignations, no overall change in teacher supply during the last few years—as though the mid-1980s was a golden age of English education, when standards rose, choice was extended, books and equipment were plentiful and every child had a permanent, properly qualified and well-paid teacher in front of his or her class. However, Sir Keith Joseph was in office those few years ago, to be followed by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker).
  What this Secretary of State must grasp is that the crisis over which he presides has arisen not just in the six months during which he has been in office, although it may sometimes seem that way. Instead, this crisis is the consequence of the accumulation of 10 years of damage and neglect; 10 years in which one year's flight of experienced teachers out of the profession has turned the screw on the next year's; 10 years in which one year's cuts in books and equipment and redecoration has compounded the next year's; 10 years in which each year's lack of investment means a generation of children who have been denied the educational choice—
  Mr. James Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.

  901
  These have been 10 years in which each year's lack of investment and intellectual self-fulfilment has meant a generation of children denied the educational choice and intellectual self-fulfilment to which they are entitled. They have been 10 years in which the nation has fallen further behind our competitors in its skills and ability to compete.
  A rising proportion of parents now believe that the general standards of education have fallen in the past few years. An overwhelming proportion of the electorate believe that the Government want to run down public services such as education and health. And the difference between the Secretary of State and the electorate is that the electorate have direct experience of the Government's neglect of education—he does not.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the most notable reforms of the Conservative Government, especially in London, was the abolition of the Inner London education authority. Will he give me an unequivocal answer: will the Labour party bring back an Inner London education authority or not?
  Mr. Straw: As I shall say later in my speech, there is no question but that the gratuitous and unwarranted abolition of the ILEA has made a difficult situation for teacher recruitment much worse in inner London; I know that as a parent. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is: no, I do not give that unequivocal assurance. Nor have I ever given it, because, unlike Conservative Members, we care about the education and about the children of inner London. Having seen the damage caused to them by one disruption, we shall not, in a cavalier way and without consulting parents or teachers, force further change. When we have won the next election, we shall carefully consult the boroughs and parents and teachers about what arrangements they think best for the education of the children of inner London.
  Mr. Tom Cox: Is my hon. Friend also aware that, the interjection by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), notwithstanding, the Inner London education authority was abolished against the wishes of the parents and teachers of London? The hon. Member for Surbiton, who lives in the borough of Wandsworth, knows that meetings were called there at which total opposition to abolition was expressed—and the hon. Gentleman was never at the meetings.
  Mr. Straw: Of course I understand what my hon. Friend says. The abolition of ILEA was an act of political spite with no educational justification. Those of us with children in ILEA schools have seen the difficulties that those schools have had to face in the past two years because of the Government's deliberate disruption of children's education and of the administration of education. Ministers' children do not go to school in ILEA or any other—
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
  Mr. Straw: I must get on.
  Mr. Frank Haynes rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment. Let us examine the record of the past 10 years. The first Secretary of State, then Mr. Mark Carlisle, was a well-intentioned wet who tried but failed to save education from the first and most savage round of cuts in 1980–81. He was
  902
  followed by Sir Keith Joseph, sincere, indecisive to the point of paralysis, whose inability to produce a settlement of the two-year teacher dispute and whose failure to secure resources for the system tested our education service almost to the point of destruction.
  It is perhaps as well to remember that the new chairman of the Conservative party was put in to repair the havoc wrought by Sir Keith, but he left the service in an even worse state than that in which he found it. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is the master of the gimmick and the quick fix—the "here today, I'm off tomorrow" approach to policy. The man who landed the Government with the poll tax and the student loans scheme was also the architect of the lethal combination of city technology colleges, opting out, the local management of schools, an inflexible national curriculum, and the constant denigration of the teaching profession which has brought the service so low.
  Mr. John Maples rose—
  Mr. Straw: I will give way in a moment.
  In 10 years, the proportion of national wealth devoted to education and training has fallen. Except in Labour areas, far fewer children in England receive the benefit of a nursery education than in our European competitor countries.
  Perhaps the greatest test of any system is the proportion of young people who complete their compulsory school education with recognised qualifications and stay on beyond 16 in full-time education or high-quality training. On that test, the Government's record over the past decade is a national disgrace. The life chances of half a generation have been wasted. Fewer young people stay on after 16 than in any of our major competitor countries.
  Moreover, the proportion staying on after 16 in full-time education has, as statistics from the Department of Education and Science show, barely moved—from 33 to 35 per cent.—despite a rapid decline in the size of the age group, which should have led to a dramatic improvement in opportunities.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is talking about spending. Will he explain why yet again, the Inner London education authority spent the most on secondary school pupils but came 88th in the examination league? Before he says that it is because of the composition of London, will he explain why Wigan, which spent £1,000 less per pupil, came 15th in the examination league?
  Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman should know the answer.
  Mr. Straw: Yes, the hon. Gentleman should know the answer. The figures that he gave distort relative examination performance. As the Department's statistical bulletin makes clear, when an adjustment is made for the social input and intake of children in ILEA, it comes not 88th but 46th in the league. The hon. Gentleman should know that the costs of services in inner London are much higher than outside. Proportionately, it costs less to run ILEA than the social services department of the Conservative-controlled City of Westminster, and much less than running the Government-controlled Metropolitan police.

  903
  I return to the Government's lamentable record on 16 to 19-year-olds. The excellent report, "Towards the Skills Revolution", from the Confederation of British Industry, says:
  "Britain has one of the lowest rates of participation in post compulsory education and training of all"
  western
  "countries, producing a much smaller number of school leavers educated to the standard required of a modern economy … Even in the newly industrialised nations in the Pacific Basin, far more people remain in education and training after the end of compulsory schools"
  than in Britain.
  Other countries have clearly established targets to raise standards and participation. South Korea proposes, within a decade, to get 80 per cent. of its young people to university entrance standard. The Socialist Government of France say that 75 per cent. should achieve university entrance standard. Labour has proposed the setting of similar targets for Britain—the doubling of participation for those aged between 16 and 19 within a decade, with clear machinery for ensuring that locally realistic targets are set and funded.
  After 10 years in office, where is the Government's programme for extending participation for those aged between 16 and 19, and where are their targets for that age group? They have none. The one reform that the Government could have implemented at little extra cost—the broadening of the 16-to-18 curriculum with a five-subject A-level, as recommended by the Higginson committee—was vetoed last year by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: How quickly does the hon. Gentleman think that the numbers participating in higher education could be doubled? As he is asking for more resources, will he say why Ealing council has cut its education budget by £2·5 million but increased its rates by 32 per cent.?
  Mr. Straw: I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of Labour's policy review and a copy of "Children First", which sets out Labour's policy in detail. Ealing is in the same position as every other local education authority: the Government have imposed completely unrealistic targets on it which, if it meets them, will result in the closure of classrooms and the sacking of teachers.
  Dr. Keith Hampson rose—
  Mr. Straw: No, this is supposed to be a short debate and I have given way five times. There is lots of talk from this Secretary of State and his partner, the Secretary of State for Employment, about the need to improve education and training between 16 and 19, but precious little action, because this Secretary of State knows, as a former Treasury man, that if there is to be improvement in education there must be investment in it, and that is the one thing that the Government have resolutely refused to do.
  In the past 10 years, the Government have deliberately cut their investment from the centre in the running and in the building of schools. In 1979, Government funded £6 of every £10 spent by local authorities; today, they fund only £4·50 of every £10. The Government have cut their investment in the running of schools by over 25 per cent. in real terms, and the modest improvement in total spend
  904
  is entirely accounted for by local authorities and ratepayers who, year by year, have had to spend in advance of Government guidelines just to maintain a half-decent service. So underfunded is the service that in many parts of the country parents are forced to raise thousands of pounds to pay for essential books and equipment, but where the parents of a school do not have that kind of money, their children go without.
  At Rottingdean school in Brighton, children are now to be charged £9 each for the use of a school locker.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What has that to do with education?
  Mr. Straw: If that has nothing to do with education, perhaps Government Members and the Secretary of State will tell me whether the arrangements for charging at the Bligh county infants' school in Kent, a state school, have nothing to do with education. This county primary school has made arrangements, as schools up and down the country do, to admit children who are rising five, those whose birthday falls in the summer term. They have done so especially this year because of anxiety among parents that, unless their children are now admitted, they will miss out on the nine terms of education that other children will receive before the national curriculum tests at the age of seven.
  The parents of the 25 children rising five who were admitted at the start of this term are being charged £11 a week for tuition fees—this is in a state school.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Why not?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) asks why not. I will tell him. One, it is almost certainly illegal; two, if it is not illegal it is in breach of very clear commitments from the Treasury Front Bench.
  Mr. Bob Dunn rose—
  Mr. Straw: I will give way on this issue to the Secretary of State and no other.
  I spent this morning checking whether the report in the Chatham, Rochester and Gillingham News was correct. I spoke to the headmistress and to the reporter of the story, and my office spoke to the divisional education officer. The story is correct in every particular. Kent county council now says that it is not a class for rising-fives but a pre-school playgroup. We asked the divisional director of education whether, if it was a playgroup, playgroup leaders were in charge of the class. We were told that it was a trained teacher on the roll of the infants' school. We asked whether the children were playing or learning. We were told that they were not playing, that they were learning. We asked who was paying the teachers. The county council is paying the teachers, we were told, but the parents are paying the county council. It is schooling, not a pre-school playgroup.
  I now offer the Secretary of State a chance to intervene. Will he promise to investigate, under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944, whether Kent county council's actions are lawful, reasonable and consistent with Government policy or whether this is, as we believe, the start of fee-paying in state education? The right hon. Gentleman does not wish to speak.
  Mr. Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Straw: I give way.
  Mr. Dunn: I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman has finally given way. I know that he likes to take these matters seriously, because I believe that he wishes to be remembered for that. He must understand, however, that the quality and range of education in the county of Kent are supported by the people of Kent. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, the range, variety and concept of schools in the county of Kent would not exist for five minutes under a Labour Government.
  Mr. Straw: I have no idea why I accepted my hon. Friends' invitation to show my usual generosity and give way to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). He did not answer the point; nor did the Secretary of State, and his silence is revealing.
  One of the schools governors, the Rev. Steve Wallis said that the school had to charge parents for what their children would receive in any other educational authority because
  "Kent Education Committee refused to fund such classes".
  That is shameful and outrageous, and the Secretary of State should condemn it.
  Current spending by central Government has been cut; so has capital spending, which is down 25 per cent. in real terms in 10 years. The Secretary of State will not give the figures since 1979, but even since 1981—a year of cuts—there has been a catastrophic cut in the amount invested in the nation's schools. As Labour's campaign has highlighted, we have a nation of crumbling schools and schools with leaking roofs, rotting windows, classrooms that have not been redecorated for years and classes housed in split sites, prefabricated buildings and buildings that are way past their useful life.
  This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) told me that in his constituency, at the Birmingham Padget junior school in Pipeboys, the ceiling of one of the classrooms had collapsed yesterday evening. If that had happened during school hours, many children would have been injured.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: The problem was worse than that. A ceiling in a corridor collapsed. For two years, school staff, parents, the council and I have been trying to get money to get the roof repaired. The city council has said that it has a growing backlog and inadequate funds. This puts children at risk.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving that detail. Birmingham has not been able to repair that classroom because it has not received the requested capital allocations from the Government. This year, capital allocations for England are just 64 per cent. of the 1981 level. Next year, despite all the bally-hoo from the Secretary of State, they will be £67 million less than in 1981. They are wholly inadequate to make up for the neglect of a decade.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: Has my hon. Friend seen the school magazine "In Our Own Words"? The magazine was originally produced in Warrington, has become a national magazine and is about to go international. It is designed and edited by children, and all the contributions are by children. The magazine has been supported by Cheshire council and received substantial
  906
  grants from the council. When it applied for a tiny amount of money centrally, because it was now a national production, the request was refused. Is that not a disgrace?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, it is. If Cheshire county council spent at the target set for it by the Government, the teachers who are running that excellent project would have to be fired.
  Throughout the country, desperately needed repairs and improvements have been delayed yet again by the Government's failure properly to meet local authorities' capital requirements. St. John's and St. Clement's Church of England primary school in East Dulwich is on two sites, one a converted church hall. Children have to walk back and forward across a busy main road. Its rebuilding is at the top of the diocesan list for Southwark, but it has been vetoed yet again by the Secretary of State.
  In Bradford, the Buttershaw first school had three temporary classrooms which could not be used, so children had to be bussed four miles across the city to watertight premises. At last the city council has said that it will replace the classrooms, but I understand that they are being replaced not by permanent classrooms but by further temporary classrooms.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are now 600 temporary classrooms in Bradford, many of which have been temporary for so long that they themselves are falling down, as were the classrooms at Buttershaw, and that even Tory-controlled Bradford has been denied about £20 million when it asked for £30 million capital expenditure to improve the shanty town and crumbling Bradford schools? The Tory Government cut the amount to below £10 million.
  Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. My hon. Friends who represent Bradford have run a brilliant campaign to draw attention to the state of the city's schools. There is scarcely a city with schools in a worse state. The conclusion we draw is that that is directly related to the fact that there is a Conservative council in charge.
  While Britain's county schools are starved of cash, the Government continue their support for city technology colleges. No programme has been such a comprehensive and expensive failure. Twenty were promised by last month; we have three. Most of the money was supposed to come from business. Instead it has come in the main from the taxpayer. Nearly every blue chip company has boycotted the programme. What support there is has come from the sleazy, the failing and the second-rate—from American car auctioneers, ADT Securities; from the nearly-bust Lowndes Queensway; from the bid victim Dixon's.
  The Secretary of State knows that the scheme is a failure. He has already limited CTCs to 20 in total, and has described the original programme of his predecessor as over-ambitious. He knows that the policy is wasteful and wrong, so why does he not scrap it altogether and immediately save £120 million, which could be spent on a crash programme of repairs and improvements, as we have demanded?
  Mr. Alistair Burt: Apart from the fact that parents are queuing up to send their children to CTCs, will the hon. Gentleman explain why teachers prefer to move from the state sector to work in city technology colleges?
  Mr. Straw: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman does not understand why. If as is happening in Nottingham, more is spent on a single school, than the Government have allowed Nottinghamshire county council to spend on over 450 schools in its area, if money is lavished on school buildings and if the teachers are paid more, of course many parents will apply for their children to join that school and many teachers will prefer to work there. That does not make the policy right. It exposes the hypocrisy and double dealing of the Government in regard to the majority of children.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the capital allocation to the city technology college in Gateshead is larger than the amount available for all the other schools in Sunderland this year?
  Mr. Straw: Is it any wonder, therefore, that the rest of the schools in Sunderland face such difficulty?
  Mr. Flannery: Will my hon. Friend accept that the nonsense talked by Tory Members conveys the impression that teachers go along with the policy? The reality is that teachers in Nottingham are outraged because so much money is being spent on one school and a handful of teachers. Does my hon. Friend accept that other children and parents are angry at what is happening? [Interruption.] Tory Members all know that that is true.
  Mr. Straw: I am aware of that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  Investment in education has been cut by central Government and the system has been overloaded almost beyond endurance by ill-considered, divisive, meretricious initiatives.
  We warned two years ago that the Government's national curriculum was far too inflexible, much more a state syllabus, and that schools could not operate it in full and meet the other educational and social needs of their children. So it is turning out. The national curriculum is imploding under its contradictions. The testing arrangements are obscure, but potentially a nightmare, especially at seven and at 16, when Ministers have yet to explain how GCSE and national curriculum testing will fit together.
  The Prime Minister is trying to make the history syllabus a partisan instrument. Schools are weighed down with paper. Local management of schools could have resulted in sensible delegation of some local education authority cash and functions. Instead, it is forcing many schools to choose between teachers and books, posing them impossible choices and putting schools under a financial incentive to dispose of experienced teachers and to employ the cheapest and the youngest.
  There are more than 1·25 million surplus school places, wasting £240 million in premises costs alone. However, the responsibility for the lack of progress in removing those places lies with the Secretary of State. Opting out has scarcely been a success, but the possibility of opting out has paralysed the prospects for sensible schools reorganisation in many parts of the country, especially as Ministers have allowed schools to opt out to escape closure or reorganisation.
  Given all that, is it any wonder that the morale of the teaching profession
  "is lower than it has been for fifty years, that teachers feel unappreciated, that the Government reforms … have certainly not treated teachers as professionals"?
  908
  Those are not my words, but the words of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), a former Conservative Education Minister, at a speech to the constituency Conservative association of the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, last weekend.
  The right hon. Member for Brent, North was right to say that the blame for the collapse in morale lies firmly on Ministers. The Secretary of State may comprehend that he is reaping the whirlwind for the way that his predecessor treated teachers as the whipping boys of society. However, he has yet to acknowledge the scale of the problem over which he is presiding, rather than repeatedly making light of it.
  Britain has been short of properly trained permanent teachers throughout the mid and late 1980s. However, a bad position is now becoming much worse. The percentage of teachers qualified in the subject that they are teaching actually dropped between 1984 and 1988. The percentage of graduates entering teaching halved during the 1980s. Half of those who train to teach are not in teaching after five years; some may later return, but there are as many people with teacher qualifications not teaching as there are teaching.
  Today, thousands of our best and brightest teachers are getting out, either to other jobs, to no jobs, to go abroad or to retire early. Yet again, the Secretary of State will no doubt trot out his claim that only 1 per cent. of teachers—around 4,000—have been leaving teaching for other jobs. He knows that that figure grossly understates the real wastage in the profession. The report of Professor Alan Smithers, of Manchester university, states that, if one strips out those changing teaching posts and those reaching normal retirement age,
  "we arrive at a provisional departure rate of 4·9 per cent."
  That is nearly 20,000 teachers—not 4,000—for 1989. He said:
  "This … is likely to be an under-estimate, but it is nevertheless five times the aspect of wastage commonly referred to by Government Ministers".
  The Secretary of State will also claim that the acute problem is confined to inner London. As Ministers have acknowledged, all London Labour boroughs have worked with a will to make the transfer of education responsibilities to them as smooth as possible. However, as I said earlier, there is no question but that the gratuitous abolition of ILEA has greatly contributed to the problem of recruiting new teachers in inner London. Despite the problems that inner London boroughs' now face, Ministers have yet to respond to the joint Labour and Conservative boroughs, initiative on housing, which was sent to them two months ago.
  The figures for the country as a whole show a slow but steady worsening of shortages outside London, and across the country, with one head teacher and LEA after another reporting more and more difficulty in recruiting candidates of adequate quality.
  If the Secretary of State denies that, let him answer three questions. First, can he guarantee that no child will be without a properly qualified permanent teacher in his or her class this year, next year or the year after? Or is he willing to give that guarantee only in respect of children who go to private schools?

  909
  Secondly, if there has been no change in the situation, why has advertising of teacher appointments in The Times Educational Supplement increased by nearly 60 per cent. in two years?
  Thirdly, if there is no problem outside London, why did the schools sub-committee of his own, Tory-controlled Norfolk county council have on its agenda on 6 December last year, for the first time in its history, an item dealing with teacher shortages? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the report in the Eastern Daily Press, which said:
  "Nearly one in five Norfolk secondary school teachers are expected to leave their posts this year, new figures have revealed. The number of primary school teacher resignations has also soared"?
  If there is no problem outside London, where do those stories come from? I am prepared to give way to the Secretary of State if he has an answer.
  The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) said in the House on 5 December:
  "if we are beginning to have problems in Norfolk, whatever must it be like in other parts of the country?"
  The hon. Gentleman continued:
  "It is no good"
  the Secretary of State
  "pretending that the problem does not exist. It is no use pretending that, while money will not solve everything, we can expect a highly motivated teaching profession if we do not reward teachers accordingly."—[Official Report, 5 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 286.]
  But teachers will not be rewarded accordingly by this Secretary of State. This Government's stock in trade is pretence.
  The Secretary of State will tell us that teachers' pay has risen by 40 per cent. since 1986. So it has, but the right hon. Gentleman omits to tell us that, before 1986, teachers' pay had fallen grievously behind. A comparison of teachers' pay in 1979 and teachers' pay today shows that it is £1,000 less today that it would have been had it simply kept pace with increases in non-manual earnings over that period.
  The Secretary of State has cash-limited the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and Conditions to £600 million, to give teachers an increase lower than the rate of inflation. When he fixed the cash limit in September, the Secretary of State wrote to the Chilver committee that inflation
  "will continue to decline further in the months ahead".
  In fact, inflation has risen. What allowance will the Secretary of State make for that? Does he not understand that, if the cash limit is not lifted, teachers will not be properly rewarded, and that if they are not properly rewarded, they cannot be retained?
  How will local authorities be able to keep the teachers they have if they observe the Government's poll tax spending targets? The Government's poll tax spending targets mean that education authorities across the country—Tory as well as Labour—will have to cut their budgets by more than 3·5 per cent. Let the Secretary of State say, now or in his speech, how many teachers will have to be fired and how many classrooms closed if those targets are met.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: None.
  Mr. Straw: The Minister's PPS says, "None." Does the Minister himself say, "None"? Does he deny the claims made by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Association of District Councils? The simple truth is that there is not a local authority in the
  910
  country that could meet the standard spending assessments for education and other services without having to cut the number of teachers that it now employs.
  In an orgy of self-congratulation, the Government's amendment refers to the "coherence" of their programme. I hope that, in his heart, the Secretary of State does not believe such nonsense. Certainly no one else does. As the Government's so-called coherent programme of reforms has been introduced, so public support for their policies has evaporated. That is why Conservative newspapers such as the Sun, the News of the World and The Mail on Sunday have severely criticised the Government's education record since Labour launched its "crumbling schools and teacher shortage" campaign.
  In contrast to the Government, we promise no wasteful, divisive gimmicks such as CTCs, assisted places and opting out. We have already spelt out and published a comprehensive programme for schools and teachers. We propose the setting of clear targets for staying-on rates, the establishment of an educational standards council, the reform of teacher training, the establishment of teacher training schools and a general teachers' council. We shall secure effective support for new teachers, a proper database for the teacher labour force and a career structure for teachers' assistants, make major modifications of the national curriculum and introduce local management of schools and a crash programme of repairs.
  Above all, we promise a Labour Government committed to state education, investing in it and using it, and because the public increasingly—
  Mr. George Walden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for nearly 40 minutes. That means that it will take well over an hour to launch a three-hour debate. There are many wise heads on both sides of the House, particularly on the Conservative Benches, and I wonder whether they could be given some consideration by the Front-Bench spokesmen.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I repeat what Mr. Speaker said at the beginning: this is a short debate and I hope that all hon. Members will keep an eye on the clock.
  Mr. Straw: This debate was called by the Labour party. I had hoped to make a shorter speech, but the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) will find in tomorrow's Hansard that at least 12 minutes, if not 15 minutes, of my speech were taken up in dealing with interventions from Conservative Members.
  The public increasingly back Labour's constructive alternative proposals, and public support for our educational policies is rising sharply. At the general election, the Conservatives and Labour were level on the question of which party had the best education policy, but Labour now has a 20 per cent. lead.
  If, as the right hon. Member for Brent, North said, teacher morale has never been lower in 50 years, there is a reason for that; the reason is that, in 50 years, we have never had a Government who have treated teachers and children so casually, and who have so obstinately refused to invest in the nation's future. It is time for the Secretary of State to wake up to the crisis in education that is all around him. This Government's schools policy has failed, and I commend the motion to the House.
  4.46 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its coherent programme for securing lasting improvements in standards in schools through its policies for the National Curriculum, assessment and testing, for increased parental choice, and for greater autonomy for schools; notes the increased expenditure since 1979 of over 40 per cent. in real terms per pupil; contrasts these reforms with the neglect of relevant education policies by the last Labour Government and the absence of any constructive alternative proposals by Opposition spokesmen; notes that the requirements of the National Curriculum, building on the successful introduction of GCSE examinations, enjoy widespread support in the education system; and welcomes the enthusiasm with which governors, teachers and parents are seizing the opportunity to exercise more choice and greater autonomy in the management of their schools."
  The Education Reform Act 1988 represents the culmination of a decade of work by this Government to create the conditions and framework to secure real and lasting improvements in our schools. The reform programme has been based on what needs to be done to raise standards. I have been quite clear throughout my period as Secretary of State that we need to raise standards substantially, and I am determined to do that.
  Parents, employers and the public at large recognize that we must take a number of steps. We must define more clearly national objectives for what is taught in order to raise the expectations and achievements of pupils and teachers. We must guarantee a broad and balanced curriculum for all pupils and improve the relevance of that curriculum to adult life and the world of work. We must improve the quality, standards and range of subjects taught for pupils of all levels of ability to match what is being provided by some of the best of our main competitor countries. I regard that as vital for our economic success in the 1990s. We must foster greater choice for parents, greater variety at local level, more control over their own budgets for schools, more responsibility for governing bodies, and greater involvement of local business people and parents in them.
  Much has already been achieved in all those matters. It was clear from the dismissal by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) of the national curriculum that he simply does not understand what the reforms are already achieving. Let me remind the House of a decade of action under this Government, in contrast to years of drifting under Labour.
  Mr. Haynes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to be brief. The hon. Member for Blackburn complained that his speech had been lengthened by responses to interventions, so the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
  Mr. Haynes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I shall give way once.
  Mr. Haynes: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if people have a choice and can go to a CTC, they should not expect to use the facilities of their local education authority? That is what people in Nottinghamshire think anyway.
  Mr. MacGregor: Many people in Nottingham think it wrong that children going to a CTC—I shall have more to say about CTCs later—should be deprived of extracurricular activities for which their parents have paid through the rates. That is the wrong kind of discrimination.
  I shall contrast the decade of activity under the Conservatives with what went before. Labour Members talked about examination reform. We acted. The introduction of the GCSE has already seen substantial improvements in teaching and learning; it was noticeable that the hon. Member for Blackburn did not refer to those.
  Attainments have improved significantly. The proportion of candidates getting grades A to C has increased in just two years by about 15 per cent. The number of pupils staying on after the age of 16 rose in 1988 by about 10 per cent., the biggest single increase ever. That shows what our reforms are achieving. The available evidence suggests another substantial increase in 1989.
  Her Majesty's inspectors report that those improvements, which are helping to motivate more children to positive achievement, are already beginning to improve the curriculum in the early years of secondary education. That is success, not failure.
  We acted to introduce greater relevance and technical applications into the curriculum through the technical and vocational education initiative, known as TVEI. That programme is being supported by over £1 billion of new investment during the 14 years from 1983 to 1997. Every local education authority in the country is involved in TVEI. That is success, not failure.
  We acted to put the Education Act 1981 on the statute book, ensuring a new deal for all pupils with special education needs. We acted to create 35,000 places in successful independent schools for bright pupils through the assisted places scheme, after the wanton destruction of the direct grant schools.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn talked about greater achievement and attainment. The achievement of those pupils tells its own story. Over 90 per cent. of assisted places pupils last year gained grades A to C at GCSE, 86 per cent. gained grades A to E at A level and 70 per cent. of last year's assisted place leavers went on to higher education. That is success, not failure.
  With schools now being able to manage much of their own budgets, we are now building on earlier legislation in 1980 and 1986 to give them greater freedom to take their own decisions. There are now thousands of new governors in our schools, representing a huge injection of new support from the community and from parents. Already, 83 schemes of local management have been approved in principle. From April, the great majority of LEAs will be introducing their schemes of financial delegation and formula funding.
  There is widespread support for the principles of local management, and we shall be working with LEAs to ensure its success. That is why the Government are supporting a programme of over 100 million to assist schools in managing their budgets, through installing information technology systems and through training governors and staff. That is important reform for achieving success, not failure.
  We have acted to improve and increase the availability and quality of in-service training for teachers. In the last three years we have supported a programme of £600 million for in-service training through specific grant for

  913
  both national and local priorities. I remember the priority that the last Labour government gave to in-service training for teachers. No wonder we heard nothing about that from the hon. Member for Blackburn.
  At the same time, we have reformed and sharpened the focus of initial training through the work of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. Contrast that with the wringing of hands by former Labour Secretaries of State, which was all that passed for action on that count under the last Labour Government.
  We will have substantially increased spending per pupil—up by 42 per cent. in real terms over the last 10 years. That is success. That compares with a cut of about 2 per cent. in the last five years of Labour government—that was failure.
  Capital spending per pupil has increased by 10 per cent. in real terms over the same period, compared with the slashing of the school building programme under the last Labour Government because of the total failure of their economic policies.
  I clearly remember how the school building programme was savagely cut under the last Labour Government because they went for over-ambitious spending targets in the first year or two, did much to destroy our economy, had to go to the IMF to he bailed out, and then we saw slashed capital building programmes for the three years thereafter. We had to pick up the problem from that point and make the improvements that we are now achieving.
  Dr. Hampson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the only time since the war when the proportion of young people going on to higher education fell was under the last Labour Government, due to the dramatic cuts that they made in education provision.
  In view of the complaints that Labour Members now make about the fall in GDP, their attention should be drawn to the fact that the latest OECD figures show the proportion of GDP in this country well ahead of Germany, only slightly behind—by 0·01 per cent.—that of Japan, and the same as in the United States.
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right on both points. The illustrations that I have given and his point about higher education demonstrate how much hypocrisy there was in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I will not give way again.
  In short, while Labour dithered in the past, and still cannot make up their minds on how to improve quality, we have acted. Where they failed on educational expenditure, we have succeeded, as a result of the economic expansion that we achieved in the 1980s, in considerably increasing the resources devoted per pupil throughout the education system.
  Mr. Straw: As the right hon. Gentleman is so proud of the amount being spent on education, may I ask him to comment on the policy of Kent county council, which is short of money and is charging rising-fives £11 a week for education? Does he approve of that policy?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have a relevant part in my speech in which I shall reply precisely to that question—[Interruption.] It will fit into the context better if I deal with it then.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I shall not give way again, having taken careful note of what Mr. Deputy Speaker and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said a few moments ago.
  I refute the charges of the hon. Member for Blackburn. and point to the considerable progress achieved on all fronts in the 1980s. We are on the right track. But of course—I accept this and have always said it—we still have a long way to go if we are to achieve the competitive, high-quality standards and performance that we require for the 1990s.
  That is why we introduced the national curriculum and the many other measures contained in the Education Reform Act, the biggest reforms since 1944. I find it amazing that the hon. Member for Blackburn is so dismissive of the national curriculum and those reforms. We are pressing forward at speed with the national curriculum programme. It is a major challenge for everyone involved in education, and one we should all relish and welcome.
  I suspect that secretly the hon. Member for Blackburn knows that that is right, but of course he cannot bring himself to give open support to the reforms carried through in that Act and in the national curriculum. There is widespread support and acceptance by teachers of the benefits which nationally agreed attainment targets and programmes of study are bringing to teaching and learning in schools.
  The national curriculum is bringing new and welcome rigour to the curriculum planning of primary schools. I have made it clear in speeches at conferences where I have addressed members of independent schools that I hope that all independent schools will take up the national curriculum. As we get success with it, I believe that they will, because there will be a demand from parents that they do so, and the teachers will wish to respond. Clearer objectives and a supportive framework of what should be taught is bringing new life to the curriculum throughout our schools.
  The fact that there is much enthusiasm for our approach is shown by the demands that I am now getting for the other subject areas to be brought fully and effectively within the national curriculum as soon as possible. Of course, there is lively debate about what they contain, and that is all to the good. I hope to publish the final report of the history group next month, geography and modern languages will follow in the summer, and. I shall be making an announcement soon on music, art and PE.
  There is widespread support, too, for the national curriculum to be underpinned by effective testing and assessment arrangements. In a survey of parental attitudes conducted by independent analysts last year, over three quarters of parents expressed support for regular testing and regular reporting of the results.
  That is the Government's policy. Under the national curriculum, pupils will be assessed against clear national standards at seven, 11, 14 and 16. For the first time, parents will have reliable reports, throughout the country and at all those stages, about their children's progress, and teachers will have the information they need to tailor their teaching to the strengths and weaknesses of individual pupils.

  915
  National assessment is well on the way to becoming a reality. Prototypes of the first national tests are under development and are being tried out in schools. The first national assessments of seven-year-olds in mathematics, English and science will be in 1991. Other foundation subjects and key stages will follow in subsequent years.
  I have dwelt on that issue, because I believe that the national curriculum is a fundamental reform. When historians look back, this will be seen as a time of enormous change and improvement. That is why it is right to underline the importance of the national curriculum. We are devoting an enormous amount of resources, time and effort to ensuring that the national curriculum works. We are getting on with that constructively, with massive effort and with vigour, with the aim of raising standards and improving quality and relevance. Typically, the speech made by the hon. Member for Blackburn contained scarcely any recognition of that.
  I want now to consider the Government's policies for extending real choice for parents, something that the Labour party does not really understand or believe in. We have abolished artificial limits on the places available in popular schools and parents are already benefiting this year, where places have been freed in secondary schools. We have required every local education authority to set up local arrangements for handling complaints which offer parents a readily accessible local route for pursuing complaints.
  When schools have control of their own budgets—as so many shortly will—those which attract more parents, and hence pupils, will also attract more funds. That is a key principle of the formula under the local management of schools for distributing budgets. We have introduced a new and flourishing grant-maintained school sector. There are now 20 grant-maintained schools in operation, and a further 12 have been approved to start later this year. The new sector is growing rapidly. Already, the number of grant-maintained schools is about the same as the number of schools in an average local education authority—and they started only in September.
  I want to spend a moment or two on that aspect of our reforms, because I believe that the benefits of and the potential for grant-maintained schools have been much underrated. Typically, the hon. Member for Blackburn dismissed those schools as a gimmick; that shows that he does not understand. Of course some local education authorities and their officials, in a narrow and blinkered way, oppose grant-maintained schools, because they are dedicated to uniformity and bureaucratic control. At heart, I suspect that some of them dislike giving the governors, teachers and parents real choice. I suspect that is what the hon. Member for Blackburn does not like about them. Some LEAs may be tempted to squeeze them out, but I hope that they will think again, as was shown in relation to CTCs.
  Grant-maintained schools are popular with parents and successful with teachers. So far, there have been ballots at 78 schools on whether to apply for grant-maintained status. Even though the first grant-maintained schools have had their greater independence for only a short time, there has been a marked increased in the number of applicants for places.
  916
  Many schools have yet to complete their admissions procedures for entry in September 1990, but responses from parents greatly exceed the overall number of places available. For example, at Wilson's school in Wallington, there have been more than 470 applications for 120 places. That shows that we are extending parent power and parent choice and the results are clear.
  The success of the first grant-maintained schools shows that parents have been quick to utilise their rights and choose the autonomy that grant-maintained autonomy brings. Moreover—this is very important—on my visits to grant-maintained schools I have seen the obvious dedication and enthusiasm of governors and staff for their new status. Many of them talk of the motivating effect that such status has had on them. Their hard work and commitment is proving a sure foundation for the new sector.
  We are also widening parental choice by pressing ahead with our programme of city technology colleges. Three colleges are now open—only three years after the start of the programme. Yesterday I announced that Derby is to have a CTC, opening in 1991, and only last week I was able to confirm that the parents and children of Corby would soon be able to opt for this new and exciting choice of secondary education.
  Mr. John Fraser: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: No.
  Mr. Straw: Oh, go on.
  Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Blackburn admitted that his speech was too long because he had to give way; I will bear that in mind.
  Parents are voting with their feet for places in the CTCs because they want their children to benefit from the vigour and innovation which characterises CTCs. They will pioneer new approaches to classroom practice, timetables, even the working day. They will develop new approaches to the curriculum, and show the way on co-operation and collaboration between business and industry and education. The CTCs are doing this just where it is most needed—in our cities and towns where, for years, the outlook for young people has been bleakest.
  I want to put the expenditure into context, because the hon. Member for Blackburn always touches on peripheral points. We expect local authorities to spend about £11 billion on the maintained sector of schools under current spending. We expect CTCs to spend £14 million.
  I want to see the benefits of CTCs as they develop spread more widely. That is one of the purposes of this innovative and creative idea. I want to build on the enthusiasm and commitment of business and industry which the CTC programme has already unlocked. That is why I heard with interest the proposal from the London borough of Wandsworth last week for a voluntary-aided CTC as a way of bringing what CTCs have to offer right into the maintained sector. I shall be looking carefully at all the issues involved.
  Of course the proportion of spending on CTCs will rise as they expand. However, the proportion of spending on CTCs is still tiny in relation to spending on the total maintained sector. The whole of the education system and

  917
  the inner-city area programme will receive benefits and a high rate of return from that comparatively modest investment.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to teacher shortages. He continues to show an unenviable capacity for misunderstanding—or perhaps he just prefers blatantly to misrepresent the facts. I am glad that, in reply to my repeated invitations, he has now accepted my offer of discussions with my Department's officials about the available statistics. I want a completely open debate about the statistics, and it would be at least an advance if we could have better informed speeches from the hon. Gentleman in future.
  I have said many times—I repeat it again today—that there are some serious problems of teacher supply. However, no purpose is served by misrepresenting them. The hon. Member for Blackburn is always highly selective in his choice of statistics and examples. Therefore, I want to state the overall position.
  There is no evidence that teacher shortages are dramatically worse than in previous years or that we are facing a nationwide crisis. All three measures of teacher supply bear that out.
  Mr. Flannery: Rubbish.
  Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of hearing the three points.
  First, vacancies are running at the same rate as when the Labour party left office in 1979. Secondly, teacher resignations and wastage have stayed within a narrow band for many years; that is confirmed by research by Manchester university. Finally, recruitment to initial teacher training is running at levels unmatched in recent years. Teaching is clearly a popular profession, and rightly so. It offers a worthwhile career to young people. There has never been a better time to become a teacher; that is reflected in the increasing number of people queueing up to do so.
  I want now to refer to morale and teacher status. Those who point to the worst examples as being typical of what is happening in schools actually discourage people from entering the profession. That is one factor that has diminished teachers in the eyes of the public and that is a great shame for the vast majority of highly dedicated and professional teachers who do so much. We should now be positive to deal with problems of morale and stress.
  As for teacher shortages, I have always recognised that there are clearly problems within the overall picture, and I have frequently highlighted two problems. First, teacher recruitment is suffering from exactly the same problems as some other occupations in London and other high-cost areas, where housing—and the environment in which some of the schools have to operate—are particular issues. Secondly, there are certain key subjects—physics, chemistry, modern languages and maths, for example—for which schools may find it difficult to recruit. County education authorities such as mine are now addressing those problems.
  But it is not just teaching that cannot get enough recruits in those subjects. They are the very same areas of expertise in which industry complains of recruitment problems. They are also, of course, the skills which are now in particularly high demand.
  There has been, and is, a long-term problem here which we as a Government have been trying to address—the fact
  918
  that, compared with the countries with which we most have to compete, not enough of our young people have been taking up these subjects. This is now exacerbated by the demographic downturn—the much lower number of school leavers up to 1996—on the one hand, and by the ever-increasing demand in a technological age and with the single European market looming for them, on the other. In the long term, one of the many benefits of the national curriculum is that it should greatly increase the enthusiasm among, and hence the numbers of, young people with such qualifications.
  But that long-term solution will not provide an answer, so in the short term we are taking action which is targeted directly on these clearly identified issues. We have spent over £50 million since July 1986 on measures to address them, and these are continuing. They include bursaries for trainee teachers in physics, mathematics, technology and chemistry. They include the remit that I have given to the interim advisory committee for its recommendations for the coming year's salary settlement for teachers.I have specifically asked it to address these two areas of concern, with special reference to further use of incentive allowances. As the House knows, I have asked the interim advisory committee to report to me by the end of this month. With its report imminent, I clearly cannot say any more today about that matter.
  Mr. Straw: When the Secretary of State sent his letter to Lord Chilver on 26 September, he said that inflation would fall further in the months ahead. In fact, it has risen. Is the Secretary of State going to take that into account in raising the cash limit.
  Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it clear that the cash limit is a remit to the interim advisory committee. I do not want to say any more about what the committee might recommend to me. Clearly that is a matter for the committee, whose report I shall receive within the next few days—certainly by the end of the month, the time by which we asked it to report.
  Let me turn to the other short-term measures. In-service training for conversion and updating of shortage-subject teachers is one. We have also commissioned open learning materials for the in-service training of teachers in these subjects. Through our new education support grant, which I announced last week—£2 million has been given in the first year, and with more to follow as total expenditure for this particular area—we are supporting local education authorities through the education support grant, particularly in areas of recruitment difficulty, to develop programmes for recruiting former teachers. This is an area that I regard as a major priority, and one in which there is tremendous potential. I have given a clear indication that, if good progress is made, I should like to see rather more of the education support grant concentrated on this aspect when we come to look at the priorities for next year.
  Included also in the short-term programme is a publicity and advertising campaign, spearheaded by the teaching as a career unit. In addition, we are encouraging mature people to come into teaching, often after working in other careers. We have run a highly successful series of taster courses aimed at encouraging mature people to come into teaching, as we will be expanding thus programme next year. The licensed teacher route will provide an important source of teachers in the future.

  919
  This is a coherent and consistent programme of measures, and I will add to them as necessary. They are focused; they are targeted; above all, they are positive. They recognise that there are issues seriously to be addressed. That is in marked contrast to the contributions of the hon. Member for Blackburn. I re-read his speeches in the previous two debates on this question in the summer. Then, and now, he has failed to make a single constructive proposal. [Interruption.] I will come in a moment to the package that he raised at the end. When his criticisms are matched by complete absence of analysis and no positive ideas, then the House is entitled to dismiss them as empty rhetoric.
  Let me turn now to resources. This Government have not merely set the policy agenda—acting where others have talked. We have also backed up our policies with resources. Look at the trend in spending per pupil. In 1979–80, about £515 was being spent on each pupil in nursery, primary and secondary schools. By 1988–89, that figure had risen to about £1,365 per pupil.
  Mr. Straw: What about inflation?
  Mr. MacGregor: I will come to the point about inflation.
  That is a cash-terms increase of no less than 165 per cent. The real-terms increase, which is the one on which we ought to focus, is also impressive. In each and every year between 1979–80 and 1988–89, there has been a real-terms increase in spending per pupil. Overall, during that period, real-terms spending per pupil rose by 42 per cent.
  Part of this increase is due to the improvements in staffing under this Government. As we all know, of course, teachers are much the biggest item of expenditure in school budgets, accounting for around half of all spending by local education authorities. As the House knows, there has been a steady improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio. In 1979–80, there was one teacher for every 19 pupils in primary and secondary schools; by 1987–88 that ratio had improved to one teacher for every 17 pupils.
  I shall come now to the point that the hon. Member for Blackburn has been raising. He talked about the under-fives. Of course it is not possible to achieve everything at once. The great fault of the Labour party has been its promises to everybody that it is going to achieve everything at once. Unfortunately, quite a number of people will not remember just how very badly it did last time in that respect.
  Having said that, I want to consider what has been achieved in respect of participation rates in education among the under-fives. That has shown an upward trend—rising from 39 per cent. in 1979–80, to 45 per cent. in 1987–88. This expansion has been funded by a substantial increase in spending on the under-fives—by about 45 per cent. in real terms over the same period.
  Here I come to the point about Bligh primary school that the hon. Gentleman raised. I too have had this matter looked into this morning. I understand that a pre-school playgroup has been set up in the premises of Bligh primary school. Children are admitted to this group on payment of a fee. The children attending the group are not of statutory school age and are not on the school's roll. The group is
  920
  funded, managed and taught separately from the main school, and the group is charged for the use that it makes of the primary school's accommodation.
  Such arrangements are not uncommon or illegal. As there are always priorities for individual education authorities—they cannot achieve all that they would wish—we should commend the initiative of parents who undertake this kind of project.
  Mr. Straw: This is a very important issue, so I am glad that the Secretary of State has given way. The truth is that the pre-school playgroup arrangement is a simple device or trick to circumvent the law against charging fees. The Secretary of State must agree to investigate what Kent county council has done. This is not a playgroup. Does the Secretary of State not understand that the teachers, who are teaching these children part of the national curriculum—not simply to play—are paid by the county council, out of funds provided by the parents?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have had the matter looked into this morning, but I wish that the hon. Gentleman were not so disparaging of the pre-school playgroup movement. I think that it has achieved a great deal.
  Let me turn to other resources. The education share of the Government's local authority grant settlement for next year amounts to very nearly £15 billion. Over 9 per cent. higher than for 1989–90, it is a huge sum by any standards. As regards capital resources for schools, next year will see a substantial increase for local authority capital and for grants to voluntary-aided and special agreement schools. The big increase in funds made available will allow local education authorities and governing bodies to continue their programme of improvement to schools. What we are making available for new improvement work alone—this, of course, is through the annual capital guidelines, and clearly it would be possible for local authorities to add considerably to it through capital receipts and in other ways—is a four-and-a-half times increase on the figure for last year.
  Of course, there is never enough to satisfy everybody's aspirations. But I have to remind hon. Members that capital spending per pupil has increased by 10 per cent. in real terms over the last 10 years. I do not yet have the figures for actual spending—as distinct from forecasts—for 1988–89 or 1989–90, but I expect them to show further very substantial increases in real terms. I ask the House to contrast this with the record of the last Labour Government, who cut spending on local authority schools capital to around half its 1974 level in real terms.
  All this clearly puts paid to any claims that this Government are not investing in our schools. Of course we would like to do more—all of us would like to do more—but we have to do what is possible within the resources available in the country as a whole. But we also believe that taxpayers and ratepayers have a right to expect that their money will be well spent. It is the Government's duty to press local education authorities, schools and colleges to achieve the best possible return for the enormous resources given to them.
  We have had from the hon. Member for Blackburn the same old Socialist agenda rooted in the failed solutions of the 1970s. Opposition Members talk about a commitment to excellence, but where we seek to build excellence, their party has a commitment to destruction.

  921
  Opposition Members would tear up choice for parents. Their idea of excellence is a monolithic single-state system. When they talk about choice—they do not often do so—they do not mean choice for parents. When they talk about a new partnership, they mean a return to the old tyranny of monopoly local education authority provision. Theirs is a commitment to producers, not to consumers. Ours is a commitment to pupils and parents.
  Opposition Members posture about a broad and balanced curriculum, but their own policy document will deny it. By limiting the national curriculum to the core subjects of English, maths and science, they will return schools to the unsatisfactory mish-mash in which many pupils followed an inadequate and unbalanced curriculum.
  Our reforms of the school system are necessary for the new world of the 1990s. They are in schools now, building upon the solid foundation that the Government have already put in place. They are now rapidly taking shape, to the benefit of pupils, parents and teachers. The real failure would be to stand in the way of those great reforms. The Government have created them, are developing them and will bring them to fulfilment.
  In comparison with that record of reform and achievement, from the utterances by the hon. Member for Blackburn, it is obvious that he and his party have no new thoughts. They peddle the failed old mixture that they peddled before. This afternoon, hon. Members heard plenty of spending commitments along the old lines. We will rapidly try to find out from the hon. Gentleman just what they amount to, and we will ask him to cost them so that we know how much substance there is in them.
  The last Labour Government made promises and totally failed to achieve them. In fact, we saw a downturn in spending. In 1987, the Labour party made promises, but, when they were totted up, the electorate saw through them and realised that we could not afford them on that scale at that time. We will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman said this afternoon and we will ask him many questions about exactly what his proposals amount to. That is why I urge the House to reject the motion and support the amendment.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I am amazed that the Secretary of State for Education and Science can give such a misguided impression of what is happening in schools throughout the country. In particular, I refer to teachers' impressions of their own worth, especially in view of the pay deal that is currently being examined. I would have liked the Secretary of State to have come clean and said, "Yes, I made a miscalculation when I wrote to Lord Chilver about the pay award for the coming financial year. Inflation is rising, and I recommend a further amount to deal with that." Hon. Members heard nothing like that. We heard only "Wait and see."
  One would imagine that the Government have just come to power, that the problems that they talk about are new and have taken them by surprise, and that they have had nothing to do with them. Today's problems are a result of the wasted opportunities of the 1980s. During that decade, we experienced real underfunding by central Government. Education was neglected, and educators at
  922
  all levels were subjected to abuse by Government Ministers. That is why we have such problems in our education system.
  We are spending less of our gross domestic product on education, although the challenges of the 1990s in Europe and further afield will require a far more highly educated and trained work force. Had we been able to maintain the spending level that was much denigrated in 1979, we would be spending a further £3 billion on education. There has been a drop of 27 per cent. in real terms. We must tell the electorate, "Forget the flannel about the Government's wonderful spending record." Without exception, the real increases in education have been due to spending by local authorities that have cared about their education responsibilities. For example, in the past decade there was an increase in university spending of about about 1 per cent., with the Government responsible for virtually all funding. Where local authorities have made a substantial contribution to polytechnics, the number of students has increased by more than 50 per cent. Commitment has come from Labour local authorities, not from Tory central Government.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his points later.
  Throughout the 1980s, teachers' pay fell behind that of other non-manual workers. It is almost £1,000 less than it would have been had the marker that was set down in 1979 continued. Failures are to be found everywhere.
  Because of changes in the rate support grant, Welsh local authorities have lost almost £1 billion of central Government funds to finance local government services, of which education takes the lion's share. When Her Majesty's inspectors examined the state of schools in Wales, they found that, as in England, there was a massive backlog of repairs. In my county of Mid Glamorgan, an estimated £25 million was needed to bring schools up to standard. In the neighbouring county of West Glamorgan the figure was £28 million, in Gwent it was £14·5 million, and in the rural county of Powys the figure was £5 million. The results of Government underfunding stare us in the face in dingy schools.
  The Secretary of State for Wales had the wonderful idea of the valleys initiative. When the proposal was first aired, Mid Glamorgan county council said, "What a wonderful idea. We badly need six new schools in our valleys." The valleys initiative was published, and it stated that there would be six schools for the county of Mid Glamorgan. However, the initiative failed to state that two schools were due to be opened in a month and that the other four were already planned. Not an extra penny was put into the valleys initiative to build new schools or to improve existing ones, but there was plenty of money to give pubs a new coat of paint. The Government could find money for pubs but not for schools. That is indicative of their thinking.
  When we moved from the old Burnham system of remuneration to the new interim advisory committee system, and when it finally put the first award into practice and examined the money that was provided by central Government to fund it, my county of Mid Glamorgan found that it was more than £300,000 short of what was needed. The county had no part in the negotiations for the

  923
  pay award. The Government gave a sum of money to the interim advisory committee that determined the award, but the ratepayers of Mid Glamorgan had to find £325,000 to finance it.
  A similar problem can be found in the implementation of the national curriculum. It is all very well for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to say what wonderful things will happen as a result of the national curriculum, but, once again, his Department and the Secretary of State for Wales are failing sufficiently to fund the changes.
  There is, for example, the question of the proper teaching of science subjects in primary schools. In Mid Glamorgan, about half of all primary schools were built before the first world war, and they have neither the water supplies nor the power points needed for science to be taught properly in their classrooms. The Government gave Mid Glamorgan £200,000 to start a programme of upgrading those old schools, but the county council has been obliged to find a further £480,000 to implement what it still describes as a modest programme for ensuring that proper facilities are available for teaching the national curriculum.
  I asked parliamentary questions of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and of the Secretary of State for Wales about extra funding for implementing the national curriculum in respect of children with special needs, but both replied that no special money would be provided for that purpose. As to the modest primary school programme, Mid Glamorgan county council will have to ask each poll tax payer for £1·25 extra to fund it, when at the same time the Government are putting pressure on local authorities to keep down the level of poll tax.
  The theme for the first two years of this decade, as for the 1980s, will be underfunding of our education service. The Secretary of State referred to the importance of teachers, but it seems that their wages will continue not to reflect their importance to the community. When the Minister replies to the debate, perhaps he will explain how the education service is to respond to the excessive inflation that is a consequence of the Government's economic policies.
  There are accounts in today's newspapers about the pressures on teachers, who feel that they are of little worth—partly because of the low wages that they are paid—and are leaving the profession. They cannot stand the pressures imposed by an underfunded system and look for easier jobs elsewhere. Although the Secretary of State might deny that there are shortages and say that more people are entering teacher training this year than for a long time, the number for crucial subjects such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and craft, design and technology is below the target set by the Department. The shortages can only get worse.
  Wales has never been known for having a lack of teachers, but Mid Glamorgan is reporting difficulties in recruiting teachers of modern languages, Welsh, technical subjects and science. That is the legacy of a decade of Conservative rule. I hope that the House will support the motion fully as that is a way of showing the public that
  924
  there are people in positions of power committed to improving the country's education service. We shall prove that by voting for the motion.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I shall be brief, and so that others of my right hon. and hon. Friends may participate I am not prepared to give way to any interventions.
  The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) spoke of the legacy of a decade of Conservative government. Anyone who has been involved in education for a number of years will acknowledge that educational legacies take a long time to accrue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke of the Government's efforts over the past decade, which led to gradual change and implementation of the Education Reform Act 1988.
  Anyone involved in education at national level in the 1970s will remember the problems that the service suffered then. I make no apology for reiterating the remarks of my right hon. Friend in respect of the 1976 public expenditure White Paper, which recommended the most draconian cuts in all social services after many promises—some of which have been repeated today—were made. The remarks of Opposition Members today prompt the question, "Haven't we heard it all before?"
  The Education Reform Act 1988 will bring massive and welcome changes, but I draw some specific matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend. He spoke of the need to introduce assessment and testing, and said that schemes for that purpose will come on stream in the near future. He spoke also of the need to maintain the impetus of change, with which we would all agree. However, other aspects of the implementation of change should be borne in mind. Records of achievement, for example, can add immeasureably to the value of primary school education. They are welcomed by parents and teachers and are extremely popular with the pupils themselves. I trust that there will be no lessening of my right hon. Friend's commitment to ensuring that records of achievement will be kept.
  As to teacher costs following the implementation of local management schemes, it is no coincidence that local authority after local authority, whether Conservative or Labour-controlled, has expressed grave concern about the effects that those costs will have on school budgets. I have the honour to be chairman of a large, group 8 primary school, of which there are not many. It has £12,000 worth of incremental drift per year. The table of winners and losers shows it to be a winner on day one, but it rapidly becomes a loser. The governing body faces severe problems in contemplating what teacher costs will mean for that school. I urge my right hon. Friend to re-examine that aspect. He has received representations about it, and I know that it is a matter of concern to him.
  I feel sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House unite in the desire to see delivered the Government's education reforms. By and large, they will be delivered by the commitment of teaching staff in our schools.
  It is true to say that problems are emerging in many schools. I do not disagree one jot with what my right hon. Friend said about teachers' commitment. I do not disagree one jot with what he said about improved standards for teacher training, which we would all welcome. I urge him to reflect upon what has been said in many quarters—that

  925
  the speed of the change, and the extra workload being imposed, is causing strain. That must be recognised and dealt with. It can be done in several ways.
  The problems of the interim advisory committee and the question of the restoration of teachers' negotiating rights are causing difficulties in the teaching service, but I think that those problems can and will be solved in the not-too-distant future.
  We have certainly not resolved the problem of delivery. I believe that people who are interested in and concerned with education expect the Government's reforms to bring about a considerable improvement in standard and quality throughout the education system. We cannot afford to see the reforms fail because we do not have adequate staff to deliver them. Therefore, we must study the problem carefully.
  We have heard a great deal about the way in which we should deal with teachers' salaries. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will remember the time that we spent together on the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' education committee and on the Burnham committee, studying the problems created by the enormous pay hike in the 1974 Houghton award. The Clegg award caused similar problems, with another enormous hike in salaries in 1979. There is universal agreement that that must not be allowed to happen again.
  Teachers' morale has been mentioned on many occasions. Morale is affected not just by pay and status, but by an amalgam of factors that lead to an appreciation of what teachers represent and that they alone are able to achieve and to deliver the Government's stated aims. I hope that there will not be any falling-away of the commitment to see those aims achieved in as short a time as possible. However, haste must not be the single determinant, as it is more important to get it right.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider the points that I have raised when he studies how his Department will respond to those important matters in the next few months.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State will pay heed to the words of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). His expressed words, and some of his implied words, will bear careful reading and reflection, and I am aware that he speaks with experience of the subject. He rightly warned of the need to combine urgency with solidity and consistency, and that it is important to deal with the fundamental issues and not superficial concerns.
  The Secretary of State comes to the debate after six months in office. We are at the beginning of a new decade, and it is appropriate that we should look at the state of our schools. We should reflect on the past decade and the coming decade as a background to the motion tabled by the Opposition and the amendment tabled by the Government, and we should consider what has happened to the Government's public commitment to education—the public commitment as manifested by the amount of money that the nation commits to education.
  Between 1978–79 and 1990–91 the proportion of public expenditure on education fell from 14·4 per cent. to 13·7 per cent., at the same time as other categories of public expenditure increased, most notably defence. I know that the partial answer to that dichotomy is that school rolls
  926
  have been falling. However, the Government seek to gain credit for the fact that there is a better teacher-pupil ratio. We should have been using the great decade of oil revenue to increase the percentage of our public expenditure on education. If the Government stand to be condemned, it is first by the statistics that show that we give less priority to education in our national expenditure now than we did 10 years ago.
  I understand the time pressures today on the Secretary of State, but it is interesting that he did not give way when I sought to intervene when he kept on repeating the point made in the Government amendment, that there has been
  "increased expenditure since 1979 of over 40 per cent. in real terms per pupil."
  I accept that. But what is the ratio per pupil of expenditure in the ordinary state school, compared to the ratio of expenditure per pupil in a city technology college? The answer is that a disproportionate amount is being allocated, and there is massive expenditure per pupil for the elite little group at a CTC, compared with per pupil expenditure on those much less fortunate pupils who are in a state school. That is unacceptable and unjustifiable by any standard.
  The Government are also indicted by other statistics. The Secretary of State does not have to take personal responsibility, but the Government must accept that one sign of how bad their policies have been during the past 10 years is the low take-up rate for post-school education or training of pupils in Britain, compared with our competitor countries. Consider the figures in Australia, Canada, France, West Germany and Japan, which are all countries that we must compete with in an increasingly competitive world. The staying-on rate for pupils after l he official school-leaving age in Britain is less than half the rate in some of those countries, and the number is rising less quickly.
  The educational attainment statistics and targets in Britain have been compared with those in other countries during past debates. For example, during the current Committee stage of the Education (Student Loans) Bill, information has been given that the number of people in higher education in Korea has already reached the figure that the Government have targeted for 10 years' hence. We are falling behind appallingly.
  Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall not give way. It is not that I do not wish to, but many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  We are failing to achieve standards and targets that will give Britain the educated community that it needs. The Government have also now confirmed that they are not after all committed to doubling the number of students in higher education. The reality is that we are not attaining the prerequisite of higher education, as an insufficient number of students aged over 16 stay on at school.
  There have been new initiatives on employment training, which are welcome, and it is important that we continue to develop them. However, there is no real commitment or coherence in policy.
  It would now be appropriate for the Government to reconsider the idea of amalgamating the Department of Education and Science with the part of the Department of Employment that is responsible for training. I know that that has been considered by the Government, and those functions ought to go together. That is what happens in other countries, for example, Australia. If the education

  927
  and training system is integrated, we shall be able to deliver the appropriate curricula and training to produce an appropriately educated work force in the future.
  In training, there are many things that we can do and I shall list a few. For example, we could promote more exchanges between staff in schools and colleges and people employed in local industry and commerce, by secondment. We could encourage more technology in schools. We could ensure that teachers have more knowledge of the needs of the local labour market, and we could enable the national curriculum to contain enough flexibility to allow young people to leave school much better equipped for the rapidly changing world of work.
  Perhaps the most substantial indictment of the Government's schools policy is the continuing teacher crisis caused by inadequate pay and insufficient numbers, and leading to a tragic lack of morale.
  Hidden in the small print of last week's revenue support grant announcement was something rather interesting. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have, in effect, given teachers in the south-east a regional pay advantage? I do not deny that teachers in the south-east—like those elsewhere—need more pay; indeed, my colleagues and I have said so many times in the House. The adjustment in the settlement, however, will not remedy the massive problem of teacher shortages—which is most acute in the south-east, where the cost of living is higher, and most particularly in the more deprived parts of that region.
  By eliminating negotiating mechanisms, the Government have limited the amount available for teachers' pay next year. Teachers in other regions are therefore forfeiting part of their pay rise in order to generate scarcely more acceptable salaries for their colleagues in the south-east. I trust that the Minister will agree that that does not constitute an adequate response to the needs of teachers in the most stressed parts of the country.
  As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said, we are still substantially short of teachers for several core subjects in the curriculum. As is clear from the Central Register and Clearing House survey of the autumn 1989 entry for teacher training, planned entry targets are not being reached in several subjects that the Government themselves consider vital—craft, design and technology, modern languages, mathematics, religious education and science—and that is at least as true today. The cause of the shortage is not just the difficulty of recruiting people with these qualifications across the sectors. Because the appeal of teaching in the state sector is becoming increasingly reduced, given the choice, those with the necessary qualifications tend to opt for a different profession entirely.
  The national curriculum is, in part, a good thing: it is wise to ensure that young people are taught all appropriate subjects. It is, however, a major headache for those who are expected to implement it. Teachers are falling behind with their work. The hon. Member for Crosby mentioned the high incidence of stress, and a report produced only today makes clear the importance of this point. Teachers have next to no time to plan, and less and less non-contact time. They are under increasing pressure as they try to deliver all the new initiatives.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: That is nonsense.
  Mr. Hughes: It is true, and if the hon. Gentleman visited the schools, he would hear as much from heads, deputy heads, departmental heads and all the rest.
  Mr. Greenway rose—
  Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way.
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman will not give way because he does not know.
  Mr. Hughes: I do know. I visit as many schools as the hon. Gentleman, if not more. I have been into the classrooms, out of the limelight, and have talked to ordinary teachers. I have sat in on whole afternoons of lessons, and have seen the obligations that the national curriculum imposes. Governors and teachers know that what I am saying is true, and if the hon. Gentleman, who is a former teacher, does not agree, that shows how far removed he now is from the profession of which he was once an eminent member. Teachers also have the mounting task of recording and assessing the performance of pupils—a task which, given the pressures imposed by the curriculum, they will increasingly be unable to carry out.
  I gather that the Government may be likely to scrap the audit proposals. Apparently the Minister of State made that clear yesterday when she visited my constituency, and I hope that she will confirm it when she winds up the debate. If that happens, it will be a welcome change of plan, as teachers will have one less thing to do.
  The Secretary of State talked about local management of schools. The Government amendment commends the enthusiasm with which people are supposedly welcoming LMS, but that is certainly not true of all authorities, including even those that are Tory-controlled. Hereford and Worcester, for instance, considers it a very bad idea. I know that county well—where that friend of Ministers, Dr. Muffett, is chairman of the education committee. According to Hereford and Worcester, where
  "all LMS schools should be funded according to average teaching costs in their local authority, but must meet the actual costs of their own teachers",
  Hereford and Worcester does not intend to go ahead with the scheme, because its schools
  "could lose more than £100,000 from their budgets."
  The teaching profession is still in crisis, and we can find no consolation in the up-to-date national figures. The Secretaryof State did not proffer any; the last accurate Government figures were given in a written answer a year ago. We do know, however, that 20,000 teachers left the classrooms last year. We know that, unprecedentedly, the six teachers' unions have united to tell the Government that there is a crisis, and not just in the capital. We know that in some subjects that crisis is worse than ever. We also know that there are now more than 1,000 teaching vacancies in inner London, and I know that there are more than 225 in my borough of Southwark. If that is not a crisis, I do not know what will ever constitute one.
  I have been to see the Minister of State with my proposals. I suggested that the Secretary of State should urgently call a meeting of London teachers and listen to their ideas, because they know what they are talking about. I also suggested ways of facilitating teachers from Australia, New Zealand and Ireland teaching here, a mechanism for reviewing incentive payments and a mechanism to ensure that many of the empty properties

  929
  that have recently been built at such great expense are made available to teachers in the south-east. So far those suggestions have been greeted with silence. The Government could have come up with some urgent and effective initiatives, but they have not done so.
  What, then, is the position at the beginning of the new decade? We are spending a smaller proportion of our gross domestic product on education than many of our neighbours; bizarrely and alarmingly, we are spending even less of our GDP on education than Third-world countries such as Swaziland, Zambia and Zaire. We are making defence spending a greater priority, while we are reducing education spending. The policy to recruit more teachers has clearly failed. LMS and its method of implementation are not acceptable, even to Tory local government. Many teachers fear the implementation of the national curriculum.
  There is no vision for the future, just as there has been no successful policy in the past. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State must accept that the policies of the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), have failed: they have not produced successful results. Change is needed urgently if British education is not to have an even bleaker future in the 1990s than it had in the 1980s.
  Let me warn the Secretary of State that at the end of his first year he will receive his first annual report. All I can say is that he had better do much better than the previous pupil in his position in the class, and much better than he has done in the first six months of his term of office
  5.57 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I agree on at least one thing—the need for better remuneration for teachers—but I disagree entirely with his remarks about my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), the benefit of whose reforms the hon. Gentleman will see in the not-too-distant future.
  Last week the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) described my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as "fizzing with fury". Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that his speech did not fizz with anything. It contained no inspiration, no excitement and no new ideas; it was all too predictable—dull, boring and far too long.
  I suspect that the wording of today's motion would be rather more accurate if it referred to "the failure of the Opposition to produce any policies on schools". It is significant that the part of the hon. Gentleman's speech that referred to his policies lasted less than one minute, and I found his silence eloquent.
  We get the same old, tired stuff from the Opposition that we have heard so many times. The Labour party's policies continue to be those of levelling down. Where excellence is seen, they seek to destroy it. They are completely negative and totally destructive. They will abolish grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. They even seek to denigrate the independent sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] I am not surprised to hear Opposition Members confirm so unreservedly that they would like the independent sector to be abolished.
  For Opposition Members, parental choice is meaningless. For them, freedom of choice in education, as in everything else, is meaningless. We seek to improve the
  930
  quality and the standard of state education, where the majority of our children are educated. We start with the improvement of educational provision for the under-fives. Almost 25 per cent. more children under five years of age attend nursery or primary schools when compared with the last year of the last—and I do mean the last—Labour Government.
  Seventy five per cent. of all four-year-olds now go to local education authority maintained nursery or primary schools. During the last 10 years, the proportion of three and four-year-olds going to school has increased to almost 45 per cent., and nine out of 10 attend nursery classes, reception classes or playgroups.
  There is even more good news in primary and secondary schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] The reforms introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley are beginning to bear fruit. The Education Reform Act 1988, which provided for the national curriculum, the introduction of local management of schools, open enrolment and grant-maintained schools, will be a landmark in British education.
  It is significant that the two great Acts of this century to reform education were introduced and piloted through the House by Conservative Secretaries of State. The only new education initiatives have come from Conservative Administrations. The city technology college programme still goes forward, despite the spiteful attitude of Opposition Members and their colleagues in certain education authorities. The politics of envy still exists. The impact of the national curriculum will be felt throughout the education system. It ensures that schools do not waste valuable time or resources on less important subjects. It concentrates on those that are recognised as of real value.
  In addition, and confounding its critics, the GCSE examination is proving a substantial success. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science. In speech after speech, she has properly drawn attention to the success of the GCSE examination. It will improve the quality of our children's education. One of the best proofs of the improvement in quality is the increase in admissions to higher education. It is no accident that, during the last 10 years, 200,000 additional students have been admitted to universities, polytechnics and further education colleges.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Mainly to polytechnics.
  Mr. Pawsey: That underlines, as perhaps nothing else does, the fact that the quality of education in our schools is improving and that it will continue to improve. There would be little point in seeking to improve access to higher education unless young people leaving school were properly qualified to take advantage of the additional places. That is a measure of the success of the Government's policies. It is one of the benchmarks against which our policies will be judged.
  Opposition Members have referred to teachers. Certainly we require the full-hearted co-operation of the profession if our reforms are to bear fruit. Like the love of a good woman, a good teacher is beyond price. Sometimes I believe—to return to a point that was made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton)—that the torrent of paper now overwhelming our schools prevents head teachers and staff from getting on with their primary job, which is to teach. The pace and the extent of the

  931
  reforms have placed a great strain on teachers. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley goes down in history as the great initiator, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Education and Science will be remembered as the great consolidator. He quite properly believes that there should be a period during which schools can digest the various reforms that we have introduced.
  I have made no secret of the fact that I believe that teachers' remuneration should adequately reflect the importance of the work they do. Most teachers in British schools are dedicated both to their profession and to the children who are in their charge. The interim advisory committee has been given £600 million this year to improve teachers' pay. That figure is 55 per cent. higher than last year and double that of the previous year.
  It is amusing to reflect on Opposition criticism of teachers' pay. During their last period in office, teachers' pay increased by 6 per cent. That has to be compared with this Government's record: during the last 10 years, teachers' pay has increased in real terms by 30 per cent. That shows the people of this country who actually care about teachers and their level of pay.
  A survey of teacher numbers was undertaken by the Department. It confirmed that almost 22,000 students went into teacher training in 1989. That was a substantial increase over 1988. But perhaps the best indicator of teacher numbers was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening speech when he referred to the pupil-teacher ratio. I was delighted that, in response to a parliamentary question, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), told me:
  "The overall pupil-teacher ratio in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England in January 1989 was 17 and in January 1979"—
  under a Labour Government—
  "was 18·9".—[Official Report, 16 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 159.]
  That is a real and significant improvement.
  As usual, the Opposition's arguments are long on rhetoric and on criticism but short on ideas. Does anybody, either inside or outside the House, really know what the Opposition's education policies are? Even more to the point, does anybody really care? Perhaps the greatest criticism of the hon. Member for Blackburn and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), is that nobody knows what they would do, were they to be elected to office. The electorate would be required to sign the usual blank Socialist cheque and take on trust whatever a Labour Government chose to give them.
  In the Standing Committee that is considering the Education (Student Loans) Bill, the Opposition's favourite phrase is "as resources allow." That is the inevitable cop-out of Socialism. I do not doubt that the intentions of the hon. Member for Blackburn are good. However, the path of Socialism is always paved with promises—promises which will be honoured, but only when resources allow. The Opposition are as ever long on promises but short on delivery.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is very honest: he profoundly believes in the nonsense that he talks. I propose to deal with reality.
  The shortage of teachers is a developing crisis. The general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers told the Select Committee—or it may have been the Standing Committee considering the Education Reform Bill—that it was a developing catastrophe. Every group that we visited described it in those terms.
  There is a shortage of full-time teachers; if the Minister believes that the correct figure is 4,000, let him go on believing that. The crisis is on such a scale that it will come to hang around his neck before long and then he will have to look at the real figures.
  There are shortages of part-time and supply teachers. The Secretary of State and Conservative Members never mention what happens when applications for teaching posts are invited. There used to be 10, 20 or 30 applications for each position; now there are regularly only one or two. In order to put a body before a class, schools have to select one of those two because of the shortage and the way in which teachers have been treated by the Government.
  Our schools are crumbling. Hon. Members do not need to listen to me—they have only to go and look at the state of our schools. All this endangers the national curriculum, which cannot be put in place without enough teachers.
  There is a lack of teachers with qualifications appropriate to the subjects that they need to teach. In primary schools, teachers face endless meetings at lunchtime and after school; they also face pressure to go on courses. Stress is endemic in the primary sector, in which teachers are beginning to lack confidence because of the abuse heaped on them by successive Tory Ministers.
  Extremely able teachers are beginning to feel inadequate because of the pace of events and the pressures to implement the Education Reform Act 1988. Teachers have faced continual attacks and rudeness from the Government and Conservative Members—but that has suddenly changed because of the shortage of teachers and the crisis in the system. Conservative Members now talk nicely about teachers because they want to recruit them.
  At the same time, we are witnessing the fruits of the Government's demeaning of the profession. The Education Reform Act had nothing to do with the private sector. Ministers in the Committee considering that Bill frankly admitted that. The Secretary of State said today that he was asking teachers in the private sector to consider the national curriculum. He did not ask teachers in the public sector; he passed a law making them implement the curriculum.
  Conservative Members call the private sector independent. It is not. It is not independent of the wealthy and the rich, on whom it depends. And it gives itself away by taking funds from the public sector of education to give to the city technology colleges and the assisted places scheme. Hundreds of millions of pounds are being poured into those colleges—money taken from the public sector. One such college in Nottingham is costing almost £8 million, yet only £2 million has been allocated for 400 schools in the rest of the area—and Conservative Members think that sensible. Other schools will suffer because of those colleges.

  933
  As for teachers' low wages, the Secretary of State knows that the Prime Minister has allowed him only £600 million, which makes little or no difference. Teachers' poor pay and lack of negotiating rights were condemned by the United Nations International Labour Organisation five years ago. The Government continue to mingle in the international fraternity without giving teachers the negotiating rights that all other nations have. That is what the Government have done to the teachers by diktat.
  Now the Government are starting to praise teachers, but they have still given them no negotiating rights. Only increased salaries and better conditions will bring back the teachers whom we need. There are 400,000 teachers who are not teaching—the same number as are. They are ready to return to the profession if they are given decent conditions. At present we are raking over the leaves of Europe, bringing in teachers from Denmark, Holland and other nations—countries in which teachers' wages are almost twice as high as here—many of whom cannot speak English. We have all the teachers we need here, and given proper circumstances and wages, they would return.
  Teachers need a properly funded major salary increase to give them professional levels of pay. They need incentive allowances, proportionate to the needs of the professionals who have left the service. They need better conditions, better status and respect for the excellent job that they do.
  Meanwhile a great deal of money has gone in the direction of the CTCs because the Government want to privatise our education system. The CTCs must be withdrawn; the Government must understand that we shall withdraw them.
  If the Government do not take note of what I have honourably and quickly outlined, our children will suffer, parents will suffer, the system will suffer and all this will amount to a recipe for educational disaster. Conservative Members may smile, but they should wait and see what happens when the Education Reform Act and other Government proposals are imposed on our children. The children of Conservative Members do not even enter the same system; similarly, Conservative Members do not use the Health Service that they are destroying.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. George Walden: I will not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), except to say that I am in favour of the maximum possible expenditure on education consistent with the promise of improved standards—which brings me to the point that I want to make, which concerns A levels.
  I apologise for resorting to Americanese, but in the interests of brevity I shall. The question I want to ask the Government is: are A levels being "dumbed down"? Is it Government policy to allow them to be dumbed down? We have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State commend the education system for improving standards by means of the GCSE. I am not an ideological opponent of the GCSE, but I share the doubts of those who have expressed surprise that the number of people gaining top passes in the GCSE has increased by 50 per cent. in two years. This smacks of educational inflation, and I am not alone in taking that view. In this country we have financial inflation and housing inflation, and it seems we now run the risk of educational inflation, too.
  934
  The educational establishment is urging on the Government the need to bring A levels into line with the GCSE. In the past, I have always been worried by the rather secretive and autonomous nature of the examination councils. I have recently seen evidence that dumbing down is going on in A levels—an extremely serious matter.
  A few years ago, the Government decided against the Higginson committee's sensible recommendation that A-levels should be broadened so that pupils would take five instead of three. On reflection, I believe that the Government were right to resist that, because I suspect that they, like me, do not have enough confidence in the educational establishment broadening the A-level syllabus while maintaining standards.
  The establishment is getting its own back on the Government because, out of control of the Government and without reference to them, it is going about the business of dumbing down A-levels under the guise of bringing them into line with the GCSE. My evidence springs particularly from one examining board, which is toning down and debasing the content of the English A-level syllabus. For example, it will include not two Shakespearian plays but one; there will be room for Caribbean poetry, but not for two Shakespearian plays. I could give other details, but for the sake of time I will not do so.
  If the Government are to raise educational standards, to put more money into the curriculum, as they should, and to talk up the GCSE, they must be honest with themselves and ask the examining councils what they are doing to A levels. Extra expenditure on education will cause educational inflation in the number of certificates given to pupils, who will be told that they have done extremely well, when in fact they have not because the examination has been simplified or, as the Americans say, "dumbed down". That will produce the same results as financial and housing inflation. Foreigners will eventually find us out. We talk about equalising educational diplomas throughout Europe, but it will gradually become apparent that an 18-year-old English child does not attain the same level as an equivalent French child. That will be bad for the reputation of education in this country.
  It is imperative that the Government take my question seriously and do not take refuge behind the etiquette of the education system by saying "This is not for us but for the examining councils." I should like a serious reply from my hon. Friend the Minister. The worst possible thing that could happen would be if the pressures from the Government and education interests to expand higher education, of which I approve, were to be founded on a diminishing intellectual base.
  The universities should take that point seriously. If by a stroke of fate I were a Treasury Minister—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I had this experience some time ago—and the Treasury were asked for more money for higher education; if I were to be reminded of the importance of not only vocational subjects but the humanities; and if I had evidence that the intake of universities was based on a debased A-level syllabus, I would laugh in the face of the Secretary of State and refuse him money. What is the point of giving higher education more money if standards are going not up but down?
  The question I am asking is crucial. All the good work that the Government have done and all their investment—the Secretary of State made a generally reassuring speech today—will count for nothing if the examination

  935
  system inflates the currency of education and leaves us with an egalitarian policy, to which the Government are supposed to be opposed.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I realised that I had not much time, so I quickly tried to cut my speech.
  I should like to reiterate the statement made by the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) that morale in the teaching profession has never been lower than it is today. That was an accurate statement. I have visited schools in my constituency, but I have never found teachers so disheartened as they are now. The reason for that is their pay and conditions. They are demoralised and have lost all confidence in the Government.
  Teachers' pay is a major issue. I am sure that hon. Members have received dozens of letters from teachers, but I should like to quote from one that I received from a teacher, Jeff Palmer, in my constituency. He says:
  "I am the Head of Physics at Washington School. I am 43 years of age and have been teaching for 15 years. Before entering teaching I worked in industry for 10 years. I have a degree in Physics and industrial qualifications. My salary is under £16,000 …
  The morale in the profession has never been lower. Most of my colleagues are sick and tired at having more and more work placed upon them. They, and I, are fed up with Mr. MacGregor and others telling us what a marvellous job we did in implementing GCSE and how we are going to make a success of National Curriculum, and at the same time deny us a reasonable wage."
  That letter is similar to dozens of others that I and other hon. Members have received.
  The Teachers Pay and Conditions Act 1987 became law early in that year. The Government insisted that it would be a temporary measure, but it has now been extended until 1991. In 1988, the Government were condemned by the United Nations International Labour Organisation for denying teachers their negotiating rights. The Secretary of State is refusing to comply with international law. He continues to flout international conventions that have been ratified by the Government.
  The majority of complaints made by teachers is about their pay and conditions, so let us consider the real statistics. At the present rate of inflation, by March 1990 teachers' pay will have increased by 2·5 per cent. lower than inflation in the period during which the interim advisory committee has been in operation. A teacher at the top of the main professional grade will be £400 a year worse off because of inflation. During the period that the IAC has existed, the pay of teachers at the top of the main professional grade, with an allowance, will have increased by 13·8 per cent. less than the increase in average earnings—a relative loss of £2,100 per year. Is not that the main reason for the shortage of teachers in our schools?
  Why does the Secretary of State persist in using selective statistics that amount to misleading propaganda about teachers' pay? He maintains that they have had a 40 per cent. increase since March 1986. He knows that between 1979 and March 1986 teachers' pay increased by 58 per cent., while that of other non-manual workers increased by 76 per cent. The 40 per cent. increase that he claims for teachers since 1986 is merely part of a catching-up exercise. Since 1979, the pay of non-manual
  936
  workers has increased by 132 per cent., but teachers' pay has increased by only 118 per cent. The Secretary of State should give the full picture, not his partial account.
  As the Secretary of State knows, a detailed survey of vacancies carried out by the six teachers' unions—it is not often that they get together to do anything—made it clear that schools currently have about 8,000 vacancies. He knows quite well that insufficient graduates are opting for teaching as a career. Why should they become teachers, with a salary of just £9,390, when they can obtain salaries well in excess of £10,000 elsewhere? Even if the full £600 million that the Secretary of State has allowed for increases this year were distributed entirely to the main scale, it would still give teachers a starting salary of about £10,100 next year. He knows that that money will not be so distributed and that teaching will remain as unattractive as it is at present.
  The Government have made numerous promises to disband the IAC, but they have failed to honour their pledges and have made no serious attempt to do so. The truth is that they do not want teachers to have back their negotiating rights. They wish to continue to dictate teachers' pay as part of their policy to control public spending.
  For three years, teachers have accepted imposed pay and conditions and education reforms such as the national curriculum, which has resulted in a hugely increased work load for them. We congratulate them on making the GCSE a success. But enough is enough. To make matters worse, if that is possible, we now find that the £600 million planned increase for teachers' pay is being allocated on a regional basis. This change undoubtedly underpins the Government's intention to introduce new differentials in teachers' pay.
  Without providing any new money and without negotiating with the trade unions, the Government have put in place preferential financial arrangements for employers in the whole of the south-east region. The publication 10 days ago of the revenue support grant settlement for 1990–91 contained these new arrangements in small print in an annex. Teachers in the south-east can therefore be offered bigger pay rises at the expense of their colleagues in the rest of the country. We oppose this arbitrary imposition of regional pay differentials. It is totally unjust that teachers elsewhere in the country should forfeit part of their pay rise, which is bound to be inadequate, in order to generate scarcely more acceptable salary levels for their colleagues in the south-east.
  No explanation has been offered by the Secretary of State. I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate she will explain why this has happened. In previous years only part of the south-east received extra grant; now the whole of the south-east will get it.
  Teachers are leaving the profession in huge numbers, despite what the Department of Education and Science says. The Guardian of 29 December carried the following report:
  "Five times more teachers are leaving the profession than official statistics reveal. A report by researchers at Manchester University's school of education found that 20,000 teachers left the classroom in 1989, compared with the government figure of just 4,000. The report blames the scale of the losses on the effects of the Education Reform Act. Work overload, poor pay and low morale were the main reasons given for leaving."
  As I said, I have received dozens of letters from disgruntled teachers. I had intended to quote another, not

  937
  from a constituent but from someone in Birmingham who had had enough and had written to me, but I shall not do so because another hon. Member wants to speak and I have given a guarantee to you, Mr. Speaker, that I would allow him time.
  The teaching force is already disgruntled. Unless the Government take action pretty quickly, the problem will get worse, and more teachers will leave the profession. Our children are losing out. The Government will not be forgiven for the damage that they are doing to the nation.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I share Tuesdays and Thursdays on the Education (Student Loans) Bill with the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), and I am grateful to him for sitting down promptly and allowing me an opportunity to intervene in the debate. He read out a letter from a physics teacher. As an ex-physics teacher, I found that a good way to get my support.
  Although I do not go along with the general theme of doom and gloom that we have heard from the Opposition Benches, at least I agree with Opposition Members that the nettle of teachers' pay must be grasped. I do not know if they will all share my view that, when we consider teacher shortages and other problems referred to during the debate, we shall have to grasp the nettle of differentials and local pay bargaining and get away from the old scales which operated when I was a teacher and which still, I am afraid, operate today. They were not good for teachers' pay, any more than was the old Burnham committee whose return Opposition Members are always calling for. The Burnham committee was very bad for teachers' pay, so whatever way forward the Secretary of State chooses, I ask him not to go for another Burnham committee.
  I welcome the calmer atmosphere in which the education debate is now taking place. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to his colleagues for the way in which they have taken a lead in providing that atmosphere in which we can talk about education and its future in a civilised fashion.
  I support the aims of the Education Reform Act 1988 and so intend to support the Prime Minister's amendment tonight. In the brief time available to me I simply want to refer to something which will be on the agenda for education in the future—the relationship between national and local government. We have heard a great deal about local government, but no hon. Member has so far spoken about something which is in the minds of Members on both sides of the House: the present unsatisfactory relationship between national and local government when it comes to education.
  Under present education policy, more and more the focus is placed on the classroom and the school, but the recent reforms have also strengthened the role and function of the Department of Education and Science. I have no idea if it was the original intention but although, rightly, we are putting more and more power into the hands of governors, teachers, heads and parents, unwittingly perhaps we are putting more power into the hands of the Department. We now have tension between the local authorities and the Department on such matters as the definition of the curriculum and city technology
  938
  colleges, which I strongly support. Tension also arises on the question of grant-maintained schools—of which I am a strong supporter—and the education support grant.
  The role of the local education authority, therefore, has diminished and, probably under any Government, will continue to diminish. This is not to undervalue the good work done by many local education authorities, including my own in Norfolk, but we have also heard this evening about the appalling record of the Inner London education authority, shortly to go, unlamented.
  The Government and the local education authorities continually blame each other for the effect of their decisions on, for example, school numbers, the average pay concept and the setting up of budgets in schools. My own view is that the present system is too bureaucratic. Along with many of my colleagues, I prefer a centrally-funded system with a supervision of standards by the Department of Education and Science. There is no time to develop the details of this, but it could be fleshed out if time was available. The great advantage of central funding, particularly relevant to the debates of the past week or so, would be an immediate two-thirds reduction in the community charge.
  Mr. Cryer: Good idea.
  Mr. Thompson: I am developing a theme and seeing where it leads. The figure of £278 which is presently being quoted would then become something like £200.
  I have believed for a long time that education should be funded centrally, before anyone even thought of the community charge, but in view of the time I would like to conclude my arguments without dwelling too long on the community charge itself.
  The arguments developed by Ministers against central funding of education are, I think, flawed. If time allowed, I would develop that theme and explain why my suggestion is perfectly feasible. The change that I have suggested could be presented as a major commitment to education and training by the Government. Central funding would mean a small increase in funding by the Exchequer, which would no longer be raised locally. As we are agreed that greater priority should be given to education and training, I can see my suggestion, supported by many of my colleagues, going along with an increased commitment in that regard.
  We have heard stories of doom and gloom from the Opposition, but no constructive suggestions. The constructive suggestions have come from Conservative Members. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will accept that my argument for a change in the relationship between local authorities and Government is intellectually sound, has much support and should be seriously considered.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: This has been a debate about education standards. It has been about the Government's policies on standards and their lack of ambition in terms of raising this country's education standards to the level in western Europe and other parts of the world.
  I should like to pick up two points that were made by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), in what I think was his first speech since he became Chairman of the Select Committee on

  939
  Education, Science and Arts, made an interesting and well-informed speech. I hope that Ministers listened to his comments about local management of schools. Labour and Conservative-controlled authorities throughout the country are afraid that LMS will create a set of unmanageable problems which will damage the delivery of education.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) talked about A-level examinations and the possible need to make reforms along the lines suggested in the Higginson report. He talked himself into a certain state of pessimism. It is possible to achieve a broader examination of students at 18 while maintaining standards. Higginson offered the Government a way in which that could be achieved. When the Labour party is elected to office in a year or two, we will implement the Higginson recommendations and reform the 18-plus examination.
  The key phrase in the debate was uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), when he said that, as a parent, the key question that he would want to ask was whether the delivery of education satisfied him in relation to his children. The Secretary of State and all hon. Members should ask that question. Would we be satisfied with some conditions that obtain in our education system? The answer is that, if we honestly face those problems in schools to which our children go, we will have difficulty in saying, "Yes, we are totally satisfied."
  The Secretary of State often talks about there not being a real teacher shortage problem, but he then admits that there is a problem in London and the south-east. If there is a problem there, I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues whether they would want their children to go to a school in Tower Hamlets. The teacher shortage in that borough is so acute that the local authority is considering recruiting teenagers, not as teachers but as child minders, so that young people do not run around the streets and so that children are not without care during the day. That is not about education; it is just about child minding.
  The Secretary of State said today and in his letter to his parliamentary colleagues that, in addition to the geographical problem, there may be a shortage problem in certain specialist subjects—for example, mathematics, physics, chemistry and modern languages. My hon. Friends should make the calculations and tell us what would be left of the national curriculum if those crucial subjects were taken out. It would mean taking out about 40 per cent. of the national curriculum—yet the Secretary of State is satisfied with saying that there is a shortage of those subjects, in the clear and complacent knowledge that delivery of those subjects will be below the standards that parents expect for their children.
  The Secretary of State fails to admit a crucial factor—that there is a shortage of qualified teachers in particular subjects. We may get teachers in front of children, but we do not always get teachers with the requisite skills. [Interruption.] It is no good disagreeing with that. The Kingman report on the teaching of English and reports on the teaching of mathematics show the extent of the hidden shortage because we do not have enough properly qualified teachers.
  This all points to the need for a highly motivated and properly paid teaching profession. Last year, PA
  940
  Management Consultants studied a comparable range of graduate professions. After five years in a profession, the average salary in that group two years ago was nearly £18,000 a year; but after five years' experience, the average salary of graduate teachers is £13,500. Is it therefore surprising that people will not be attracted into or remain in the teaching profession?
  The Secretary of State failed in his remarkably complacent speech to recognise the problems of overload in terms of delivering the Government's education reforms. He should go into any primary or secondary school and ask the head teacher how he or she envisages delivering the national curriculum. He will be told that the head teacher does not know the answer, because the Department of Education and Science does not know it. Those who teach subjects such as arts, music and physical education are worried. Eighteen months after the enactment of legislation, the national curriculum working parties in those subjects have not even been set up. How can a head teacher describe how the national curriculum will look on implementation in a school when the Government have not even set up the appropriate working parties?
  There is a problem of overload when teachers are not given accurate or reliable information about how the testing system will work. They do not know about the relationship between testing and the national curriculum. The Minister talked proudly about the technical and vocational education initiative, but when we asked questions in the debates on the Education Reform Bill about the future of TVEI and its relationship to the national curriculum, the Minister of State had no answers. Ministers still do not know how TVEI will fit the national curriculum. All those changes are creating problems of overload. It is about time that the Government recognised that those changes also bring into question the standard and delivery of education.
  Some Conservative Members dismiss the notion of good schools in a physical sense. They seem to think that the resources available are not important. I shall give some examples to make my point. Queensbury school in Bradford has such bad facilities that there is a lack of laboratory space in which to teach science under the national curriculum. What does that mean for educational opportunities? Faversham street school in Bradford is more than 100 years old and is part of the Victorian legacy to Bradford. I understand that it is a listed building, but everyone who knows anything about that school lists it as unfit for educational purposes. How can we expect children to learn and work in such conditions?
  How do the Government expect children in primary schools in Waltham Forest to work in such conditions? There are 61 primary schools—10 are more than 100 years old and 31 are more than 50 years old. Sixteen schools use mobile classrooms, 24 have no gymnasium or sports room, and 30 have no access for young disabled children. All that makes a difference in terms of the facilities available for our children and the school's environment and ability to deliver good-quality education.
  This has been a debate about standards. Our argument is simple: without a motivated teacher force, direction, and investment in the physical resources of education, standards cannot be delivered. The Secretary of State made much play of the impact of the GCSE, but it is worth reminding him that the GCSE has worked not because of

  941
  the way in which the Government have resourced it but because of the commitment made by individual teachers, beyond their contracts, to make it work.
  The Secretary of State ought to answer a point that he made in what was claimed to be an exclusive interview in last Friday's Daily Express with Will Stewart, a home affairs correspondent, who is a reliable journalist. The article said that the Secretary of State was concerned about teacher shortage, and that he was going to run a campaign of television commercials to attract people back into the teaching profession. It also said—I quote the Daily Express, not something I do as a habit—
  "Mr. MacGregor also asked examiners to take the crisis into account when marking GCSE papers."
  Is that not a confession from the Secretary of State that the Government cannot deliver educational standards? It is very much the point that the hon. Member for Buckingham was making: we can get the statistics to look right, but are the Government leaning on examining bodies to ensure that the statistics stand up?
  The Secretary of State has made a real confession. For a long time after he became Secretary of State, he tried to hide his talent. Many people thought that he had become the Lord Lucan of the DES, but he emerged eventually. When he did emerge, he made the substantial confession that he has presided over a reduction in standards and in ambition.
  The crucial point about the motion is that the Government are presiding over a deterioration in standards and ambition in education. The real indictment of the Government's record is that we have a Secretary of State who is happy to defend the status quo, who has no ambition for the country's education system, and who does not seem to be concerned that the gap between our educational achievements and those of western Europe, the United States and Japan is widening. That is what the CBI said in the autumn. That is the case and the Government continue to preside over the deterioration of education. Above all, they have set low standards and low expectations for children. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to support the motion.
  6.51 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): When I was reflecting earlier today upon what I was likely to be asked to answer in the debate, and upon the points that would be made by Opposition Members, I made a check list for myself. I started by noting that they would talk about lack of resources and the disgraceful state of buildings, and that they would go on about the support that local authorities, central Government and the taxpayers should give to education; then they would talk about how bad teacher morale was, being negative about it, with not a single positive suggestion; they would talk too about the pay and conditions of teachers. My check list has been rather good. When I look at the runners for the 2.30 at Wolverhampton or Kempton park, I should like to have the same success that I had this afternoon.
  Of course, a great deal has been said by Opposition Members about the state of school buildings and the conditions in which children are learning. There is a point to be made—that this year we have contributed 9·6 per cent. more in extra resources for education expenditure.
  942
  That is not the whole story. As well as the £485 million in capital grant allocated this year, local authorities can spend money of their own.
  It must be said that not all school buildings are in the dilapidated state that Opposition Members allege. One would think that every school was about to fall apart at the seams. It is true that some are in better condition than others, but the condition of many primary schools that I go into is relatively good. We must pay tribute to the teachers who spend a great deal of time making such schools attractive places in which to teach children. It is a pity that we did not hear more about the way in which teachers tackle their jobs.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said that it was not attractive for teachers to enter the teaching profession, yet the starting salary for a good honours graduate is £9,400. That is not bad compared to other professions. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) knows that I was in his constituency yesterday. The point made to me by a head teacher there was that what is needed in the teaching profession is a good career structure. By that he meant incremental pay, incentive allowances for subjects where there were shortages, and local allowances for local difficulties. Those are the very things that my right hon. Friend has put in the remit to the interim advisory committee this year.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also mentioned another point, also referred to by the hon. Member for City of Durham, that the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association has raised with them, presumably in their capacity as advisers. It arises from a misunderstanding of the allowance described in the revenue support grant distribution report for extra labour costs incurred in London and surrounding areas.
  The area cost adjustment for education enhances the standard spending assessment of authorities in and around London to allow for extra labour costs incurred in these areas in respect of all employed in the education service. That adjustment is based on objective evidence derived from the new earnings survey. The variations found in different counties on the edge of the area are dependent on the incidence of extra cost shown by the new earnings survey in the constituent districts. Therefore, it does not imply anything about what teachers ought to be paid in those areas.
  I turn to my hon. Friends, whose support I have found most gratifying and whose speeches were excellent. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) raised several points. He and I have known each other for many years because we have been together in local and central Government. He was right to mention 1976. At that time we heard of the draconian cuts that the Labour Government had inflicted upon us.
  He also mentioned local management schemes, and referred to the schemes asking the Government to look carefully at the proposals for Conservative counties and Labour counties; other hon. Members mentioned the same point. It is important to recognise that authorities have prepared their own local management schemes. Authorities have different schemes; they have used different formulae. Some have gone as far as extending more of their executive rights to the schools, but many local authorities have kept a great deal of money to the centre. There is a transitional period of four years in which the money will go to the schools.

  943
  It is the intention of Government that as much money as possible should go from the general schools budget to schools to allow governors and schools to make the decisions that are rightfully theirs about how to spend the money. The principle behind local management schemes is that the money follows the pupil. That means inevitably that the schools that are delivering good education to their children will mean more money for the schools. If one grasps that fundamental point, it means that the market for parents to choose the right schools, in their opinion, for their children will increase the amount of money going to the schools.
  As we have talked about choice in education, it is important to underpin what my right hon. Friend has said about it. It is important for children to have the opportunity to go to schools like city technology colleges. That partnership between industry and the public sector is most important. It builds on much of what has been established during the past 10 years in the partnership between industry and the state sector of education. It began with the technical and vocational education initiative and continued with compacts—which, I say generously to the Opposition, came as much from the Inner London education authority as from others.
  The idea of city technology colleges is of proven worth and they will undoubtedly be a success. Many parents will want to support them. Grant-maintained schools have also been a great success. There are already 20 of them, and they are attracting more pupils and teachers. It is important to recognise that.
  Finally, I wish to refer not only to my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), for whose support I have been most grateful, but to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who raised the extremely important point about standards and, in particular, A levels. It is because of the very fears that he expressed about education standards, especially A levels, that we were anxious about accepting the recommendations of the Higginson report.
  We felt that it was dangerous to introduce so many changes at one time—the GCSE, the national curriculum, a new system to govern schools and a new system of funding schools. To introduce changes to the A-level examination would inevitably have led to some diminution of quality and of the high level of standards in our schools. That caution has been more than justified by what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said today. We shall take note of that and draw the attention of the examining bodies to what he said.
  The Government's amendment is eminently sensible, and my hon. Friends have clearly shown that it is worth the support of the House. I hope that all hon. Members will join us in the Lobby to support our amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 285.

  Division No. 45]

  [7.02 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Allen, Graham

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Alton, David

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Anderson, Donald

  Ashton, Joe

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Alexander, Richard

  Dicks, Terry

  Arbuthnot, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Dover, Den

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dunn, Bob

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Eggar, Tim

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fallon, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Favell, Tony

  Boswell, Tim

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bowis, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Brazier, Julian

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bright, Graham

  Forth, Eric

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

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Franks, Cecil

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Freeman, Roger

  Budgen, Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Fry, Peter

  Burt, Alistair

  Gardiner, George

  Butler, Chris

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Butterfill, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Carttiss, Michael

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chope, Christopher

  Gorst, John

  Churchill, Mr

  Gow, Ian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Conway, Derek

  Gregory, Conal

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Grist, Ian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ground, Patrick

  Couchman, James

  Grylls, Michael

  Cran, James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hague, William

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

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Day, Stephen

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Barron, Kevin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Beckett, Margaret

  Hardy, Peter

  Beith, A. J.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Henderson, Doug

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hinchliffe, David

  Blair, Tony

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Blunkett, David

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Boateng, Paul

  Home Robertson, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bradley, Keith

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Howells, Geraint

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Buckley, George J.

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ingram, Adam

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Janner, Greville

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Cartwright, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Clay, Bob

  Kennedy, Charles

  Clelland, David

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cohen, Harry

  Lambie, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Lamond, James

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Corbett, Robin

  Leighton, Ron

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cousins, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Cox, Tom

  Litherland, Robert

  Cryer, Bob

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cummings, John

  Livsey, Richard

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dalyell, Tam

  Loyden, Eddie

  Darling, Alistair

  McAllion, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dewar, Donald

  McFall, John

  Dixon, Don

  McKelvey, William

  Dobson, Frank

  McLeish, Henry

  Doran, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McWilliam, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Madden, Max

  Eadie, Alexander

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Eastham, Ken

  Marek, Dr John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Martlew, Eric

  Fatchett, Derek

  Maxton, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Meacher, Michael

  Fearn, Ronald

  Meale, Alan

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fisher, Mark

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Flannery, Martin

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foster, Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fraser, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Galloway, George

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Mullin, Chris

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Murphy, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Nellist, Dave

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gordon, Mildred

  O'Brien, William

  Gould, Bryan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Graham, Thomas

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Parry, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pendry, Tom

  Strang, Gavin

  Pike, Peter L

  Straw, Jack

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prescott, John

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Radice, Giles

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Randall, Stuart

  Turner, Dennis

  Redmond, Martin

  Vaz, Keith

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wallace, James

  Reid, Dr John

  Walley, Joan

  Richardson, Jo

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robertson, George

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Rogers, Allan

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wilson, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winnick, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Short, Clare

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hannam, John

  Mitchell, Sir David

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

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Harris, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hayes, Jerry

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hayward, Robert

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mudd, David

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hill, James

  Neubert, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Norris, Steve

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

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Paice, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Portillo, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Price, Sir David

  Jack, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jackson, Robert

  Redwood, John

  Janman, Tim

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kilfedder, James

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rost, Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Ryder, Richard

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Latham, Michael

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lightbown, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Speed, Keith

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Speller, Tony

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Squire, Robin

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stern, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maples, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sumberg, David

  Mates, Michael

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Thorne, Neil

  Mills, Iain

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Whitney, Ray

  Tracey, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tredinnick, David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Trippier, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Wilshire, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walden, George

  Wood, Timothy

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Yeo, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Ward, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

  Watts, John

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its coherent programme for securing lasting improvements in standards in schools through its policies for the National Curriculum, assessment and testing, for increased parental choice, and for greater autonomy for schools; notes the increased expenditure since 1979 of over 40 per cent. in real terms per pupil; contrasts these reforms with the neglect of relevant education policies by the last Labour Government and the absence of any constructive alternative proposals by Opposition spokesmen; notes that the requirements of the National Curriculum, building on the successful introduction of GCSE examinations, enjoy widespread support in the education system; and welcomes the enthusiasm with which governors, teachers and parents are seizing the opportunity to exercise more choice and greater autonomy in the management of their schools.
  Mr. David Clelland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I understand that the normal convention of the House is that, when a Member of the House visits another Member's constituency, he should inform him in advance. It has come to my notice that the Secretary of State for Health has been in my constituency today, although he gave me no notice. He has been at the headquarters of the Northumbria ambulance brigade, where he has been making a propaganda film that puts his side of the ambulance dispute, using vehicles and equipment—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
  Mr. Clelland: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker: is it in order for the Secretary of State for Health to visit my constituency without giving me notice to make a propaganda film to support his side of the ambulance dispute?
  Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, there is no absolute rule on this matter, but the convention is that if a Member visits another Member's constituency, he always informs him.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Once again, I appeal for brief speeches from both the Front Benches and the Back Benches, as a great many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the disturbing findings of the surveys of disability in Great Britain by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which reveal that 6·5 million people are significantly disabled and that there exists a totally unacceptable gap in income levels, employment and other opportunities between them and non-disabled people; endorses the Disability Benefits Consortium's description of the Ministerial statement of 10th January as a disgraceful response to the poverty uncovered by the Government's own surveys of the needs of disabled people; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government urgently to respond to the Consortium's call for an open, comprehensive and independent review of benefits.
  This House is often at its best in debating the problems and needs of people with disabilities. I have no doubt that, as in so many previous such debates, we shall hear concerned and constructive speeches from all parts of the House. There is now, however, a divide in this policy area that goes much deeper than any in our previous debates. Simply to act in good faith to Britain's 6·5 million disabled people and their organizations, with which we consult often and in detail, we for our part must reflect tonight not just their anguish but also the anger and despair with which they view the Government's proposals in the White Paper "The Way Ahead—Benefits for Disabled People".
  Our motion supports the justified criticisms of the Government's proposals from the Disability Benefits Consortium, which speaks for more than 250 organizations of and for disabled people, including all their main national organizations. The Dab's objectives enjoy huge public backing and, if the Government's Whips were taken off, the motion would most certainly be carried tonight.
  This debate, like all other debates specifically about disability in the lifetime of this Government, takes place in Opposition time. We shall no doubt hear from the Minister with responsibility for the disabled, as from his Conservative predecessors in the post, how wonderfully well disabled people fare under this Government. That is what the amendment seems to say. Its wording gives the impression that disabled people should be holding street parties in celebration of the Government's beneficence.
  Yet so confident are the Government of the truth of the claims they make about their record that they have never once, in 10 years of power, offered parliamentary time for any wide-ranging debate on the problems and needs of disabled people. That this debate is taking place this evening is due to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It is to him that disabled people owe this opportunity for the presentation of their case against a Government whose serene self-satisfaction is almost as hurtful as some of the cuts they have inflicted.
  While the Government pat themselves on the back about extra spending, the organizations of and for disabled people are bitterly critical of the hacking away at entitlements hard won from Governments of both parties between 1945 and 1979. The Disability Alliance has shown that there were over 1 million disabled losers from the

  949
  social security changes in 1988 alone. Worst hit were those most in need, even people for whom incontinence imposes both added stress and higher living costs.
  The Government's self-satisfaction also contrasts with The Lancet report of a survey over Christmas which shows that people with mental disabilities
  " … are living like feral children in the forest of the city, scavenging for garbage and subsisting from charitable hand-outs."
  As a trustee of Crisis at Christmas, I have been a first-hand witness of this growing army of victims of the collapse of the Government's so-called policies for community care.
  The death of Beverley Lewis, whose young life ended in malnutrition and hideous neglect, amid unspeakable squalor, also bears testimony to the huge and growing gap between need and provision. The Minister will know that expert opinion has pointed to the relevance of section 1 (3)(d) of the Disabled Persons Act 1986 to preventing such tragedies.
  Is it not scandalous that sections 1 to 3, and other crucially important parts of that legislation, so ably promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), still await implementation nearly four years after their enactment? As Mary Holland of MENCAP says:
  "Good quality community care is about consultation, representation, assessment, service provision, monitoring and accountability. The 1986 Act embodies these. When will it be implemented in full?"
  Ministers plead lack of resources for non-implementation. Yet there have been £23 billion worth of tax cuts since 1979, mostly aimed at the fit and fortunate in society. It is thus neither acceptable nor even true for Ministers to say that the money has not been available to implement the Act. The problem has not been, and is not now, one of resources, but of political will and priorities.
  Nor is it good enough for Ministers to go on trying to give the impression that they have already won substantial extra resources for improving cash benefits for disabled people. The plain truth is that at least 90 per cent. of the extra spending for which they take credit is due not to any improvement in benefits, but to the increased number of people now claiming the attendance allowance, the mobility allowance, the invalid care allowance and other benefits that were introduced before they came to power. Thus in effect they are claiming credit for not having repealed the mobility allowance and other benefits they inherited from previous Governments.
  Ministers should tell the House what the total current cost without loss of value would be had statutory benefits for disabled people remained as they were in 1979. I invite them to do so tonight. Let them state, for example, the total loss to disabled people who do not work of scrapping the link between wages and prices in updating their benefits.
  Let the Government also admit that the Conservatives have cut the value of the attendance allowance and the invalid care allowance, among many other benefits of importance to disabled people and their families, since they came to power 10 years ago with a promise to "single out" disabled people for special help. Ten years on, most of Britain's 6·5 million disabled people say they have been "singled out" for special hardship.
  They are angered by the Government's parrot-like claims that increased benefits for disabled people have almost doubled expenditure in real terms since 1978–79, when in fact the additional spending is almost all brought
  950
  about by the increased number of beneficiaries of allowances that were introduced by previous Governments.
  Organizations of and for disabled people argue that the Government's claims are made to mislead the general public into believing that life for their members is getting easier and easier when they know that it is not. Their organizations rightly complain that disabled people—as individuals—are no better off. Indeed, compared with what they received on supplementary benefits, many are poorer in real terms and will become even worse off as their transitional protection loses its value.
  The organizations of disabled people were encouraged by ministerial statements to hope that financial hardship among their members would be temporary. They looked forward to the results of the surveys of the OPCS and the review of benefits which they were promised would follow their publication. They felt assured that the Government would consult them before responding to the Opus's reports, and the total lack of consultation with disabled people about "The Way Ahead" adds insult to the injury of its glaring inadequacies. They have been not just ignored but humiliated by the Government's total indifference to their views.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham rose—
  Mr. Morris: I am in some difficulty in that I must refer to a number of policy areas as quickly as possible. I shall help other hon. Members if I proceed quickly. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) will understand my difficulty and will be called to speak in the debate.
  The OPCS's surveys, while they have been criticized for understating the extra costs of disability and were undertaken before the 1988 benefit changes took effect, are much the best picture we have ever had of disability in Great Britain. The six reports show that most disabled people are locked in a financial vice of reduced earnings and increased living costs. They demonstrate that no new policy can succeed unless it tackles the link between disability and poverty, a link which the Government's policies have reinforced.
  About 4·3 million disabled people rely on state benefits as their main source of income with an average total income of £65·20 per week; 4·5 million live in households where there are no earners. When the minimal extra costs of disability are taken into account, the gap between the average incomes of disabled and non-disabled people was over £39 per week at 1988 prices.
  Unemployment among disabled job seekers is more than twice as high as the current rate among able-bodied people. They are pushed to the back of the dole queue, which is still the longest queue in Britain, and many are made to sit up and beg from the social fund.
  Only 31 per cent. of all disabled adults of working age are actually working. That compares with 69 per cent. of the population as a whole. The ratio for men is even worse—33 per cent. compared with 78 per cent. Those findings shout of discrimination against disabled workers. The Government's own record, in terms of job offered to disabled people, is among the worst of all employers. The earnings of disabled people who find work are substantially lower than those of non-disabled employees, and the same is true of parents of disabled children.

  951
  Referring to the Opus's reports, the Social Security Advisory Committee said:
  "The Government will not have a better opportunity to reform benefits."
  The SSAC went on to say that benefits for disabled people could now be matched closely to their needs, as revealed by the reports, and that:
  "This opportunity will almost certainly not be repeated for many years to come and must be grasped."
  The Government's reaction to the reports was given on 10 January in "The Way Ahead" which Ian Bruce, director-general of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, who co-chairs the Disability Benefits Consortium, has called a
  "… disgraceful response to the poverty uncovered by the Government's own surveys of the needs of disabled people."
  In a fuller statement from the DBC, timed for this debate, the reaction of disabled people to the Government's response is summarised as one of "anger and disbelief".
  "The Way Ahead" is the final outcome of a review of benefits from which all but Ministers and civil servants were excluded. The mocking title and gross defects of this backward-looking document have led organizations of and for disabled people to describe it as
  "… the biggest insult disabled people have been subjected to in the past decade".
  No new help at all is offered to people over 65 on the basis that
  "pensioners have experienced a 23 per cent. growth in net incomes in real terms since 1979".
  But those are mostly younger pensioners in occupational schemes, not the millions of older and disabled pensioners who have to eke out an existence on state benefits alone. They were fobbed off last October with a tiny increase in means-tested income support.
  No extra financial help goes to the severely disabled people, young and old alike, who need assistance to live independently in their own homes. Yet anyone with knowledge of their lives knows that the attendance allowance makes only a modest contribution to actual care costs. The Disablement Income Group—DIG—in an authoritative report, has shown that care costs were understated by the OPCS, but the Government took no notice of its report. Nor have they taken any account of the amounts paid for care costs by the independent living fund which, as the Minister must know, are very much higher than current rates of the attendance allowance.
  The Government apparently now accept that some help should go to disabled people who can do only part-time or low-paid jobs. But the proposed disablement employment credit is likened to family credit, which bolsters low pay and has a very low take-up rate. It is not the partial incapacity benefit for which disabled people and their organizations have long been pressing and indeed is a nil-cost measure. In fact, as the Minister revealed to me in a parliamentary written answer last Friday, the Government actually expect to save £10 million on their new benefit by 1992–93.
  The choice that Ministers have made in proposing the new credit, when combined with proposals from the National Audit Office to persuade doctors to stop providing sick notes, looks very much like an attempt to ensure that disabled people earn their poverty. Without action to introduce a minimum income, to enforce a
  952
  proper employment quota scheme, to outlaw discrimination against disabled people, and radically to improve employment services and training, job opportunities for disabled people will remain the scandal they are today.
  Another "generous" new benefit in "The Way Ahead" is an age-related addition to the severe disablement allowance. But the older the disabled person, the less he or she receives. People under 40 will get £10 week, those over 40 an extra £6.20; but the over-50s will receive only £3.10 and the over-60s nothing at all.
  Ministers claim that the net cost of "The Way Ahead"—billed in advance as a major new deal for the disabled that
  "looks forward to the 21st century"
  —is £300 million. That compares with tax cuts of £1·9 billion, in a single Budget, for the richest 1 per cent. of taxpayers. Virtually seven out of eight disabled people will get nothing from the Government's proposals. Many will lose and, as we have seen, even severely disabled pensioners are ignored.
  To help pay for this "new deal" other benefits will disappear. Savings from benefits that the Government intend to scrap will eventually far outweigh the cost of the pathetically modest new benefits in "The Way Ahead". In fact, the Disability Alliance estimates that the Government will more than break even on their proposals even in the short term. I have never known organizations of and for disabled people to be more united in their criticisms of Government policy. Those organizations include the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Spastics Society, Mencap, the British Council of Organizations of Disabled People, DIG and Age Concern among hundreds of others.
  I know the Minister shares my deep respect, and that of others on both sides of the House, for the judgment, knowledge and fairness of Peter Large of DIG. Very few people are more qualified than him to judge any Government's record or rhetoric on disability. His view of "The Way Ahead" is that it is
  "nothing but a narrowing stony ledge"
  and he adds that:
  "The future promises to be a worrying mess."
  As for Ministers' claims about bringing some coherence into cash provision for disabled people, Peter Large's study of the proposals leads him to conclude that ministerial
  "talk about a more coherent system of benefits is a sign of delirium."
  Those withering criticisms, from one so well qualified to judge the Government's document, should surely now make social security Ministers see the urgency of a total re-think of their proposals. The Government must also recognise the importance of an urgent response from Ministers other than those from the Department of Social Security to the OPCS reports.
  Apart from the perfunctory references in the "The Way Ahead" to some other policy areas, the Government's response to the reports from the OPCS has so far come only from social security Ministers. However, important issues are raised by the reports that affect other Departments. Those issues have not been addressed and that points to a disturbing lack of co-ordination in Whitehall.
  When will the Department of Employment respond in detail to the reports? With less than a quarter of firms satisyfing their 3 per cent. quota obligations and the

  953
  employment service stating that work with disabled people is of very low priority, will the Department now be enforcing the quota system and expanding the sheltered placement scheme to provide integrated work opportunities at all levels for disabled workers?
  As suitable housing is the key to independence for large numbers of disabled people, and especially in view of the repeated cuts in provision of specially designed housing for them since 1979, will there be any response to the OPCS reports from the Department of the Environment? The Minister will know of my involvement in the making of the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978, giving rate relief on essential adaptations such as an additional ground-floor bathroom. This relief is now to disappear and Stephen Bradshaw, the director of the Spinal Injuries Association, has sent two examples of the effect. The first is that of Mr. and Mrs. D. Baron, a couple with a severely disabled son who live in St. Austell. After April they will be paying £900 in poll tax, an increase of £756 on their current rates. The second example is that of Mr. and Mrs. J. Sullivan of Thames Ditton, whose son is a paraplegic. They will have to pay £686·89 more after April.
  Stephen Bradshaw's letter to me says:
  "We are concerned that the new tax, which does not apply to people living in residential homes, runs counter to the Government's proposals for care in the community. With one hand it purports to encourage disabled people to move into the community and with the other it imposes a disincentive."
  Are not the cases that he sent me—and countless more could be cited—proof positive of the need for a full and urgent response from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the OPCS reports?
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is considerable confusion among disabled people in Newport with regard to the poll tax and the rebate system? He will be aware that the Government have engaged in a £4 million television and newspaper campaign advertising the rebate scheme. However, that has caused much confusion in Newport because the scheme applies only to England and the fact that separate arrangements apply for Wales appears only in tiny print. In Newport people read the national newspapers and they also watch English television and they become confused by what they see and read about the scheme. Surely they have enough to put up with with their disabilities.
  Mr. Morris: I am familiar with the effects of the problems that I have been detailing in his constituency as in all parts of Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) is aware of my special link with Newport as patron of Action Aid in his area, which does such excellent work for disabled people. I am assured that organisations of disabled people are trying their best to emphasise to the Secretary of State for the Environment that he should respond—having regard in particular to the findings of the OPCS—to the effect of his policies in increasing poverty among disabled people.
  What consideration has been given to the reports by the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office? Will they be making any response? Again, will there be a considered response to the reports from the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Is he aware of the mounting concern among disability groups that provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 will halt further progress towards the integration
  954
  of disabled pupils into mainstream schooling as envisaged by the Education Act 1981? Will self-governing schools be required to make adequate provision for disabled pupils?
  The special health needs of disabled people are also important. We now have conclusive facts about the extra calls they, compared with other people, have to make on the National Health Service. A response from the Department of Health to the OPCS reports is made all the more urgent by its legislation on the future of the Health Service and of community care. The Association of Crossroads Care Attendant Schemes argues that, unless adequate funding is made available, carers will remain a low priority for hard-pressed local authorities faced with a growing demand from the increasing numbers of elderly and highly dependent people living in the community. How is the Minister responding? The Government must also know that many local authorities, owing to lack of resources, now have to choose not only which of their discretionary powers to use under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, but even which of their legal duties to fulfil. Is that not cause for deep concern?
  In regard to the Department of Health's responsibilities, I take this opportunity also briefly to raise the plight of people who have become infected with AIDS as a result of routine blood transfusions. The House knows that people with haemophilia who contracted the virus in the course of NHS treatment are receiving ex-gratia payments of £20,000 each. It is not enough, but even that inadequate sum is denied to people who become infected by blood transfusions. They have exactly the same claim to compensation and should not be told to seek justice through the courts. Thirteen of them have already died, and others will die before there is any prospect of a court settlement. For them justice, if any, will be posthumous, and that is not justice at all. My calculation of the cost of giving equal treatment to these other victims of a killer disease is £2 million. Is that too much for the Treasury to find in the cause of elementary justice?
  In sharp contrast to the Government's indifference to the views of disabled people about their policies, we have held a number of consultative conferences with them. We have made it clear that their claims are among our highest priorities. We are pledged to introduce a comprehensive disability income to meet the extra costs of disabled people of all ages whose disability is assessed at 40 per cent. or more. By that and other measures we shall build on the achievements of the last Labour Government who, by the introduction of four new cash benefits for disabled people, gave unprecedented new help.
  We shall increase the severe disablement allowance to the full basic invalidity benefit rate for all recipients. We also intend to introduce a carer's benefit, payable at the full basic pension rate, for people who, owing to the care they provide, cannot take paid employment. All that present Ministers plan to do is to reverse the appalling effects of their Social Security Act 1986, which actually cut benefits for carers on income support.
  Among our other commitments is one to make discrimination against disabled people illegal. It is a commitment that their organisations see as essential to the achievement of full and equal citizenship for some 14 per cent. of the British people. We could have led the world in outlawing discrimination, as we did in 1970 by legislating on access to buildings, if this Government had acted on the report in 1982 of the Committee on Restrictions Against

  955
  Disabled People which I, as Minister for the Disabled, appointed in 1979. Now we trail behind other countries, not least the United States.
  The message from this Government is unmistakable: only an alternative Government will address the poverty and other problems of disabled people so starkly portrayed by the surveys commissioned by Conservative Ministers. They have the resources to do what the findings of their surveys now demand. I say again that the problem is one not of resources, but of political will and priorities. Our priorities are clear: the present Government's lie elsewhere.
  7.44 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the fact that social security expenditure for long-term sick and disabled people has virtually doubled in real terms since 1979, to a total of over £8 billion a year; notes with approval the greatly improved coverage of disability benefits associated with this achievement, which has increased the number of Mobility Allowance recipients from 95,000 to 615,000, the number of Attendance Allowance recipients from 265,000 to 795,000, and the number of Invalid Care Allowance recipients from 5,000 to 110,000; and welcomes the Government's proposals for further improvements, involving net additional expenditure rising to some £300 million in 1993–94, to help some 850,000 long-term sick and disabled people by measures which include increased premiums in income-related benefits for both disabled adults and disabled children, a new premium for carers, the extension of Attendance Allowance to disabled babies and to people who are terminally ill, the extension of Mobility Allowance to those who are both deaf and blind, increases in Severe Disablement Allowance focused especially on those disabled from birth or early in life, improved coverage of help with the extra costs of disability through a new Disability Allowance, and the introduction of a new Disability Employment Credit to assist and encourage those disabled people who can and wish to work."
  I am delighted that we are having this debate today. I approach it with no feeling of backwardness; rather, it is with relish that I take on the other side of the House in a debate about disability. That is not to say that I do not hope that at the end of the day there will be a feeling within the House as a whole about the needs of disabled people and about the necessity to make all society more aware of those needs, as well as of the ability of disabled people to make a greater contribution in the future to society as a whole and to achieve greater independence and control over their own lives.
  Despite what we heard from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), we on this side of the House have no reason at all to be ashamed of our record in meeting the needs of disabled people. The last 10 years have seen major advances in provision for disabled people in this country, and I am confident that, so long as we keep a Conservative Government, the same will apply to the next 10 years.
  The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that the mobility allowance, which was being introduced at snail's pace by the Labour Government, was enhanced by the Conservatives when we got back into office; that we introduced attendance allowance; that we improved the coverage of invalid care allowance; and that we replaced the old non-contributory invalidity pension with severe
  956
  disablement allowance, which is a much more generous benefit. These advances have made a real impact on the lives of disabled people over the last 10 years.
  Today I do not want to talk just about benefits. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman properly made the point that disabled people need services, that they need the work of other Departments and of voluntary organisations to enhance the quality of their lives. But it would be wrong of me as a Minister in the Department of Social Security not to begin by talking about benefits and not to get some balance into the argument.
  When the Labour party left office it was spending £1·8 billion on the needs of the long-term sick and disabled. This year, the figure will be £8·3 billion—an increase of £4 billion in real terms. The right hon. Gentleman fairly makes the point that, of that £4 billion, £3·5 billion is due to increased take-up of benefits and £0·5 billion is due to the increased value of benefits. I have no shame about the increased take-up. When Labour was in office, there were just as many disabled people around, but more and more of them are now getting the benefits to which they are entitled. That is something of which we can be proud.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: Hon. Members know that on such occasions I normally give way, but Mr. Speaker has imposed a tight timetable.
  Let me state the comparison in another way. As I said in winding up on Monday night, over its period of government—talking in constant money terms—the Labour party increased expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled by £220 million a year. During our period of office, it has been increased by £370 million a year. Invalidity benefit, which went to 600,000 people, now goes to virtually 1·2 million. Severe disability allowance, or its predecessor, went to 150,000; now it goes to 265,000. Attendance allowance was going to 265,000; now it goes to virtually 800,000. The number of people in receipt of mobility allowance has gone up from 95,000 to 615,000. So we have made tremendous advances in take-up. In other words, we are getting through to the people who really need help. This record is substantial. It represents a sustained provision of extra resources for the long-term sick and disabled under this Government.
  But I am conscious that, despite this, and indeed perhaps sometimes because of the changes that we have made year by year, the balance and structure of disability benefits was less than satisfactory. That is why we commissioned the surveys of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The OPCS carried out four surveys, leading to six reports. It really was the most comprehensive survey exercise ever carried out. Unlike the Amelia Harris survey, which was commissioned by the Labour Government, it covered the whole spectrum of disability.
  It included sensory and mental impairment, as well as the physically handicapped; it included people in their own homes, as well as those in institutions; and it included children as well as adults. We have considered carefully the findings of the OPCS reports. Unlike the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, who made allegations, we have listened to the representations and submissions of a considerable number of disability organisations. My right

  957
  hon. Friend and I have met the Disability Benefits consortium to listen to its ideas and concerns, and we have now brought forward our proposals.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: As I have said, Mr. Speaker has imposed a very tight timetable, and I should like to get on.
  We brought forward our responses. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we envisage a three-stage progress. In October, he made an announcement about annual uprating. He also announced the increase in real terms in the disability premium for adults; the doubling of the premiums for disabled children, thereby giving extra help to about 20,000 families; extending attendance allowance to disabled people and to babies under two; making attendance allowance available without the normal six-month waiting period for the terminally ill; extending mobility allowance to deaf and blind people; improving incentives for rehabilitation for employment by increasing the earnings disregards; and introducing the carer's premium into the system, thus helping about 30,000 carers in society.
  Those important changes were widely welcomed. I remember watching Opposition Members' faces as my right hon. Friend announced the proposals and the gloom and doom with which they regarded those considerable advances in meeting the needs of disabled people.
  Looking ahead into the longer term, we set ourselves three strategic aims in formulating our proposals. They were to improve the coverage of help available for the extra costs that disability can bring to those of working age and below, to improve the balance of benefits available to disabled people who are unable to work, in particular to do more for those who are disabled at birth or early in life, and to help disabled people who are capable of and wish to work, and to make it easier for them to get and to keep jobs.
  The steps that we are taking to provide extra help by the autumn of this year for about 500,000 disabled people and their carers through the existing benefit system will come into effect soon. The Social Security Bill which received a Second Reading on Monday will carry forward the change to make attendance allowance available without any waiting period for the terminally ill.
  On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) raised several issues. I make it absolutely clear that the terminally ill will get attendance allowance for the rest of their lives. The qualification will be a prognosis that life is unlikely to last longer than six months, hut, if people live beyond six months, they will continue to get attendance allowance for the rest of teir lives.
  It will be possible for a third party to apply on behalf of a terminally ill person. I understand the hon. Lady's worry that it might not be sensitive or sensible to tell a person, or even his or her close family, that he or she is terminally ill. In those circumstances, it will be possible for an application to be made on behalf of a disabled person.
  This is a sensitive matter. We consulted widely and carefully among the organisations most directly concerned with the terminally ill. I believe that they are satisfied with the arrangements that we are making.
  This important measure honours a commitment that we made to the House last summer, and it will be much
  958
  more than just the extra payment of £37.55 in attendance allowance. Extra payments of invalid care allowance will also be payable, as will extra payments of income support or housing benefit via disability premium and the carer's premium. The Bill will also introduce an age-related addition to the non-contributory severe disablement allowance at the same rates as the present additions paid with contributory invalidity benefit.
  The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe understands the position, but did not quite state it correctly. It is not the age of a person at the time which governs the amount of benefit or enhancement that he gets under the age-related additions: it is the age at which that person is disabled. It is part of the strategy to try to shift the balance of extra help to those who are disabled earlier in life and do not have the ability to build up contributory benefits or occupational benefits and savings in their working lives. We are doing that in precisely the right way.
  The current Bill contains two other measures that arise directly from our determination to improve the structure and balance of benefits for the disabled. I refer to the reduced earnings allowance provision and the additional pensions provision. I do not want to go into them in detail today. We will be locked in conflict in Committee in the not-too-distant future. and there will be ample time for discussion.
  I now refer to the third phase of the programme that we set out in "The Way Ahead". We intend to legislate at the earliest practicable opportunity to introduce the disability employment credit and the disability allowance. I told the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that I would refer to this matter.
  The hon. Gentleman wrote an article in The Sunday Times suggesting that, by extending the entitlement to mobility allowance and attendance allowance, the Government were somehow to pay all those in receipt of those benefits at a lower level. That is quite untrue. We will introduce a new lower level of benefit for mobility allowance and for attendance allowance. Those at the top two levels of attendance allowance and mobility allowance will continue to qualify and will be uprated in the normal way. We are taking the threshold further down the scale of disability, so that more people will be able to qualify at the lower level. It is important that that is clearly understood.
  The allowance was explained on Monday. I do not want to go into it in detail, except to say that it is important that, when we come to the allowance, which will effectively combine and extend the mobility and care elements of support for disabled people, we aim to improve the assessment—
  Mr. Graham: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: No, I will not give way, for the reasons that I explained earlier.
  The assessment and adjudication procedures should also be simplified and speeded up. The other new benefit of disablement employment credit will make it easier for disabled people to take and keep work.
  As I said, I speak first as the Minister for Social Security with responsibility for the disabled, but it is absolutely clear that the Government as a whole are committed to improving the lives of disabled people. I do not want to weary the House by stating the work of every single Department, but, in my role as Minister, I keep in close touch with other Departments and occasionally snap at

  959
  their heels to make sure that they respond to the pressures in society. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe did the same when he was in office. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of employment and action to get people into work and enable them to carry out their employment in a satisfactory manner.
  Last year, the Department of Employment spent about £350 million helping people with disabilities to obtain and to keep work. Jobcentres and disablement resettlement offices are increasingly successful in their job of finding work for disabled people. Over the past five years, the figure has increased from 62,000 to 77,000 last year. The Disablement Advisory Service tells employers about the facilities that need to be provided for disabled people. The code of good practice and the sheltered employment placement schemes are all increasingly successful.
  Special schemes, too, are run by the Department of Employment and its agencies. They provide special aids and equipment for disabled people to work in employers' premises or at home, help to adapt to an employers' premises if necessary, personal readers, and assistance with fares if people find it difficult to get to work. The job introduction scheme enables employers to give trial employment to people with disabilities. All that is important work and aids disabled people in acquiring the independence that many of them want.
  I have time to mention only a few other things done by other Departments. All hon. Members recognise that, in recent years, the Department of Transport has made important advances in bus, coach, air and taxi travel. The Motability scheme has been a tremendous success. Last year, 31,000 disabled people had access to vehicles under that scheme.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: They did not have access to rail services.
  Mr. Scott: British Rail is gradually extending its stations and platforms on main-line routes to make them more accessible to disabled people.
  Mr. Robert Hayward: And its carriages.
  Mr. Scott: And its carriages, too. There has been a tremendous improvement on the primitive facilities that existed 10 years ago. Towards the end of last year, I re-established the Access Committee for England. We know about the still unsatisfactory access to many public buildings and facilities. I want to make more rapid progress in that matter.
  The Department of the Environment will publish a consultation paper soon on building regulations as they affect access for the disabled. Last September, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts launched ADAPT in co-operation with the Carnegie foundation, to improve access to entertainment and artistic facilities. Also, I announced £500,000 for the British Paralympic Association, to encourage sport among the disabled, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is keen on developments in that area. Other Departments are playing their part in enhancing the quality of life for the disabled.
  I am delighted that it was possible in the Children Act 1989 to make it clear beyond peradventure that local
  960
  authorities can pay for young people to receive the benefits of conductive education in Budapest. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that we are making a contribution to the new national institute in Budapest, so that, in the long term, British children can be educated there and British adults can be trained as conductors. In due course, we shall have a facility for conductive education operating effectively in this country.
  I am anxious, as are my colleagues in the Department of Health, that we do not simply cope with the disabled but try to prevent disability. Increasing resources are being made available for that purpose.
  In the few minutes remaining to me, I shall respond to some of the worries that have been expressed in respect of our response to the OPCS surveys and to the situation as it currently affects the disabled.
  The independent living fund was perhaps not as well received as it should have been, but it now has widespread acceptance. It has helped some 3,000 severely disabled since it was launched. Its budget was doubled for the current year and will be doubled again for the forthcoming year. With the introduction of new arrangements for community care in 1991, there may be some overlap between the provisions of the independent living fund and the work of local authorities in producing community care packages. I shall shortly be considering with the fund's trustees the role that they envisage for it in the new circumstances, and I shall make an announcement in due course. I pay the warmest tribute to the fund's trustees and to its staff, who respond flexibly and helpfully to the needs of a wide range of disabled people.
  One of the criticisms of our proposals is that they do nothing to help disabled pensioners, but that is far from true. We certainly have not ignored them. The removal of the mobility allowance upper age limit will benefit many disabled pensioners, as will attendance allowance for the terminally ill. Our October package of about £200 million will provide extra help for 2·6 million more pensioners. Our social security expenditure on the elderly as a whole has increased by 25 per cent.—a real increase of £5 billion.
  I acknowledge that there was anxiety among organisations representing the blind, but the new disability allowance should prove of considerable help to many blind people. The severe disablement age additions will assist those who were blind at birth or who became blind in their early life. The employment credit should allow more blind people to work, and the mobility allowance for the deaf-blind was widely welcomed, as were the increases in the adult and child disability premiums.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has asked particularly about what I call the Clarke Act. I think that everyone understands what I mean when I use that phrase, rather than refer to the legislation's full and rather cumbersome title.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: As long as we are not talking about Mr. Kenneth Clarke's acts.
  Mr. Scott: I think that the House knows which Mr. Clarke is meant.
  Sections I , 2 and 3 of that Act are the most complex and expensive, and represent the main outstanding business to be implemented. Within a matter of weeks, we shall start consultations with local authorities on implementing those three sections, which I hope the House will widely welcome.
  Mr. Clarke: The Mr. Clarke to whom the Minister refers is certainly not the same man who is currently mentioned in BMA advertisements. However, although the Minister's intentions are not in doubt, history supports the view that there remains doubt about whether the Treasury will allow the Minister to go as far as the House would wish. On 11 April 1989, the Minister said that section 11 of the 1986 Act, dealing with reports to the House, would be introduced shortly, but that has not happened. When will that section be enacted?
  Mr. Scott: We are going out to consultation on that important issue. Obviously we shall discuss the level of resources that is necessary. We shall also have to examine—as did my Health Department colleagues in relation to section 7, which they decided was overtaken by other arrangements—the interaction of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1986 Act with the new arrangements for community care. At least the process has begun, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is pleased with that.
  It has been alleged that there is no new money in the package. There is new money available, amounting to £88 million in 1990–91, £141 million in 1991–92, £214 million in 1992–93, and £300 million in 1993–94. That is real new money. Two of the present occupants of Labour's Front Bench have served in government and know perfectly well that the first things that confront Ministers when they return from their summer holidays are the public expenditure estimates and the Autumn Statement. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security was able to persuade our Treasury colleagues to produce that new money, it was genuinely new money and quite properly included in the Autumn Statement. I give the firm and clear undertaking that it is new money.
  The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe concluded by describing Labour's plans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) once said, one can promise the earth, and then one delivers the IMF. The cost of the programmes to which Labour has committed itself must be at least £3 billion. Frankly, Labour would never be able to afford that sum even if it got into office. The Opposition are arousing expectations among the disabled that they will never be able to fulfil if re-elected.
  Whatever right hon. and hon. Members can do in their own constituency, the House has an important role to play in increasing awareness of disability and promoting a greater understanding of the needs and abilities of the disabled.
  A cause was recently launched that some may feel is on the verge of disability, but which relates to a condition that causes tremendous frustration and bitterness among those who suffer from it. I refer to the new dyslexia awareness campaign. I hope that greater awareness of that condition and of the need for diagnosis, assessment and treatment as early as possible in life will remove a great deal of the frustration from those who suffer from that distressing condition. I commend that campaign, as I commend all the campaigns run by the large number of voluntary organisations—many of them generously supported by Government money—to increase awareness of the needs, abilities and potential of the disabled.
  Society as a whole must also play a part. I freely acknowledge that this debate in Opposition time will serve to create greater awareness of the matters about which I have spoken. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): It should be clear to the House that, unless remaining speeches are brief, a number of right hon. and hon. Members wishing to participate will be very disappointed.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I shall be brief, as I realise that many hon. Members wish to speak. I do not want to generalise, but I wish to draw the House's attention to a certain section of disabled people, as I have done on many previous occasions.
  Since 1982, I have presented five Bills on behalf of mineworkers suffering from the dreaded disease emphysema. On each occasion, they went the way that I expected them to go, like most ten-minute Bills. That has not helped the miners in my constituency.
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council reported recently, after in-depth investigations. It was unable to recommend that the disease should be prescribed, saying that there was insufficient evidence. I have always refuted that, because the evidence is there in the mining communities, where miners spend their lives in agony and their families suffer. I rely not only on that information, but on in-depth, learned research from the past 20 years. I have presented 20 learned papers to the House. On two occasions I drew the attention of the House to reports in The Lancet that stated that miners are 10 times more likely to get emphysema than other members of the public.
  Unfortunately, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council seems to think' that there should be absolutely implicit evidence—which it will never get in a miner's lifetime. The evidence that I have presented, after in-depth, learned research, is as much as we shall get. Miners are suffering and anyone can see that—if they wish to.
  In the Pontefract area, between 1982 and 1986, when I first started this campaign, there were 634 deaths from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. It is realistic to think that, four years on, the figure will now have doubled. From hospital records, we know that 80 per cent. of the 1,200 people who died from the disease were mineworkers.
  I was interested to hear the Minister's reference to terminal illness. I should like him to define, as far as possible, what he meant by that. In my view, mineworkers who are suffering from this terrible disease are terminally ill. Evidence shows, beyond a shadow of doubt, that mineworkers are suffering. There have been recent campaigns by local newspapers to draw the House's attention to the state that miners are in—for example, in the Yorkshire Evening Post and the Pontefract and Castleford Express. Men have to live a lifetime in oxygen masks as a direct result of their work in the mining industry.
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has followed a practice of taking evidence every 10 years, but that has not applied since 1973. Before the 1988 report, the last time that it took evidence was in 1974—a gap of 15 years. In the latest report it says that it will continue to monitor the situation. It said the same in the 1973 report, and since that time thousands of men have died in agony, their families watching in agony, without compensation or financial assistance.
  It is worth drawing the attention of the House to the fact that, in recent times, doctors sometimes recommend that these men—used-up men in some cases—should move

  963
  to accommodation where solid fuel is not burned because it can affect their chest. However, if their families apply to move to a new tenancy, they are in danger of losing their concessionary allowance because of present British Coal policy. They have to decide whether to move to more suitable accommodation, on the recommendation of the doctor, and lose the allowance. Some of the old lads cannot afford to do it. Some of those people cannot lift a cup of tea to their lips. Once, they were strong and able miners. I could get emotional in the House tonight, because I have seen the condition of some men deteriorate.
  The evidence is irrefutable. I hope that the Minister will consider two points. First, will he request the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council not to wait another 10 years while 1,200 more people die? If it does that, the problem will be solved—they will all be dead and it would be bordering on criminal to allow that to happen.
  Secondly, will the Minister define "terminally ill"? I suggest that men such as Bert Lee and George Hartnell, who are obliged to live in oxygen masks, and others like them, are terminally ill. I hope that the Minister will be able to identify whether such cases will be covered in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, which may increase benefits.
  8.16 pm
  Sir David Price: Severe disability is a condition so profound and so complete in its consequences that it amounts to a different way of life, albeit an enforced way of life. Nobody chooses to be disabled.
  My only reason for speaking this evening is that I have had some personal experience of sharing that way of life, and that may assist the House to advance public policies that may ameliorate the hurt and the frustrations of disability.
  I need not remind the House that disability comes in many different forms, both of mind and body. It is even more important to remember that every disabled person is different and requires different remedies and understanding, not only because his disabilities are different but because, by virtue of being a human being, each disabled person is unique.
  One does not cease to be a human being when one becomes disabled. Yet I detect that some people approach the disabled as if they were members of a different species. The disabled become objects of their good works, but are not treated as real partners in the human adventure.
  The biggest hurt that can be done to the disabled is to patronise them. At times, I am tempted to adopt the famous outburst of Shylock on the condition of the disabled. I shall forbear tonight because you asked us to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I commend that famous passage to hon. Members.
  Disability has been with us since the beginning of time. It is part of the human condition, and there is nothing new about it. What is relatively new is society's recognition of disability, and its determination to do something about it.
  In the 36 years in which I have been a Member of the House, considerable progress has been made in the development of public policies towards the disabled, but a great deal still needs to be done. It is only fair to recognise that progress has been made. I am reminded of the words of Arthur Clough:
  964
  "For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
  Seem here no painful inch to gain,
  Far back through creeks and inlets making
  Comes silent, flooding in, the main."
  When I first came to the House there was no attendance allowance, no mobility allowance, no severe disablement allowance and no orange badge. The tide is coming in, and it is in favour of the disabled. If we are to develop more effective policies, however, we must be able to assess better both the scale and the degree of disability in our nation. We must therefore be grateful to the OPCS for the massive survey that it completed last year. Those reports provide ample statistical raw material on which to work, but we must interpret that material carefully and correctly.
  The OPCS identified at least 6·5 million disabled people. That is a daunting figure, but we should remember that the OPCS used a relatively low threshold of disability. If we exclude the adults on the lowest two points of the severity scale, the number becomes 4 million—although that is a daunting enough statistic. My particular concern is with the 1·5 million who fall into the four most severe categories. Their disabilities are so severe that their ways of life are very separate and distinct from those of the generality of their fellow citizens. In our desire to help all disabled people, we must not lose sight of the needs of the most severely disabled, and especially those of the quarter of a million or so in the top category. Our priorities must be related to the severity of the disability.
  Most disabled people live in the community, as they always have. That applies even to the OPCS's category 10, the most severely disabled, of whom over half live in the community. It therefore follows that we should consider the Government's two recent documents, "Caring for People" and "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People", together. An hour or two ago, my right hon. Friend the Minister and I made a start on that in the Select Committee on Social Services.
  The idea of care in the community, which is very much the flavour of the moment, means different things to different people. The Select Committee considered the matter in depth in 1984 and 1985, with reference to mentally ill and mentally handicapped adults, and came up with some firm guidelines. In my view, those guidelines apply to all disabled people—indeed, to all clients of care in the community. The Committee concluded:
  "Appropriate care should be provided for individuals in such a way as to enable them to lead as normal an existence as possible, given their particular disabilities, and to minimise disruption of life within their community".
  The House will observe that that definition, although imperfect, has certain immediate policy consequences. First, it must mean providing for the basic needs of those affected by physical or mental disabilities—as far as possible—in ordinary domestic housing, in ordinary occupational settings and through the use of ordinary recreational amenities.
  Secondly, the fact that clients are affected by physical or mental disabilities means that they have special needs of different kinds, caused by a wide variety of illnesses and disabilities, which must lead to individual and highly personalised solutions rather than general ones.
  Thirdly, care must be provided in many different locations: there is no reason to exclude hospitals or institutions, especially when asylum is needed.
  Fourthly, the assessment of those special needs, the provision of skilled treatment and care and, where

  965
  necessary, the allocation of appropriate special environments is the statutory responsibility of both the local health and the social services authorities. Although my right hon. Friends intend to place the main responsibility with the social services departments, the role of the primary health care team should not be diminished or bypassed. I still regret the fact that family practitioner committees have not been merged with district health authorities in England; in Scotland things are managed better. We must also have an "open door" policy, especially for the mentally ill and the psychogeriatrics.
  It is clear that a common feature of all disabled people is the financial disadvantage from which they suffer. They cannot earn what they could be earning if they were not disabled; furthermore, additional costs are imposed on them as a result of their particular disabilities. The OPCS has made a brave attempt to identify that gap in income. It has demonstrated that, at 1988 prices, the average disabled person—although we know, of course, that no one is average—was nearly £40 a week worse off than an able-bodied person. Its research also shows that that gap in income was much greater for those under pension age than for those who were retired.
  I welcome the efforts that the Government are making to bridge the gap: in themselves those efforts are inadequate, but the Government are moving in the right direction. I must tell my right hon. Friends, however, that I shall continue to press them to do more to improve financial benefits for disabled people. Like Oliver Twist, I shall always be there with my bowl asking for "second helpings" for the disabled.
  There is also the problem of private carers, who are essential to a severely disabled person's way of life. As I have spoken about them and their needs at length in previous debates, I shall not repeat tonight what I consider to be telling arguments. I am delighted that the Government have acknowledged the importance of the private carer; I am simply disappointed that they have proposed so few new measures to assist them. Let me remind my right hon. Friends of a chilling fact identified by the OPCS: two thirds of the 1·75 million live-in carers receive no help from any of the statutory services. We really must do better than that.
  When tonight's debate is over, the vast majority of us will go home and, for tonight, leave all the problems of disability behind us. If we were disabled, however, we should not be able to take off our disability like an overcoat when we arrived home. There is no rest or holiday from disability; disabled people cannot even take a sabbatical. That is what I mean when I say that disability is a way of life, and the understanding that it is a way of life—a disabled way of life—is the key to better and more effective public policies for the disabled.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Although the debate focuses principally on benefits, I feel that chapter 8 of "The Way Ahead"—relating as it does to other services for the disabled and those with similar difficulties—is, in its way, as important as questions relating directly to benefits. I hope that the Minister will not allow matters to rest as they are, but will redouble his efforts to ensure that the disabled have access to public buildings, the job market and transport systems. The work done in Scotland—especially by the Scottish Council on
  966
  Disability—is commendable, but the Government, working in concert with local authorities, could do much more to ensure that both private homes and public buildings are adapted to meet the needs of disabled people. I hope that the Minister will ensure that that happens in future.
  In Kelso, in my constituency, disabled people must travel for long distances to use the specially-adapted toilets. A regional councillor told me that they are charged £5 for a key to give them access to a national system of public toilets for the disabled. I consider it entirely unnecessary to charge disabled people such sums for the use of facilities that they are bound to need when they are out and about, and I hope that such matters will not be far from the Minister's agenda.
  The benefits for which "The Way Ahead" provides fall considerably short of what is needed. I do not underestimate the difficulties. I welcome the OPCS reports. We shall be able to draw on them in the weeks and months to come. They will inform our debates, which will be better for the information that the OPCS reports provide.
  The Government's response has been niggardly in a number of respects. I hope that the Minister for Social Security will say at the earliest possible opportunity that "The Way Ahead" is not the last word. I agree that there is a difference between the machinery that is devised to deliver financial assistance to disabled people and the levels at which benefits are set. I accept that the framework must be right before we can deal with the levels of benefit, about which we might argue. However, we must devise a more comprehensive disability income scheme. "The Way Ahead" is a move in the right direction, with the new credit system and the new disability allowance, but the opportunity that the publication of the OPCS reports provides will not come again for a long time. We must seize it. We must consult the disability pressure groups and those who understand, from their direct personal experience, what the problems are and ensure that the machinery is right. Even if we cannot agree on the money that should be devoted immediately to the problem, the machinery must be right.
  The publication of "The Way Ahead" must lead to real consultation. That does not mean that the Minister for Social Security just sits with his door open all the time, as he keeps saying. I am sure that his door is always open and that the central heating system in Richmond house ensures that he does not sit in a draught, but when people come through his door he must listen to them and take account of what is said to him so that the machinery is right and comprehensive and able to deal with the problems.
  The existing system is complex. We must try to do away with the many anomalies. The amount of benefit varies, depending on the type of disability, the age at which the disability occurred and the national insurance contributions that have been paid. That leads to vast differences in the amount of benefit received, even though the problems that people have to overcome in their daily lives are much the same. The amount can vary by as much as £200. We must seize this opportunity to get rid of those anomalies. Opposition spokesmen will always argue that the amount of money that is devoted by the Government in the short term to the needs of the disabled is inadequate. A comprehensive system is needed. It will be a crying shame if we do not seize the opportunity that the OPCS reports provide to tackle the problem.

  967
  The Government have dealt only with the cost of attendance and mobility allowances. Apart from those costs, the need to have a carer and the need to obtain assistance in order to be mobile are urgent and must be provided for. If the Government intend to be fair to the disabled and to allow them to contribute to the life of their local communities, the additional costs that would allow them to do so must be met. They cannot run away from the fact that the disabled suffer from considerable disadvantages if they wish to participate in the life of their local communities.
  As for the Government's plans for the elderly, we must not get into the habit of thinking that disability is a normal part of the aging process. It is not. Old age is not a disease. All too easily we slip into the way of thinking that because people are old it is natural that they should be disabled. That is an absurd assumption.
  The three steps that the Government have announced for dealing with disability in the immediate future erect age hurdles in the case of some disabilities in a way that is unjustified and completely unfair. The severe disablement allowance levels are far too low. They should be increased at least to the level of the state retirement pension. That would help significantly the elderly who are also disabled.
  As for carers, I have spoken to a number of pressure groups that represent the interests of carers. They believe that they have been left completely out of the proposals. The Minister could reasonably point to the £10 premium and to the other ways in which he intends to help them. He acknowledges that there is a problem. However, the carers feel that they have been let down. They were promised that the consultations that would follow publication of the OPCS reports would involve them closely. They are bitterly disappointed that little attention has been paid to their needs. I share their disappointment. The Government will have to return soon to the problem. Other hon. Members have referred to the difficulties that are experienced by carers. I am sure that the point will be returned to again later in the debate.
  The carers' organisation has put forward a perfectly reasonable plan. It would lead to carers being recompensed. They are not looking for a real income. However, they do not want to be financially disadvantaged. I hope that the Minister will consider commissioning research that is similar to one of the six OPCS studies. I should like him to examine the financial implications of the cost of caring. The information that is available to me does not enable me to judge how much it would cost to extend a flat rate, non-means-tested allowance to carers. It might amount to a considerable sum of money.
  We may be unable immediately to remove age hurdles and to deliver financial assistance to carers. It is dangerous to refer to such changes unless we know how much money is involved. At the moment we do not know how much money is involved, nor does the Department. The OPCS reports have highlighted that problem. I hope that the Government will find an opportunity to remedy that omission.
  We need to move as quickly as possible to a three-way financial package for the disabled. It will embrace, first, a pension for those who cannot work; secondly, an adequate partial capacity benefit for those who can work, but only
  968
  a little; and, thirdly, a full-costs allowance to recognise the additional costs incurred by disabled people because of their disability. If these benefits were set at adequate levels they would guarantee that the disabled would not be denied participation in the communities in which they live.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. David Nicholson: I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said about carers. The recognition of their role and the increased help that we are giving them featured in the Secretary of State's statement last autumn. Both sides of the House admire the Minister of State's effective concern for the disabled and particularly the position of carers, and I hope that he will be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman at the end of the debate.
  I was moved by the speech made by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), and I share his interest in the matter. My maternal grandfather, who died before I was born, suffered from similar problems because he was gassed in the first world war. I remember my mother telling me about the treatment and handling that he needed in the foggy, nasty autumn and winter weather that can occur near Manchester, where they lived. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to respond effectively to the hon. Gentleman.
  So far, the debate has been reasonably bipartisan, but allegations about success, or the lack of it, under different Administrations have been made. Over the past 10 years, the Government have greatly improved care for the long-term sick and disabled. Total expenditure on cash benefits increased by almost 100 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1989. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the average annual real increase in spending on the long-term sick and disabled was £220 million under the Labour Government and has been £370 million during the 10 years of this Government.
  These are important contrasts to bear in mind, although the money is being spent on more disabled people. We need to investigate why this Government have been so successful at drawing out people to claim these benefits.
  We should not allow ourselves to be too gloomy, although I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said in his final words. Seventy per cent. of disabled people told the second OPCS survey, published in November 1988, that they were satisfied with their standard of living. Only 8 per cent. of disabled householders said that they were getting into financial difficulties. However, most disabled adults do incur extra costs as a result of their disability, and we are grateful to OPCS for pointing that out.
  The second report also stated that almost 70 per cent. of disabled adults were aged 60 or more, but that disabled pensioners enjoyed roughly the same level of income as other pensioners. It is important to remember that.
  The Government have successfully increased provision for the social services, which is a local authority function. Funding for community care services has risen by 68 per cent. since 1979; capital expenditure on social services has risen by 40 per cent. in real terms in the same period.
  Community services have been vastly increased. Since 1980, the number of meals on wheels delivered has risen by 11 per cent. and the number of home helps by 28 per cent. The number of field social workers has increased by 22 per

  969
  cent. and the number of those treated by district nurses by 14 per cent. Between 1978 and 1988, the number of places in residential homes for the mentally handicapped doubled from 14,000 to 28,500. Those are significant successes.
  I am glad that the Government are continuing to give strong support to the voluntary sector. Grants to charities, as a result of tax incentives in various Budgets, have increased by 75 per cent. more than inflation since 1979.
  Twenty or so years ago, I worked as a civil servant in the Department of Employment and I want to mention the success of the Department in assisting disabled people, particularly through employment training. Between 1984 and 1989 the number of people with disabilities who participated in the Department's training programmes rose from 10,500 to more than 44,000.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned that certain transport facilities are helping disabled people. Certainly, British Rail has introduced facilities for the disabled at InterCity stations and on main line services, but at many stations, including at Taunton, there are still gruesome steps for disabled people to negotiate. I must pay tribute to British Rail. More than a year ago I took up a constituency case of a disabled person being brought down from London with helpers. On the previous journey there had been a mess-up and the person's disability had not been recognised, but as a result of my intervention excellent help was offered on subsequent journeys.
  I must also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who cannot be here today, but who is interested in this subject. He is beginning a campaign to ensure that new homes take account of the needs of various minorities with disabilities. For example, many new homes are built with ridiculously narrow doorways that are extremely difficult for wheelchairs to negotiate.
  Finally, I wish to refer to how the community charge will affect disabled people, a number of whom enjoyed some relief under the previous, property-related rateable system. Conservative Members must recognise that some will lose their relief and not have it replaced under the new individual, service-related system. I have corresponded about such cases in my constituency. We must, however recognise that disabled people on low incomes who qualify will receive generous rebates and favourable terms under the transitional arrangements, and for that we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities.
  I want to repeat a point about pensions that I have raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before, but this time in the context of the disabled. It concerns the capital threshold, which has caused problems with rebates for community charge-paying pensioners. This applies particularly to disabled people who own sums of money. Some, for example, may have been badly injured in motor accidents and will thus have been paid—not necessarily large sums of compensation. We all agree that if someone has more than, say, £12,000, he should not qualify for assistance from other taxpayers; but many people hovering around the £8,000 limit do not qualify for housing benefit rebates under the present rules and will not qualify for community charge rebates. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to do more about that.
  We must remember that disabled people often cannot take part in community activities for which the community charge will pay. We must, however, point out to them that
  970
  the charge will substantially fund education, social services, the police and fire services which all members of the community enjoy whether or not they are disabled. I hope that we shall be able to persuade more local authorities to improve access to libraries, swimming pools and other facilities so that disabled people can enjoy them.
  I began by pointing out the Government's spending achievements over the past 10 years. Those successes were achieved on the back of major economic success. Only if we retain a Government who can continue this economic success will we be able to meet the high objectives that my hon. Friend the Minister has set himself.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Jack Ashley: We had a good debate on disablement on Monday. I do not propose to repeat my condemnation of the Social Security Bill, but I should like to consider some of the basic problems faced by disabled people. Their main difficulties are poverty, lack of rights, discrimination and unemployment. The Government have failed to tackle those problems effectively.
  We all know that most disabled people are poor. The main source of income for 75 per cent. of them is state benefits. The income of the few who are employed is significantly less than that of able-bodied workers. The Government are at fault for not doing enough for disabled people. The average real value of benefits that disabled people receive has risen by less than 1 per cent. in the past decade, while the value of average male earnings has risen 36·5 per cent. That is a cause for shame and shows the Government's neglect of disabled people.
  We need—and this has been spelt out time and again—a comprehensive disablement income, payable to all disabled people according to the severity of their disablement and not according to means.
  As important as incomes are rights. The Minister for Social Security assured us that he is in the process of implementing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986—the Tom Clarke Act, as we call it, which is a major measure on disabled people's rights which should have been implemented fully long ago.
  With low incomes and few rights, it is not surprising that disabled people suffer discrimination. Judging from the discussions that I have had with many disabled people and their organisations, they are discriminated against every day of their lives. Discrimination severely affects disabled people. Government statements that there is insufficient evidence of discrimination are pure gobbledegook; I can testify to the damage that it causes. Disabled people are not allowed access to public buildings; they are not allowed to take holidays in the places where they want; they are sometimes not allowed into pubs and clubs; and they are not allowed jobs for which they are fitted.
  Such discrimination against disabled people in the 1990s is appalling. How do we deal with it? We do so not by begging, pleading or urging but by demanding that they be given new rights under legislation. Such rights are given by most member states of the European Community. Last year, the United States' Senate passed a marvellous Bill giving disabled people entirely new rights. The United States is leading the world and is not allowing disabled people to be treated as second-class citizens. Those rights are tremendous advances on measures in other countries.

  971
  The Bill has outlawed discrimination against disabled people and protected them from discrimination in transport, employment, public accommodation, hotels, restaurants, shops, telecommunications and services provided by state and local government.
  Why cannot Britain give such a lead instead of falling behind European Community countries and the United States? We have so often led the world in the past, but now we are not even following those countries. Whenever Bills have been introduced to outlaw not only general discrimination but unjustified discrimination, the Government have rejected them. I am sorry that the Government chose to do that, but I hope that the Minister for Social Security and his colleagues will change their minds.
  Discrimination is most visible in the realm of employment. No fewer than 70 per cent. of Britain's disabled people of working age have no job. Evidence shows that many of them are unemployed because of discrimination.
  The Minister will know—my political opponent but good friend the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) joins me in this—that the all-party disablement group has been anxious to preserve the quota system. For the past 15 years, we have opposed attempts by successive Governments to dismantle it. It is not a perfect system and we do not stick rigidly to it, but we insist that that legislative safeguard should remain in force and should be properly enforced and implemented. That is not being done at present, and we believe that the Government should pay far more attention to it. They should stop throwing permits around like confetti; the Labour Government also showered permits around like confetti. We should like to see the quota system enforced and a few prosecutions of bad employers. We should like Britain to follow the example of Germany, where a levy is imposed on employers who do not fulfil their quota. Those are reasonable demands to make. We are after jobs for disabled people.
  My final point—I shall not keep saying that this is my final point—is that in seeking rights and opportunities for disabled people we must include those for whom care and support are vital. We should remember the case of Beverley Lewis, the deaf-blind woman who starved to death in appalling conditions. We must find out how and why that happened and how we can avoid such tragedies in the future. The only way of doing so is to hold a public inquiry. I hope that the Minister will agree to that. I hope that whoever replies to the debate will answer that point.
  This is a package of constructive proposals and I offer it to the House with all good will. The proposals are designed to further the wellbeing of disabled people. If they are adopted, we will have gone a long way towards a better deal for the disabled. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will act on them.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. John Hannam: I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in the debate. I would like to have a fiver for every time I have followed him in similar disablement debates in the past 15 years. He has made some valid points with
  972
  which I agree. I welcome the opportunity to debate the needs of disabled people and I only wish that we had more time available to go into many more of the relevant issues.
  I do not, however, welcome the terms of the Opposition motion, which fails to reflect the tremendous improvements that have taken place under this Government: nor does it reflect the opportunities that still lie ahead. When I first became involved in working with disabled people in the late 1960s, very few disability organisations existed and only a handful of benefits were available for people with handicaps. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) pointed out, what a change has taken place in the intervening years.
  The all-party disablement group recently celebrated its 20th anniversary. It is worth remembering that the group was established to help promote the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was piloted through Parliament by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). Since then we have seen disabled people brought out of the shadows and given their right to play a full role in our community. The Opposition have tried tonight—and I believe have failed—to make a case that under the present Government the disabled have suffered setbacks. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security pointed out in his excellent speech, that is plainly not the case, and the evidence speaks for itself in the huge increase in both the numbers of, and the cash benefits for, the long-term sick and disabled—somewhere near a 100 per cent. increase in real terms since 1979.
  It is not just the increased benefits which are important, however—this is a thread running through a number of speeches this evening. The past 10 years have also seen welcome changes in attitudes towards disabled people. The accelerated moves towards independent living and community care have focused people's attention on the less fortunate who suffer from physical and mental handicaps. The historical myths associating inability with disability are gradually disappearing, especially when we think about historical figures who have suffered from such disabilities: people like Beethoven with his advancing deafness who nevertheless produced the Choral symphony, and Van Gogh who, while becoming increasingly mentally ill, painted masterpieces that are now worth a fortune. Last week I helped to launch the National Dyslexia Awareness Campaign in the company of a number of famous people who suffer from that learning handicap—Susan Hampshire, Duncan Goodhew, Beryl Reid and the architect, Richard Rodgers.
  With all our involvement with various disabilities, it was therefore no surprise to me that the OPCS surveys showed that some 6·5 million people in this country suffer various degrees of handicap; but the fact that all this activity is taking place is surely a welcome sign that we are making constant progress towards the day when disabled people are not prevented from fulfilling their maximum potential by educational, financial, employment or access barriers.
  Welcome changes have been achieved recently. I instance the launch of the accessible taxi, something that we are now taking for granted but which took many years of campaigning and design work to achieve. We have the extension of the mobility allowance to deaf-blind people, and many of us were involved in that campaign for some eight years. We have additional money for cochlear implants under the National Health Service, the carers'

  973
  addition in income support, and, the major landmark—and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)—the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, not yet fully implemented.
  The current Session is extremely important for disabled people. The Government are legislating on community care and launching their proposals for community benefits; they will shortly publish the conclusions of the review of employment services for disabled people; and the House will soon have an opportunity to debate the recommendations of the Warnock report in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill and the contributions that such research can make to the prevention of genetically-inherited disabling diseases. We also have the issue of student loans which gives us the opportunity to consider the amount of support currently given to disabled students in higher education.
  It is important that these Bills should improve and facilitate the full integration of disabled people and continue to break down the barriers which still abound.
  I would like to touch on some current issues and put forward what I hope will be constructive pointers for the future.
  On disability benefits, although I accept that there has been some criticism of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for not going far enough towards the goal of a disablement cost allowance, I believe that he has made substantial progress, given the financial constraints on the economy. He personally exerted maximum pressure on the Treasury and gained enough resources to establish the basis for further progress over the coming years. There is now a political consensus across parties and the disablement lobby that independent living is good and should be welcomed and encouraged. However, it is vital that this move is accompanied by adequate income for disabled people, or we could face the same problems that we face with the discharged mentally handicapped in the community.
  There is some concern that the White Paper's proposals fall short of the disablement cost allowance which has long been advocated, especially as they do not cover costs for such things as extra heating, laundry, diet and unprescribed medication and do not meet the needs of the severely disabled people, whose costs can be substantially greater than the OPCS reports showed. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has partially recognised that point in the White Paper by stating that supplementary arrangements may be necessary for a small group of disabled people. I hope that there will now be full consultation with the various organisations involved to make this work effectively and become reality.
  I welcome also the introduction of a partial incapacity benefit through employment credit. I hope that it will be followed by full consultation with disability organisations to ensure that we get the system right. I welcome the increases to the severe disablement allowance, although they are not yet enough to achieve the level of the equivalent contributory benefit—invalidity benefit. We promised that in our 1979 manifesto, and I hope that it remains the Government's eventual aim. It would be helpful if this and other aims were spelt out, resources identified and target dates set for their achievement, otherwise there is a danger of piecemeal, ad hoc reform of the system. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not intend or want that.
  974
  I mentioned the student loans legislation. I welcome the Government's commitment to wider access to higher education. Recently, the all-party group had a meeting with various bodies involved in education for the handicapped and with the education Minister. We pointed out that the current arrangements for disabled students were in desperate need of review and that there was a danger that the student loans proposals would inhibit access for disabled students. They face extra costs during their time at university or college and, of course, after graduation. That must be taken into account when judging the level of disabled students allowance and of loan repayments. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science for the consultations that he has set up with disability organisations and for his commitment to review the disabled students allowance. It is vital that more consideration is also given to the proposals for a fourth access fund for disabled students.
  We see evidence of the progress being made when we look at community care. The Government rightly recognise that community care services must be consumer-led and must, as they say in the White Paper,
  "respond flexibly and sensitively to individual needs…and allow a range of options for consumers".
  Disabled people do not want to be passive recipients of services that are determined by local authorities. They want genuine consumer choice, like the rest of society. The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 would help to ensure that that choice of service exists and that services are sensitive to the needs of disabled people, more appropriate and more effective. Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act give disabled people the right to consultation and to appeal against decisions taken by the local authority as well as the right to have an advocate acting on their behalf—for example, a member of the family or a friend who can truly represent their interests in all their dealings with the local authority. That surely must be the best method of securing help that is appropriate, effective and efficient for the disabled person.
  We have all had constituency examples of the wrong aids and adaptations being imposed upon people. A typical example that I came across recently was of an elderly woman who needed help to get around the house. A social worker insisted that she had rails put on most of the walls. Of course, that involved a great deal of expenditure and labour. The woman did not want that and, even with the rails, had great difficulty in getting around the house. Two months later, after much fuss, she was reassessed and given a simple zimmer walking frame, which was precisely what she wanted. All is well, but think of the waste of resources.
  Another example of the sense of good advocacy involved a person who was caring for a disabled person. The carer asked for respite care to be provided. After a joint assessment meeting took place, it was found that all that was needed was a volunteer sitter on Saturday evenings. That was provided. Again there was a great saving of resources.
  When I asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health at Question Time yesterday whether he accepted the need for the implementation of the important sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1986 Act, he promised. as has been reiterated today by my hon. Friend, a speedy review of those sections. I welcome that commitment. I am sure

  975
  that it pleased the hon. Member for Monklands, West, who must be frustrated at having given birth to a baby which is allowed only half the time.
  The shortness of the debate prevents my mentioning many other disability issues such as the need for ring fencing of community care grants to local authorities. We have already heard on BBC "Panorama" one social services director stating that he was cutting services to the elderly disabled in order to provide social workers for child abuse cases. If we do not have ring fencing of resources for disabled people, the problem will get worse. The recent tragic case of the 23-year-old deaf-blind girl, Beverley Lewis, highlights the problem. I share the view of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that there should be a public inquiry into that appalling case and its implications.
  On the preventive side of disability, the embryology issue will be controversial and emotional. I am convinced that properly controlled and monitored research will help in future to detect specific disorders such as muscular dystrophy, Down's syndrome, cystic fibrosis, Huntington's chorea and some 50 types of severe congenital disease which one day may be detectable by pre-embryo screening. We shall be debating that in detail in a few weeks' time. I hope that hon. Members will study all the medical evidence carefully before casting their vote.
  As someone who in my disablement work with Rehabilitation International has the opportunity to travel to many countries and talk to disabled people all over the world, I know how advanced we are in our provision for handicapped people. There is still a great deal to be done. I know that my right hon. Friends will continue to push the frontiers outwards, and I give them my full support this evening.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I appreciated very much some of the comments of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). When, just over six years ago, I introduced the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill to outlaw discrimination against disabled people, I did not have a relative who was disabled. Since then, unfortunately, as many hon. Members know, I have lost my wife. She was disabled and worked in the House of Commons. If the Minister with responsibility for the disabled intends to co-ordinate his activities with those of other Ministers, he might start by approaching the Leader of the House to point out how difficult it is for disabled people who work in the Houses of Parliament to get from the office where they are working even for a bite of food or drink of coffee. There is much to be done for disabled people in the mother of Parliaments.
  I have vivid memories of the way in which the Government deliberately thwarted the will of many people, probably a majority in the country, when I tried in November 1983 to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. I was told by the present Secretary of State, who at that time was in a more junior capacity in the Department, that all we needed was education and persuasion. All we needed was to persuade people to adopt a better attitude towards the disabled. All the evidence of the past six years proves that that is not the way to deal with the problem. The problem has not gone away. How
  976
  much have the Government spent on education and persuasion since November 1983 to convince people that they should have a proper attitude to disabled people?
  The Spastics Society has produced two surveys that show that there is massive discrimination in employment against disabled people. The British Deaf Association published a similar report. We know from the evidence of many individual cases that people are discriminated against, either consciously or unconsciously, simply because they have a disability. We know from the labour force survey in the spring of 1988 that, whereas there was 7·9 per cent. unemployment among able-bodied people, 19 per cent. of disabled people of working age were jobless; 360,000 disabled people of working age were, at that time, unemployed, yet some 22 per cent. of them had either academic or vocational qualifications of at least GCE A-level standard, and many had university degrees.
  Since 1986, employment for the disabled should have become easier, because there has been an increase in the use of microtechnology and, although we know that the Government have fiddled the statistics, we accept that there has been a reduction in the number of jobless in the country.
  There are also demographic changes. We were told by the former Secretary of State for Employment that by the year 1995 there would be 500,000 fewer young people under 25 in the labour force, so there should be plenty of scope to provide employment for the disabled.
  We know also that the Government have a campaign to promote a code of practice among employers to ensure that they do their job in taking on disabled people. However, only 120,000 copies of that code have ever been distributed, if the answer given on 13 November by the Secretary of State is correct.
  The OPCS surveys have shown that, because of the experience of being discriminated against, many disabled people regard themselves as unemployable. They define themselves as unable to find work. That is because of their experiences of being constantly turned down in their search for a job. Has the Minister read the evidence in the Spastics Society's recent report? If he has, he must come to only one conclusion—that the Government have a responsibility, beyond any code of practice, to legislate against such discrimination.
  The National Economic Development Office—a Government agency—published a document last year called "Defusing the demographic time bomb". It said that people with disabilities in employment are not being used to their full capabilities and that employers are doing relatively little to attract people with disabilities. Has the Minister taken cognisance of that evidence? Disabled people realise that the quota system is not being used properly. There have been only 10 prosecutions since the passing of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and few convictions. The total of fines for all the convictions in that time has been about £4,000.
  The message has got across to disabled people. That is why whereas in 1978, the year before the Government came to power, 494,877 people registered under the 1944 Act, last year only 366,768 registered. Every single year since the Government came to office, fewer and fewer people have registered as disabled under the legislation. Yet discrimination continues, and the quota system is not enforced. That is not a reason for abolishing the quota system; it is a reason for enforcing and invigorating the system.

  977
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to the Federal Republic of Germany, which has a quota of 6 per cent. If employers do not abide by that system, they are charged a levy which provides revenue for training disabled people so that they can find employment. I should like to persuade my own party of the need for co-ordination such as the French have. In France, there is a Ministry to deal with all the problems of disabled people. I have certainly advocated that the Labour party should make such a system part of its policy. In France, the Government are to introduce an employment Bill that will include a 6 per cent. quota and a levy system, which will be in force by the time the single market is attained in 1992. As a matter of interest, the French Minister for the disabled, Michel Gillibert, was injured in a helicopter accident and is himself disabled, so he can bring his own experience to his post.
  We undoubtedly need legislation. It is wrong when a paraplegic is refused access to a theatre. It is wrong when a mentally handicapped person is refused access to a hotel in a tourist resort. It is wrong when a student is refused access to a full course in a polytechnic because certain rooms are inaccessible to him. It is wrong when a deaf person is turned out of a public house because he is deaf and because someone he is with is using sign language. It is wrong when someone in a wheelchair is refused access to Wembley stadium to see the FA cup final even though he has a ticket. Such discrimination is wrong in every case, but unlike discrimination on grounds of sex or race, all those samples of discrimination are still legal. It shames our country that that should still be so.
  What we need is an Act of Parliament to give legislative teeth to what is morally right, and to give disabled people real rights. Opposition Members will fight for their policy to outlaw discrimination against disabled people and to give disabled people the same liberties as those enjoyed by able-bodied people. But to disabled people I say that liberty must he fought for. We have liberty, but we were not born with it; we had to fight for it. I believe that disabled people must fight, and fight hard, to ensure that legislation is introduced. For our part, Labour Members can say that such legislation will be forthcoming after the next general election.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. John Bowls: The debate is about rights and opportunities for disabled people, and I welcome the constructive suggestions that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. My experience of dealing with disabled people tells me that sometimes there is pain and sometimes there are tears, and that sometimes the tears and pain are shared by those who look after the disabled, but that the overwhelming impression that disabled people give is of courage, determination, cheerfulness and generosity of spirit.
  I hope that, in battling for the disabled—rightly so—the Opposition will echo those qualities in their speeches. I sometimes think that, while the courage and determination may be there, the cheerfulness and generosity of spirit are not always evident.
  As I have listened to the details of the Government's new benefits programme, which is bringing more help to the terminally ill, to the deaf-blind, to disabled babies and carers, and, coming soon, the additional support for the disabled at work, I have felt that I must tell the right hon.
  978
  Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) that a little more generosity of spirit would be welcome. By all means let him criticise us for not going fast enough, but he should not say that we have not got anywhere, because the Government's record is there to be seen—for example, in the doubling in real terms of long-term sick and disablement benefits. The fact that three times as many people get attendance allowance and six times as many get mobility allowance is not so much a record to be proud of as a launching pad for further effort. That is the way I judge it, and I hope that Opposition Members will look at it in the same light.
  Our commitment as we debate this issue, particularly hon. Members who are present tonight, is without doubt. In fighting for the disabled, we are trying to get across the message that to be disabled is not to be unable. Our task is to enable the disabled to participate in life to the full. When the Secretary of State for Employment talks, for example, about his ambition for a skills decade, I hope that he, and we, include the disabled in that. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) was spot on when he spoke about the need to enable the disabled to participate in job opportunities.
  In enabling the disabled, we must consider the physical needs to help people to be independent; the caring needs so that people have folk to care for them when necessary; the mobility needs so that they can get around and make their way to work and leisure activities and so on; and the employment needs.
  The physical needs involve all the housing adaptations to which hon. Members have referred, and I particularly support the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) referred. Housing must be suitable for the disabled.
  We must pay particular attention to the aids that are provided. I have previously referred to visiting the home of an old lady who was deaf. I found her watching television without the sound on. I asked her if she had a hearing aid and she replied that she had a hearing aid, but she also had arthritic fingers and could not turn up the volume on the set.
  We must make sure that the aid is not just the cheapest but is appropriate to the case. It is a matter of horses for courses when giving support to disabled people, and I support everything that has been said about access to buildings and so on.
  I support all the measures that are being taken for carers, but I ask the Minister to go even further, because the problems of many carers are not yet being met by society. I think of the young carer, for example, at school who is called from school to look after the mother who has collapsed at home. Such a carer cares without complaint, but that action can interrupt school and a natural youthful life. Such people should receive special attention. We need more respite schemes to enable people to have a break and to go back refreshed and dedicated to the task before them.
  I welcome the mobility allowances and improved facilities for access, including access to stations. I think of the many steps leading to the platforms at a station such as Clapham junction in my constituency.
  On the issue of mobility, we could do more for the dial-a-ride system. The Minister should talk to his colleagues in the Government who are responsible for the allocation of resources to dial-a-ride so as not simply to

  979
  give more money to that scheme but to encourage the application of that money to schemes where the users have a bigger say in the sort of service that they wish to receive.
  In the dial-a-ride scheme in Wandsworth, for example, 1,000 members make 15,000 journeys a year. One third of the people who use that service are wheelchair-bound and the others are disabled, frail or elderly. They choose to use one third of their journeys for shopping expeditions, one third to visit friends and one third for general outings—for example, to visit the hairdressers or the theatre. Seventy per cent. of their chosen journeys should be local and 30 per cent. should be more than five miles.
  London Regional Transport stepped in and said, "That does not fit our pattern. Why should we allow Wandsworth to let its users have so many journeys over five miles? That is not the mould that we want, so they cannot have the extra bus that we are going to offer to all the other dial-a-ride users unless they meet our criteria." It should not be "our" criteria. It should not be criteria determined by the House or by the bosses of LRT—although I welcome what LRT does to support the service. The criteria should be determined by the users of the service. If they choose to have more longer journeys, so be it.
  I have referred recently to training for employment. Disabled people have many opportunities to participate in the job world. Reference has been made to the shortage of people with skills. Many disabled people are unable to take up skilled positions because they need to acquire the skills—sometimes basic and sometimes advanced. Organisations such as Shared Community in my constituency have a tremendous record in helping people whose cases appeared hopeless to find and keep jobs. Training establishments need to be able to plan for the number of trainee places and that certainty has not always existed. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends can ensure that such a possibility exists.
  With regard to job placing, many more employers should be told to have patience. Many disabled people will hold down a job in the long run, but they need a little more time to adapt. All too often, an employer will run out of patience and get rid of the disabled person, and bang goes yet another job opportunity.
  I have outlined several areas in which the Government can offer more support. I believe that we are in a new world of public awareness about disability. There is more awareness of care, access, travel and employment opportunities. There are many opportunities for the disabled and also opportunities for the Government to build on their great success to ensure that the disabled have a full role to play in society and come as near as possible to the rest of us in enjoying life to the full.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: In the short time available to me, I want to refer to two specific constituency cases about which I have written to separate Government Departments. The cases illustrate the way in which the Government's policy fails to go far enough in offering practical support to disabled people to remain in their own homes while at the same time it actively encourages them
  980
  to give up their independence and enter institutional care. My constituents and I are very worried about that trend which has been evident over the past 10 years.
  I want first to refer to the case of Mrs. Pauline Shaw. She is in her mid-40s and substantially handicapped by multiple sclerosis. Her husband Jim gave up work some considerable time ago to care for her full-time in their own home. Mrs. Shaw received occasional respite care at Pinderfields hospital—and recently that care was jeopardised by the threat of closure. She received visits from a district nurse to assist her bathing and toilet needs and also social work support. I emphasise that Mr. and Mrs. Shaw are fulsome in their praise for the staff who gave their support. However, that support was insufficient. It could not prevent Mr. Shaw's health being affected; ultimately, in the interests of his own health, he was advised to allow his wife to enter residential care.
  That was the start of their problems. When she entered private residential care about 20 miles from Wakefield, where they had lived for some considerable time, she developed bed sores. Mr. Shaw, who had given his wife such good care for such a long period, moved her to a different home in a place called Barkston Ash, also some 20 miles from my constituency. Then they faced the financial problems arising from the fact that the benefits available to them were insufficient to meet the cost of the residential care that was required in her circumstances.
  I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Health asking for some top-up payments to enable this lady to be supported in residential care, on the basis that she required full-time nursing. The Minister replied saying that that simply was not possible.
  My constituent Jim Shaw, out of his invalidity benefit and state pension of around £40 a week, is supplementing the fees involved in keeping his wife in residential care. He is now trying to move to the area where she is living. At present, he travels 40 miles each day, and that is costly for somebody on state benefits. He cannot get a council house in that area, because the Tory-controlled council has, of course, sold off all the council accommodation. That is the reality of the problems facing many disabled people.
  Mr. Michael Frobisher is another constituent of mine. I raised this case during the debate on Second Reading of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill because I am particularly concerned about it. This gentleman has suffered from multiple sclerosis since about 1970. He is in his early 60s. His wife Pat was a health visitor, but she gave up her employment four years ago to care for him. She has had support from a nurse and has had other domiciliary help. She had respite care for one week in six in the younger disabled unit at Pinderfields hospital, which was threatened not long ago with closure as a result of Government cuts.
  Unfortunately, this was insufficient. It was not the level of care required by Mr. Frobisher, despite all the efforts that his wife put in. She says that, in 1988, she begged for more help from the health authority, but to no avail. Indeed, she collapsed in July 1989. Mr. Frobisher was then admitted to a private nursing home some 20 miles outside my constituency. This was the start of their problems. There was insufficient finance to pay £245 weekly, and the Frobishers have now had to sell the house to meet the fees. Once the fees have been paid, Mr. Frobisher has 5p a week left.
  At Question Time on, I think, 27 November last, I raised cases such as that of Mr. Frobisher. The answer of

  981
  the Minister for Social Security was that he found nothing offensive in relatives helping with care costs. I do not think that I am alone in this place in finding it deeply offensive that somebody who has given care as extensive as that which has been given by this lady over so many years should have to sell her house in order to be able to meet the cost of her husband's care. I think that that is wrong, and I look forward to the Minister's reply to my direct communication to his Department about this case.
  In my opinion, neither of the two constituents to whom I have referred should be in institutional care. That is the importance of this kind of case to tonight's debate. There are many thousands of similar cases throughout the country—people who are in institutional care simply because the necessary domiciliary support is not available to enable them to remain in their own homes with their families and communities, where I and they believe they ought to be. It is criminal that people who have cared for their spouses as Mrs. Frobisher and Mr. Shaw have done should be treated in this way, that because their needs are not being catered for at the local level they are suffering separation.
  I stress that I am not criticising the local authority or the district health authority. The staff concerned, with the facilities available to them, have done their utmost to assist these individuals. What I am criticising is the lack of resources, both for the local authority and for the Health Service, to provide the kind of service that would enable those people to remain in their own homes.
  The ultimate irony is that well over £200 of state funds is required to keep these people in institutional care. It is a fact, as the Audit Commission pointed out, that less than that amount, properly allocated for domiciliary services, would keep them in the community and in their own homes. All hon. Members believe that people such as Mrs. Shaw and Mr. Frobisher should be in their own homes and with their families. It is an appalling indictment of 10 years of Government policy on community care and the disabled that those people find themselves in institutional care 20 or 30 miles from where they have lived all their lives.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: For the most part, this has been a constructive debate. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) referred to the speech by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who described the rights of people with disabilities as unique. He was absolutely right. I am sure that hon. Members would wish to highlight the individual needs, rights and demands of people with disabilities and their carers. That is a big priority.
  The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) gave a fine outline of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. So convincing was he that the Chancellor of the Exchequer rushed to the Chamber. Opposition Members welcome the Chancellor's presence. He is a former Minister with responsibilities in these matters. If the necessary political will exists in the Treasury, we can do a great deal for disabled people. In particular, we can implement the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 because the good will that the Minister for Social Security introduced into the debate might be shared by the Chancellor, and, if that good will is matched by political will in the Treasury, we can make real progress.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition to good will and political will, he should clearly spell out that the sum involved is equivalent to one-fifth of a penny in income tax and that it pales into insignificance compared with the giveaway Budgets that we have had in the past?
  Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). The Chancellor does not need to be reminded that, in one of the many opinion polls that were held before the 1987 general election, an overwhelming majority said that the Treasury should have found the necessary funds for the implementation of this important measure.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to the Beverley Lewis case. He was right to ask for a public inquiry. There are many lessons to be learnt. The debate has been dominated by the 1986 Act, and I intend to make further references to it. Many organisations, including the Spastics Society and the 40 voluntary bodies in the Act Now Group, support the implementation of the 1986 Act. They take the view that, in at least two respects, the Beverley Lewis case demonstrates that had the Act been fully implemented, some of that tragedy might have been avoided.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) outlined the Labour party's alternatives to the Government's policy. I was sorry that the Minister was somewhat abusive. Hon. Members will recall that, when in office, my right hon. Friend actually exceeded the Labour party manifesto commitments on disability. I look forward to the time when he will repeat that performance.
  The motion could not be more appropriate because the House has been considering—at the moment Standing Committee E is actively considering—the Government's proposals on health and community care. There can be no effective policy unless there is a structure involving the consumer. The Government speak of consumer rights, but if consumer rights in terms of the disabled, carers and advocates are truly embraced by the Government, they should accept their responsibilities under the 1986 Act.
  The Minister said that the Government will soon be meeting again with local authorities. I hate to sound ungracious, but we have heard that before. It has been said since April 1986. Time after time, we have been told by the Prime Minister and by other Ministers that the 1986 Act will be implemented when resources are available. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) reminded the House that the Government have no difficulty in finding resources for other purposes. Their priorities are clearly not those that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would endorse. I suspect from the tenor of tonight's debate that our priorities would be endorsed by most right hon. and hon. Members in a free vote.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh, in referring to the uniqueness of the disabled, was conscious of the fact—as are all right hon. and hon. Members—that the OPCS reports reveal that 6·5 million of our fellow citizens experience some form of disability. Many, many carers are trying to cope with the most difficult situations but they receive little support. Their difficulties ought to be recognised. Instead of a strategy for community care of the kind that we are told is Government policy, there is a great deal of fragmentation. Certainly joint planning is very

  983
  much missing in Scotland. Its absence is almost as evident as the absence of a Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench tonight.
  The Government say that, in the absence of joint planning, they are making arrangements to discharge long-stay patients from psychiatric hospitals and to place them in the community. On 12 July 1989, the Secretary of State for Health told the House:
  "I will ensure that discharges of seriously mentally ill people from hospital will take place only when adequate medical and social care is available for them outside hospital."—[Official Report, 12 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 978.]
  Where are those arrangements?
  If section 7 of the 1986 Act has suddenly been dropped, despite previous assurances that its provisions were being actively discussed with local authorities to ensure their implementation, what arrangements are the Government making in their place? During Question Time yesterday, the Government were seriously criticised on both sides for discharging psychiatric patients into community care that does not exist. Apart from the problems that that creates for families and communities, it places a tremendous strain on social services departments.
  We are told that local authorities will have to defend themselves in terms of the poll tax, and I hope that the obligations that have been placed upon them will be remembered. I hope that we will hear not about extavagant overspending councils, but about under-servicing councils. If the 1986 Act means anything, it is that we should dispense with the accidents of geography, where assessment and services may be provided in one area but not another. There should be national standards that genuinely respond to the needs of physically disabled and mentally handicapped or ill persons, their carers and their advocates. We believe that the 1986 Act offers that opportunity for individuals' rights.
  The Minister referred briefly to education in his opening speech, and I hope that hon. Members will remember the importance of that to young people who live in special schools. It is a traumatic time for them and for their families. We must ensure that proper arrangements are made so that they feel part of the community.
  The Minister referred to the Peto institute. The Government were right to ensure that whatever opportunities existed in eastern Europe were available to benefit our people. Many parents, including those who were delighted that their children benefited from going to the institute, asked why that opportunity is not available in this country. Why do they have to go to eastern Europe? Why are those facilities and services not resourced here?
  There have been many splendid speeches tonight, but few hon. Members would disagree that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) made a telling impression on the House when he described disability in a mining community. We should recognise that we are talking about people with rights, including the right to dignity.
  In my constituency, in a little village called Crowood which is also a mining community, lives Mary, a lady whose husband was injured in the Auchengeach disaster of 1959. He now has a heart condition and her son, Gerry, is a spastic, in his early thirties. In 1986 she visited the House when the Act was going through. Her sister helped her come to London, and it was her only visit from Scotland
  984
  since Gerry was born. She told me that her arm was black from top to bottom through coping with her son and because of her commitment and love for her child. She asked—and I conclude by putting it to the House and to the Minister—"What happens to Gerry after I have gone?" That is a reasonable question that many thousands of people ask.
  I want a policy for disability and community care that will respond to that question and to the needs of disabled people, their parents—people like Mary and Albert—and others who care so much for them.
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Scott: I cannot do a traditional wind-up speech in the time available, and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was not able to do that in his speech. However, I want to deal with several issues raised in the debate.
  I shall begin with the Peto institute, and what I intend to do in relation to that. For the time being, Budapest is the centre for conductive education. We have a modest facility in Birmingham, but if we are to build up a facility which will deliver conductive education properly to the young children in these islands who require it, the conductors will need a period of training. I am trying to achieve that, but in the meantime we expect British children and trainee British conductors to go to Budapest, and to draw on the experience and the expertise there.
  In a sense, I share the view of the hon. Member for Monklands, West. This has been a good debate, and a quiet debate. Of course, the Opposition have said that we are not doing enough, and of course I have said that we are doing better than they could imagine. I suspect, however, that the debate has been so good because those who have taken part are a kind of fellowship: we all care about disabled people and want to do as much as we can, as quickly as we can, to enhance the quality of their lives.
  I had hoped for a better attendance on the part of hon. Members who are less directly involved in such issues; I expected word to spread around the Palace of Westminster rather more quickly. Nevertheless, let me pay the warmest possible tribute to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and to all the members of the all-party disablement group. They work hard to maintain contact with groups of and for disabled people, and to make hon. Members aware of their needs.
  There is, I believe, recognition—mostly among Conservative Members, although it occasionally ebbs from Opposition speeches—of the real progress that is being made, not just through benefits and a more coherent delivery of services, but in a range of ways, some of which I outlined in my opening remarks. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Monklands, West that we must pay increasing attention to the issue of carers: in the coming weeks we shall discuss that with various organisations and campaigners, and we shall listen carefully to what they say.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) mentioned workplace facilities. When, in the summer, I involuntarily rendered myself disabled for two months, I was relieved that Parliament was in recess and that I did not have to hobble around the House on crutches. I shall mention the matter to my right hon. and

  985
  learned Friend the Lord President, but I suspect that the possibility of amending the geography of this building may be somewhat limited.
  Let me say to the hon. Members for Monklands, West and for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) that I accept the need for a better delivery of services to enable people to live in their own home. The thrust of our present policy on community care is to dispense with the perverse incentive to put people into residential care—at vast public expenditure cost—which is often not what the individual concerned would have chosen. Instead we aim to provide packages of individually tailored care in the community to enable such people to live their lives as they wish. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) will recall, I spent this afternoon discussing that with the Select Committee.
  The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse)—whose speech demonstrated his passion and commitment to the cause as well as his expertise—talked about the sufferers, especially miners, whose needs are not being met on the advice of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. According to the definition of terminal illness in the new arrangements for attendance allowance, it will be necessary to show that someone is suffering from a progressive disease and that his lifespan is unlikely to exceed six months. We are taking the advisory council's advice on the matter referred to by the hon. Member, but I shall take an early opportunity to draw its chairman's attention to his speech and to ask for it to be given careful consideration.
  Several hon. Members mentioned the Beverley Lewis case. A local inquiry has been carried out, and the social services inspectorate is considering the lessons to be learnt from it. Although there are no plans for a public inquiry, I can give an absolute undertaking that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health is also considering the lessons to be learnt, as well as the recommendation by the coroner's inquiry that the law relating to mentally disordered people and mandatory care be re-examined.
  Some important points have been made about the problems and needs of disabled people. We have listened to them all. I cannot reply to them now, but I shall read carefully the report of the debate.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 273.

  Division No. 46]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blunkett, David

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, Paul

  Alton, David

  Boyes, Roland

  Anderson, Donald

  Bradley, Keith

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Buchan, Norman

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Buckley, George J.

  Barron, Kevin

  Caborn, Richard

  Beckett, Margaret

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beith, A. J.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

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

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cartwright, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Blair, Tony

  Clay, Bob

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Franks, Cecil

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Freeman, Roger

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  French, Douglas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fry, Peter

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gardiner, George

  Bellingham, Henry

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bottomley, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bowis, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

  Gow, Ian

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gregory, Conal

  Burns, Simon

  Grist, Ian

  Burt, Alistair

  Ground, Patrick

  Butler, Chris

  Grylls, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hague, William

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hannam, John

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

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

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Chope, Christopher

  Harris, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Colvin, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Couchman, James

  Hill, James

  Cran, James

  Hind, Kenneth

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

  Day, Stephen

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Devlin, Tim

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Dicks, Terry

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hunt. David (Wirral W)

  Dover, Den

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Durant, Tony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dykes, Hugh

  Irvine, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Jackson, Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Janman, Tim

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Jessel, Toby

  Fallon, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Favell, Tony

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Key, Robert

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Kilfedder, James

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Forman, Nigel

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Knapman, Roger

  Forth, Eric

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Knowles, Michael

  Clelland, David

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cohen, Harry

  Lambie, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Lamond, James

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Leighton, Ron

  Corbett, Robin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lewis, Terry

  Cousins, Jim

  Litherland, Robert

  Cox, Tom

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cryer, Bob

  Livsey, Richard

  Cummings, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dalyell, Tam

  McAllion, John

  Darling, Alistair

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McCartney, Ian

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

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

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dewar, Donald

  McKelvey, William

  Dixon, Don

  McLeish, Henry

  Dobson, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Madden, Max

  Eadie, Alexander

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Eastham, Ken

  Marek, Dr John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Martlew, Eric

  Fatchett, Derek

  Maxton, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Meacher, Michael

  Fearn, Ronald

  Meale, Alan

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fisher, Mark

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Flannery, Martin

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foster, Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fraser, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Galloway, George

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Mullin, Chris

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Murphy, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Nellist, Dave

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gordon, Mildred

  O'Brien, William

  Gould, Bryan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Graham, Thomas

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Parry, Robert

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hardy, Peter

  Prescott, John

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Haynes, Frank

  Radice, Giles

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Randall, Stuart

  Henderson, Doug

  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

  Howells, Geraint

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd).

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hoyle, Doug

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Short, Clare

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Ingram, Adam

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

  Janner, Greville

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Soley, Clive

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stott, Roger

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Strang, Gavin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Straw, Jack

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wilson, Brian

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Winnick, David

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Turner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wallace, James

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Walley, Joan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mr. John McFall and

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Knox, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lang, Ian

  Rost, Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Ryder, Richard

  Lilley, Peter

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shelton, Sir William

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Maclean, David

  Sims, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Speed, Keith

  Madel, David

  Speller, Tony

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mans, Keith

  Squire, Robin

  Maples, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marlow, Tony

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stern, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sumberg, David

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thorne, Neil

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Thurnham, Peter

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Tracey, Richard

  Mudd, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Trippier, David

  Needham, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Norris, Steve

  Waller, Gary

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Ward, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard

  Watts, John

  Paice, James

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Whitney, Ray

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pawsey, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wilshire, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Portillo, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wood, Timothy

  Price, Sir David

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Yeo, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to he agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the fact that social security expenditure for long-term sick and disabled people has virtually doubled in real terms since 1979, to a total of over £8 billion a year; notes with approval the greatly improved coverage of disability benefits associated with this achievement, which has increased the number of Mobility Allowance recipients from 95,000 to 615,000, the number of Attendance Allowance recipients from 265,000 to 795,000, and the number of Invalid Care Allowance recipients from 5,000 to 110,000; and welcomes the Government's proposals for further improvements, involving net additional expenditure rising to some £300 million in 1993–94, to help some 850,000 long-term sick and disabled people by measures which include increased premiums in income-related benefits for both disabled adults and disabled children, a new premium for carers, the extension of Attendance Allowance to disabled babies and to people who are terminally ill, the extension of Mobility Allowance to those who are both deaf and blind, increases in Severe Disablement Allowance focused especially on those disabled from birth or early in life, improved coverage of help with the extra costs of disability through a new Disability Allowance, and the introduction of a new Disability Employment Credit to assist and encourage those disabled people who can and wish to work.

  Local Government Finance (Wales)
  10.14 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move,
  That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1990–91 (House of Commons Paper No. 53), a copy of which was laid before the House on 20th December, be approved.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the next three motions on the Order Paper:
  That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (House of Commons Paper No. 54), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.
  That the Welsh Non-Domestic Rating (County Share and District Share) Report (House of Commons Paper No. 55), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.
  That the Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (House of Commons Paper No. 56), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.
  Mr. Walker: The reports confirm that this is an excellent settlement. Total standard spending for 1990–91 is up by 7·1 per cent. over last years' budgets, and by no less than 9·4 per cent. over 1989–90 provision. Aggregate external finance for 1990–91 is increased by 8·6 per cent. over the comparable figure for 1989–90. This means that charge payers in Wales should expect to contribute only 15 per cent. of local government spending, with the balance being met by business ratepayers and Government grants.
  Wales has benefited in this way because local and central Government have worked together in partnership. There has been no deliberate challenge to the Government's expenditure plans. There has been no creative accountancy and there has been no rate capping. This has been a remarkable success story from which the whole of Wales has benefited.
  Local authorities in Wales know that they have been given a real opportunity to ensure a level of community charge averaging £173. They can achieve it if they budget responsibly in line with the settlement and in the interests of their charge payers.
  Opposition Members have claimed that total standard spending of £2,114·5 million is less than the amount required. They have voiced similar unfounded claims in response to all previous Welsh rate support grant settlements. But where is the evidence? There is none. The fact is that Welsh local government has been given the resources needed to maintain and develop services.
  I was very surprised when the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), in responding to my statement on 18 December, made the extraordinary claim:
  "There is no room for efficiency savings after 10 years of Conservative Government."—[Official Report, 18 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 28.]
  It is a remarkable thing that, if today he were Secretary of State for Wales, he would be telling local authorities that, after 10 years of Conservative Government, he did not expect any further improvements in the efficiency of local authorities.
  The fact is that the Audit Commission has estimated that some £52 million of efficiency savings are achievable by Welsh councils purely on those services which the Commission has so far examined. Some of these have

  991
  already been realised and Welsh councils are commendably seeking further savings. I hope that the Welsh local authorities will continue to recognise, as I believe they do, the scope for greater efficiency.
  The settlement is also an excellent one for non-domestic ratepayers. Their contribution to local government spending has been held at the same level in real terms as in 1989–90. I have honoured my commitment to ensure that the introduction of the uniform business rate will not lead to an increase in the burden on business. As a result of these new arrangements, which will remove the inequitable distortions caused by variations in local poundages, the business sector now has certainty that the maximum increase in its contribution in future years will not exceed inflation. The revaluation will remove the inequity caused by using out-of-date rateable values.
  It is important also to recognise that the contribution required from Welsh businesses amounts only to around 20 per cent. of local authority spending and that the transitional arrangements I have introduced will phase in the changes faced by individual businesses over a number of years.
  The combined effects of the revaluation and the introduction of the unform business rate will serve to reduce the rates burden on industrial property.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State regard it as reasonable for village shopkeepers in Wales to have to pay 100 per cent. more than they are paying at present? They tell me that that is the consequence of UBR.
  Mr. Walker: In any revaluation, careful consideration is given to the value of the buildings. In certain aspects of retailing which have not been revalued for many years, adjustments have been made when the value has increased. Similarly, there has been a reduction for a range of manufacturing and industrial concerns. I have created a system whereby the inequities caused by a lack of revaluation are removed.
  I am glad to say that the combined effects of the revaluation and the introduction of UBR will benefit industrial properties. That can only be beneficial for the reinvigoration of Welsh industry, especially in the valleys, where the rate burden of industries will be about £11 million lower.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Does not the revaluation to some extent benefit manufacturing industry because of the decline in manufacturing industry over the past 10 years? That is not something to crow about—it is something to feel very sorry about.
  Mr. Walker: Surprisingly, the right hon. Gentleman is talking a load of nonsense. Quite a lot of manufacturing industry owns elderly buildings. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his constituency, inward investment has increaed on a colossal scale. I am glad that the industries of the valleys are benefiting from these proposals by £11 million a year.
  Transitional provisions will also operate to reduce the effect of the new system on community charge payers. I have provided £20 million for a scheme of community charge transitional relief in 1990–91, over and above aggregate external finance. The overall effect is that the
  992
  average charge actually payable in Wales—assuming that authorities spend in line with my plans—should be £165, and certainly less than £173. The scheme will continue in 1991–92 and 1992–93. I have today placed my latest estimates of the distribution of these resources in the Library.
  The scheme will ensure that all charge payers in communities where community charges implied by the settlement are more than a specified threshold above the average rates bill per adult payable in 1989–90 will have their charges reduced by an amount equivalent to that excess—320 out of 860 communities in Wales will benefit, including all the communities in the Rhondda and a very high proportion of the communities in other valley areas.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that the way that the system works is rough justice? Dwyfor, which the Department has identified as an area of low per capita and family income, has not one community that benefits from this safety net. Why is that happening? What can be done about it?
  Mr. Walker: I consulted local authorities, and they were agreed that this was the best way of getting the fullest benefit from the available money. I am very much in favour of the system. It will mean low administrative costs and will be a benefit for charge payers. Some 750,000 charge payers will benefit from the scheme. Because there is extra money outside aggregate external finance, charge payers in areas gaining from the new system will not be required to contribute towards an area safety net.
  For those on the lowest incomes, community charge benefits will be available to meet up to 80 per cent. of the charge—although, because of the low level of community charges in Wales, those who are on income support will actually enjoy an effective rate of relief higher than the 100 per cent. rate rebates that they obtain at present. [Interruption.] More than 100 per cent. I have taken steps to ensure that people know about these benefits and are encouraged to take them up. This will bring positive cash benefits to 300,000 of the lowest income people in Wales. There have been a number of reports that some Welsh councils are planning to increase their expenditure very substantially and therefore to set high community charges.
  Mr. Ron Davies rose—
  Mr. Walker: No, I will not give way. This is an important point. Those councils mistakenly believe that their charge payers will assume that the Government are to blame.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan rose—
  Mr. Walker: Let me remind the House that the settlement allows for an increase in expenditure of 7·1 per cent., but we learn that, among the counties, South Glamorgan, Powys and Gwynedd are planning to increase spending by between 12 and 13 per cent.
  Mr. Barry Jones: On rates, is not the maximum only 80 per cent? Would the Secretary of State care to think about that? Perhaps there is a note waiting for him on the Bench behind him.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is going back to the rebate point. I do not need a note. I am saying that the

  993
  people on the maximum rate rebate scheme, because of low incomes, will be substantially better off financially as a result of what we are doing.
  The hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid the serious point that I am making, so I shall repeat it. South Glamorgan, Powys and Gwynedd are planning to increase spending by between 12 and 13 per cent. Among the districts, Newport is planning an increase in expenditure of over 20 per cent. and Cardiff of over 30 per cent. In the latter case, this follows increases in the previous two years of 13·4 per cent. and 19·7 per cent.—well above the average increase for all Welsh districts.
  Mr. Morgan rose—
  Mr. Walker: No; I want to continue.
  These increases are outrageous and totally irresponsible. They represent quite unjustifiable demands on charge payers, and pre-empt charge payers' decisions as to what they can afford.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Walker: They are, in fact, putting quite
  unnecessary burdens—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. There is a point of order.
  Mr. Rogers: The business before the House is complicated. I think it would further the debate substantially if the Secretary of State would give way and reply to points of detail—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, if he catches the eye of the Chair, will have his say eventually.
  Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important. The Secretary of State has said himself that it is a very important matter that he is dealing with. The questions that my hon. Friends want to ask him are about the explanations that he is giving. In regard to your ruling about hon. Members catching your eye, you will appreciate that the debate will last only one and a half hours. All of us have an interest in the issue, so we cannot all hope to catch your eye. Therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps you will impress upon the Secretary of State that it is important for him to give way.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: May I impress upon the House that points of order, which are not as genuine as I wish, usurp the time of the House? I hope to call as many hon. Members as possible.
  Mr. Walker: I hope that the charge payers in Wales will note that two bogus points of order have delayed the debate.
  I repeat that the increases are outrageous and totally irresponsible. They represent quite unjustifiable demands on charge payers, and pre-empt charge payers' decisions as to what they can actually afford. They are, in fact, putting quite unnecessary burdens on the charge payers they purport to represent.
  Until local accountability takes full effect, I will have to consider how to protect Welsh charge payers from excessive spending and outrageous community charges. Rate capping was never used in Wales: it was never
  994
  necessary to do so. I had hoped that this would be so with charge capping. But if spending is not reduced from this extravagant scale, the councils concerned will force me to consider using my powers to limit charges to reasonable levels in order to protect their charge payers.
  Let me make it plain that the crucial difference between England and Wales in recent years has been the better performance of Welsh local government in budgeting sensibly and containing spending to responsible aand affordable levels. That has led to a succession of realistic, indeed generous, settlements that have recognised and rewarded the performance of Welsh authorities. However, on the basis of the figures that I have quoted, I can assure the House that the Welsh local authorities are helping to ensure that, quite simply, such generosity will not be forthcoming in future.
  I was shocked to read in the press that the chief financial adviser of one Welsh council has apparently advised it to create a new baseline for spending. In doing so, he is quoted as saying that this might be the last of the favourable years for local authorities in Wales. I have to advise those who might peddle such views that, if their advice results in extravagant spending increases, that could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  This debate is not just about the reports we have before us; it is also about the responsibility of the House to ensure that the interests of our community chargepayers are protected from the extravagant and unnecessary burdens that some councils at present seem willing to inflict on them. It is also about the need for local government to avoid taking short-term political decisions.
  Perhaps some local authorities think that, as there is no election this year, they will put up the charge now and then take advantage when the elections occur. If that is their motive, they will be exposed. There is time for them to think again and for the wiser politicians among them, including members of the Welsh Counties Committee and the Council of Welsh Districts, to curb those who appear to be set on inflicting such damage.
  Local government recognises that the Government have delivered a settlement that should be beneficial to Welsh chargepayers, and that authorities can best serve their chargepayers by containing their spending and keeping the community charges low. There is no need for charges to be higher than those I have published, and an average of £173 is achievable. This is an outstanding settlement for Wales, and I commend it to the House.
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: The subject of this debate is important; it affects our children's education, our housing, the homeless, the care of the elderly and our local environment. The Secretary of State set out only half the story. In a nasty, indeed extraordinary, speech, he launched unjustified attacks upon responsible county authorities. I remind him that he could not have better local authorities with which to deal. He need only ask his officials and they would tell him that that was the case.
  It is not an excellent settlement. The total standard spending and aggregate external finance are inadequate. The figure of £173 is unrealistic. It is likely to be about £210; £173 it is not. After the right hon. Gentleman's recklessly sanguine hymn of praise for his wretched poll tax—a tax that the people of Wales do not want—I can do no better than to quote W. B. Yeats:
  "A Statesman is an easy man,

  995
  He tells his lies by rote;
  A journalist makes up his lies
  And takes you by the throat"
  The right hon. Gentleman can ponder on that.
  The Government are engaged in an elaborate exercise in buck passing. Time and again, Ministers cite a misleading and inaccurate standard community charge or poll tax. The figure is an illusion. So when the poll tax demands fall through the letter box in a few months' time, people in Wales will wonder why the figure is so much higher than the figure that the Government have publicised so widely and vigorously.
  Already, the Government are trying to pin the blame on local councils, and the aim of the right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight was to furnish the Government with an alibi in advance. I want to tell the Secretary of State that the buck starts and stops with Ministers at the Welsh Office, and with the motions that the Government are trying to railroad through the House.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: No.
  The major defect is the shortfall in resources as represented by the figure of total standard spending. The finance directors and treasurers of local authorities in Wales believe that the total standard spending figure falls short, by 4 per cent., of the sum required to maintain existing services and to cope with the considerable volume of added burdens being imposed by the Government under recent legislation—specifically, the implementation of the national curriculum, local management of schools, the proposals contained in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill and the vital requirement to safeguard our assets—our buildings and roads.
  Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Jones: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin); I shall give way briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).
  Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to an hon. Member who represents a Welsh constituency. He has been speaking with great authority about the problems faced by Welsh valley authorities. Can he explain to us why, according to the figures given by the Secretary of State, the poll tax payers of Rhymney valley will be faced with bills of £166 after discount, whereas, according to the treasurer of Rhymney Valley district council, the council will have to levy a poll tax of about £225 if it is to maintain existing standards of service? Is not the figure given by the Secretary of State an Alice-in-Wonderland figure?
  Mr. Jones rose—
  Mr. Devlin rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Jones: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: No.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has destroyed the alibi of the Secretary of State for Wales. With his cogent intervention he has exposed the paucity of the right hon. Gentleman's case. My hon. Friend will agree that there are more English Members than Welsh Members on the Conservative Benches. Where are the Welsh Conservative Members?
  Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Jones: No.
  We have about 400,000 dwellings in Wales with a rateable value of less than £100. That is more than one third of the total. In addition, 225,000 dwellings in Wales have a rateable value of £75 or less. Many of the families living in those dwellings will watch their household bill double or quadruple over the next four years. In valley communities and some rural communities with the lowest domestic rateable values, the community charge for one-adult households will be about the same as the present rate bill in four years' time. For a two-adult household it will be double, for a three-adult household it will be treble and for a four-adult household it will be quadruple. Those are the estimates of the much respected Association of District Councils in Wales.
  Reaction to the news about the business rate has been understandably angry, to say the least. Even bodies traditionally supportive of the Conservative party, such as the CBI, have voiced alarm. Many economic analysts have warned of the effects that it will have on investment and the fundamental health of businesses.
  As for the effect of the community charge on the domestic front, there has been hardly a voice of sympathy for the move.
  Mr. Devlin rose—
  Mr. Jones: No, I will not give way.
  John Banham of the CBI has even accused the new business rate of subsidising, as it were, the community charge. That was stated by The Western Mail, which is usually supportive of the Secretary of State's policies. I wish to examine the impact of what is proposed on small businesses and retailers, and I believe that it will be considerable, despite the transitional relief arrangements.
  In the next few years, businesses face massive increases in business rates. In Cardiff, for example, a newsagent's shop on Cowbridge road faces a 97 per cent. increase in rates, from £1,616 to £3,183 when transitional relief ends. Also in Cardiff, our capital city, a petrol station on Cathedral road faces a massive increase of over 200 per cent., from £3,500 to £10,900 when transitional relief ends. In Newport, the Panasonic electronics factory faces a 24 per cent. increase, to £111,000, with the end of transitional relief. Also in Newport, the Westgate hotel—
  Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Will it be in order at the end of this debate for hon. Members who represent English constituencies—even though, as I am, they may be of Welsh birth—to vote on this matter and thereby put British Treasury money into this instrument, bearing in mind that I shall have great difficulty in taking part in the debate?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That convoluted point of order has nothing whatever to do with the debate.
  Mr. Jones: I repeat, there are more English Conservative Members on the Government Benches than there are Welsh Conservatives.
  Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Quite aside from whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to give way, and of course it is his privilege not to give way, will you confirm that it is in order for English Members to take part in the debate and to seek to question the hon. Gentleman?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is, of course, perfectly in order for English or Scottish Members, should they catch my eye, to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Donald Coleman: Further to the point—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I dealt with that point of order very adequately.
  Mr. Coleman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is clear to my hon. Friends and me that Conservative Members are intent on interfering with a debate that particularly concerns Welsh—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. So far as I am concerned, no hon. Member will interfere with the debate. Mr. Jones has the Floor.
  Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a genuine point of order.
  Mr. Wilshire: Is it in order for English Members to learn from the Welsh why the community charge is so much cheaper in Wales than in England?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: We are all here to be persuaded about all kinds of issues.
  Mr. Jones: A shop in Oxford street in Swansea currently paying £33,000 in rates will pay £54,000 with the end of transitional relief—an increase of over 60 per cent. In Alyn and Deeside my local newsagent currently pays £684 in rates. Next year, under the new non-domestic rating system, the rates will be £847. When transitional relief ends, the rates will rise to £1,869.
  A Chinese restuarant in Shotton currently pays rates of £2,987. Its rates will more than double to £6,000 when transitional relief ends.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: The impact on local authority rates bills will also be great, but local authorities are not compensated for that in the revenue support grant settlement. Therefore, the impact will mean higher poll taxes.
  My local authority—Alyn and Deeside—currently pays £103,000 in rates on Deeside leisure centre at Queensferry. In the first year of the uniform business rate, the rates bill will rise to £134,000. Without transitional relief the rates payable wil be £202,000—an increase of 95 per cent. The full effect will mean that the council's rate bill for next year
  998
  will rise by 25 per cent., and with the end of transitional relief the figure will be 82 per cent. The Government are not pointing all that out and local authorities must explain to their communities the damage that will arise from a supposed enhancement.
  The Government claim that industry will benefit. Under the revaluation, Shotton steelworks stands to gain a £1·5 million cut in its rates bill and that is the equivalent of about 140 new jobs. I thank the Secretary of State for that. However, under the system of transitional relief, the steelworks must wait years before it receives the full benefit.
  It is totally unrealistic to claim that the poll tax in Wales will work out at £173. The likely figure is £210. The settlement that the Secretary of State seeks to impose is £80 million, or 4 per cent., short. All the financial professionals agree on that.
  The Government also ignore the high rate of inflation, high interest rates and the white and blue-collar salary increases which local government must bear. They underestimate the costs of collecting the poll tax and they overestimate the numbers who will pay it. As the settlement is defective, there will be severe pressure on the schools service, social services, housing and local environmental services.
  The impact of the business rate on small businesses will be considerable. There may be bankruptcies, there will be hardship and there is disillusion. Already the rate of liquidations and bankruptcies has risen amazingly. The situation is now worrying throughout Wales.
  The poll tax will bear down very hard on the Gwent valleys, on Mid Glamorgan, West Glamorgan and Dyfed. That is what politically impartial professionals in local government tell me. The poll tax is a poor reward for people who still bear the scars of deprivation and economic difficulties.
  In 1987, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that the poll tax
  "will be known as a Tory tax."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1141.]
  With a dignity that few others can attain, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) said that the Prime Minister had foisted the unworkable poll tax upon us. That is Conservative Members' definition of electoral poison in Wales.
  Last week, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said that the poll tax is "wholly unfair", "Orwellian", and "illogical". He also said that it is "expensive," and "difficult," and "difficult to collect."
  On transitional relief, welcome though it is, I note what the Secretary of State said tonight. The figure is the same as that which was given last December. What is new?
  Opposition Members will vote against the revenue support grant report and the revenue support grain distribution report. There are seven Welsh Conservative Members. It appears that war has been declared on two knights of the shires, but I predict that the poll tax will put severe pressure on the remainder. There is discernible panic in Conservative ranks because of the poll tax—[Interruption.] I advise Conservative Members who are trying hard not to listen that the poll tax does not relate to ability to pay. The bigger one's house and the wealthier the citizen, the better the poll tax suits.
  The people of Wales always demand fair play. We are a democratic and fair-minded people. The poll tax cannot be right in Wales. There is no support for the poll tax in

  999
  Wales. Last year, in two parliamentary by-elections, the county elections and the European elections, the Welsh electorate delivered a resounding rejection of the poll tax.
  1000
  Tonight, Her Majesty's Government will impose the poll tax upon the people of Wales. In effect, they propose a £173 confidence trick. The reports will only confirm an anti-Tory mood in Wales. That mood has been growing steadily, and it will sweep away the Conservatives. A Government who impose a poll tax on Wales deserve to be defeated.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) began by wondering, in a rather naive voice, why some of the Welsh community charge figures about which we have heard will be at an excessive level. The hon. Gentleman knows the answer as well as I do, but he refuses to give it. There is only one truthful reason why any council in Wales will levy an excessive community charge, and that is because it will choose to do so.
  Mr. John P. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: I should not like it to be thought that there is no welcome in Wales, so I shall give way.
  Mr. Smith: I, too, recognise that the Secretary of State's claims are premised on the assessment of Welsh authorities' spending requirements.
  Before they start using the language of rate capping, I remind Conservative Members that on Monday, the Vale of Glamorgan borough council levied a community charge 36 per cent. above the Welsh Office's target. That is one of only two Conservative district councils in Wales. Incidentally, one of them has in the past—mistakenly, I believe—observed Government spending guidelines. If they—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech, not an intervention.
  Mr. Jones: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I fully intend to refer to his own council, if he will only allow me to make progress.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State delivered an excellent settlement and has steadily improved the position. In November he said that the average community charge in Wales would be £174. On December 18 he told the House that the figure would be only £173, or £165 after allowing for the rebate scheme. Wales is doing better in every way. Sixty-seven per cent. of all council expenditure there is coming from central Government, which compares very favourably with a contribution of 56 per cent. in Scotland or of only 46 per cent. in England.
  The new business rate of only 20 per cent. in Wales will bear down much more easily than the 28 per cent. that will apply elsewhere. Some 85 per cent. of all Welsh council expenditure will be covered, leaving only 15 per cent. to be raised by the community charge.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales ever finds himself looking for a new job, that of Secretary of State for Dorset should certainly be open to him? He is asking community charge payers in Wales to make only a 15 per cent. contribution, whereas in Dorset, the Government contribution will be only 38 per cent., leaving local authorities there to raise the remaining 62 per cent.
  Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes his point effectively. Meanwhile, the people of Wales are doing better in every way.
  Who then is letting down the people of Wales?—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Tories."] Who is causing the anger that has been created at the unnecessarily high level of
  1002
  community charge being imposed in some parts of Wales? The answer to that question is the local councils, which are best depicted here by hon. Members opposite.
  The settlement provides Welsh councils with a 7·1 per cent. increase—not on Welsh Office figures, but on the local council's own figures.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the hon. Gentleman condemn the total irresponsibility of the Vale of Glamorgan council in ignoring that wonderful gift from the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman should apologise for wasting the time of the House. I have already said that I shall be referring later to Vale of Glamorgan council.
  Eighty-five per cent. of Welsh councils's spending will be met from central Government, leaving them to find only the balance of 15 per cent. themselves. They have chosen to set community charges that are far too high, purely for crude political advantage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, said when winding up last Thursday's debate on local government finance, Labour councils in Wales, as in England, are following the instructions from on high to set a rate as high as they can get away with. They are blatantly exploiting the confusion that has naturally arisen in the change from rates to community charge, by blaming any increases on the Government.
  If what is happening in my constituency is typical of the rest of Wales, as seems to be the case, many Welsh people are justified in being furious at their local councils. South Glamorgan county council is proposing a community charge of £175 when it ought to be no higher than £147, and could easily be lower. That represents a 20 per cent. increase. Cardiff city council's community charge should be £31 but it proposes a figure of £78—a 152 per cent. increase.
  If South Glamorgan is bad, Cardiff is crazy. Remember that Cardiff is the more extreme, more Left-wing council. It is not just a Labour council, it is supported by its allies in the Liberal party. If anyone has ever doubted whether the Liberals are a party of the extreme Left, I invite them to look at the situation in Cardiff, where the Liberal and Labour parties jostle with each other to show which is the dafter.
  I know that they have been desperate to soak up the extra spending that has been proposed in this ridiculous 152 per cent. increase—£78. The Vale of Glamorgan council next door, which provides virtually the same services, is proposing a community charge of £24. That is the difference. People who live in an area administered by a responsible, Conservative-controlled council, get a community charge of £24. I understand that the Vale of Glamorgan county council does not expect any rise to be necessary next year.
  The latest dodge is that Cardiff is selling back to itself land that it already owns so that it can charge the charge payers an extra £20.
  I am sure that all hon. Members will accept that there may be variations between the figures, perhaps of 1, 2 or even 5 or 10 per cent., but 55 per cent. is the scale of the increase we face from April, and that is over and above what we know needs to be charged in Cardiff. That is way beyond any amount that is sane. It is crazy.

  1003
  The settlement is very good. We had a 7·1 per cent. allowance for increases. The councils only had to find 15 per cent. They have now come up with a community charge of £253. They know that it is a political con, and they are trying to take advantage.
  However, I remind the Opposition that "you can't fool all of the people all of the time." In Cardiff we have had that experience. The last time that Labour was in control in Cardiff it went in for increases on this scale and put up the rates up by 94·5 per cent. We had local elections a year later and Labour was swept from control.
  The people of Cardiff will realise that they have to pay £90 a year more per person—the price of having a Labour or an extreme Left-wing council in charge. There will be elections next year, but that is a long way off. In the meantime my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is the last line of defence for the people of Cardiff and the people of Wales.
  How mad or bad do councils in Wales have to be before my right hon. Friend uses his powers and acts? I was glad to hear the firm commitment that he made this evening. He is absolutely right, and I encourage him to move in that direction. Unless some sanity comes to Cardiff and to similar crazy councils, he must consider capping them.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall try to be brief, as so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to speak.
  The uniform business rate is one of the many idiocies of the poll tax. At Question Time on Monday, and again this evening, the Secretary of State made much of the fact that manufacturing industries and factories, many of them in the valleys and throughout south Wales, will benefit because the valuation of those properties will be lower after revaluation. That is a fact, but perhaps he should not crow too much about it, as the valuations are lower because of the decline in manufacturing and industry in Wales during the past ten years.
  B and Q will pay more, Great Mills will pay more and all the other temples of consumerism selling foreign goods will pay more because they make more profits. Maufacturing industry will pay less, not because its property is dilapidated, which is what the Secretary of State said, but because there is no profit in manufacturing industry. It is because of the decline in manufacturing industry in the past ten years.
  The Secretary of State need not smile at my remarks. It is a fact that 10 years of Tory Government have caused a massive decline in manufacturing industry in Wales. It is nothing to shout about—we should feel sorry about it. That is why the revaluation is having that effect.
  The uniform business rate will make matters worse. As I understand it, it does not matter how many factories or manufacturing units a district or county council area contains; what matters is the number of people it contains. Manufacturing industry rating goes first to the Treasury and then back to the Welsh Office before being distributed per head of population. Why should planning officers in Llanelli, Cardiff or anywhere else put land aside for industrial development if it can be put to better use—if houses can be built on it, and people put into those houses? That will mean more money, in the form of both poll tax and uniform business rate.
  1004
  The reforms militate against manufacturing industry. The planning officer is in charge; the industrial development officer has nothing to do, because his land is worth less than the land earmarked for residential housing. The uniform business rate is a crazy tax, which will lead to a further decline in our manufacturing base. It is symptomatic of the 10 years of the present Government that property has always come first and manufacturing second, and the uniform business rate will exacerbate the problem. The sooner it is abolished and we bring back a community-based industrial tax, the better.
  The link between industry and local government will be broken; no incentives will be left. South Wales does not possess many flat industrial sites, and we are particularly short of large sites for large industrial investment. Such sites will be used increasingly for housing purposes—as they have been over the past five years—and particularly for housing at the upper end of the market, as people living in such houses do not draw on local resources so much. The uniform business rate is one of the most idiotic aspects of the whole idiotic poll tax.
  11.6 pm
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I shall not be voting against the orders. Unfortunately, I ran into my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) in the Lobby, and he told me with tears in his eyes how much it would upset my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if I did. Being—as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—has so delicately put it—a member of the spineless tendency, I decided to take refuge in abstention.
  I cannot withhold my admiration for the brazen cheek with which my right hon. Friend shamelessly raids the coffers of the Treasury for the benefit of poll tax payers—I have the Prime Minister's authority to use the term "poll tax"—of Wales. I also admire the immense skill with which he has handled local authorities of all political persuasions throughout Wales, and has managed—up to now—to induce them to behave in a reasonable manner; I do not want to do anything to make his task more difficult.
  My brief tells me that the new system of local government finance is simpler and fairer, and that it will lead to more political accountability. I must say that I find "fairer" a little difficult to accept; I know that it is a cheap example, but I find it hard to understand why the Duke of Westminster should pay the same sum as an elderly couple who have retired to a small cottage precisely because of its lower rateable value.
  "Simpler" is a bit more complex. Perhaps the scheme had simpler elements when it was first announced—it had, at least, the merit of rough injustice—but now we have rebates for the poorest, which I welcome; exemptions for some handicapped people, but not for others; safety nets, and then transitional cushioning for the introduction of the safety nets; and, on top of all that, the near-certainty that the level of non-payment, whether through deliberate refusal or through the impossibility of keeping track of migrants, will hugely exceed the estimates. It no longer looks quite so simple as it did at the beginning. It is now beginning to look as though the uniform business rate will give rise to some problems of its own.
  There is a great deal of unjustified moaning about the uniform business rate. I take the point made by the right

  1005
  hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), but, because of the delays over revaluation—neither side of the House can take great pride in that—many businesses have been paying far lower rates for a great many years than they ought to have done under any equitable system. There will therefore be large increases, and they will be a shock.
  There is a delightful pub in my constituency, the Blue Lion at Cwm. At the end of every polling day, my wife and I like to have a drink there. We certainly intend to have a drink there after polling at the next general election. The landlord of that pub told me with some dismay that his business rate will increase from £4,700 to £7,300. I understand his shock. Although it will be spread over three years, it is nevertheless a very substantial increase.
  It is a little awkward for the Government to argue that a sharp rise in the business rate for some is not unreasonable, since revaluation would have led to such an increase, even under the old rating system. My recollection is that the Government used the pretext of revaluation as some kind of scare—to suggest that retention of the existing rating system would be quite impossible.
  As for the new mechanism for the revenue support grant, I thought that, if not more equitable, it would be easier to explain. By and large, I suppose that it probably is. To some extent, however, we are in Red Queen territory, too. Rhuddlan borough council, under the leadership of its exceptionally able chief executive, who is also the borough treasurer, and has been for a long time past, finds that it will get £745,000 less in revenue support grant than it received last year, entailing a poll tax increase from £35 to £53.
  That does not mean that the borough council has been extravagant. All it means—we have the explanation from the Welsh Office—is that the reduction
  "results from a revision—fully discussed with and accepted by the Council of Welsh Districts—to the formula for the current expenditure component of SSAs. Whilst this revision inevitably affects the SSA of certain districts, including Rhuddlan, it is important to set this change within the context of the excellent Settlement for Wales for 1990/91."
  I accept that it is an excellent settlement for Wales, but it is pretty cold comfort for poor old Rhuddlan, just because the formula changes, to find itself £750,000 short, having to increase its poll tax element by 50 per cent. and risking being clobbered for so doing.
  What about accountability? The first thing that leaps to mind—it is something that Ministers have been claiming, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales claimed it just now—is that local authorities will be raising a much smaller proportion of the money that they will spend than they did under the old system. Previously, it was nearly 40 per cent.; now, it is about 16 per cent. I do not understand where the accountability comes into it, according to that formula.
  Under the uniform business rate, there is a further removal of accountability. Not only will councils not fix the rates; they will not even derive any benefit if they treat local businesses well. Once again, I cannot see the logic of it.
  My right hon. Friend has excellent relationships with the Welsh local authorities. Until recently, they have responded well. Despite the huge defects of the system, I hope that they will continue to do so. That is one reason why I shall not vote against the reports tonight. If, none the less, after all this explanation I am asked by Opposition
  1006
  Members why I am not going into the Division Lobby, I shall have to confess that, frankly, I am stumped for an answer.
  11.9 pm
  Mr. Richard Livsey: It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). He has a style which has long been lost in the Conservative party, and we congratulate him on his recent campaign.
  The best way to analyse what the Secretary of State is doing is to look at individual parts of Wales and see how they are affected by the revenue support grant, how that affects the level of the poll tax, and how they will be affected by the uniform business rate.
  We need to examine specific circumstances. As the Secretary of State decided to bash Powys a little in his speech, I want to give some figures for that area.
  Mr. Morgan: A loony Left council.
  Mr. Livsey: As the hon. Gentleman says.
  The Secretary of State should congratulate Powys on having come up with a poll tax that is almost bang on the average £173 that the right hon. Gentleman said was the right figure to go for. The only problem is that Powys's poll tax is likely to be the lowest in the whole of Wales, so it cannot possibly be the average.
  The Welsh Office firmly predicted in November that the county of Powys would pay a poll tax element of £109; and, adding on the appropriate district and community council costs, the end figure for the poll tax would be £120 for Montgomery, £129 for Radnor and £130 for Brecknock.
  The only problem with these predictions is that they showed a £3·5 million shortfall in expenditure compared with what the Welsh Office itself assumed the county would need to spend in the coming financial year to provide an average level of services—that is, the assumption for total standard spending. Local government treasurers in Powys were astonished by the Welsh Office's poll tax predictons. They rightly said that the £3·5 million shortfall had to be made up. That done, they predicted that the poll tax would between £175 and £200 a head.
  Yesterday, Powys, along with the district, set its poll tax. The county poll tax ended up at £147, not the £109 forecast by the Welsh Office in November—an increase of £38 per head. Radnor district set its poll tax yesterday at £175, not the £129 forecast by the Welsh Office in November, an increase of £46 a head just to keep services—
  Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Livsey: No, I will not.
  As I said, all this was just to keep services equivalent to Welsh Office targets. In this exercise, the Welsh Office sets up figures only to knock them down again.
  Powys will have the lowest poll tax in Wales, at £175. That was the average poll tax predicted by the Secretary of State last autumn. I can confidently predict that every other council in Wales will have a much higher figure.
  All these false figures are nothing more than a con trick. The Welsh Office predicts that wages will rise by 6 per cent., but the Secretary of State for Education and Science has predicted an increase of 7·5 per cent. for teachers. The

  1007
  figures do not add up; no allowance has been made for such increases. The legislation for implementing the national curriculum and for local management—
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Mid Glamorgan has already found that, under the last settlement, the money provided by the Government was £350,000 short of what was needed. To provide water and extra power points in old primary schools, the council will have to spend almost £500,000 that the Welsh Office has refused to provide. That one small item is equivalent to another £1.25 on the poll tax. Is that not a disgrace?
  Mr. Livsey: It was a disgrace. The hon. Gentleman makes his point well: the level of the poll tax was grossly under-estimated.
  New burdens will be placed on community care by the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, and the green Bill, which contains provisions on litter and adds the burden of collecting it on districts, and will add an estimated 6 per cent. to the costs of districts.
  To shorten my speech, I shall give two brief examples of problems that will arise under the uniform business rate. At present, a newsagent's shop I know in mid-Wales pays rates of i1,239, but under the uniform business rate it will pay £1,533—an increase of almost £300, or almost 24 per cent. A tourism complex in the south of my constituency currently pays £19,000 in rates, but under the uniform business rate it will pay £35,000—an increase of £16,000, or almost 100 per cent.
  The uniform business rate will have a devastating effect on small businesses. The Treasury's contribution will be only 2 per cent., yet business rate payers in Powys will contribute 40 per cent.—not 20 per cent.—which was the figure that the Secretary of State gave. This is a good deal for the Treasury but a lousy one for small businesses. Added to those figures must be high interest rates, which, with the uniform business rate are a right and left hook to small businesses. Small business people who used to vote for the Conservative party will not do so again under any circumstances.
  11.20 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: If the Labour party has any sense, it would not oppose the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) at the next election. Only he makes the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) sound exciting.
  Tonight, I heard the most synthetic opposition that I have ever heard in the House. The Labour party knows that Wales is getting a better deal on the community charge than Scotland or England. We are benefiting from the expertise of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  I welcome the community charge system. I do not understand how it can be considered fair for 50 per cent. of the electorate in Pembrokeshire to vote in local elections but not make a direct contribution to the services that they receive, while the other 50 per cent. carry the burden through the rating system. Everyone over 18 who is eligible to vote in local elections should make a direct contribution to local authorities for the services that they receive.
  It is nonsense for the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside to claim that people who live in bigger houses
  1008
  have bigger incomes. Many of my constituents who live in large houses, but whose husbands or wives have died and whose children have moved away, are on low incomes. They do not wish to move from the home in which they have lived for 40 or 50 years. I do not believe that they should be driven out.
  The community charge recognises that not houses but individuals use local authority services. Individuals use street lighting, dustbins, swimming pools and public libraries, not houses. They should therefore contribute to the cost of the services that they receive.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bennett: No, because the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside would not give way to Conservative Members throughout his speech. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) had a fair crack of the whip in the earlier debate on education.
  The community charge will make local authorities more accountable. It cannot be right that a minority in many local authority areas picks up the bill for the services provided to the majority. Local authorities will be more accountable if every voter in local elections makes a direct contribution to the cost of local authority services.
  We should be aware of the position in Wales. This year, we are receiving a 7·1 per cent. increase from the Government in local authority grants, based not on Welsh Office figures but on the previous year's spending of local authorities. In addition, relief will be available to one in three community charge payers, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones).
  Some community charge voters will get an 80 per cent. rebate on the total charge that they would have had to pay, had they been on average earnings. It is important to acknowledge that the Government have taken into account people's ability to pay, not only in the fact that those who pay income tax and are on the highest rates will pay 16 times as much anyway in their contributions to central Government, but in the community charge itself, with relief of up to 80 per cent.
  On the uniform business rate—
  Mr. Neil Kinnock rose—
  Mr. Bennett: The Leader of the Opposition, who rarely graces the Chamber during debates on Wales, wants to say something. Perhaps he would like to come in at this point?
  Mr. Kinnock: The House will sympathise with my not being here more often, if I have to listen to hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). What does the hon. Gentleman mean by the term "community charge voters", since I have not heard it before? It is a candid expression for him to use. Since he is trying to draw a connection between the liability for taxation and the right to vote, will he tell us whether he should celebrate the fact that people will get up to 80 per cent. rebates? Should that mean a reduction in their civil right to cast their vote?
  Mr. Bennett: Only the right hon. Gentleman's logic would get him to that final point. On his first point, as community charge payers will be the same people as the voters, there is clearly a correlation between the two. At

  1009
  the moment in some cases, the voters are rarely the ratepayers; in future, those who vote will also make a contribution to the services.
  On the uniform business rate, it seems to me that Opposition Members are selective in their memories. They were in power from 1974 to 1979. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside was a junior Minister in the Welsh Office. The Labour Government cancelled the revaluation in 1978. Admittedly, the present Government also cancelled a revaluation, which only goes to show that when it comes to facing up to challenges, Governments of both parties have been in dereliction of their duties; but at last the nettle has been grasped, and it is important to recognise, when the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside says that since 1973 there have been large increases in rateable value, that there have also been increases in rental value.
  Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assume that there will be a wind-up for this debate and, in fairness to both Front-Bench speakers, I think that we should have a little time for them. I take it that the Division will be called at 11.44 pm.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is barely a point of order. We ought to proceed with the debate.
  Mr. Bennett: I have been generous in giving way to Opposition Members and I have been speaking for five minutes.
  Rental values have increased tremendously since 1973 and it is not surprising if rateable values have also increased in the same period. A lot of nonsense is talked about the increase in rateable values. A headline in my local paper says, "Rates Shock for Traders", and goes on to say:
  "One trader in the town's High Street has seen the rateable value on his property jump from £64 to 1,450—a staggering 2,265 per cent. increase"—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member who has the Floor should not be interrupted in this way.
  Mr. Bennett: We have to ignore the intellectual tendency on the Opposition Front Bench because at this time of night they are a little more exuberant than they might otherwise be.
  To return to the Tenby Observer of 19 January 1990, it says that one trader in the town's high street has seen the rateable value of his property jump from £64 to £1,450, an increase of 2,265 per cent. If it was really £64, that must be the lowest rateable value for any business in Wales. But even after the increase to £1,450 and without transitional relief, that business will ultimately pay £533·60. That hardly seems to me an unreasonable figure for business premises in a town in my constituency.
  But that is the sort of publicity that we get in the local papers, when reporters do not explain what the amount will be under the business rate, but refer merely to the rateable value. The figures show that on the whole businesses in Wales will enjoy a good deal as a result of the settlement. With the transitional relief, no business will face an increase of more than 23 per cent. if inflation runs at 7 or 8 per cent.
  My final—
  Mr. Ray Powell: At last.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman says, "At last." The House will know that he always makes bogus points of order in Welsh debates on the Floor of the House or during sittings of the Welsh Grand Committee. He does not have two pennies to rub together when it comes to a brain. If he wants me to make a short speech, I suggest that he keeps quiet.
  I shall conclude my remarks by referring to the dog that did not bark in the night. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside spoke for a considerable time, as did the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) last Thursday, but they did not mention what the Labour party would do about local community charges and local business rates. It is political dishonesty that neither of them has the guts to tell the British public what the Labour party would do if it formed a Government. What would it do about domestic rates and business rates?
  Mr. Wilshire: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Opposition do not have a clue what they would do, they cannot tell us?
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is right.
  Unfortunately, between the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham on Thursday on the English revenue support grant reports and the speech of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside this evening, a report appeared in The Times on 22 January. In that report we are told that the Labour party
  "is preparing to unveil"—
  Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members have already taken 46 minutes out of a 90-minute debate and Labour Members have taken only 25 minutes. You will know that 25 Labour Members represent Welsh constituencies while only seven Welsh constituencies are represented by Tory Members.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Bennett: I have spoken for 10 minutes. during which there have been several interruptions. I am trying to bring my remarks to an end. I know that Opposition Members do not like it when I and my hon. Friends say that they have no policy.
  We are told in The Times that the Labour party
  "is preparing to unveil plans to abolish the community charge and replace it with a property tax levied according to people's ability to pay."
  Apparently the hon. Member for Dagenham will announce that at a conference in Cardiff next month.
  The most important part of the report—it has not been confirmed or denied by any Opposition Member—is that the
  "proposals will include the possibility of people living in large shared households receiving separate bills based on a proportion of the value of the property."
  That sounds suspiciously like the principle of the community charge. It is time that the Labour party came clean by telling us what it believes to be right.
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I shall begin my contribution to the debate by asking the Secretary of State to listen with care to a quotation from a report in today's edition of The Independent—

  1011
  "Why does the Government insist on ignoring what authorities have been spending, relying instead on fictional figures? The Government figures arise from the wrong information being put into the computer in the first place."
  That statement was made by Alan Ward, the Conservative leader of Bracknell Forest district council, not by the treasurer of Gwynedd, Powys or South Glamorgan. Even Conservative council members are saying that the wrong information has been used to set poll tax levels.
  The poll tax is abhorrent, unjust, inequitable, iniquitous and regressive. I believe that the Secretary of State takes to same view. Unfortunately, he has not on this occasion had the courage of his convictions, and he will not be joining us in voting against the measure.
  The Welsh public oppose the poll tax partly because they have been misled by Welsh Office Ministers and the Government about its level. The figures produced by the Welsh Office in December are a serious under-estimate. The Welsh Office said that the average poll tax would be £174. A month later, we find that every district says that the figure will be substantially more—perhaps 40 per cent., 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. more. In my district, Ynys Mon, it will be 50 per cent. more.
  The reason is that the Government have got all the figures wrong. They have under-estimated expenditure this year, never mind the fact that inflation is running at 8 per cent. Their figures include 3·4 per cent. for inflation next year. The Government have totally misunderstood the position in Wales. Now they say that it is the fault of local authorities that the poll tax will be more. Local authorities in Wales are to be held responsible for the way in which the Government have let the people down.
  I remind the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) that there will be a heavy political price to pay. He and his hon. Friends should have the courage of their convictions, like the Tory rebels last Thursday night. They will pay the price unless they join us in the Lobby tonight.
  11.35 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: We all thought that we would have more time to discuss this important matter. However, whatever antics the Tories get up to in the Chamber or anywhere else do not hide the fact that this is the most unpopular tax ever to hit the Principality of Wales. They are wholly responsible for it.
  We all agree that the overall settlement is totally inadequate. It is 4 per cent. short of what is needed to maintain existing services. The Secretary of State keeps telling us that year after year local authorities grumble about the settlements. In Wales they have every right to grumble because over a decade they have been robbed of millions and millions of proper rate support grant.
  The Secretary of State has said that local authorities in Wales are extravagant. He has given them £78 million for improvement grants in the valleys and elsewhere, but he has not told us in his empty promises that he has not given them a single extra penny to process those improvement grants.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned transitional relief, as they should. Although the system was agreed with local authorities, its implementation by the Welsh Office is flawed. Councils have already told the Secretary of State that not every poll tax payer in Wales will pay the tax, as is happening in Scotland. They have told him that his
  1012
  assumptions on council spending, on which the relief is based, are unreal. Under the so-called relief system, out of 855 communities in Wales, only 255 will receive relief. In South Glamorgan, out of 54 communities, only one will benefit. Thousands upon thousands of people will suffer as a direct result of the so-called relief system proposed by the Secretary of State.
  The Secretary of State has boasted about the unified business rate, but he has not told business people in Wales that new businesses will have no relief, that businesses which move will lose their relief, and that, out of 100,000 business properties in Wales, 70,000 will be losers and only 30,000 will be gainers.
  Nor has the Secretary of State revealed the full facts about the poll tax. He has not revealed how he has robbed our councils of nearly £80 million which will go directly on to the shoulders of the poll tax payers. He has not told us about how he refused to listen to Welsh councils in meeting after meeting over the last three or four months. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) talked about Abraham Lincoln. Local authorities in Wales cannot all be wrong all the time about the level of their poll tax.
  The Secretary of State has made the most disgraceful attack upon local authorities in Wales that I have heard. At least his predecessor, Lord Crickhowell, did not pretend to like councils in Wales. This Secretary of State came to Wales and said that local authorities were doing a good job. Today, Welsh local authorities will know what he really thinks of them. He has hinted darkly about inefficiency, overspending and irresponsibility. He cannot have it both ways and he is now in an awkward spot. He knows that his Back Benchers are opposed to the poll tax and he is trying to shift the blame on to the Welsh local authorities. The people of Wales will see through him. We know that there is only one person in Wales to blame for the poll tax, and that is the right hon. Gentleman. He has a great deal to answer for, and I urge the House to vote against the measures.
  11.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): From all the sound and fury tonight, one would not think that the Labour party, when it was in office in 1976–77, was responsible for cutting the rate support grant in real terms by 4 per cent.; in the next year by 8 per cent.; and in the year after that, by 4 per cent. Labour Members claim that their hearts bleed for local government, but I for one do not believe it. If this Government had continued with the Labour Government's policy, this year Wales would receive only £650 million instead of £1,000 million. That shows the difference in the achievements of this Government compared with the Labour Government.
  Cardiff is the capital city of Wales and sets the tone for so much of life in the Principality. The community charge that the Welsh Office believed was right for Cardiff was £157, a reduction of 22 per cent.—£43—on the average rate bill for the current year. It was the largest reduction in Wales. What has happened? South Glamorgan has raised the rate by £47 and Cardiff has raised it not by the £29 that we predicted, but by £78, a difference of 168 per cent. I do not think that any hon. Member could believe that that was anything but unfair.

  1013
  Cardiff's capital expenditure budget this year rose by 35 per cent., and receipts were down from £25 million to £3.5 million. They paid for it this year to paint the picture for next year. The total spend in Cardiff this year is up by 20 per cent. Councillor Mungham, chairman of the finance committee, is now predicting an increase in the budget for next year of 30 per cent. How on earth can he predict such a rise? He is playing fast and loose because politics is involved: there is to be a city election next year. That is the long and the short of what Councillor Mungham and the Labour party are doing.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has obviously never understood what the total spending assessment included. It included an allowance of 7·5 per cent. for the teachers' pay rise; the personal social services were covered for the implementation of the Children Act 1989 and the disabled persons legislation and for training needs in social services; rises in police pay were included, as was highway maintenance; and some £32·9 million was made available for the cost of the community charge administration and benefit. Opposition Members obviously did not read their papers to discover what was happening. There was an 8·2 per cent. rise for those sectors.
  There has been some misunderstanding about the unified business rate. Opposition Members do not appreciate that the amount of money to be raised from business in Wales has not increased: it has been reallocated according to the revaluation. For all the large increases, there have been gainers, too—a fact that people seem to overlook.
  Of course, since 1973, there has been a change in real values and rents of properties, and everybody knows that: everyone who runs a shop or business will know how values and rents have risen in the past few years—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to order [19 January].
  The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 206.

  Division No. 47]

  11.44 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Ashby, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Colvin, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Conway, Derek

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cran, James

  Bowis, John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Brazier, Julian

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

  Bright, Graham

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

  Day, Stephen

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Devlin, Tim

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Burns, Simon

  Dover, Den

  Burt, Alistair

  Dunn, Bob

  Butcher, John

  Durant, Tony

  Butler, Chris

  Dykes, Hugh

  Butterfill, John

  Eggar, Tim

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Carrington, Matthew

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Fallon, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Favell, Tony

  Churchill, Mr

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

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

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dixon, Don

  Allen, Graham

  Dobson, Frank

  Anderson, Donald

  Doran, Frank

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Beith, A. J.

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bell, Stuart

  Faulds, Andrew

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fearn, Ronald

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

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bermingham, Gerald

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

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fisher, Mark

  Blair, Tony

  Flannery, Martin

  Blunkett, David

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Boateng, Paul

  Foster, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Fraser, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Buckley, George J.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caborn, Richard

  Gordon, Mildred

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gould, Bryan

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) '

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clay, Bob

  Hardy, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cohen, Harry

  Haynes, Frank

  Coleman, Donald

  Henderson, Doug

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Home Robertson, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cox, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Howells, Geraint

  Cummings, John

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Ingram, Adam

  Dewar, Donald

  Janner, Greville

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Madel David

  Forth, Eric

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mans, Keith

  Franks, Cecil

  Maples, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  French, Douglas

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Fry, Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gardiner, George

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gill, Christopher

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mellor, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mills, Iain

  Gow, Ian

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gregory, Conal

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Grist, Ian

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Grylls, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hague, William

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hamilton, Neil (Talton)

  Needham, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hannam, John

  Neubert, Michael

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

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Norris, Steve

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayward, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hill, James

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

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

  Portillo, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Price, Sir David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Irvine, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jackson, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Janman, Tim

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jessel, Toby

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ryder, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Knowles, Michael

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Latham, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Speller, Tony

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lilley, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Squire, Robin

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lord, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Sumberg, David

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Waller, Gary

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Ward, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Watts, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trippier, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Yeo, Tim

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walden, George

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Randall, Stuart

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Redmond, Martin

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Reid, Dr John

  Lambie, David

  Robertson, George

  Lamond, James

  Rogers, Allan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rooker, Jeff

  Leighton, Ron

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Litherland, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheerman, Barry

  Livsey, Richard

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Short, Clare

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAllion, John

  Smith, C. (1sl'ton & F'bury)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Soley, Clive

  McFall, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  McLeish, Henry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McWilliam, John

  Stott, Roger

  Madden, Max

  Strang, Gavin

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Straw, Jack

  Marek, Dr John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Maxton, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Meacher, Michael

  Turner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Vaz, Keith

  Michael, Alun

  Wallace, James

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Walley, Joan

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Morley, Elliot

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mullin, Chris

  Wilson, Brian

  Murphy, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Nellist, Dave

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Brien, William

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1990–91 (House of Commons Paper No. 53), a copy of which was laid before the House on 20th December, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (House of Commons Paper No. 54), a copy of which was laid before the House on 20th December, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]
  Resolved,
  That the Welsh Non-Domestic Rating (County Share and District Share) Report (House of Commons Paper No. 55), a copy of which was laid before the House on 20th December, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]
  Resolved,
  That the Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (House of Commons Paper No. 55), a copy of which was laid before the House on 20th December, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

  European Community Documents
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).
  European Community Documents

    EUROPEAN SCHOOL
    That the draft European Communities (Privileges of the European School) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
    The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 25.

    Division No. 48]

    [11.58 pm

    AYES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Ashby, David

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Gregory, Conal

    Beith, A. J.

    Grist, Ian

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hague, William

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Boswell, Tim

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bottomley, Peter

    Hannam, John

    Bowis, John

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

    Brazier, Julian

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Bright, Graham

    Harris, David

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Burns, Simon

    Hayward, Robert

    Burt, Alistair

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Butler, Chris

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Butterfill, John

    Hill, James

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Carttiss, Michael

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

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

    Chapman, Sydney

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Chope, Christopher

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Howells, Geraint

    Colvin, Michael

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Conway, Derek

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Cran, James

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

    Irvine, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jack, Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Janman, Tim

    Devlin, Tim

    Jessel, Toby

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Dover, Den

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Dunn, Bob

    Key, Robert

    Durant, Tony

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Eggar, Tim

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Fallon, Michael

    Knapman, Roger

    Favell, Tony

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Knowles, Michael

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Lang, Ian

    Forman, Nigel

    Latham, Michael

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Forth, Eric

    Lilley, Peter

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Livsey, Richard

    Franks, Cecil

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Freeman, Roger

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    French, Douglas

    Lord, Michael

    Fry, Peter

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Garet-Jones, Tristan

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Gill, Christopher

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Maclean, David

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Gow, Ian

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    NOES

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Pike, Peter L.

    Cohen, Harry

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Spearing, Nigel

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Lambie, David

    Wray, Jimmy

    Loyden, Eddie

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    McWilliam, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Mr. Bob Cryer and

    Meale, Alan

    Mr. Dennis Skinner.

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Matins, Humfrey

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Mans, Keith

    Shelton, Sir William

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Shepherd, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Speller, Tony

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mellor, David

    Stern, Michael

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Stevens, Lewis

    Mills, Iain

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Summerson, Hugo

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Neale, Gerrard

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Needham, Richard

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Neubert, Michael

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Norris, Steve

    Tracey, Richard

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Trippier, David

    Page, Richard

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Paice, James

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Patnick, Irvine

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Walden, George

    Pawsey, James

    Wallace, James

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Waller, Gary

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Ward, John

    Portillo, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Price, Sir David

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Redwood, John

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Wilshire, David

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Wood, Timothy

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Yeo, Tim

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Ryder, Richard

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Mr. Nicholas Baker.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham,south): On a point of Order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Motions Nos 6 and 7 on the Order Paper relate to two statutory instruments, one a definition of treaties order and the other a national Order in Council, which were debated yesterday morning in a Standing Committee.
    I participated in that Standing Committee, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), and some Conservative Members were present—including, I think, a Foreign Office Minister.

    1019
    We have just taken a decision on the first motion. I do not contest that, but are these proceedings in order and does that decision remain valid, because the proceedings of the Committee are not available in the Vote Office?
    I had thought that there was a convention tht such statutory instruments were not laid before the House until the proceedings were available, so that hon. Members can find out the merits of what was discussed. I do not think that was easy to do on this occasion, except by word of mouth.
    The special attention of the House was drawn to these matters by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the matters were discussed in Commitee, but they are not available in print for the House.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of Order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the circumstances, should the Government not withdraw the second motion, because the two are linked? One refers to the European Communities Act 1972 and the other is an order used under those powers.
    It seems absurd for the House to have a Standing Committee to discuss the merits of the instruments, which are not discussed by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, as you know—it only discusses the technicalities. The Joint Committee feels that there is doubt about the vires of both of these instruments, but unless the record is available, hon. Members patently cannot make a judgment about the merits of the instrument.
    Therefore, it seems wrong that the House should proceed with the expense of a record that is compiled and printed, but is not available to hon. Members. Once the votes have been taken, the instruments will not come back to the House—it is done and dusted. It is a complete waste of taxpayers' money to provide a record for hon. Members to make a judgment about the merits of the case, and for it not to be available.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of Order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have noticed that the Leader of the House has just clocked in. Since he has some responsibilities in these matters, and since he is a lawyer by profession, I should have thought that he would have understood what my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) have said about these two orders. To put it in a nutshell, in legal terms, they are ultra vires.
    I suggest to the Leader of the House, through you Madam Deputy Speaker, that it would be a good idea if he came to the Dispatch Box, accepted my hon. Friend's suggestion and withdrew the second order as a consolation prize.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I may be able to assist the House to some extent. I bow to the superior learned wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and I concur in all that he has said about the legal interpretation of these two statutory instruments.
    I recall that when we discussed the matter in Committee, yesterday, the two orders—which were interlinked in this sense; the first paved the way for the
    1020
    second, and therefore had to be enacted forthwith—had waited for more than four years from the time of the judgment of the European Court in Luxembourg, which forced the change. The relevant judgment, which I am sure is constantly on the lips of the Leader of the House, was the European Court judgment of Hurd against the Inspector of Taxes, which was determined by that court on 19 January 1986. I am sure that, in many constituencies, scarcely a moment of the day passes without a constituent referring to that judgment.
    The Government had allowed more than four years to pass after the relevant judgment without taking any action. It is therefore a little puzzling that they should now proceed with such precipitate haste—the day after the sitting of the Committee—without even doing the House the courtesy of making a report of the Committee's deliberations available. There is a considerable contrast between the dilatory nature of their initial response and the speed of their proceedings now. Surely it would be best for them to withdraw the matter for a short time, so that they can reflect and put it in order.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: May I respond first to the first question? The issue of "ultra vires" does not concern the Chair. The original point of order was perfectly in order, legitimate and informative; but, although it informs the House, it does not stop it from proceeding with the business, and I have a responsibility to see that business is carried out.
    Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for that ruling, which was probably expected. Since the first point of order, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has also referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. May I draw your attention to another procedural matter which may be of interest to the Leader of the House?
    We have just approved, through a Division, a domestic statutory instrument that implements an international treaty. That treaty, however, has not yet been ratified by the House, because the ratification of the treaty that obliges us to pass certain domestic legislation is the Question that you are about to put.
    Irrespective of what records of the Committee's proceedings may exist, Madam Deputy Speaker, is it in order for the House to pass a domestic statutory instrument purporting to fulfil the international obligations of a treaty that the House has not yet approved—and, indeed, may not approve, if the Division that may be called does not receive a response from the Ayes?
    I have put the point as clearly as I can. It may have a significant bearing on matters even more important than the orders.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I see that the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household are considering the matter. Surely there is a distinction between the point on which you ruled earlier—the question whether the report of the proceedings of a Committee that happened to sit yesterday should be available to us—and the much more substantive point raised, quite properly, by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The hon. Gentleman

    1021
    asked whether it was possible for us to approve, as secondary legislation, a measure that requires the passage of primary legislation not yet approved by the House.
    This is a matter of general rather than specific law. I am not aware that, in any instance—whether or not it relates to European Community business—we can vote on secondary legislation before the primary legislation has been approved. I should be grateful for a ruling. I realise that Government Front Benchers may not be prepared to comment immediately, but, as this is a matter of serious concern, I wonder whether the Leader of the House could do as he and the Whips have done on occasion in the past week, and arrange for the withdrawal of the motion that raises these procedural anxieties.
    If the motion is in order perhaps we can be told as much, and return to it tomorrow. Surely, however, it would help the House to retain its dignity, save the Government from potential embarrassment and avoid irregular proceedings if the motion were withdrawn and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were not put in the embarrassing position of having to make a ruling before the matter had been properly considered.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are clearly being asked potentially to vote on something that we have no right to vote on. You have accepted that the earlier points of order were legitimate points of order for the Chair. By what means can the House not decide these matters? Will the Leader of the House have to withdraw the motion, or could you accept a motion requesting withdrawal of the orders so that there could be a separate vote upon them when they have been properly published?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair has to deal with the business that is before the House. The motion that is before the House, motion No. 7, is perfectly in order. It is a matter for the Government, not the Chair. It is for the Chair to carry out what is on the Order Paper and has been agreed by the House.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer to the original point of order by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). There is an aspect that has not been considered: that the House has no means formally of knowing what happened in the Committee that considered the instrument. What appears on the Order Paper is unaffected by any vote that may have taken place in Committee.
    If, for example, the Committee was dissatisfied with the instrument and voted against the Government, nothing would have happened; the matter would still have been reported to the House. All that the Committee vote on is whether to report it to the House. Even if the motion had been defeated, it would still have been reported to the House that the Committee had considered the instrument. Therefore, today's Order Paper is significantly uninformative. It is not associated with the report of the Committee's proceedings.
    I had not realised until the hon. Member for Bradford, South pointed it out that the proceedings had not been printed. That illustrates my point: that the Order Paper cannot tell us what happened in Committee and whether the Committee was dissatisfied with the instrument. Only the report of the Committee's proceedings can tell us that.
    1022
    On recent occasions, which have been even more embarrassing to the Leader of the House than this small matter, we have had to rely on the report of hon. Members as to what took place in a Committee. You will recollect that we had quite a long and angry debate one afternoon a week or so ago about who said what and about what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) did or did not say in a Standing Committee.
    In this instance, we are again being asked to rely upon the evidence of hon. Members, not much of which has been proffered so far, as to what happened in the Committee. I put it to you that it is quite unreasonable for the House to be asked to vote on a matter such as this, when it does not know what happened in Committee.
    I recognise that all that it is within your power to do is to put the Question on whatever the Government lay on the Order Paper. Therefore, it is the Leader of the House who is putting the Chair in an embarrassing position. Not content to ride roughshod over the rights of hon. Members, he puts the Chair in the embarrassing position of having no means of responding to their legitimate concerns.
    The Leader of the House is affecting seriously to study the Order Paper but there is no apparent outcome of his study. Is it not time that he relieved you, Madam Deputy Speaker, of this embarrassment by rising to his feet—it may be late in the day and he may be a little unwilling to put you to this embarrassment, and why he is unwilling to remove the order from the Order Paper until the House has had an opportunity to be told what happened in Committee? Will you give him that opportunity, lest he should think that you might not call him, or that he might not catch your eye?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. Those who sit on the Treasury Bench have heard the concerned words that have been made on points of order. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, I have no alternative, and it is my duty, to put the motion on the Order Paper, which is perfectly correct.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).
    That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European School) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
    The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 28.

    Division No. 49]

    [12.24 am

    AYES

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Devlin, Tim

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Boswell, Tim

    Dover, Den

    Bottomley, Peter

    Dunn, Bob

    Bowis, John

    Durant, Tony

    Brazier, Julian

    Eggar, Tim

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Burns, Simon

    Fallon, Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Favell, Tony

    Butler, Chris

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Butterfill, John

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Franks, Cecil

    Carrington, Matthew

    Freeman, Roger

    Colvin, Michael

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Gill, Christopher

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Cran, James

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

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

    Gregory, Conal

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Grist, Ian

    NOES

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Beith, A. J.

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Cohen, Harry

    Nellist, Dave

    Cryer, Bob

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Prescott, John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Haynes, Frank

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Howells, Geraint

    Wallace, James

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Lambie, David

    Livsey, Richard

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Loyden, Eddie

    Mr. Dennis Skinner and

    McFall, John

    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Hague, William

    Neubert, Michael

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

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Norris, Steve

    Harris, David

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Redwood, John

    Hill, James

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hind, Kenneth

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Roe, Mrs Marion

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

    Ryder, Richard

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk sw)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Irvine, Michael

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Jack, Michael

    Stern, Michael

    Jessel, Toby

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Knapman, Roger

    Summerson, Hugo

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Knowles, Michael

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Lang, Ian

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Thurnham, Peter

    Lightbown, David

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Lilley, Peter

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Lord, Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Maclean, David

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Malins, Humfrey

    Wilshire, David

    Mans, Keith

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Wood, Timothy

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Yeo, Tim

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mills, Iain

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Mr. Greg Knight.

    Moss, Malcolm

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pleased to note during the Division that the Leader of the House sought the advice of the Clerks at the Table, but it would have been helpful—although I do not ask you to rule on this—if advice could have been taken earlier and the House could have avoided setting the precedent of considering an instrument before it knows what has been the outcome of the Committee sitting on the instrument. I raise the point, Madam Deputy Speaker, knowing that there is little more that you can say about it, but hoping that something may be learned from it.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The point has been noted.

  Residential Homes (Income Support)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
  12.35 am
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I welcome this opportunity to raise the subject of the difficulties that people on income support now face in meeting their fees in residential homes and, more particularly, in nursing homes. First, however, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) whom I am pleased to see in her place, who, I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, may catch your eye later, and who sat through the night until 7.55 am on 20 December in order to be last hon. Member to speak in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate before time ran out. Her most pertinent questions on elderly people in nursing homes were not answered by a Minister then and have not been answered since. I hope that they will be answered tonight.
  Through the early part of the past decade the Government have encouraged, through the provision of grants, the change from looking after old people in large geriatric hospitals to caring for them in much smaller homes rooted in the community. While local authorities have marked time because of financial constraints, the private sector has expanded fivefold during the period of office of this Government from 35,000 places in 1979 to nearly 200,000 places today—figures given to me by Help the Aged, which celebrates its golden jubilee this year. Currently, however, Government grants are well below the level required to meet even the ordinary running costs of a home providing the minimum laid-down standards of staffing and care.
  Today we have a rising population of elderly people with an ever-lengthening life expectancy. "Social Trends" figures show that there are now 8.75 million people in Britain over the age of 65. Half a million require some form of care; three quarters of a million need residential care and 125,000 require nursing care—and this later group will grow as people live longer.
  To meet this growing demand there has been a massive and very welcome increase in the provision of pleasant, homely, modestly sized nursing and residential homes throughout the country. There are several in my constituency like Colbury house, Totton, whose owners, Mr. and Mrs. Saunders, saw me only last weekend to lobby me about Government funding. Many of these homes are run by charities, whose usual policy is to charge only the direct operating costs against fee income, bearing the burden of general overheads, capital improvements and depreciation themselves. Such homes are caring and well run.
  First, I would like to deal with nursing homes. Before 1988 these institutions could just about make ends meet on the basis of income derived from the Department of Social Services' contribution to the fees. Over the past two years, however, the situation has changed completely. By the middle of this year the Government will have awarded salary increases to nurses totalling approximately 50 per cent. in four years. We all applaud this move as right and fair; but if one considers that increase in the context of the cost of running a nursing home—where nursing and nursing-related salaries comprise almost 60 per cent. of total direct operating costs—one does not have to be a

  1025
  mathematical genius to see that the Government have imposed, at a time of increasing shortage of nurses, additional operating costs of some 30 per cent. in four years. Nursing homes have no option but to pay these increases. They cannot pay less than the NHS and often they have to pay more, and they have also to meet the staffing levels that are laid down by the health authorities. In the same four years, inflation has exceeded 22 per cent. in all, and that has an effect on all the running costs of a nursing home.
  The Government's response to the major increases in costs, which they have awarded or presided over, has been to increase the contribution to nursing home fees provided by the Department of Social Services by 3 per cent. in 1986, 5·7 per cent. in 1987, 2·7 per cent. in 1989 and 5·3 per cent. in 1990. The total increase in four years is only 17·7 per cent. as against a 39 per cent. increase in costs that are outside the control of nursing home operators.
  These facts and figures are confirmed by a number of well-known, well-run charities providing, or involved in, nursing home accommodation, including the Royal United Kingdom Beneficent Association—RUKBA—Methodist Homes for the Aged, Help the Aged, the Abbeyfield Society and Age Concern. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to Lady Jean MacKenzie, a constituent of mine, who is the chairman of RUKBA, and the association's director, Mr. Bill Rathbone, who have spoken to me about these difficulties and whose work in this area is second to none.
  Methodist Homes for the Aged says that the direct costs in its nursing homes without charging capital expenditure, depreciation or overheads were £265 a week in 1989, against a DSS contribution of only £190 a week. RUKBA reckons that its average cost a week was £229, slightly lower than that of Methodist Homes for the Aged because of differences in location and size. We are talking about a fees gap of £40 to £75 per week per head, which will grow as the announced DSS increase of £10 a week from April 1990 does not even meet inflation.
  How does someone who is so poor that he needs income support find more than £2,000 a year? Does the DSS really maintain that its increased support meets the rising nursing costs imposed by the Government over the past two years, not to speak of inflation?
  The position of residential homes is similar, even though the Department's response appears to be more realistic. They received an increase of 7 per cent. to £140 a week in 1989. A further 7 per cent. has been announced for April this year in the fees that the Department will pay, although on the face of it, no nursing is required. If an old person is fit and well, charities can just about make ends meet on the criteria that I have described, but most people do not move straight from being fit to needing full nursing care. They slip gently down the slope of increasing need for more and more care and nursing, becoming more and more dependent. They have to move a long way down that slope before they can be classed as very dependent and receive the extra £15 a week.
  The Government have created a predicament for the elderly and their carers. First, they stimulate the provision of homes, rightly requiring rising standards to ensure that the care provided is what should be provided. Secondly, they create a financial gap as a result of one Department failing to match cost increases that are caused by another.
  Does my hon. Friend the Minister realise the difficulty in finding a home whose fees are at DSS levels and which
  1026
  provides proper care? Does she realise the appalling anguish and distress that is caused to those already in homes by fees shooting beyond what they can afford to pay, with that gap becoming too wide for charities to bridge, even when acting together? Does she realise that she is putting people in a position where they will be unable to stay in the home of their choice? In some parts of the country, residential homes—especially nursing homes—are going out of business at an alarming rate.
  It is frequently said that the elderly are better off now than they have ever been. That may be so for those who have retired in the past five to 10 years, many of whom have occupational pensions that are inflation-proofed to some degree. It is not true of the generation of elderly people for whom charities such as RUKBA are now being asked to care in ever-increasing numbers. This generation, the over-80s, retired prior to 1975, before inflation took off. Many of them do not have occupational pensions. Even if they did, those pensions were almost invariably not inflation-proofed, and have therefore shrunk in value.
  This generation saved for an old age which they thought might extend to their 70s. Today they live into their 80s and 90s, or even to 100. Continued survival is an uphill economic battle and they do not have the savings or the pensions that will enable them to meet the ever-growing gap between the fees that a nursing home must charge to cover its costs and what the Department of Social Services will contribute.
  Charities are doing their best to make up the shortfall in an attempt to allow these old people, who have served our community well, to live and die in peace. They ought to enjoy a sense of security and be able to live in the home of their choice—not a home with high fees, but one operating reasonably and efficiently. Here we have a case of the Government's left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
  Yet the Government owe a duty of care to this generation of old people. It is right to look to charities to do their best, but the massive increase in urgent requests for help from charities to cover the shortfall in fees has grown since 1988 to such an extent that those charities are in danger of being overwhelmed.
  I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister, first, to acknowledge that the help presently provided is inadequate; secondly, to increase substantially the Department's contribution to fees—I know that we are talking about big money: and thirdly, to give to local authorities the power and resources to top up grants paid by Government so that old people are not turned out of their homes. I urge the Government to face the fact that care costs money.
  12.46 am
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am most grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on securing it, as well as on the eloquence with which he has made his case. The Minister will not be unaware that, in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate in which I had the good fortune to secure the last four and a half minutes, two hon. Members had bid to raise the topic, the other being my hon. Friend. Considering the relatively small number of hon. Members, 20, who were on the list, it is significant that two of us had chosen this topic.

  1027
  I think the Minister will not be unaware that this subject is of concern to a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not wish to intrude on the time for the Minister's reply, so I shall keep my remarks brief.
  The Minister will be aware that there is an increasing demand for places for old people and that that demand will increase solidly, at least until the turn of the century. One estimate is that we must provide 40 new beds a week in the public or private sector to cope with the demand. That means considerable capital investment.
  At the moment, it is impossible for people running private residential homes and private nursing homes to recoup their capital costs, even down simply to paying the interest, through the charges that they levy if they have no means of making up the gap betwen the sum of DSS benefits and the charges which it would be reasonable for them to make.
  I draw the Minister's attention again to my constituent, about whom I have written to her twice and on whom I centred my remarks in the debate on the Consolidated Fund. Florence Smith is 93 years of age. She has no means of support whatever other than the benefits that she gets from the state. She is in just about the cheapest nursing home, although a very respectable one, in our area. There is still a substantial gap between the sum of her benefits and the charges being levied. Her only relative is a daughter, herself an old-age pensioner and wholly dependent upon the state pension. From where is Florence Smith to make up the gap?
  Perhaps the most depressing thing I have heard today came from my hon. Friend the Minister of Health when she was speaking to the Select Committee on Social Services. She said that, when the National Health Service and Community Care Bill is enacted, although there will be arrangements for topping up for the new entrants in the system entering residential or nursing care, there will be no such arrangements for those already in the system. Do I take it that Florence Smith, aged 93, can look forward to no relief?
  12.50 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on his success in the ballot and on the skill with which he explained his case. I know that he has wanted to raise this issue for some time.
  I was sorry not to reply to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) in the brief time that she was given in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate—although, as she knows, I was poised to do so. She will also understand that during this debate I cannot reply in detail to her points about an individual constituent, Mrs. Florence Smith, although a letter to my hon. Friend is being prepared.
  In responding to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside and the short intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, I should like to develop two themes. First, I want to say something about the present social security arrangements. They aim to provide help in a way that is simple to understand and to administer. They are,
  1028
  however, concerned with the generality of cases and they have to operate nationally, like other features of income support. Secondly, I want to explain that we, like my hon. Friends, recognise that the system should be improved, and I shall return to that point later.
  I shall first explain a little of the background to public support through social security for the cost of care in homes. Since 1985, the amount of income support payable to residents of independent residential care and nursing homes has been governed by a system of national limits. Before that, each social security office set one maximum amount for fees in residential care homes and another for fees in nursing homes in its area, regardless of the type of care provided. That meant that an elderly person receiving non-specialised nursing care could claim as much benefit as, for instance, a person suffering from a terminal illness who had especially high care needs.
  That was clearly not the best use of resources, and in April 1985 we introduced the present system of separate limits for six different types of care. Those limits are tied to the type of care that a home can provide and differentiate between levels of need and levels of cost, thus more satisfactorily targeting the funds available. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has suggested that, through the system as it was before 1985, we encourage a growth in independent provision only to remove that support, capriciously, later.
  I should say that it was never really by design that social security became a major funding source for the private or voluntary sectors. The Government's view has always been that the right approach is a mix of private, voluntary and statutory provision, but the first concern of the social security system is to provide personal benefit to individuals in need of it. As a result, many people have enjoyed a wider choice of provision in that area. But the point has been made by others, including the Audit Commission and Sir Roy Griffiths, that the growth in independent provision, fuelled by the earlier social security rules, was not the best way to use public money—a point on which my hon. Friend put his finger. The Government are responding to that criticism in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
  The National limits are not rates, but maximum allowances towards fees. In addition, we provide an allowance for personal expenses or pocket money. My hon. Friends will be aware that expenditure on those limits has risen dramatically. In 1979, we were paying benefit to 12,000 claimants in residential care and nursing homes, at a cost of £10 million. Now there are 176,000 claimants resident in that type of accommodation, and they cost the taxpayer £1·1 billion.
  That is an enormous increase. The changes in 1985 enabled us better to direct resources to those most in need of certain types of care, but I must stress that the majority of claimants in residential care and nursing homes throughout the country can meet their fees in full from their income and benefits.
  As the House knows, we are committed to reviewing the limits every year as part of the general review of income support and other benefits. We take account of representations made to us by interested individuals and organisations, such as Age Concern and the National Federation of Housing Associations. Bearing in mind our responsibilities to other groups of elderly and disabled in their own homes, as well as the changing cost factors in care homes, such as registration standards and nurses' pay,

  1029
  to which my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has referred, the increases that we have made in the past—and which we propose for this year—are to the Government's credit.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in October proposals for this year's increases in these limits. They will cost £100 million, increasing the money given to the vast majority of residents by an additional £10. I remind the House that, under our uprating proposals, this year will be the first year since 1985 in which all the limits will increase. When taking decisions on increases, we took account of a wide range of information on costs and charges in homes. This primarily came from the Department's own local office returns, independent research and detailed representations from outside bodies, to which I have referred already. We had also to bear in mind the Government's overall public expenditure objectives and to make the decisions in the light of the cash available for the benefit uprating as a whole.
  In reviewing the limits, we considered the need for regional variations beyond the existing extension of £23 for London. The London extension was increased by more than 30 per cent. in April last year. We considered other regional differentials, but concluded that there was no sufficiently clear pattern of regional variation in charges to justify them and that it was better to use any extra funds available to improve the scheme as a whole. One of the improvements from 1991 will be that the new arrangements for those entering residential care or nursing homes will include the payment of housing benefit, which will automatically take account of regional variations in cost.
  I must emphasise that it has never been the policy of this Government—nor could it be the policy of any Government—to undertake to meet all fees charged by homes, however high they may be. We set the limits with due regard not only to the interests of the residents and the homes concerned, but also to the interests of the taxpayer. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone about the problems for capital investment and the renovation of homes, but I think that she would agree that those matters have to be regarded as business decisions to be made by those running the businesses, in the context of their knowledge of existing financial provision. I shall deal later with arrangements for the future. We are also mindful of the fact that a prime responsibility for providing nursing and medical care to those in need of it lies with the National Health Service.
  It is important to emphasise that income support is only one source of public help for those in need of care. The NHS has powers and duties to provide a place in a hospital or in a contractual bed in an independent nursing home. Local authorities, too, have responsibilities to provide accommodation for those who, through age or disability, are assessed as in need of it if it is not otherwise available.
  These arrangements are, of course, for local decision, but I do not think that these very important powers for helping people needing such care should be overlooked in considering care provision. Expenditure on community health services in England alone has also risen—from £370 million in 1978–79 to £1.6 billion in 1988–89.
  The social security system, good as it has been—and good as it still is—in providing hundreds of thousands of people with the power to choose residential or nursing care, is only part of state provision. The provision of suitable care services for what, as my hon. Friend has
  1030
  pointed out, is a growing number of elderly people, is a challenge that we are determined to meet. But as my hon. Friends are aware, the income support scheme is a national benefit system and is not geared to respond to the rapidly changing and developing system of care in this country.
  We recognise that there are problems with the present system. The Government have given a priority to expenditure on community care, and their record is impressive. We recognise also that the arrangements for people in homes have serious drawbacks. It could indeed be said that income support arrangements have contained an in-built bias towards residential and nursing home care when, perhaps, priority should have been given to developing services to enable people to be supported in their own homes. It is also difficult to assess whether social security payments have been giving value for money. The Government's proposals for reforming the funding of residential care and nursing homes will ensure that, in future people enter a home only when a proper assessment of their needs has been made.
  That brings me to my second theme. The Government's White Paper "Caring for People" and the Health Service and Community Care Bill now before the House will introduce fundamental changes to the structure of hell) we can provide. Local authorities, via social services departments, will be responsible in collaboration with health care professionals for assessing the needs of new applicants for public support for residential or nursing care. If care in a home represents the right choice for an individual, it will be the responsibility of the social services authority to arrange a place in a suitable home.
  Social services authorities will be expected to make maximum possible use of independent providers of residential and nursing home care. They will need to estimate the number of places needed and arrange to meet projected demand. There will be no nationally set limits to the level of fees which may be met by local authorities, and each local authority will exercise its own purchasing power to achieve best value for money because authorities are better placed to judge local care needs, and in future will have the authority and resources to respond quickly to change.
  It is also worth remembering that in London arid other metropolitan areas those same local authorities which are now setting standards in homes will be funding the new scheme. I think that this answers the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside about the source of conflict he sees in locally set standards and centrally set limits.
  I should emphasise that the changes are not about making savings. We shall transfer to the local authorities the resources which the Government would otherwise have provided to finance care for those receiving social security payments in residential care and nursing homes. The transferred resources will allow for the projected growth in the number of people requiring support. The Government believe that the introduction of competitive tendering disciplines to the residential and nursing homes will enhance the ability of social service authorities to obtain the best value for public money. They will be in a strong position to use their new-found purchasing power to ensure high quality care for those who really need it.
  Our policy on the role of the National Health Service in providing continuous care was also reaffirmed in the White Paper. We made it clear that health authorities will still be

  1031
  expected to provide continuous care services in parallel with the independent sector and with the new system of local authority support. Each local authority and health authority will agree on the proper local balance of provision.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone referred to the top-up powers proposed for local authorities in respect of people who are already claimants in local authority homes. As she said, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Knowing my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone as I do, I know that she will pursue the matter with her usual vigour.
  I am sorry that I cannot offer my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside an easy solution to the
  1032
  problems identified by RUKBA and other organisations. However, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to whom my hon. Friend has written, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and members of RUKBA in the near future to hear their concerns direct if that would help.
  I conclude by repeating that the Government are taking clear and concrete steps to address the structural problems in the system of support which have led to the problems that have been raised this evening. We are convinced that the changes will be of major benefit to those on behalf of whom my hon. Friends have spoken so eloquently, and I am very grateful to both of them for giving me the opportunity to spell this out.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past One o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Z-Berths
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any further reserve Z-berths have been introduced to date, since his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley of 5 May 1989,Official Report, column 276.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) on 5 May 1989 at column 276. Swansea and Tilbury are still under discussion with local authorities as possible venues for visits by nuclear-powered submarines.

  Northern Ireland
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will consider paying financial compensation to civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence working in Northern Ireland on the grounds of the special hazards and difficulties of their employment in the Province.

  Mr. Neubert
  A general principle of Civil Service pay is that compensation is not paid because of exposure to risk. The general conditions of service for staff serving in Northern Ireland are, however, kept under review.

  Philippines (Personnel Carriers)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Simba armoured personnel carriers have been supplied to the Philippines by GKN; what assurances have been received as to their proposed use; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement summarising the main features of the deal involving the sale of armoured personnel carriers to the Philippines, including details of offsetting arrangements.

  Mr. Neubert
  It has been the consistent policy of successive Administrations not to provide details of defence exports to specific countries.

  Namibia
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the British military contingent of the United Nations transition assistance group (UNTAG) in Namibia will return to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The majority of the British military contingent will be returning from Namibia towards the end of January. It is planned that the remainder will return by early April in accordance with 682
  UNTAG's overall withdrawal plan. The contributions of the British armed forces and the civilian election advisers have been widely recognised as key elements in the successful involvement of the United Nations in helping Namibia achieve independence, and the House will wish to pay tribute to those concerned for their dedication and professionalism.

THE ARTS

  Copyright Act 1911
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has any plans to seek to extend the provisions of the Copyright Act 1911 to cover material published in the form of electronic or audio-visual media.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans to amend the Copyright Act 1911.

  Royal Ballet
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has received any request from the Royal Ballet for funds to assist it to tour the United States this summer.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received no such request. Overseas touring is the province of the British Council, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Arts Council and Crafts Council
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister for the Arts (1) if he will explain the corporate roles of the Arts Council and the Crafts Council and list the similarities and differences between those roles; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the various craftspeople, educationists, retailers, guilds and societies active in the craft business which were consulted by the author of the Wilding report during the preparation of that report;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the comparative performance, in the fields of business and fund-raising, of the Arts Council and of the Crafts Council;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for merging the Crafts Council with the Design Council.

  Mr. Luce
  In reaching a decision on the future of the Crafts Council, I am considering carefully the many representations I have received on this subject. I shall announce my conclusions as soon as possible, and I shall write to the hon. Member in more detail when I have done so. Before deciding whether to accept Mr. Wilding's recommendation to merge the Crafts Council with the Arts Council, I shall want to be sure that any new structure of support enables the crafts to continue to flourish. This Government are concerned to see the continued expansion of the crafts in this country.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list on a year-by-year basis the number of craftspersons grant-aided by the Crafts Advisory Committee and its successor, the Crafts Council, to help set up new businesses between 1971 and 1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Luce
  The information is as follows:
  683

  Number of individual craftsmen and women assisted

  Year

  Number

  1971–72

  7

  1972–73

  14

  1973–74

  40

  1974–75

  66

  1975–76

  68

  1976–77

  71

  1977–78

  67

  1978–79

  33

  1979–80

  48

  1980–81

  42

  1981–82

  47

  1982–83

  35

  1983–84

  41

  1984–85

  39

  1985–86

  40

  1986–87

  35

  1987–88

  39

  1988–89

  30

  Total

  762

CIVIL SERVICE

  Statutory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many organisations and bodies have been established and taken on staff and premises since 1979 before they were put on a statutory basis by the passage of the authorising legislation through Parliament; and how much has been spent on this basis.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is not held centrally.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  "The Blooding"
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General what reports the Director of Public Prosecutions received concerning the book, "The Blooding"; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has received two reports from the police relating to matters connected with the publication of the book "The Blooding".

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received from the chairman of the Keep Sunday Special Campaign on the enforcement of the Shops Act 1950, in the light of the European Court of Justice's decision on 23 November 1989; if he will publish his response; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) on 17 January 1990 at column 260.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the Government have laid down to retrain and re-employ ivory carvers in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.
  684
  Mr. Maude
  The Hong Kong Government are currently holding discussions with representatives of the ivory carvers with a view to placing them on suitable retraining courses run by the Vocational Training Council or helping them to find alternative employment. The Hong Kong labour department has opened a special register to help ivory workers seeking new jobs and a number of them have already been placed.

  Tibet
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Chinese Government to end martial law in Tibet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  We have frequently made clear to the Chinese our concern about human rights in Tibet. We hope that the Chinese Government will follow up the lifting of martial law in Peking by taking further steps to strengthen the protection of human rights throughout China, including the lifting of martial law in Lhasa.

  Mr. Andrew Balfour
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects Mr. Andrew Balfour to resume his official duties, and in what capacity.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Mr. Balfour has been informed that his future is under consideration.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the amount of corporation tax paid by manufacturing industry in each financial year since 1978–79 and the proportion of the total corporation tax precept comprised by manufacturing in each of those years.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information on a comparable basis is available only from 1986–87 and is as follows:

  Net receipts of corporation tax1 from manufacturing industries

  Year

  Amount £ billion

  As proportion of total onshore CT receipts (net)2 Per cent.

  1986–87

  3·6

  29·7

  1987–88

  4·5

  29·7

  1988–89

  5·9

  32·9

  1 Including advance corporation tax and net of repayments.

  2 Excludes north sea MCT receipts.

  National Savings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by month for the last 12 months, the amount of(a) investments and (b) withdrawals made in National Savings.

  Mr. Ryder
  Figures for National Savings receipts and repayments (including accrued interest) for each of the 12 months of 1989 are as follows:
  685

  Receipts £ million

  Repayments £ million

  January

  534·7

  637·1

  February

  531·0

  745·3

  March

  494·8

  744·0

  April

  482·2

  742·3

  May

  459·1

  674·2

  June

  420·4

  652·2

  July

  399·4

  605·6

  August

  526·8

  1,084·2

  September

  476·4

  1,009·7

  October

  460·3

  776·6

  November

  414·9

  854·7

  December
  1

  289·2

  637·0

  1 Provisional.

  Taking into account gross accrued interest of £2·2 billion, the Department for National Savings' contribution to the public sector debt repayment in 1989 was £1·5 billion.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that United Kingdom aid for eastern European countries is invested in activities which are environmentally beneficial or neutral.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Bilateral British aid is so far confined to Poland. Projects supported there to date comprise mainly training, technical co-operation and consultancy studies which are environmentally neutral. However, the procedures which we use to assess proposals for funding include an explicit consideration of the effects on the environment. We are also discussing with the Polish authorities a programme of assistance in the energy sector, which will look at environmental concerns.

  Know-How Funds
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a list of projects approved to date under the know-how funds for Poland and Hungary, giving details of the type of project, the funding in cash and kind and the name of the United Kingdom organising body.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 18 December. Most activities are being undertaken by firms or institutions engaged directly by the joint FCO/ODA Unit, or by the British Council on the unit's behalf. Additions to the list are given in the table:

  Title:

  Coal industry training

  Description:

  Training in colliery management techniques

  Status:

  Under way

  Cost:

  £38,000

  Title:

  Cracow tourism study

  Description:

  Recommendation of immediate measures to help Cracow cope with the coming tourist season, and development of longer-term proposals

  Status:

  Under way

  Cost:

  £37,000

  Title:

  Agros dried vegetables

  686

  Description:

  Recommendations for productivity improvements in this enterprise

  Status:

  Under way

  Cost:

  £55,000

  Title:

  Company doctor training

  Description:

  Training Polish consultants in techniques of company analysis

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £11,000

  Title:

  Conference on demonopolisation

  Description:

  Discussion of methods and experiences of demonopolisation in relation to the process of economic and political decision taking

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £11,000

  Title:

  Book industry training

  Description:

  Pilot project to assess the training needs of the Polish book industry

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £17,200

  Poland
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide details of expenditure approved to date from the £15 million agriculture project fund for Poland.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No expenditure has yet been approved. We are still at the stage of working out the details of the project.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Engineering Courses
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what surveys have been carried out or commissioned by his Department since 1987 to find out why fewer sixth formers were applying for engineering courses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department and the engineering industry commissioned a survey in 1989 into the factors which influence young people in deciding whether or not to study engineering. It covers both students at school or in further education on A-level mathematics and physics courses, and new entrants to degree courses other than engineering. I expect the results of this survey, which is being carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research, to be available in March-April this year.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what resources he expects to make available to the five research councils to enable the re-equipment of laboratories and the replacement of aging apparatus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  On 15 November at columns 272–76, my right hon. Friend announced that an additional £61 million would be made available for the science budget in 1990–91, together with planning additions for the next two years of £58 million and £59 million. He announced the allocations to the five research councils on 10 January at columns 623–24. It is for the research councils to determine how to spend the additional funds made available to them.
  687
  However, in its advice to the Secretary of State on the allocations, the Advisory Board for the Research Councils advised that a high proportion of these funds should be directed to preserving the quality of United Kingdom science. The ABRC also suggested that the research councils should deploy some of these additional funds to increase equipment provision through research grants, and that funding of new research programmes and interdisciplinary research centres would also include some provision for equipment.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what are his long-term plans with respect to the formation of a national research council; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what are his plans for reform of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what are his proposals for establishing a working group to examine the scope for merging the AFRC and the NERC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The proposal for a single national research council was made in the report of a review group established by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils to look at the organisation of council responsibilities for biological sciences. The culmination of this process was the advice offered by the chairman of the board in his letter of 15 November to my right hon. Friend which recommended that the ABRC should be reconstituted as a smaller body specifically charged with promoting greater harmonisation of research council activities. The board also offered advice about improving co-ordination between the AFRC and NERC research programmes, particularly in terrestrial life sciences.

  My right hon. Friend wrote to the chairman of the ABRC on 19 January announcing the Government's decision to reconstitute the ABRC from 1 April as recommended by the board; and noting that he and his colleagues were considering the board's subsequent advice concerning the AFRC and NERC. For the full text of the letter I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on 19 January.

  Irradiated Rodent Carcases
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the practice of disposal of irradiated rodent carcases used in research inside human cadavers was stopped by the Medical Research Council; and where these cadavers were buried.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council is not aware of the practice of the disposal of irradiated rodent carcases used in research inside human cadavers.

  Director of Education, Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the director of education of the London borough of Wandsworth; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend and I met Mr. Naismith and other interested parties on 9 January to discuss plans for city technology colleges in Wandsworth. I met Mr. Naismith and Councillor Edward Lister on 11 January to discuss a number of ILEA-owned sites in 688
  Wandsworth which will be subject to the property transfer orders being made by my right hon. Friend under section 168 of the Education Reform Act.

  Higher Education (Students)
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase the number of students in higher education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Actively fostered by the Government's education policies and consistent with the general aim of securing further substantial increases in participation above present record levels, we expect to see significant growth in student numbers over the 1990s. Our latest projection indicates full-time equivalent student numbers rising from about 760,000 in 1988 to about 890,000 by the turn of the century.

  Interim Advisory Committee
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the interim advisory committee.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend asked the interim advisory committee to submit its report by the end of January. He will be arranging for its early publication once he has received it.

  Teachers
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to recognise teachers of excellence by means of higher salaries.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Local education authorities can award incentive allowances to teachers demonstrating outstanding ability in the classroom. The Government hope that they will make full use of this discretion.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about his proposals for a student loan scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since the publication of the White Paper on top-up loans for students we have received about 5,050 letters, including 64 petitions. Of those, about 700 have been received since publication of the Education (Student Loans) Bill.

  Disabled Students' Allowance
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list any additional information his Department plans to take into account when calculating the maximum level of the disabled students' allowance;

  (2) if he will list the information his Department took into account when calculating the maximum level of the disabled students' allowance.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend continues to take into account all the relevant information available to him, when determining within available resources the rate and conditions of the disabled students' allowance. This year,
  689
  in addition to information about cost increases generally, he has received representations from interested parties and detailed evidence from disablement organisations about students' circumstances and needs, which he is considering carefully.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy that the upper limit of the disabled students' allowance will not be frozen in the event of the introduction of his proposals for student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  The way in which the disabled students' and other supplementary allowances will be handled in the years after 1990–91 when the main mandatory grant rates are to be frozen will be considered in the light of all the circumstances, including the availability of resources, prevailing at the time.

  Special Educational Needs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the most recent figure for the number of pupils and students with statements of special educational needs in England.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The provisional total number of pupils with statements of special educational needs in England was 138,173 on 21 January 1989, with one authority's return outstanding.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Safeguards
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what proportion of the costs allocated under(a) in annex B of his Department's memorandum to the Energy Committee on fast reactors published in HC 613, page 6, to reprocessing operations, fissure materials, and technical support for the Dounreay plants, in 1989–90, was spent on nuclear safeguards activities;

  (2) what proportion of the costs allocated under (b) in annex B of his Department's memorandum to the Energy Committee on fast reactors, published in HC 613, page 6, to reprocessing services in support of European collaboration, materials, design and component proving and for engineering in the research and development programme in 1989–90 was spent on nuclear safeguards activities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The AEA recovers the cost of its nuclear safeguards work as an overhead from its various nuclear activities. In 1989–90, this cost represents some 0·2 per cent, of costs allocated under item(a) Dounreay plants, and some 0·1 per cent, of expenditure allocated under item (b) research and development in annex B of the Department's memorandum to the Energy Committee on fast reactors.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), 8 January,Official Report, column 474, when the discussions to which he makes reference began; how many meetings have been held to
  690
  date, and where; which states have participated; and when he expects an agreement on safeguarding wastes containing civil material will be concluded.

  Mr. Baldry
  Discussions with the IAEA on the safeguards to be applied to waste containing civil nuclear material began in 1988. Three consultants' meetings have been held in Vienna. These were held on 12 to 16 September 1988, 12 to 16 June 1989 and 9 to 13 October 1989. Representatives from the United Kingdom, United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, Sweden, Canada, and Euratom attended the meetings. The IAEA is currently considering the consultants' recommendations.

WALES

  Landslips
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, between 1979 and 1989, how many local authorities in south and west Wales have applied for Welsh Office financial assistance for villages threatened by landslides and landslips which have not been directly caused by mining; how much money has been granted per annum by his office on such schemes, and if he will list them.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Department has no powers to give financial assistance for villages threatened by landslides and landslips, but it can advise local authorities on financing necessary works.

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local authorities in Wales have applied For central Government assistance since 1979 to tackle coastal land erosion problems; how much money per annum has been allocated by central Government in this period; and which schemes have been supported.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Fourteen maritime district councils in Wales have applied since 1979 for central Government assistance for schemes, approved by the Department under section 5 of the Coast Protection Act 1949, to tackle coastal erosion problems.

  The schemes supported under the Act and the actual amount of grant paid during each financial year are listed in the tables:

  Financial Year

  Grant Paid

  1979–80

  984,331

  1980–81

  980,659

  1981–82

  1,553,313

  1982–83

  2,048,111

  1983–84

  749,718

  1984–85

  1,080,983

  1985–86

  431,933

  1986–87

  1,106,116

  1987–88

  1,436,051

  1988–89

  727,376

  Total

  11,117,890

  The provision for the financial year 1989–90 is £2·9 million.

  Note Some of the grant paid in earlier years will relate to schemes approved before 1979 and not included in the list of schemes in the table.
  691

  Grant aided schemes from 1 January 1979 to 31 March 1989

  Authority

  Scheme

  Aberconwy Borough Council

  Aberconwy Stage 1

  Aberconwy Borough Council

  Aberconwy Stage 2, 3, 4

  Aberconwy Borough Council

  Happy Valley, Llandudno

  Aberconwy Borough Council

  Penrhyn Bay Breakwaters

  Aberconwy Borough Council

  Penmaenmawr Emergency Works

  Carmarthen District Council

  Pendine Sea Wall

  Carmarthen District Council

  Ferryside Phase I, II and III

  Ceredigion District Council

  Pen-yr-Eryyd Peninsula

  Ceredigion District Council

  Cae Bach

  Ceredigion District Council

  Victoria Terrace, Aberystwyth Beach Nourisement

  Ceredigion District Council

  Abearaeron Harbour South Pier

  Ceredigion District Council

  Victoria Terrace Stage I

  Ceredigion District Council

  Victoria Terrace Stage II

  Ceredigion District Council

  Traeth-y-Duffryn Beach, Aberporth

  Ceredigion District Council

  Village Frontage, Borth

  Ceredigion District Council

  Llanina Point, Newquay

  Colwyn Borough Council

  Storm Damage Phase 4

  Colwyn Borough Council

  Rhos-on-Sea

  Colwyn Borough Council

  Rhos-on-Sea Phase 3

  Colwyn Borough Council

  Sea Wall Rhos-on-Sea

  Colwyn Borough Council

  Llandulas Beach, Armourflex

  Colwyn Borough Council

  Emergency Works Sea Wall 1987

  Colwyn Borough Council

  Llandulas Tip

  Colwyn Borough Council

  Llandulas Beach

  Colwyn Borough Council

  West Promenade Wall and Groynes

  Dwyfor Borough Council

  Abersoch

  Dwyfor Borough Council

  Carreg Samson

  Dwyfor Borough Council

  Nefyn Beach

  Dwyfor Borough Council

  Pwllheli Golf Links

  Dwyfor Borough Council

  East Cliff, Aberdaron

  Dwyfor Borough Council

  Pwllheli Harbour Walls

  Dwyfor Borough Council

  Abersoch Port Fawr

  Dwyfor Borough Council

  Cliff Opposite Castle Street, Criccieth

  Llanelli Borough Council

  Llanelli Beach

  Llanelli Borough Council

  Salters Reclamation PI and PII and PIII

  Llanelli Borough Council

  Reinstatement of CP works at Llanelli Beach

  Meirionnydd District Council

  Ynysbrawd Phase 2

  Meirionnydd District Council

  Aberamffra

  Meirionnydd District Council

  Barmouth Drifting Sands

  Meirionnydd District Council

  Grouting Harbour Wall

  Meirionnydd District Council

  Abrasion of Stepped Apron

  Meirionnydd District Council

  Tywyn Road to Bryn-y-Mor

  Ogwr Borough Council

  Porthcawl Breakwater

  Ogwr Borough Council

  Porthcawl Seawall and Promenade

  Port Talbot Borough Council

  Aberavon Sea Wall

  Preseli District Council

  Cwm-yr-Egllys

  Preseli District Council

  Newport Sands

  Preseli District Council

  Whitesands

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  Rhyl and Prestatyn Storm Damage November 1977

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  Barkby Beach Phase 4

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  Ffrith Beach Phase 1

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  Lengthening Groynes Prestatyn

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  Sand Dunes, Ffrith Beach

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  Prestatyn Beach Nourisement

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  Barkby Beach—Splash Point Phase 3

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  Barkby Beach—Emergency Works

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  Ffrith Beach Phase 2

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  Front Street, Pembroke Dock

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  North Cliff, Tenby Stage II

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  Wisemans Bridge Phase I

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  Laston House, Tenby

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  Saundersfoot Harbour South Wall

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  Iron Bar Sands, Tenby

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  Paragon and Sluice Tenby

  692 693

  Authority

  Scheme

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  Castle Beach Slipway, Tenby

  Vale of Glamorgan District Council

  Cliff Walk, Penarth, Phase I

  Vale of Glamorgan District Council

  Cliff Walk, Penarth, Phase II

  Vale of Glamorgan District Council

  Groynes at Penarth Head

  Vale of Glamorgan District Council

  Penarth Promenade

  Ynys Môn-Isle of Anglesey District Council

  Sea Wall Holy Island

  Ynys Môn-Isle of Anglesey District Council

  Trearddior Bay Sea Wall

  Ynys Môn-Isle of Anglesey District Council

  Beaumaris Sea Wall

  Ynys Môn-Isle of Anglesey District Council

  Gallowspoint Beaumaris

  Ynys Môn-Isle of Anglesey District Council

  Lleiniog, Penmaen

  The Arts
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which matters of art in Wales fall under his responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Primary responsibility for arts matters in Wales rests with the Welsh Arts Council. However my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has responsibility for aspects of the visual arts and general museums matters, together with sponsorship responsibility for the National Museum of Wales.

  Japanese Investment
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what efforts are being made to strengthen Wales's chances of obtaining Japanese investment.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Wales continues to be extremely successful in obtaining inward investment from Japan and has secured 19 projects promising over 2,000 jobs in the last two years. A number of measures have been introduced to further improve this excellent performance, including the setting up of a board of experienced business people to advise Welsh Development International; provision of additional staff for Welsh Development International, including two new deputy directors; and strengthening of their Tokyo office. I have myself undertaken two inward investment missions to Japan, the last in September 1989, and I regularly meet executives from Japanese companies. I was also pleased to officially open the new Centre for Japanese Studies, in Cardiff, in November 1989. There are good prospects for further investment from Japan.

  Gross National Product
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will take steps to maintain gross national product figures for Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  GDP for Wales and other areas of the United Kingdom is estimated annually. To calculate GNP would necessitate the estimation of net property income from outside Wales which would involve income from external (to Wales) investment and income generated in Wales by non-residents. Little information is available on these elements.

  Hill Livestock Allowances
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total value to farmers within less-favoured areas in Wales of the hill livestock compensatory allowance.
  694
  Mr. Peter Walker
  Farmers in the less-favoured areas in Wales received £30·9 million in hill livestock compensatory allowances in 1988–89.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the future levels of hill livestock compensatory allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have received representations about HLCA rates from both the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales. This matter has also been raised with me by several hon. Members in correspondence and questions in the House.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of general practitioner practices in Wales; and what proportion of those practices have a computer.

  Mr. Grist
  The total number of general practitioner practices in Wales is 548; approximately 25 per cent, of those practices have a computer system.

  Milk
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any liquid milk is being imported into Wales from Ireland for either liquid consumption or manufacturing purposes.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No liquid milk is currently being imported into Wales from Ireland.

  Doctors and Pharmacists
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the steps by which consideration is given to an application to dispense by(a) doctors or (b) pharmacists in respect of rural areas in Wales, including all the available appeal stages; what changes he plans to make to that procedure for the future; and who will be responsible for each stage in the new procedure.

  Mr. Grist
  The controls on dispensing in rural areas are governed by the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1974 (as amended). There are two sets of controls under these regulations for doctors and pharmacists. They are as follows:

  Doctors—A doctor may make application to the responsible family practitioner committee (FPC). The FPC refers the matter to the rural dispensing committee (RDC) for determination. The regulations provide for an appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of the RDC.
  695
  Pharmacists—Pharmacists may make an application to the responsible FPC. The FPC refers the matter to the RDC for determination. There is provision for appeal to the Secretary of State. Additionally, following a successful outcome the pharmacist would have to secure admission to the FPC's pharmaceutical list, decisions on which are taken by the pharmacy practices sub-committee (PPSC) of the FPC. Appeals against decisions of a PPSC are considered by an appeal panel appointed by the FPC from a list of people drawn up by the Secretary of State.

  So far as arrangements for the future are concerned I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him on 23 January 1990.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy with regard to the creation of a consolidated body to deal with appeals on professional matters in respect of doctors and pharmacists; and whether it is his intention for Welsh appeals to be dealt with through such an England and Wales body.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him on 23 January 1990.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many community health councils in Wales are(a) in favour and (b) against his proposed restructuring of community health councils in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The consultation period on the proposals for restructuring community health councils in Wales runs until the end of February 1990. Virtually all the councils are yet to respond.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish the responses of each community health council in Wales to his proposals for changing the number and structure of community health councils in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Any council is free to publish its response.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which community health councils in Wales have indicated(a) approval and (b) disapproval for the National Health Service and Community Care Bill's provisions and the way they will affect Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on Friday 8 December.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to upgrade any trunk roads in Wales during the next five years to dual carriageway standard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Our plans for upgrading trunk roads in Wales to dual carriageway standard in the period to March 1994 are set out in "Roads in Wales—Progress and Plans for the 1990s".

  Central European Time
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's policy towards the imposition of central European time in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  696
  Mr. Peter Walker
  A Government Green Paper that considered the options open to the United Kingdom with regard to summer time arrangements, including harmonisation with central European time, was published in June 1989. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will be announcing the results in the near future.

  Road, Rail and Air Links
  Mr. Geraint Ho wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to improve Wales's road, rail and air links with Europe prior to 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Improvements to the road network, including east-west links to Europe, are set out in "Roads in Wales—Progress and Plans for the 1990s". Improvements to rail and air links are commercial matters for the operators concerned.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales further to his statement of 18 December 1989, if he will now provide further information on the operation of his scheme for community charge transitional relief in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am today placing in the Library revised calculations showing the effects of the scheme in Wales in 1990–91. Further calculations will be required for future years.

  The calculations show that personal chargepayers in 320 Welsh communities will receive relief in 1990–91. I expect 750,000 chargepayers, more than one in three of all personal chargepayers, to benefit from the scheme. Chargepayers in most valleys communities, and in many rural communities, can expect to see reductions in their charges.

  I will be laying regulations implementing the scheme shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Recycling
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he intends to take to encourage the use of products manufactured from recycled materials.

  Mr. Forth
  I have established, under the aegis of my Department's business and the environment unit, an advisory group of more than 40 recycling experts to provide recommendations to Government on how to improve the United Kingdom's recycling performance. Smaller working groups have recently been convened to examine specific materials, and the means of increasing demand for recycled products is one of the critical issues which each group is addressing.

  EC Framework Programme
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the EEC framework research programme and Her Majesty's Government's participation.
  697
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The 1987–1991 EC framework programme for research and development has funding of 5·4 billion ecus (£3·6 billion). At the Research Council of Ministers on 15 December 1989 where I represented Her Majesty's Government the Council reached unanimous agreement on a new framework programme for 1990–1994 with funding of 5·7 billion ecus (£4·2 billion) (I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 17 January,Official Report, column 318.). There is, therefore, a two-year overlap between the two programmes. The United Kingdom currently contributes 19 per cent, to Community research and development expenditure.

  United Kingdom scientists, research establishments, universities and companies participate in all the specific programmes under the framework programme. Individual projects require participation by organisations from more than one member state and the United Kingdom is typically involved in 50 to 80 per cent, of projects and receives 20 to 25 per cent, of the funding available.

  Ferranti
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what study his Department has made of the Coopers and Lybrand report on the Ferranti fraud; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  As I said in reply to the hon.Member's questions about Ferranti in December 1989, the Serious Fraud Office is investigating allegations of fraud concerning the company. It is for the Serious Fraud Office to assess the relevance to its investigation of the Coopers and Lybrand report.

  Steel Imports
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list in the Official Report the total tonnage of steel imported into the United Kingdom by British Steel pic during the last year, and any assessment made of the likely tonnage to be imported into the United Kingdom during the current year by British Steel plc.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not available.

  Steel Demand (Ravenscraig)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of whether existing steel demand within a 250 mile radius of the Ravenscraig steelworks is sufficient fully to load the plant throughout the year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Alcohol
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in light of the merger of Bass and Irish Distillers, what plans he has to ensure that the trade in alcoholic beverages does not become a monopoly and to provide safeguards for the interests of consumers.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]In the event of such a merger situation qualifying for investigation under the merger control provisions of the Fair Trading Act it would be examined in the normal way 698
  by the Director General of Fair Trading who would advise my right hon. Friend on the competition issues raised and on the question of reference to the MMC. Following the MMC report on the supply of beer, a number of steps have been taken to promote greater competition in the on-licensed trade throughout the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member has any particular concerns about competition in the market for alcoholic beverages he should bring them to the attention of the director general.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement about the extent of the efficiency scrutiny of the Civil Aviation Authority which he announced on 12 December.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has been asked to investigate the efficiency and costs of, and service provided by, the Civil Aviation Authority in supplying navigation and air traffic control services. The full extent of the investigation is contained in the reference made on 12 December 1989, a copy of which is in the Library.

  1992 and Jobs
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the EEC Commission consulted Her Majesty's Government on its plans to consult political leaders from areas of the United Kingdom at a conference in Brussels on 25 January for the purpose of studying the implications of the report of 1992 and jobs in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]Her Majesty's Government were not consulted by the Commission about the meeting on 25 January. We understand that this will not be a conference, but a meeting between Commissioner Millan and several representatives of RETI, an organisation representing traditional industrial areas within the Community. It is not yet known who the representatives will be, or from which member states. We understand that the meeting is at RETI's request, but that it is not specifically to discuss the Commission-Louvain university report. It is not customary for the Commission to consult member states about meetings of this kind.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EEC Commission decided to initiate an inquiry through the Catholic university of Louvain, Belgium, to study the impact of the 1992 measures on jobs in the United Kingdom and elsewhere; if Her Majesty's Government were consulted; and if he will take steps to inquire about the cost to the Commission of this exercise.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]We understand that the Commission decided to initiate this study, commissioned by it from the Catholic university of Louvain, towards the end of 1988. Her Majesty's Government were not consulted. The Commission may undertake its own studies of this kind without consulting member states, and does so regularly. However, proposals for legislative decisions flowing from such studies are of course a matter for member states in the Council of Ministers. No information is available on the cost of this exercise at present.
  699
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has been provided with a copy of the inquiry into 1992 and jobs by the EEC Commission; what were the conclusions of the report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]The Commission has not formally made available copies of this report, which is not yet ready for publication. The report was obtained by the press without the Commission's consent. The report still has the status of a Commission internal document. The Commission has however made a full copy of the report available to Her Majesty's Government informally. The report is not specifically about the impact of the single market on jobs, but analyses a wide range of socio-economic issues related to the single market in six individual regions—Strathclyde, South Yorkshire, Pays Basque, Wallonia, Nord Pas de Calais and Nord Rhein Westphalen. Its conclusions are complex, and we are still studying them. We shall deposit a copy of the report in the Library of the House as soon as possible.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which areas of Europe were identified in the EEC report on 1992 and jobs as being likely to suffer most.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]The full Commission-Louvain university report on the impact of the single market on certain regions was received in the Department only this week. We are still studying its conclusions.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the legislative and administrative changes, and proposals for change to the statutory sick pay scheme since its introduction.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The following legislative and administrative changes have been made to statutory sick pay (SSP) since it was introduced in April 1983:—

  April 1984:

  Uprating of SSP rates.

  March 1985:

  Restriction on which days can be treated as qualifying days for SSP.

  April 1985:

  Uprating of SSP rates;

  Introduction of compensation for national insurance contributions employers pay on SSP.

  April 1986:

  Uprating of SSP rates;

  Entitlement to SSP increased from 8 weeks in a tax year to 28 weeks in a period of incapacity for work;

  The linking period between two periods of incapacity for work increased from 2 to 8 weeks;

  Certain periods of entitlement to SSP with a previous employer to be taken into account by new employer when determining maximum SSP entitlement;

  Introduction of Leaver's Statement;

  Amendment of SSP Exclusion and Transfer Forms;

  Days of entitlement to SSP deemed as days of entitlement to sickness benefit for invalidity benefit purposes;

  SSP treated as earnings for Attachment of Earnings Act.

  700
  April 1987:

  Uprating of SSP rates;

  Abolition of middle rate of SSP;

  Liability for payment of SSP transferred to Secretary of State where employer bankrupt or defaults;

  Minor procedural changes to take account of introduction of Statutory Maternity Pay;

  April 1988:

  Uprating of SSP rates.

  April 1989:

  Uprating of SSP rates;

  Simplification/Amalgamation of SSP Forms.

  The following changes are proposed from April 1990:—
  Uprating of SSP rates, including earnings band between rates: Introduction of self-certificate form for optional use by employees and employers.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the increase in real terms since 1979 in the income of pensioners who receive all their income from state benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Between 1979 and 1986 the average total net income of pensioner tax units who obtained all their income from state benefits rose by 25 per cent. in real terms.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  Benefit Regulations
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will seek to repeal regulation 51 of the Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 and regulation 52 of the Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 20 December 1989]A de minimis rule of this kind—50p a week for community charge benefit, as for the current system of rate rebates and other housing benefits—is a sensible feature of all the income-related benefit schemes, and we have no plans to repeal it.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Community Workshops
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about his policy for preventing young people from coming into contact with paramilitaries in Belfast whilst unemployed; if he has any plans to delay changes to the funding arrangements for community workshops; and what progress has been made by the Department of Economic Development in preparing for these changes.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government's social and economic policies are designed to address the problems of the unemployed and include specific education and training schemes, improved access to available employment through job clubs and job markets, the creation of employment through inward investment, setting up and expansion of small businesses, and schemes such as ACE, and encouragement to bona fide local community organisations to become directly involved in improving social and economic conditions in local areas.
  701
  The Belfast action teams, operating over a large area of the city. work in partnership with community groups. To encourage groups to make use of the services and facilities provided by the statutory bodies some pump-priming funding is available.

  There are no plans to delay the implementation of the new funding arrangements. However, discussions have taken place and will continue with representatives of community workshops to consider whether modifications need to be made to the new funding arrangements to meet their concerns.

  Flooding
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will take steps to encourage householders to insure house contents against flooding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is a matter for individual householders to determine in the knowledge that there is no general responsibility on Government to compensate for losses arising from had weather.

  The Housing Executive's policy with regard to household and contents insurance is to encourage its tenants to arrange adequate cover themselves and it emphasises its importance by means of enclosing leaflets with general correspondence.

  Medical Research
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to strengthen existing links and priorities in medical research in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement about additional resources for the Province in this field.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]: The integration of the hospital, community health and primary care services, together with the personal services, in a unified management structure in Northern Ireland gives the Province a considerable advantage in identifying research opportunities in both the clinical and operation fields which reflect its particular needs.

  The research programme of the DHSS in Northern Ireland is undertaken principally through three separate organisations whose activities are co-ordinated through common research priorities and an overlap in membership. Central direction and funding of clinical and operation research is secured primarily through the department research group (DRG). This considers research proposals in the context of the Department's priorities, which are selected having regard to national priorities. Secondly, the Department also provides direct funding for a core programme of research undertaken by the recently established health and health care research unit (HHCRU) located in the faculty of medicine of the Queen's university of Belfast. The membership of the unit's programme of work is drawn from the health and social service boards as well as the university medical faculty and the Department. The third element of the Department's research programme is the support of local

  1987–88

  1988–891

  Full-time

  Part-time

  FTE2

  Full-time

  Part-time

  FTE2

  St. Mary's College3 4 5

  635

  292

  n.a.

  692

  450

  n.a.

  Stranmillis College4 5

  636

  153

  n.a.

  663

  246

  n.a.

  The Queen's University of Belfast

  7,537

  1,696

  7,908

  7,680

  1,690

  8,086

  702
  research undertaken on its behalf by the clinical research awards advisory committee (CRAAC). This committee is made up of senior clinicians with research backgrounds together with departmental, university and board representatives. The committee considers applications for grants for research projects in the clinical field against priorities determined locally.

  The Government intend to strengthen existing links with the services through regular discussions with boards on research priorities. These priorities will then provide the content for the commissioning of research by the DRG, HHCRU and CRAAC. This initiative will strengthen existing arrangements for the identification and funding of research projects in both the clinical and operational fields. Currently available resources are considered adequate For the Province in this field.

  Cultural Traditions Programme
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funds he has made available under the cultural traditions programme to(a) the Ultach Trust and (b) the Ulster Society.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: A sum of £7,500 has been paid to the Ultach Trust to assist the trust in developing its future plans. The Ulster Society has been awarded £3,224 to support the publication of "The Ulster Covenant" by Gordon Lucy.

  Students
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many students were enrolled at(a) St. Mary's teacher training college and (b) St. Joseph's teacher training college for the academic years 1987–88 and 1988–89, broken down as far as convenient into full-time, part-time and full-time equivalents;

  (2) how many students were enrolled at Queen's university, Belfast, for the academic years 1987–88 and 1988–89, broken down as far as convenient into full-time, part-time and full-time equivalents;

  (3) how many students were enrolled at Stranmillis college for the academic years 1987–88 and 1988–89, broken down as far as convenient into full-time, part-time and full-time equivalents;

  (4) how many students were enrolled at the university of Ulster, Jordanstown, for the academic years 1987–88 and 1988–89, broken down as far as convenient into full-time, part-time and full-time equivalents;

  (5) how many students were enrolled at the university of Ulster/Magee college for the academic years 1987–88 and 1988–89, broken down as far as convenient into full-time, part-time and full-time equivalents;

  (6) how many students were enrolled in the university of Ulster, Coleraine, for the academic years 1987–88 and 1988–89 broken down as far as convenient into full-time, part-time and full-time equivalents.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: The available information is as follows:

  703

  1987–88

  1988–891

  Full-time

  Part-time

  FTE2

  Full-time

  Part-time

  FTE2

  University of Ulster6

  Belfast

  560

  112

  n.a.

  624

  54

  n.a.

  Jordanstown

  4,485

  2,714

  n.a.

  4,609

  2,882

  n.a.

  Coleraine

  2,461

  330

  n.a.

  2,380

  331

  n.a.

  Magee

  462

  514

  n.a.

  683

  570

  n.a.

  7,968

  3,670

  9,956

  8,296

  3,837

  10,410

  1Figures for 1988–89 are provisional.

  2FTE = Full-time equivalent student load. Separate figures cannot be computed for individual campuses on the same basis as the overall university FTE.

  3St. Joseph's College was amalgamated with St. Mary's College in September 1985.

  4"Full-time" figures show enrolments on initial teacher training courses, including Post Graduate Certificate of Education.

  5"Part-time" figures include both award-bearing and non-award-bearing courses.

  6Figures have been included for each of the four campuses of the University of Ulster.

  Museums
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show what sums have been paid by the Government to each museum in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years for which figures are available; of these sums, in each case how much was used to encourage tourism; and what are the projections for the current and the next two financial years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: The information requested is as follows:

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  Ulster Museum

  2,523,000

  2,802,000

  2,865,000

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  1,878,500

  1,914,000

  2,086,000

  Ulster American Folk Park

  397,000

  665,000

  631,000

  The estimated expenditure figures for the current year and the provisional planning figures for the next two financial years are:

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–5 £

  Ulster Museum

  3,338,000

  3,394,000

  3,633,000

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  2,138,000

  2,187,000

  2,239,000

  Ulster American Folk Park

  524,000

  534,000

  545,000

  While the museums are among the attractions most popularly visited in Northern Ireland, resources are not allocated to encourage tourism as such.

  Cattle Prices
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to what was the average gross margin for the year 1984 to 1989 in

  1. Summary

  (a) April 1988 (not available for March 1988)

  Board area

  Total number of full-time teacher in post

  Total number of promotion allowances in payment

  Percentage

  Belfast

  3,697

  1,252

  34

  North-Eastern

  4,113

  1,252

  31

  Southern

  3,832

  977

  26

  South-Eastern

  3,356

  972

  29

  Western

  3,418

  945

  28

  704
  respect of (a) fat steers, (b) fat heifers and (c) beef bulls; and what is his estimate of the average net profit for each said animal in each year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: The information requested is not available.

  Suckling Calves
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the price of suckling calves in the principal markets for such cattle in Northern Ireland in the months of September, October and November in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 23 January 1990: The information requested is as follows:

  Average prices (£/head) at auction

  September

  October

  November

  1986

  214

  230

  224

  1987

  268

  302

  294

  1988

  364

  361

  349

  1989

  318

  337

  319

  Incentive Allowances
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teachers were employed in March 1988 in each education and library board area; how many teachers in each area were in receipt of an incentive allowance; what percentage this was of the total employed in each area; and how many teachers in receipt of an incentive allowance in each education and library board area held allowances that were(a) incentive A, (b) incentive B, (c) incentive C, (d) incentive D and (e) incentive E.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:
  705

  Board area

  Total number of full-time teachers in post

  Total number of promotion allowances in payment

  Percentage

  Total

  18,416

  5,398

  30

  (b) March 1989

  Belfast

  3,656

  1,511

  42

  North-Eastern

  4,122

  1,522

  37

  Southern

  3,842

  1,353

  36

  South-Eastern

  3,374

  1,263

  38

  Western

  3,444

  1,222

  36

  Total

  18,438

  6,871

  38

  2. Analysis of Promotion Allowances per Board Area

  Allowance type

  Total number in payment April 1988

  March 1989

  a. Belfast

  A

  119

  349

  B

  761

  755

  C

  12

  63

  D

  264

  238

  E

  96

  106

  Total

  1,252

  1,511

  b. North-Eastern

  A

  163

  412

  B

  745

  766

  C

  9

  24

  D

  243

  232

  E

  92

  88

  Total

  1,252

  1,522

  c. Southern

  A

  123

  464

  B

  629

  647

  C

  1

  26

  D

  171

  155

  E

  53

  61

  Total

  977

  1,353

  d. South-Eastern

  A

  102

  370

  B

  623

  623

  C

  10

  48

  D

  167

  156

  E

  70

  66

  Total

  972

  1,263

  e. Western

  A

  126

  362

  B

  614

  620

  C

  7

  45

  D

  143

  139

  E

  55

  56

  Total

  945

  1,222

  Kells Police Station
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) whether the police inquiry team led by Deputy Chief Constable John Stevens has interviewed to date all police officers who served at Kells police station, Co. Antrim, during the period 31 October 1986 to 31 October 1988;

  (2) whether the police inquiry team led by Deputy Chief Constable John Stevens has interviewed to date a member
  706
  of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who previously served at Kells police station, Co. Antrim, and who was charged in October 1988 with the illegal possession of arms, ammunition, and detonators;

  (3) whether the police inquiry team led by Deputy Chief Constable John Stevens has interviewed to date two police officers previously stationed at Kells police station, who resigned from the force between 1 January 1988 and 1 March 1989;

  (4) whether the police inquiry team led by Deputy Chief Constable John Stevens has interviewed to date three police officers previously stationed at Kells police station, who were transferred to other duties during the period I June 1988 and 1 March 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: These are matters for the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As court proceedings involving these matters have not been concluded, it would not be appropriate to comment further.

HEALTH

  Breast and Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the rates of cancer of the breast and cervix in the north-east of England for those aged(a) 20 to 25 years, (b) 25 to 30 years, (c) 30 to 35 years, (d) 35 to 40 years, (e) 40 to 45 years, (f) 45 to 50 years, and (g) 50 to 55 years; what were the average rates for the rest of the United Kingdom for the same age groups for each year from 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 December 1989, columns 677–79]: I regret that incorrect figures were given in the table for the United Kingdom as a whole. An amended table is as follows. The exact information requested could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Newly diagnosed cases of cancer rates (per 100,000 population) for female breast1 and the cervix uteri2 by age group for Northern Regional Health Authority, Yorkshire Reginal Health Authority. and United Kingdom, 1980–84

  Year

  Age-group

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  United Kingdom

  Malignant neoplasm of the female breast

  1980

  20-24

  0·86

  1·53

  1·12

  25-29

  6·72

  5·94

  6·64

  30-34

  27·78

  26·78

  20·46

  35-39

  44·35

  41·67

  48·70

  40–44

  98·10

  97·83

  96·42

  707

  Year

  Age-group

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  United Kingdom

  45–49

  151·69

  152·37

  139·29

  50–54

  146·47

  123·42

  140·28

  1981

  20–24

  1·70

  0·75

  0·76

  25–29

  7·66

  9·39

  6·69

  30–34

  26·57

  20·50

  20·45

  35–39

  64·94

  61·36

  47·43

  40–44

  88·84

  114·00

  93·06

  45–49

  128·00

  134·28

  133·45

  50–54

  113·61

  147·06

  142·02

  1982

  20–24

  —

  0·73

  0·51

  25–29

  9·63

  3·38

  5·87

  30–34

  24·34

  14·47

  20·29

  35–39

  64·23

  45·30

  49·44

  40–44

  109·20

  94·38

  95·14

  45–49

  144·66

  146·79

  141·68

  50–54

  123·51

  140·59

  146·58

  1983

  20–24

  1·63

  0·71

  0·90

  25–29

  3·83

  6·71

  6·17

  30–34

  22·12

  21·67

  21·81

  35–39

  38·61

  47·35

  48·22

  40–44

  82·19

  96·93

  89·75

  45–49

  147·64

  138·24

  130·31

  50–54

  120·98

  155·31

  141·30

  1984

  20–24

  1·60

  2·07

  1·36

  25–29

  10·32

  4·90

  6·19

  30–34

  28·38

  27·90

  20·47

  35–39

  48·71

  47·92

  46·81

  40–44

  71·83

  103·68

  86·33

  45–49

  126·28

  141·42

  131·76

  50–54

  144·47

  138·07

  141·73

  Malignant Neoplasm of the Cervix Uteri

  1980

  20–24

  1·73

  4·60

  2·58

  25·29

  9·61

  7·63

  10·65

  30–34

  18·82

  21·42

  16·26

  35–39

  26·61

  28·41

  21·64

  40–44

  18·95

  26·68

  21·04

  45–49

  15·73

  14·13

  19·63

  50–54

  28·45

  30·13

  23·44

  1981

  20–24

  1·70

  2·24

  2·46

  25–29

  9·58

  17·08

  12·55

  30–34

  15·06

  23·54

  19·40

  35–39

  19·48

  27·47

  19·64

  40–44

  20·50

  27·00

  23·31

  45–49

  13·71

  27·47

  22·46

  50–54

  30·01

  25·49

  22·83

  1982

  20–24

  1·66

  2·92

  2·31

  25–29

  12·52

  17·77

  10·11

  30–34

  15·92

  27·33

  18·72

  35–39

  17·79

  28·52

  19·94

  40–44

  25·29

  39·16

  24·35

  45–49

  20·67

  18·35

  20·79

  50–54

  20·59

  17·82

  21·07

  1983

  20–24

  0·82

  5·66

  1·94

  25–29

  13·40

  22·65

  13·79

  30–34

  21·15

  35·00

  20·87

  35–39

  18·83

  22·47

  21·26

  40–44

  27·40

  27·70

  22·93

  45–49

  16·15

  26·24

  18·86

  50–54

  23·31

  22·04

  21·15

  1984

  20–24

  0·80

  2·76

  1·79

  25–29

  10·32

  13·88

  12·24

  30–34

  29·35

  32·97

  24·34

  35–39

  19·30

  36·92

  25·00

  40–44

  19·08

  31·98

  23·06

  45–49

  20·48

  31·09

  22·64

  50–54

  19·19

  27·41

  22·07

  708
  1 Assigned to an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th revision code 174.

  2 Assigned to the ICD code 180.

  Environmental Health Officers
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations have taken place, and are taking place, on the status and qualifications of environmental health officers under European Economic Community directives for the inspection of food in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's policy continues to be one of ensuring as far as is possible and reasonable that EC food directives are negotiated and implemented by reference to the existing system of food inspection in the United Kingdom and the important role that the environmental health officers play in it.

  Lead
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will outline current studies into the pervasiveness of lead in the environment and in diet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 January 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has recently published food surveillance report No. 27 "Lead in Food: Progress Report" which gives details of studies on lead in the diet and the measures taken to reduce exposure. This records the significant drop in lead intake from this source which has occurred over the last decade.

  Numerous studies on lead levels in soil, dusts, stream sediments, air and water have also been carried out in recent times together with blood lead level monitoring in children and adults. These environmental programmes have been kept under review by the Department of the Environment steering group on environmental lead monitoring and used to influence and check on the effectiveness of action taken to reduce exposure.

  Monitoring of lead in the diet, air and water is continuing and research is being carried out into the contribution made by lead in dust and soil to the total exposure of children to this metal.

  Ambulance Service
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to ensure that the police and armed forces have made available to them for immediate use ambulances which are public property.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the event of the 999 service being disrupted within any particular ambulance authority, it is open to the chief constable and local managers jointly to consider the use of NHS ambulances by police crews if, in their view, that would strengthen the contingency arrangements locally and improve the service to the public. Where the armed forces are deployed to assist in the provision of an emergency service, they use their own vehicles, which are adequately equipped and with which they are familiar.

  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that ambulances which are the property of local or other public authorities are not used in furtherance of the views of one party in the present dispute within the ambulance service.
  709
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for local managers after considering all the circumstances to determine what action, if any, should be taken to prevent the use of NHS ambulances for unauthorised purposes.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the budget allocations for community health councils for the current year and on a constant value basis for 1984 and 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The expenses of community health councils are met by and are reported along with the total expenditure of the health authorities concerned. It is for health authorities to decide the level of funding they provide to community health councils and information on the allocations are not routinely collected centrally.

  Following are expenditure figures for the years requested derived from the summarised accounts of health authorities in England:

  Total expenditure on community health councils

  £000 (cash)

  £000 (at 1988–89 prices)

  1979–80

  4,031

  7,590

  1984–85

  6,341

  7,800

  1988–89

  8,004

  8,004

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1979–80 and 1984–85 have been expressed at 1988–89 prices by the use of the gross domestic product deflator.

  2. The figures for 1988–89 are provisional in that they are as yet subject to audit.

  Aging
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings have been held between Ministers and officials from different Government Departments to co-ordinate Government policy on aging and related issues in the last 12 months; and what were the topics discussed at each of these meetings.

  Mr. Freeman
  Frequent meetings are held between Ministers and officials in the relevant Departments to co-ordinate policies in this area.

  Tiludronate
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement concerning the use of the drug, Tiludronate as an alternative to hormone replacement therapy.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The drug Tiludronate is not licensed in the United Kingdom.

  Listeria
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is currently taking to ensure adequate inspection of dairy products for evidence of listeria.

  Mr. Freeman
  The public health laboratory service is preparing a report following a study of listeria in dairy products. Once this report is available, the Department will consider what, if any, additional measures are required to maintain an adequate inspection level of dairy products.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of(a) residential homes for the aged and (b) nursing homes which have been opened since the passage of the Registered Homes Act 1984, in the cities of Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol, Newcastle upon Tyne and in the boroughs of Brighton, Eastbourne, Bournemouth, Torquay, Southport and Hastings.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. Residential care homes are registered with local social services authorities and nursing homes with district health authorities. The tables give details of the number of establishments catering for the elderly in the areas to which the hon. Member refers:

  Information recorded on form K036 about institutions1 registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984

  District health authorities

  As at 31 December 1985 number of institutions1 with beds for the elderly2

  As at 31 March 1988 number of institutions1 with beds for the elderly2

  Newcastle

  0

  1

  Leeds Eastern, Leeds Western

  9

  33

  Sheffield

  6

  14

  Brighton

  28

  48

  Eastbourne

  37

  38

  Hastings

  36

  39

  East Dorset

  77

  82

  Bristol

  32

  50

  Torbay

  24

  32

  North, East, South, West and Central Birmingham

  11

  30

  Liverpool

  9

  26

  Southport

  36

  58

  North, Central and South Manchester

  5

  13

  1 Institutions include private hospitals, nursing homes, mental nursing homes and clinics.

  2 Only including beds intended for those aged 65 years and over requiring long stay nursing care.

  Number of registered 1 residential care homes for the elderly

  At 31 March:

  Local Authority

  1985 2

  1988 3

  Liverpool

  29

  41

  Leeds

  42

  61

  Manchester

  36

  53

  Sheffield

  15

  29

  Birmingham

  86

  127

  Avon

  180

  201

  Newcastle

  23

  24

  West Sussex

  293

  314

  East Sussex

  366

  398

  Hampshire

  319

  409

  Devon

  516

  669

  Sefton

  99

  131

  1 Includes homes exempt from registration under section 1(5)(j) of the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  2 Includes homes which are reported as catering for a mix of clients.

  3 Provisional

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessments take place of aged persons before they are placed in either a nursing home or residential care; whether he expects to make changes to these procedures; and if he will make a statement.
  711
  Mr. Freeman
  The assessment of elderly people for whom residential care is arranged by local authorities is a matter for the authority concerned. At present no assessment is necessary before a person enters a residential or nursing home in the independent sectors, with or without help from income support.

  Our White Paper, "Caring for People" proposes that from April 1991 local authority social services departments should carry out an appropriate assessment of individuals' needs for social care, including residential and nursing home care, in collaboration with medical, nursing and other caring agencies as necessary and having regard to the wishes of the individual and his carers, before deciding the appropriate type of care. The National Health Service and Community Care Bill at present before the House would lay a duty on local authorities to carry out such assessments. The preparation of guidance to local authorities on assessment and case management is also in hand.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has about the length of time taken for the registration of residential care homes(a) nationally and (b) in the city of Liverpool, from the time an application is submitted under the Registered Homes Act 1984 until a certificate has been issued.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally.

  Welfare Milk
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what savings from the reduction in the value of welfare milk tokens will accrue to his Department in the year 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is estimated that the revised pricing structure for the supply of liquid welfare milk in England will save some £7·5 million in the financial year 1990–91. The entitlement of beneficiaries to welfare milk is not affected by this change.

  Independent Inspection Units
  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the consultation document on independent inspection units promised in the White Paper "Caring for People" will be published.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A consultation paper amplifying the proposal made in the White Paper that

  Number of mentions of sudden infant death syndrome1 on death certificates for all ages, England and Wales, by year and month of registration, 1971–88 Comparable data for earlier years are not available

  Year

  January

  Feburary

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  1971

  43

  51

  54

  37

  30

  50

  46

  39

  58

  42

  47

  27

  524

  1972

  77

  78

  74

  64

  73

  53

  47

  47

  50

  82

  73

  80

  798

  1973

  93

  88

  93

  63

  81

  72

  49

  57

  58

  93

  94

  110

  951

  1974

  130

  87

  101

  76

  71

  54

  65

  48

  46

  86

  95

  106

  965

  1975

  86

  90

  99

  85

  68

  68

  60

  53

  65

  69

  102

  84

  929

  1976

  104

  100

  72

  83

  70

  55

  42

  37

  56

  88

  83

  117

  907

  1977

  125

  91

  89

  84

  86

  59

  37

  45

  48

  70

  89

  114

  937

  1978

  109

  106

  103

  73

  82

  56

  65

  50

  56

  87

  86

  122

  995

  1979

  138

  121

  114

  103

  75

  67

  56

  50

  49

  87

  121

  118

  1,099

  1980

  158

  127

  113

  119

  91

  55

  77

  65

  74

  106

  120

  155

  1,260

  1981

  140

  129

  152

  111

  91

  81

  65

  45

  56

  106

  133

  195

  1,304

  1982

  194

  145

  153

  100

  83

  72

  75

  39

  75

  109

  134

  196

  1,375

  1983

  142

  175

  154

  98

  116

  81

  65

  55

  81

  86

  154

  151

  1,358

  1984

  174

  171

  172

  122

  67

  86

  52

  46

  68

  122

  101

  104

  1,285

  1985

  166

  123

  113

  132

  112

  65

  70

  54

  67

  120

  147

  169

  1,338

  712
  local authorities should set up independent inspection units has been sent to organisations representing local authority, independent sector and user interests today. Their comments have been invited. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library.

  Inspection units will form an integral part of the arrangements for securing and safeguarding the quality of community care services. They will have a special responsibility for supporting and monitoring those who provide residential care, both in local authority homes and in the independent sector. Their establishment will be entirely separate from the line management of local authority homes.

  These proposals have already been welcomed. They will put providers of services in the public and independent sectors on the same footing and, through the setting up of local advisory committees, they will involve providers and users in running the system. This should not only foster good will, but increase the effectiveness of the quality control process and public confidence in it.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide details of the incidence of child cot deaths from 1960 to date, indicating the difference between winter and summer months; what information he has on the possibility that cot deaths can be caused by poisonous gases resulting from the growth of fungi in soiled cot mattresses containing PVC; and if he will make a statement on the results of his Department's research into this subject.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: Figures from 1971, the earliest date from which information is available, on numbers of mentions of sudden infant death syndrome on death certificates are provided in the table. Two qualifications need to be made in any assessment of an overall trend. First, the numbers of births in each year need to be taken into account. Secondly, over this period, respiratory disease has diminished as a reported cause of infant death and there has been a corresponding increase in the reporting of sudden infant death.

  Details of a theory that gas emitted from the action of fungus on PVC mattresses may be a cause of sudden infant death have been submitted to the Department. A scientific assessment of the evidence is being undertaken by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist.
  713

  Year

  January

  Feburary

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  1986

  174

  188

  146

  138

  123

  82

  79

  73

  84

  106

  136

  201

  1,530

  1987

  173

  169

  172

  127

  89

  123

  80

  68

  81

  131

  149

  212

  1,574

  1988

  178

  182

  177

  123

  120

  116

  87

  89

  97

  134

  146

  180

  1,629

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, code 798.0.

  Regional Allocations
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library(a) a paper explaining the seven age band relative costs systems referred to in his reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central on 10 January, Official Report, column 663, and (b) a paper showing why the particular method of adjusting regional allocations for mobility referred to in his reply was selected.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 17 January 1990]: I have today placed a short note in the Library giving the information requested.

  Medicines
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make an announcement about the proposed increase in fees relating to the Medicinal Products for Human Use Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 418); and if he will give the number of current applications waiting to be processed or being processed by the Medicines Control Agency.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]: Comments received during the consultation exercise are being taken into account before the final version of the fees regulations is laid before Parliament. Subject to the usual statutory processes it is intended that these amending regulations will come into effect as soon as possible. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 20 December at columns 334–35.

  The number of applications for new licences awaiting a decision as at 31 December 1989 was:

  Number

  Product licences

  1,867

  Product licences (parallel imports)

  991

  Manufacturers licences

  20

  Wholesale dealers licences

  34

  Non-orthodox practitioner licences

  4

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

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]: Cerebral palsy is not necessarily diagnosed at birth, so information on the number of children born in England each year and diagnosed with this condition is not available centrally.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each year since 1974–75 current spending on the hospital and community health services 714
  for each National Health Service region and for the special health authorities (i) in cash terms, (ii) adjusted using the gross domestic product deflator, and (iii) adjusted using the National Health Service pay and prices index.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in a table, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The expenditure figures are based on those shown in the summarised accounts of regional and district health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals (predecessor authorities for the years prior to 1982–83).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Shotguns
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for he Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Gwent as to the number of complaints he has received during the last six months to the effect that shotguns were taken into the possession of the police without giving a receipt to the owner.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable that no such complaints have been received in Gwent police headquarters.

  Begging
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were convicted of a begging or related offence in England and Wales during(a) 1987, (b) 1988 and (c) 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is given in the table. Data for 1989 will not be available until autumn 1990.

  Persons convicted of begging and sleeping out under the Vagrancy Act 1824 (as amended) England and Wales

  1987

  1988

  Begging

  440

  512

  Sleeping out

  14

  13

  Racing
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reach a decision on whether to establish an inquiry into the financing of racing.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are not as yet able to estimate when we shall have completed our consideration of this matter.

  Random Breath Tests
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he issues on the criteria which should govern the instructions issued to police
  715
  officers in uniform who stop vehicles at random for the purpose of investigating whether the drivers of the vehicles concerned have alcohol in their bodies in excess of the prescribed limits, where such vehicles have not been involved in moving traffic offences or accidents which give legal grounds for such action.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is for individual chief officers of police to issue instructions to officers under their command. The Government encourage chief officers of police to use their powers to the full in the enforcement of the law relating to drinking and driving. Those powers were set out in the reply my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 5 December 1989 at column 131.

  Hillsborough Disaster
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received Lord Justice Taylor's final report into the Hillsborough disaster; and when he is proposing to publish it.

  Mr. Waddington
  I received Lord Justice Taylor's final report on 19 January. I hope to publish it on Monday 29 January.

  Prisoners
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further developments there have been in his plans to help prisoners maintain contact with their families and friends.

  Mr. Mellor
  My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) announced a number of measures aimed at improving inmates' family ties on 17 March 1989 at column 363. We are now establishing a pilot scheme to reduce routine censorship in local prisons, category B training prisons and remand centres to a 5 per cent. sample. The pilot scheme will run in Leeds, Maidstone, Norwich and Winchester prisons for three months from 1 February. The proposed reduction of routine censorship will remove the need for restrictions on the number of letters which inmates may send and receive and also enable staff to be redeployed to other duties.

  We have also decided to establish a pilot scheme at Her Majesty's prison Manchester to enable remand inmates to

  Remand population in custody: by sex and type of custody, month end figures, 1989, England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Males

  Females

  Month end

  All

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  Police cells1

  All

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  Police cells1

  1989

  January

  10,512

  8,594

  1,681

  237

  494

  380

  88

  26

  February

  10,357

  8,436

  1,726

  195

  476

  364

  105

  7

  March

  10,294

  8,545

  1,678

  71

  476

  394

  82

  —

  April

  10,151

  8,407

  1,689

  55

  469

  375

  94

  —

  May

  9,926

  8,120

  1,675

  131

  476

  374

  102

  —

  June

  10,014

  7,943

  1,845

  226

  480

  378

  98

  4

  July

  10,036

  8,102

  1,870

  64

  476

  377

  99

  —

  August

  10,242

  8,389

  1,833

  20

  474

  395

  79

  —

  September

  10,098

  8,287

  1,781

  30

  468

  366

  102

  —

  October

  9,989

  8,190

  1,784

  15

  482

  382

  100

  —

  November

  9,520

  7,840

  1,676

  4

  444

  350

  94

  —

  1 All were untried prisoners

  716
  use cardphones subject to certain safeguards. This follows the successful introduction of cardphones in open prisons and the present programme, which is well advanced, to instal them in all category C and equivalent establishments. The Manchester pilot scheme should begin in March and, if successful, will be extended to remand inmates held in other local prisons and remand centres. It has also been decided that expenditure on phonecards will no longer count against the limit on the amount of private cash which inmates may spend. I hope that the ability to telephone family and friends will be of particular help in reducing the anxiety and stress experienced by inmates on remand and reduce the incidence of self-harm.

  Mr. Andrew Balfour
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the arrest of Mr. Andrew Balfour by special branch officers on 17 August 1989 under the Prevention of Terrorism Act; why he was held for two days at Paddington Green police station before being released on bail and told there is no case to answer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  I understand from the Commissioner that Mr. Balfour was arrested under section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 on 17 August 1989 and released the next day. A person arrested under this provision may be detained for up to 48 hours on the authority of the police if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that he is guilty of an offence under the Act, is a person who is or has been concerned with acts of Northern Ireland or international terrorism, or is subject to an exclusion order.

  Remand
  Sir Charles Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and women were being held in custody on remand in the United Kingdom(a) from year end 1987 to year end 1988 and (b) from year end 1988 to year end 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information for 1987 to 1988 was published in table 1.2 of "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1988" (Cm. 825), a copy of which is in the Library. The readily available figures for 1989 are given in the table:

  Prison Service Headquarters
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which midlands city he is proposing to establish the new prison service headquarters which he has recently announced.

  Mr. Mellor
  Work has now begun to determine where in the midlands the new headquarters location should be. No decision has yet been taken.

  Police Vehicles (Fatal Accidents)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for(a) 1988 and (b) 1989, the number of persons who have died in accidents involving police vehicles.

  Chief Inspector £

  Inspector £

  Police Sergeant £

  Police Constable £

  Time and a third 1

  14.83

  13.49

  11.33

  9.32

  Time and a half 2

  16.68

  15.18

  12.75

  10.49

  Double time 3

  22.24

  20.24

  17.00

  13.98

  1 This rate is paid to officers before or after completing a normal tour of duty.

  2 This rate is paid to officers who work on a rest day.

  3 This rate is paid to officers who work on a public holiday.

  Squatting
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to amend the law on squatting to enable local authorities to take action in the absence of action by the owners of the properties concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government have no plans to amend the law in this way. The police and local authorities have powers to deal with squatters who commit criminal offences; these may include criminal damage, theft, assault or using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, and powers under the Public Health Act 1936 and Control of Pollution Act 1974 to act against premises which are verminous or prejudicial to health, or give rise to a statutory nuisance or where the occupiers cause a noise nuisance. Additionally, the Criminal Law Act 1977 created certain offences aimed at squatters including failure to leave premises when required to do so by a displaced residential occupier. Otherwise, squatting is an act of trespass, which is a matter for the civil law, and it is for those whose interests are affected by the trespass to consider whether they wish to bring a civil action.

  Mr. Malcolm Cairns
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Director of Public Prosecutions' consideration of the report compiled by the deputy chief constable of Derbyshire in respect of Mr. Malcolm Cairns, the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire, and the author Joseph Wambaugh.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  The report is being considered carefully and as expeditiously as possible.
  718
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Figures collected by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary (which do not include the Metropolitan police) indicate that in 1988 there were 14 civilian fatalities involving a police vehicle while engaged in a pursuit or responding to an emergency. Figures for 1989 are not yet available.

  Metropolitan Police Overtime
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the hourly rates for overtime in the Metropolitan police force.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average overtime rates paid to officers, up to and including chief inspectors, in the Metropolitan police are:

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Refreshment Facilities
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make available in the Library details of bookings and sponsoring hon. Members for dining rooms booked between 16 January and the summer recess.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  It is the practice not to divulge information on functions organised in accordance with the banqueting regulations. If the hon. Member has a specific issue in mind she is advised to raise it either with the General Manager of the Refreshment Department or with the Catering Sub-Committee, of which she is a member.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what measures his Department is taking to encourage and promote part-time working for those disabled people unable to work full time;

  (2) whether his Department's internal review of employment assistance to disabled adults is examining the possibility of introducing a partial capacity benefit to facilitate part-time working by disabled people unable to work full time.

  Mr. Eggar
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 10 January, the Government propose to introduce a disability employment credit to make it easier for people with disabilities to take up and remain in work. The new benefit, to be introduced in April 1992, will help people with disabilities whose earning capacity is low, including those who are only able to work part time.

  Following publication of the report "Defusing the Demographic Timebomb" my Department is encouraging

  719
  employers through a range of media to make more use of flexible working patterns, including part-time working, to obtain suitable employees. The value of part-time working in drawing on the talents of people with disabilities is also stressed in our code of good practice on the employment of disabled people and by the Disablement Advisory Service.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department expects to publish its internal review of employment assistance to disabled adults, commissioned in March 1988.

  Mr. Eggar
  The review is at an advanced stage. The consultative document which will follow the review will be published as soon as possible.

  Mines (Accidents)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many major injuries were suffered by men working underground in mines operated by British Coal in 1978–79 and each succeeding year;

  (2) how many major injuries were suffered by men working underground in private licensed mines in 1978–79 and each succeeding year;

  (3) how many men were killed in private licensed mines in 1978–79 and each succeeding year;

  (4) how many men were killed underground in mines operated by British Coal in 1978–79 and each succeeding year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: The table lists underground fatal and major injuries at all coal mines for the period 1978 to 1987–88.
  720
  It is not possible before 1987–88 separately to identify those underground accidents at licensed mines without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Underground fatalities at all coal mines

  Underground major injuries at all coal mines

  1978

  46

  427

  1979

  41

  375

  1980

  39

  445

  1981

  26

  2697

  1982

  30

  770

  1983

  25

  697

  1984–851

  18

  321

  1985–864

  22

  622

  1986–87

  16

  3809

  1987–885

  74

  6651

  83

  1Covering the 15 month period January 1984-March 1985.

  2The introduction of NADO Regulations 1980 on I January 1981 widened the coverage of the serious injury category.

  3The introduction of RIDDOR Regulations 1985 on 1 April 1986 further widened the major injury categories. Major injury figures from 1981 and 1986–87 are therefore not directly comparable with earlier years.

  4Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Mines have records of all fatal and major injury accidents for coal mines generally until 1984–85. From 1985–86 these records can be split to show accident figures at British Coal and licensed mines.

  5Fatal and major accidents underground cannot be separated between British Coal and Licensed Mines before 1987–88.

  6Cannot be separated between British Coal and Licensed Mines without incurring disproportionate costs.

  7British Coal.

  8Licensed mines.

  Aids to Employment (Sheffield)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been spent within the city of Sheffield on the provision of equipment and resources to disabled people under the aids to employment budget; when the 1989–90 budget was exhausted; how many people have had applications for assistance refused in the past 12 months; and how many are currently awaiting provision of further resources.

  Mr. Eggar
  Figures are not available for the city of Sheffield alone. The amount spent under the special aids to employment scheme for the Sheffield area (which includes the city, and Rotherham) from 1 April 1989 to date is £46,082·22. The 1989–90 budget is not exhausted and so there are no cases awaiting the provision of further resources. Three people from the Sheffield area had applications under the scheme refused in the past 12 months. Two are ineligible for assistance; in the third case, a solution was not technically possible.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make additional resources available under the aids to employment scheme to facilitate the independence of Mr. John Gallagher of Sheffield.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is understood that Mr. Gallagher has applied to his local authority for assistance under the blind homeworkers scheme, under which the authority could contribute 25 per cent., and the employment service up to 75 per cent. of the assistance. No application has, however, yet been received by the employment service. If it is, consideration can be given to assisting Mr. Gallagher either under the provisions of the blind homeworkers scheme, or the special aids to employment scheme. Additional resources under the latter are not necessary, as the budget for the scheme is not exhausted.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Kingswood,Official Report, 12 January, column 783, if he will provide similar information on the percentage fall in unemployment correct for the year to December 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the 20 parliamentary constituencies which have experienced the largest percentage falls in unemployment over the year to December 1989. The figures are not seasonally adjusted.

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

  Constituency name

  Percentage

  Westmorland and Lonsdale

  -42·7

  Montgomery

  -42·7

  South Derbyshire

  -38·8

  Stoke-on-Trent North

  -38·2

  North Wiltshire

  -38·1

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  -38·0

  Harrow West

  -37·6

  Mid Staffordshire

  -37·1

  Kincardine and Deeside

  -36·3

  Old Bexley and Sidcup

  -36·3

  Clwyd South West

  -35·9

  Aberdeen South

  -35·7

  Harrow East

  -35·7

  Stratford-on-Avon

  -35·3

  Nuneaton

  -35·2

  Amber Valley

  -34·8

  722

  Constituency name

  Percentage

  North West Leicestershire

  -34·4

  North Shropshire

  -34·3

  South Worcestershire

  -34·3

  Sutton Coldfield

  -34·1

  Professional and Executive Recruitment
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, in the light of the privatisation of Professional and Executive Recruitment, if he will dispense with the requirement that before non-EEC candidates for highly specialised job vacancies can be retained, form OW5 has to be completed; and if he will make a statement as to his plans for creating a level playing field for professional and executive recruitment firms.

  Mr. Eggar
  Prospective employers of overseas nationals requiring work permits have not been required to notify the vacancy to Professional and Executive Recruitment since it was privatised. Employers applying for a work permit will continue to complete a form of application which, where appropriate, will require them to state what efforts have been made (including the use of agencies) to recruit resident labour.

  Jobcentres
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he or his predecessor last visited a jobcentre or benefit office; and where that visit took place.

  Mr. Howard
  My predecessor, Sir Norman Fowler, visited Sutton Coldfield unemployment benefit office on 15 December 1989.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what criterion he will assess the success or failure of a TEC's annual plan.

  Mr. Eggar
  TECs will need to draw up their plan for the year ahead based on the needs of the community they will serve. They will need to set out and agree ambitious targets for key outputs such as qualifications and jobs gained by trainees. Progress towards these targets will be monitored on a regular basis.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of female part-time workers in Great Britain in April 1989, and in each standard economic region; and what was the proportion of those nationally and in each region whose earnings fell below(a) £4·15 per hour, (b) £4·30 per hour, (c) £3·10 per hour and (d) £2·80 per hour.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There were an estimated 4,301,000 part-time female employees in employment in March 1989. The estimated percentages of part-time adult female employees earning below specified amounts in the new earnings survey sample in April 1989 are given in table 175, part F of the new earnings survey 1989 report. Figures of the percentage earning below £3·10, £4·15 and £4·30 per hour are not available; the nearest available figures are given in table 175 except for the percentages earning below £3 which are provided in the following table:
  723

  Percentage of part-time females earning less than £3 per hour

  per cent.

  Great Britain

  47

  South East

  34

  East Anglia

  47

  South West

  52

  West Midlands

  53

  East Midlands

  52

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  54

  North West

  49

  North

  61

  Wales

  54

  Scotland

  50

  Note: Adult rates of pay; pay not affected by absence.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of male part-time workers in Great Britain in April 1989; and what was the proportion of those workers whose earnings fell below(a) £4·15 per; hour (b) £4·30 per hour, (c) £3·10 per hour and (d) £2·80 per hour.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There were an estimated 901,000 part-time male employees in employment in March 1989. The estimated percentages of adult male part-time employees earning below specified amounts in the new earnings survey sample in April 1989 were:

  Hourly earnings less than

  Percentage

  £2·80

  38

  £3·00

  45

  £3·20

  53

  £4·00

  70

  £4·50

  75

  Figures of the percentage earning below £3·10, £4·15 and £4·30 per hour are not available; the nearest available figures have been given.

  Action Credit Pilot Scheme
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether it is his intention that individuals who participate in the action credit pilot scheme should have the equivalent employee status under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Participants in the action credit pilot scheme have the same rights under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 as other employees.

  Linwood Car Plant
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will conduct a survey to ascertain how many men and women who worked for the former car plant in Linwood have contracted a form of asbestos disease; and if he will give the numbers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No such survey is proposed as this would be unlikely to provide any useful information at this stage on exposure to asbestos at the Linwood plant.

SCOTLAND

  Offences Against Children
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland have been prosecuted during the last five years for committing the offence of(a) rape and (b) sexual offences against children including incest, having already served a sentence of imprisonment for that offence; and what were the sentences administered.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not available in precisely the form requested. In the period 1984 to 1987, three men successfully prosecuted for rape were recorded as having previously served a prison sentence for this crime. The average custodial sentence for the earlier offence was just over four years and for the second just under nine years. Information which separately identifies sexual offences against children is not held centrally.

  Sheriff Officers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of sheriff officers duly approved as of 1 January; and what was the figure on 1 January 1989 and 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of commissions issued by sheriffs principal authorising individuals to act as sheriff officers was 191 on 1 January 1990 and 186 on 1 January 1989. Figures are not available for 1988.

  Hospital Readmissions
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients in Scotland were, for each year since 1980, readmitted for hospital treatment and suffering from the same or related illness for which they had been previously discharged.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients were admitted for hospital treatment in Scotland for more than(a) three days, (b) seven days (c) two weeks and (d) more than two weeks for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Number of Inpatient Discharges from Acute General Specialties1 in Scotland, by length of stay

  4–7 days

  8–14 days

  More than two weeks

  1980

  121,595

  108,829

  93,517

  1981

  128,052

  112,798

  96,088

  1982

  116,291

  102,649

  90,300

  1983

  132,552

  112,187

  91,519

  1984

  138,815

  112,043

  90,852

  1985

  142,179

  111,566

  90,500

  1986

  142,280

  109,715

  89,287

  1987

  145,899

  108,640

  88,423

  1988

  150,477

  108,867

  88,653

  1 The following specialties are excluded: Geriatric Long-stay, Young Chronic Sick, Psychiatric Specialties, and Obstetrics.

  Water (Lead Levels)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that European requirements concerning lead levels in water are complied with.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish water authorities have already made substantial progress in reducing the levels of lead in their supplies.

  The Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990, made on 23 January, impose standards relating to the quality of public and private water supplies for the purposes of drinking, washing or cooking. The standard on lead is tighter than that in EC Directive 80/778/EEC (the drinking water directive), and regulation 24 makes provision for securing the elimination, or reduction to a minimum, of the risk that water supplied by the authorities will be contaminated after supply by excessive concentrations of lead and certain other metals.

  In addition, districts and islands councils have discretion to give housing repair grants for the replacement of lead plumbing. From 1982–88 inclusive,

  Date

  Council

  Minister

  29 January 1980

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  16 June 1980

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  21 July 1980

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  29 September 1980

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  28 October 1980

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  17–18 November 1980

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  15–17 December 1980

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  27 January 1981

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  9–11 February 1981

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  10–11 March 1981

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  27 March 1981

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  29 September 1981

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  27 October 1981

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  15 June 1982

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  28–29 June 1982

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  20–21 July 1982

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  4 October 1982

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  25–26 October 1982

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  8 November 1982

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  29 November 1982

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  21 December 1982

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  25 January 1983

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  20 June 1983

  Fisheries Council

  Right hon. George Younger, TD MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  30 June–1 July 1983

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Gray of Contin, Minister of State

  25–26 July 1983

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Gray of Contin, Minister of State

  3–4 October 1983

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Gray of Contin, Minister of State

  10–12 October 1983

  Special Fisheries Council

  Lord Gray of Contin, Minister of State

  19 October 1983

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Gray of Contin, Minister of State

  14 December 1983

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Gray of Contin, Minister of State

  31 January 1984

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Gray of Contin, Minister of State

  24–25 May 1984

  Fisheries Council

  Mr. John Mackay MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  10 September 1984

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Gray of Contin, Minister of State

  4 December 1984

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Gray of Contin, Minister of State

  19 December 1984

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Gray of Contin, Minister of State

  6 May 1985

  Informal Meeting of Education Ministers

  Mr. Allan Stewart MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  27 September 1985

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Gray of Contin, Minister of State

  4 November 1985

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Gray of Contin, Minister of State

  16–17 December 1985

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Gray of Contin, Minister of State

  22–23 September 1986

  Fisheries Council

  Mr. John Mackay MP

  5 November 1986

  Fisheries Council

  Mr. John Mackay MP

  3–4 December 1986

  Fisheries Council

  Mr. John Mackay MP

  17–18 December 1986

  Fisheries Council

  Mr. John Mackay MP

  726
  some 58,000 grants for work which included the replacement of lead plumbing had been made by these councils.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the dates and subjects of meetings of the Council of Ministers that he or members of his ministerial team intend to attend over the coming year; and if he will specify which Minister will attend.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The United Kingdom delegations to meetings of the various European Councils of Ministers represent all the interests within the Government. Decisions on whether a Scottish Minister should be included in delegations are taken in the light of the business when it is known and of the other commitments of the Minister concerned.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the dates and subjects of meetings of the Council of Ministers that he or members of his ministerial team have attended in the past 10 years; and if he will specify which Minister attended in each case.

  Mr. Rifkind
  This information is provided in the table:
  727

  Date

  Council

  Minister

  5 May 1987

  Fisheries Council

  Mr. John Mackay MP

  29 September 1987

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Sanderson of Bowden, Minister of State

  14–15 December 1987

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Sanderson of Bowden, Minister of State

  29 February 1988

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Sanderson of Bowden, Minister of State

  19–20 October 1988

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Sanderson of Bowden, Minister of State

  28 November 1988

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Sanderson of Bowden, Minister of State

  9–11 December 1988

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Sanderson of Bowden, Minister of State

  12 June 1989

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Sanderson of Bowden, Minister of State

  7 December 1989

  Informal Fisheries Council

  Lord Sanderson of Bowden, Minister of State

  18–19 December 1989

  Fisheries Council

  Rt. hon. Malcolm Rifkind QC, MP, Secretary of State for Scotland and Lord Sanderson of Bowden, Minister of State

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest estimate of the cost to Scottish local authorities of collection of non-domestic rates in 1989–90 and the cost of the collection of non-domestic rates in 1988–89.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Local authorities have estimated the cost of collecting non-domestic rates in 1989–90 at £1·6 million. No corresponding figure is available for 1988–89 as returns from authorities for years prior to 1989–90 did not show separately the cost of collecting domestic and non-domestic rates.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the drop-out rate for employment training in each of the Scottish regions and for Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Lang
  In Scotland, at November 1989, 65·4 per cent. of those completing an action plan with a training agent were referred to a training manager. Of the group referred, 93·5 per cent. actually started in employment training. These percentages are not collected on a regional basis.

  Takare Plc
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will announce the price to Takare plc of land in Rutherglen which Greater Glasgow health board plans to sell to that company;

  (2) if he will publish the full details of the contract, when agreed, between Takare plc and Greater Glasgow health board for the provision of services to the elderly in Rutherglen;

  (3) if his Department has approved the contract between Takare plc and Greater Glasgow health board for provision of services to the elderly;

  (4) what are the reasons for the delay in making a decision about the contract between Greater Glasgow health board and Takare plc for the provision of services to the elderly in Rutherglen;

  (5) when he expects to make a decision on whether to approve the contract between Greater Glasgow health board and Takare plc for the provision of services to the elderly in Rutherglen;

  (6) who his Department consulted on the sale of land in Rutherglen by Greater Glasgow health board to Takare plc;
  728
  (7) what recommendations his Department has made on the sale of land by Greater Glasgow health board to Takare plc.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No final decision has been taken on the proposed contract between Greater Glasgow health board and Takare plc, which is still subject to negotiation.

  Public Land Sales
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what rules govern the number of potential buyers required to be involved by a public body selling land in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Land surplus to public sector needs will normally be offered for sale on the open market. Alternatively, if it is in the public interest to do so, the land may be sold off-market, in consultation with the district valuer as to value.

  M80
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce the line of the proposed M80 motorway between Stepps and Haggs; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced in his statement of May 1989 that the central Scotland motorway schemes were to be a priority of the Scottish Office's roads programme. Construction work started on the M80 Stepps bypass, the adjacent scheme to M80 Stepps-Haggs, in November 1989. Aerial and ground surveys for the M80 Stepps-Haggs scheme have now been completed. Similarly, a key traffic survey has been completed. The final feasibility report can now be expected in spring of this year and it should be possible for a decision on a preferred route to be made shortly thereafter. The present expectation is that draft orders will be published later in the year with a public exhibition being held at that time to explain the proposals in detail.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people on the disabled register for work in Scotland are(a) employed and (b) unemployed.

  Mr. Lang
  There is no such thing as a disabled register for work. Under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts 1944 and 1958, the Department of Employment maintains a disablement register on which disabled people may register. That register does not include a record of the
  729
  employment status of those who are on it. In April 1989, the date of the last count, there were 33,909 people on the disablement register in Scotland.

  Both employed and unemployed people may register for employment at jobcentres. In doing so they may also choose to indicate that they are disabled. In October 1989, the latest date on which a count was made, 7,024 people with declared disabilities were registered for employment at jobcentres and local authority careers offices in Scotland.

  Illegal Dumping
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland have been prosecuted for illegal dumping of rubbish on the roads and highways in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of persons prosecuted under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 for illegal dumping of rubbish is set out in the table. No information is collected on the location of the offence

  Year

  Persons proceeded against

  1984

  78

  1985

  31

  1986

  29

  1987

  29

  1988

  47

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions have been made against companies that have illegally disposed of chemical or industrial wastes in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information in the table relates to company prosecutions for offences included in the Scottish Home and Health Department's classification as offences relating to the control of pollution.

  These offences include the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts, and the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968.

  Year

  Companies proceeded against

  1984

  8

  1985

  11

  1986

  8

  1987

  9

  1988

  20

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to do a survey to assess the extent of damage and costs that illegal dumping is causing to the environment in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have no plans to carry out a formal survey to establish the extent and costs of illegal dumping in Scotland. This is a matter that officials of the hazardous waste inspectorate discuss with local authorities in the course of their periodic visits.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to give extra powers to local authorities to fight illegal dumping of waste and rubbish; and if he will be allocating any new powers to the councils;
  730
  (2) what plans he has to strengthen the laws against illegal dumping in Scotland's passing places, lay-bys and open spaces.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 contains powers to deter illegal waste dumping, which are to be enforced by district and islands councils. Part II of the Environmental Protection Bill also contains provisions to strengthen the relevant legislative controls.

  Inverkip Power Station
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for the Inverkip power station.

  Mr. Lang
  Inverkip power station is presently owned by the South of Scotland electricity board and ownership will pass to Scottish Power as part of the transfer scheme arrangements for the Scottish industry under the Electricity Act 1989. Decisions on the future use of the station will be for the industry to take in the light of its assessment of the contribution which Inverkip is likely to make to its ability to maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity supply, taking into account a range of factors including operating costs and the relative prices of fuels.

  River Clyde
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the state of the River Clyde regarding pollution; and what assessment he has made of whether(a) it is safe to eat fish and shellfish caught in the river at the lowest reaches, (b) it is safe to swim in the river at the lower reaches and (c) the new sewage outfall at Battery park in Greenock will cause any additional sewage problems in th Firth of Clyde.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The assessment arid control of pollution are the responsibility of the river purification authority, the Clyde river purification board. For many years the board, in co-operation with local authorities and industrialists, has actively promoted the improvement of the quality of discharges to the River Clyde throughout its length. The Clyde, like almost every other river in Scotland, has markedly improved in quality in recent years.

  The safety of fish and shellfish on sale for human consumption is a matter for the local environmental health authority. I am not aware of any evidence of any problem which has arisen from swimming in the Clyde. The board carries out relevant monitoring of these waters.

  The new sewage outfall at Battery park will replace a number of unsatisfactory outfalls with one which meets modern requirements and its completion will greatly improve present conditions.

  Waste Disposal Sites
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to allow other waste disposal sites in the Renfrew, West and Inverclyde constituency.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the provision of waste disposal sites in Scotland rests initially with district and islands councils as waste disposal authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend would
  731
  normally become involved only if an application for planning permission, or an appeal against refusal of planning permission, came before him for determination.

  Community Charge
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to reform procedure for appeals against entries in the community charge (poll tax) register; and what steps he will take to extend the role of the Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals to oversee the conduct of appeals to registration officers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to change the present appeal arrangements. However, discussions are being held with the Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals and with Scottish community charges registration officers to establish whether it would be practicable and helpful for the Scottish committee to have a watching brief on the conduct of appeals to registration officers.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to change the procedures for appeal against the decision of community charge registration officers in Scotland along the lines of that to be introduced in England and Wales.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.

  Sight Tests
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of recorded sight tests carried out in Scotland between(a) April 1988 to September 1988, inclusive, (b) October 1988 to March 1989, inclusive and (c) April 1989 to September 1989, inclusive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]The information is set out in the table:

  Period

  Number of NHS sight tests

  1 April to 30 September 1988

  531,613

  1 October 1988 to 31 March 1989

  636,997

  1 April to 30 September 1989

  281,570

  Free NHS sight tests were limited to prescribed groups with effect from 1 April 1989. The number of NHS tests carried out between 1 April and 30 September 1989 is not, therefore, directly comparable with NHS figures for earlier periods. The results of a survey on the total number of NHS and private sight tests carried out in Scotland in the first quarter of 1990 compared with earlier periods should be available after Easter.

TRANSPORT

  Public Service Vehicles
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make available for public scrutiny data providing actual and comparative percentage figures for each spot check roadside, spot check maintenance facilities and MOT station examination carried out by the inspectors on every public service vehicle company operating in south Wales.
  732
  Mr. Atkins
  Close monitoring of all PSV operators is maintained in the interests of road safety. Statistics showing the general level of enforcement activity are published in the annual reports of the south Wales traffic commissioner. Where the condition of a particular operator's vehicle gives cause for concern, the frequency of checks on that operator's premises and fleet may be increased. Details of individual checks are treated as a commercially confidential matter.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make available for public scrutiny the safety inspection records of all public service bus and coach operators in the south Wales area.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department does not hold copies of records of PSV operators' own safety inspections.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached about the possibility of earmarking part of the expenditure accepted for transport supplementary grant for work that will help reduce the number of casualties on local authority roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  Following discussions with the local authority associations, I have decided that highway authorities in England should be invited to bid for transport supplementary grant for local safety schemes on all their roads—and not just those of more than local importance—from 1991–92 onwards. Authorities will be told what information they need to submit in support of their bids in the next transport policies and programme circular, which will be issued in a few months from now. The amount of each authority's accepted expenditure for local safety schemes will be separately identified at the time of each TSG settlement.

  Lorry Trailer Maintenance
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the final report of the task force on lorry trailer maintenance is yet available.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am grateful to the trailer task force for its useful work on this and am arranging for copies of its final report to be placed in the Library. Well-designed and well-maintained trailer braking systems are important for road safety. Since the task force produced its interim report last July (Official Report, 6 July 1989, col. 259) manufacturers have been adjusting and improving their service brake designs. Advice has been drawn up for operators preparing vehicles for test and discussions are in hand with the industry on a code of lorry maintenance generally.

  Following the further work of the task force, we are considering making plating conformity a condition of acceptance of vehicles for test rather than part of the test itself, and also dropping the present secondary brake performance test. We shall be discussing further with the industry the clear identification of responsibilities for maintenance of rented trailers and ways of ensuring that the move to European Commission whole vehicle type approval for trailers contributes to the safety and cost-effectiveness of trailer construction and use.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are, in 1989 moneys, the comparable figures for the public investment on the railway systems of(a) France, (b) West Germany, (c) Holland, (d) Norway, (e) Sweden and (f) the United Kingdom for the years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail's latest forecast for total investment expenditure in 1989–90 is £689 million and its latest plan forecasts investment of £1,052 million, £1,258 million and £1,421 million in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 respectively.

  The only information that I have about the other countries is for France and West Germany for 1989. The figures are:

  £ million

  France

  1,062

  West Germany

  1,662

  The networks in France and Germany are, of course, bigger than that in Britain.

  Fishing Boats
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all incidents of collision between fishing boats or their gear and submarines in 1989 and 1988 in United Kingdom waters.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The names of United Kingdom (and Isle of Man) fishing vessels reported to the Department as having been involved in incidents or suspected incidents with submarines in 1989 are listed in the table together with the date of the incident. There were no similar incidents reported to the Department in 1988.

  Vessel

  Date of incident

  New Dawn

  3 January 1989

  Lau Ann

  22 January 1989

  Spes Bona (and Arturus and Strathayre)

  27 February 1989

  Seagull

  31 March 1989

  Northern Lights

  31 March 1989

  Laurel (Isle of Man)

  17 April 1989

  Huntress

  28 June 1989

  Scotia

  13 November 1989

  Sarah Marie

  7 December 1989

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of United Kingdom fishing boats lost at sea in 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  For 1988 the figure is 22. For 1989 the number is not yet available.

  Western Ferries limited
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of safety arrangements on board vessels operated by Western Ferries Limited; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch is conducting an investigation into this incident to establish the cause of the fire. The investigation is not yet completed.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received from hon. and right hon. Members and members of the public concerning British Rail's policy towards cyclists and rail services; how many of these were from regular cyclists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In the past year I have received a total of 16 representations from members of the public, either directly or via right hon. or hon. Members, concerning British Rail's policy towards cyclists and rail services. I am unable to say how many were from regular cyclists. I understand that BR's policy is to welcome cyclists and to convey bicycles whenever possible, for an appropriate charge, provided that this will not unduly inconvenience other passengers, or displace other revenue-earning traffic, such as parcels.

  Road Accidents
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional protection for car passengers he proposes to make over the next five years to abate accident injuries on British roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]: The Department reviews continually how improved construction standards might achieve casualty reductions, both among vehicle occupants and among those who are hit by vehicles. Any such standards require agreement in the EC. Safer steering wheels and protection against side impact are two areas with considerable potential where we have pressed for early action. More generally, we have sought to focus the attention of the Commission on priorities on vehicle safety through the note, "United Kingdom Priorities for Reducing Road Deaths and Serious Injuries from Improvements to Vehicle Construction Standards", copies of which I am placing in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to publicise the availability of community charge benefits.

  Miss widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to encourage the maximum possible take-up of community charge benefits.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) earlier today.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the rate support grant allocations per head of population for each borough and district council in Kent for 1989–90 in descending order of magnitude.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: The following is the information requested for the period from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990:

  735

  1989–90

  Rate support grant per head £

  Gillingham

  66·16

  Thanet

  56·76

  Medway

  43·45

  Canterbury

  42·19

  Dover

  40·50

  Dartford

  38·20

  Gravesham

  36·79

  Shepway

  35·57

  Swale

  34·83

  Tunbridge Wells

  34·29

  Ashford

  31·64

  Maidstone

  30·96

  Sevenoaks

  28·76

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  21·66

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state his revised projected community charge per capita for(a) Thanet district council and (b) Canterbury city council based upon (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection and (iii) 90 per cent. collection; and if he will state the rate of inflation and population figures upon which these calculations are based.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]The community charge figures requested are as follows:

  Thanet district council

  Canterbury district council

  (i).

  Assumed community charge based on 100 per cent. collection

  229

  222

  (ii).

  Assumed community charge based on 95 per cent. collection

  241

  234

  (iii).

  Assumed community charge based on 90 per cent. collection

  254

  247

  These figures assume spending figures for the district councils and for Kent county council based on their respective 1989–90 rate income and grant, adjusted for changes in function and uprated by 4·64 per cent. to be consistent with total standard spending for all authorities of £32·8 billion. They are shown after safety net adustments. The calculations are based on the following population figures: Thanet 96,367; Canterbury 95,811.

  The published community charge exemplifications make no allowances for losses on collection; but, equally, they do not allow for certain additional offsetting sources of income (such as standard community charges or interest on cash flow, including the advance payment of revenue support grant that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recently announced).

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has issued to responsible individuals who are in receipt of intrusive changes of circumstances forms issued by local community charge registration officers.

  Mr. Chope
  Every adult individual has a statutory duty to inform the community charges registration officer of any change of circumstances which affects his or her register entry. There is, however, no duty to volunteer such information about any other person. A responsible 736
  individual has a duty to provide information about people other than him or herself only in response to a specific request from the registration officer.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of those liable to pay the community charge will be eligible to receive community charge benefits.

  Mr. Chope
  Nearly one quarter of all community charge payers will be helped by community charge benefit, which can reduce their liability by up to 80 per cent.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the new system of local authority capital controls.

  Mr. Chope
  The consultation paper "Capital Expenditure and Finance" published in July 1988 resulted in about 400 representations from the local authority associations, individual local authorities, other organisations, hon. Members, councillors, and other companies and individuals. Since then, my right hon. Friend has received further representations about various aspects of the new capital finance system provided for in part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to provide additional moneys to ease the introduction of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  We are already providing £23·1 billion of external finance for local authorities in England for 1990–91. In addition, there will be £2£2 billion of support for individuals through community charge benefit, income support, and the transitional relief scheme.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the likely average percentage increase in community charge rates for 1991–92 over 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  I have made no such estimate.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to finalise the details of the new system of local authority capital controls.

  Mr. Chope
  We expect to complete shortly the main regulations implementing the new system. The remaining items will follow within a few weeks.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will produce revised estimates of the likely level of community charge in England and Wales.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will produce a revised estimate of the likely level of community charge in Northumbria.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has made no estimates of the likely level of community charges. Figures placed in the Library on 11 January showed what the community charge could be in English districts if spending were in line with Government assumptions. My right hon. Friend has no plans to revise these figures.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his officials last met the local authority associations to discuss the new system of local authority capital controls.
  737
  Mr.Chope
  on 1 December 1989.

  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the criteria to be used for poll tax capping.

  Mr. Chope
  It would not be right to speculate on any charge-capping scheme we might need to operate in future.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what latest representations he has received over the workings of the poll tax.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend and I continue to receive representations about the administration of the community charge. The aspects most frequently raised recently have been the fairness of the new arrangements, questions about comunity charge benefit, and details of the standard charge.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the cost of

  1990–91 SSAs·cash changes from adjusted 1989–90 GREs

  1989–90 GRE £million

  Adjusted 1989–90 GRE £million

  1990–91 SSA £million

  Cash change (Col 3-Col 2) £million

  Cash change (Col 3-Col 2) £/adult

  Cash change (Col 3-Col 2) per cent·

  Kent

  Ashford

  5·266

  4·894

  6·275

  1·381

  20

  28·2

  Canterbury

  8·219

  8·025

  8·839

  0·814

  8

  10·1

  Dartford

  4·935

  4·802

  5·321

  0·519

  8

  10·8

  Dover

  6·387

  6·205

  7·420

  1·216

  16

  19·6

  Gillingham

  6·311

  6·169

  6·954

  0·785

  11

  12·7

  Gravesham

  5·701

  5·523

  6·418

  0·896

  13

  16·2

  Maidstone

  7·382

  7·193

  9·059

  1·867

  18

  25·9

  Rochester upon Medway

  10·021

  9·532

  11·719

  2·187

  20

  22·9

  Sevenoaks

  5·400

  5·144

  5·964

  0·819

  10

  15·9

  Shepway

  6·029

  5·855

  6·502

  0·647

  9

  11·1

  Swale

  6·394

  6·182

  7·663

  1·481

  17

  24·0

  Thanet

  9·862

  9·620

  10·242

  0·622

  6

  6·5

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  5·059

  4·921

  5·830

  0·908

  12

  18·5

  Tunbridge Wells

  5·548

  5·422

  6·561

  1·139

  15

  21·0

  Development Projects
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take to expedite the consultative and legal processes necessary before the implementation of major development projects.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In July 1988 we introduced new rules of procedure to speed up planning inquiries into major projects. And we are considering responses to a consultation paper on improving the effectiveness of the planning system generally.

  Defective Houses
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to offer assistance to those people who purchased houses which since purchase have proved defective; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Eligible owners of designated defective properties are entitled to assistance from their local authority under the housing defects legislation.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to provide additional resources for the repair and maintenance of defective houses; and if he will make a statement.
  738
  administration of the community charge; and what representations he has received on this subject from the Association of District Councils.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The cost of collecting the community charge, as indicated by an independent study, has been taken into account in the revenue support grant settlement. The Association of District Councils has made a number of representations on these costs.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state in relation to each district and borough council in Kent by what percentage its 1990–91 standard spending assessment represents an increase or decrease from the comparable adjusted figure for the 1989–90 grant-related expenditure assessment.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]The figures requested are shown in the table:

  Mr. Chope
  The housing investment programme (HIP) allocations for 1990–91, announced by my right hon. Friend on 21 December 1989, took account of the total needs of local authorities for housing expenditure, including the need for expenditure on housing defects. We do not propose to make any additional allocations.

  Homelessness
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any further proposals to tackle homelessness.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme).

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to alleviate homelessness in London and the south-east.

  Mr. Chope
  Following publication of our review of the homelessness legislation we have made £250 million of extra resources available over the next two years for schemes to tackle homelessness in London and the south-east. My Department has written to all housing associations and local authorities in London and the south-east inviting them to submit schemes to use this money. We want in the first instance to reduce the number
  739
  of homeless families councils place in bed and breakfast accommodation. We have asked councils and associations to respond quickly.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional resources he will provide to the Housing Corporation in 1991 to alleviate homelessness.

  Mr. Chope
  On 20 December my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) announced significant increases in the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. At £1,220.5 million, gross provision in 1990–91 will be nearly 50 per cent. higher than this year's allocation and will rise even further to £1,563 million in 1991–92. These additional resources will be allocated by the Housing Corporation to those areas and individuals in greatest housing need, including, of course, the statutorily homeless.

  Included within these figures are allocations of £36 million in 1990–91 and £37 million in 1991–92 which form part of the Government's special homelessness programme announced in November last year. These resources will be used to finance projects in the pressure areas of London and the south-east aimed at making available, quickly, accommodation for the statutorily homeless.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on his response to the Association of London Authorities' proposals for alleviating acute homelessness.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has written to the association, urging it to encourage member authorities to submit bids for a share of the additional £250 million we are making available specifically to reduce homelessness in London and the south-east.

  Recycling
  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage recycling of waste in Government Departments and in the House.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The recycling of waste is a matter for each Department to arrange in the light of local circumstances and other requirements such as security. We are, through the interdepartmental committee on business and the environment, stressing to colleagues the need to review carefully their waste disposal arrangements in order to maximise the opportunities for recycling.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what levels of waste recycling are achieved by waste disposal authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There is at present no comprehensive record of the levels of waste recycling achieved by waste disposal authorities. However, my Department is about to launch a survey of local authorities which will investigate, among other things, the current extent of recycling activity by local authorities. In addition, under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Bill, which received its Second Reading on 15 January, waste collection authorities will be required to prepare recycling plans to enable their performance in 740
  recycling to be assessed and waste disposal authorities should have regard to the desirability of including in any contract for waste disposal terms or conditions designed to maximise the recycling of waste.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to encourage local authorities to achieve targets of recycling 50 per cent. of household waste by the year 2000.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Local authorities will be encouraged through the provisions of the Environmental Protection Bill to improve their recycling performance. In particular, waste collection authorities will be given specific powers to facilitate recycling and will be required to prepare detailed recycling plans. Waste disposal authorities will be required to have regard to the desirability of including in any contract for the disposal of waste terms or conditions designed to maximise the recycling of waste, and waste regulation authorities will be required to give priority to recycling when considering disposal options. The provisions in the Bill will be followed up with detailed guidance to local authorities about means of encouraging recycling.

  The Government are also supporting specific initiatives involving local authorities such as the recycling city project in Sheffield which is pioneering new methods of collecting and processing recyclables.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the success to date of the recycling city project in Sheffield.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department, together with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment (INC PEN), is funding a three-year research contract to monitor and evaluate the UK2000 recycling city project in Sheffield. A report on the first six months of that research is expected in March. While it is still early to make any conclusive assessment of the success of the project, it is already apparent that important progress has been made by the various industries involved in the provision of facilities to enable the public to recycle their waste and that the response to those facilities has been enthusiastic, with up to three quarters of the people served by the kerbside collection scheme taking an active part.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr.Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 local authorities in England with the highest rent arrears.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authority figures for 1988–89 are not yet available. The top 10 authorities with the highest arrears as a percentage of their rent roll in 1987–88 were as follows:

  Rank Authority

  Amount

  £million

  percentage

  1. Brent1

  8·1

  47

  2. Lambeth

  12·6

  30

  3. Southwark

  19·0

  29

  4. Islington

  9·8

  27

  5. Hackney

  8·4

  24

  6. Haringey

  4·1

  19

  7. Liverpool

  11·2

  18

  8. Waltham Forest

  3·1

  16

  highest arrears as a percentage of their rent roll in 1987–88 were as follows:

  741

  Rank Authority

  Amount

  £ million

  percentage

  9. Greenwich

  4·8

  15

  10. Camden

  4·7

  15

  1 The figure reported by (£16·7 million) included rate arrears, and so on. The figure in the table is a DOE estimate on a pro rata basis (the basis apparently used by Brent in previous years).

  Climate Change
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will report on the outcome of the Cairo world conference on preparing for climate change.

  Mr. Trippier
  I participated in the conference and found it stimulating, particularly for the attention it brought to the importance of climate change for developing countries.

  Canals
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the chairman of the British Waterways Board to discuss future policy for canals.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have met the BWB chairman, Mr. David Ingman, twice since taking up my present office and I plan to visit the BWB later this year.

  Business Rates
  26. Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the introduction of the national non-domestic rating system for businesses.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations from individual businesses and business organisations on aspects of the new uniform business rate in England.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the implications of the uniform business rate for small and large businesses in England and Wales.

  Mr. Chope
  I have nothing further to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on 20 December,Official Report, columns 330-31.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, for the Bradford metropolitan district, he will state the average percentage change in rates payable in respect of industrial premises following revaluation and the introduction of the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Chope
  At the national non-domestic poundage of 34·8p and taking account of the non-domestic revaluation, average rate bills for factories in the metropolitan district of Bradford would fall by 27·3 per cent. compared with 1989–90. However, both reductions and increases in bills will be subject to transitional arrangements. The purpose of these is to give businesses facing higher bills time to adjust and to ensure that the overall yield from business rate remains broadly the same in real terms in 1990–91 as in 1989–90.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received over the implementation of the new business rate.
  742
  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 13 December,Official Report, column 710.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations were held with representatives of the business community and local authorities on the level of the uniform business rate prior to his recent announcement.

  Mr. Chope
  Wide consultations have been held with representatives of the business community and local authorities on all aspects of the new uniform business rate. The rate for 1990–91, which my right hon. Friend announced on 20 December, is pitched at the level necessary to meet the Government's commitment that businesses should pay broadly the same in real terms in the first year of the new system as in the last year of the old.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the likely effects upon businesses of the introduction of the unified business rate.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud on 20 December,Official Report, columns 330–31.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the new business rating adjustment.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the impact of the uniform business rate on small businesses in the midlands.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has had from owners of small businesses in relation to his proposals for a national non-domestic rate.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the introduction of the uniform business rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Members and the hon. and learned Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) on 13 December,Official Report, column 710.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has received from the Housing Corporation for new projects since his announcement that the corporation's new-build programme is to be doubled.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In his statement of 20 December Official Report, column 327 announcing the doubling of the Housing Corporation's capital programme over the next three years my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) outlined the policy framework against which those funds were to be allocated in 1990–91. Within that framework it is for the Housing Corporation to decide which new projects are funded. I understand that the corporation hopes to have completed this process by the middle of March.
  743
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any new proposals concerning the financing of the Housing Corporation.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to increase the funding for the Housing Corporation.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) announced details of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1990–91 on 20 December 1989,Official Report, column 327, and said that the corporation's capital programme was planned to double over the next three years, rising to £1,736 million in 1992–93. I have nothing to add to that statement. Decisions on the level of grant for the administrative costs of the corporation will be announced shortly.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account local planning committees and his departmental inspectors are required to pay to local objections to individual planning applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  All relevant views expressed by local objectors should be taken into account in determining planning applications, together with all material considerations.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations he has received regarding the Government's plans for the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 December 1989 to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce),Official Report, column 706. My Department continues to receive representations from interested parties covering a range of views.

  Rural Development Commission
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Rural Development Commission; what was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I met the chairman of the Rural Development Commission on 5 December 1989 to discuss the work of the commission.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the numbers of job opportunities created by the assistance of the Rural Development Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The commission estimates that it assisted in the creation or retention of at least 5,000 job opportunities in the financial year 1988–89. Further benefits, as yet not quantifiable, will flow from the additional assistance to rural coalfield areas, including a substantial part of the hon. Member's constituency, announced on 9 January.

  Tenants
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to issue any guidelines to councils about the availability of independent advice for tenants who may be transferred from the local authority to a new landlord.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any new proposals for ensuring that a full and fair consultation is held with tenants in areas where the council is proposing transfer of housing to another landlord.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities have a statutory obligation, under schedule 3A to the Housing Act 1985, to consult tenants about a proposed disposal of their homes to a new landlord. It is for the local authority concerned to ensure that it provides tenants with sufficient and accurate details of its proposal to enable them to take an informed view about it.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the current regulations concerning the importation and transit of toxic waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has received representations on a number of aspects of the current regulations on the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste. The EC directives that are implemented through these regulations are being revised both in the light of operational experience by member states and also to give effect to the Basel convention adopted last year. The Government have made clear their views on the need for strengthening and extending the Community's rules on transfrontier shipment and we are seeking powers in the Environmental Protection Bill to restrict or prohibit the import of any wastes, where this is necessary to prevent risk of pollution or harm to human health.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the amount in tonnes of toxic waste imported for incineration during 1988–89; and how much of this was of polychlorinated biphenyls or of materials contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution estimates that approximately 52,000 tonnes of hazardous waste was imported during 1988–89. It is not possible to identify separately the quantity destined for incineration. Figures for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are available only since the introduction of the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste regulations in October 1988 and from then until 31 March 1989 some 5,800 tonnes of PCB-contaminated waste was imported for incineration.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects the toxic waste held in Wath-upon-Dearne to be removed from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have asked officials to pursue the matter further with the United States authorities.

  New Homes Environmental Group
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the New Homes Environmental Group; and what was discussed.
  745
  Mr. Chope
  I have not met representatives from the New Homes Environmental Group although my Department was an observer at their meetings.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for development in London's green belt have been permitted in each year following the abolition of the Greater London council(a) by the London boroughs and (b) by the county districts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for the total amount of London's green belt land lost to development in each year following the abolition of the Greater London council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Water Privatisation
  David Martin
  38. Mr. To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people purchased shares in the privatised water companies.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information is not available in the form requested, but the number of original allocatees recorded on the interim register for each company was as follows:

  Numbers

  Anglian

  274,167

  Northumbrian

  255,476

  North West

  244,491

  Severn Trent

  317,673

  Southern

  261,704

  South West

  129,064

  Thames

  680,816

  Welsh

  143,099

  Wessex

  188,541

  Yorkshire

  210,091

  Total

  2,705,122

  These registers include corporate holdings as well as individuals. The offer also allowed for holdings by individuals in any or all of the 10 companies and therefore holders may appear on more than one register.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many worker shareholders there are in the nine privatised water authorities in England.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A total of 34,208 employees representing 85·55 per cent. of the eligible work force of the nine companies have successfully applied for shares in the companies under free and matching offers. In addition some of the small number of employees not eligible for the free and matching offers will have successfully applied for shares, but exact figures could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total value of the planned investment programmes of the privatised water and sewage businesses in England and Wales over the next 10 years.
  746
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The total estimated value of the planned investment programmes of the newly privatised water and sewage businesses in England and Wales is £24·6 billion at November 1989 prices.

  Bedfordshire County Council (Spending)
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received from Bedfordshire county council as to its proposed level of spending for the year 1990–91 following his announcement of the revenue support grant; what level of spending he estimates it should keep to; by how much this differs from the proposed level of spending and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has received no information from Bedfordshire county council on its proposed level of spending for 1990–91. Its standard spending assessment for 1990-91 is £277,308,000. This is an appropriate amount consistent with the provision of a standard level of service. However, Bedfordshire's budget for 1990–91 will depend on its own decisions for which it will be accountable to its chargepayers.

  Rutland Water (Animal Deaths)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now set up a special inquiry to investigate and report upon all aspects relating to the deaths of dogs and sheep around Rutland Water in September 1988.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I do not think that it is necessary to set up a special inquiry. The NRA will be compiling a report on its investigations into the causes of the toxic algal growth in 1989 at a number of sites in England, including Rutland Water. This report will address the circumstances surrounding the deaths of animals at Rutland Water.

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures were taken by his Department to encourage the regeneration of inner-city areas in 1989.

  Mr. Moynihan
  During 1989 my Department continued to develop and implement a comprehensive range of programmes and initiatives directed at inner-city regeneration. Substantial progress was made during the year.

  A new urban development corporation was established for Bristol to bring the number of third generation UDCs to four. Private investment committed across all UDC areas passed £7·3 billion.

  City grant, introduced in the previous year, began to make a significant impact on the redevelopment of run-down urban areas. By the end of 1989, over 100 capital investment projects had received approval for a total of £85 million grant; these will lead to private investment of £360 million and the creation of 13,500 jobs.

  The urban programme continued to support a wide range of projects to strengthen local economies, improve the environment and tackle social problems in deprived urban areas; it is estimated that about £260 million was spent on a total of more than 10,000 projects.
  747
  Under the enterprise zone initiative, Sunderland borough council and the Tyne and Wear development corporation were invited to prepare planning schemes for an enterprise zone in Sunderland.

  To encourage further the disposal of unused or underused land, new registers of such land, including inner-city sites, were made publicly available by public sector owners on 31 October under codes of practice issued by the Department.

  The annual report on the Department's inner-city programmes for 1988–89 will be published shortly.

  Housing (Planning)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which organisations have submitted comments on paragraph 3 of annex A of the draft planning policy guidance note on the planning aspects of housing developments issued in October 1989 by his Department.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We have so far received over 400 responses to the draft guidance note; a substantial number of them comment on the issue of low-cost housing for local needs. The consultation period ended on 5 January, and my officials are currently engaged on an analysis of the responses. When this is complete, I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Sports Council; and what topics he proposes to discuss with him.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Sports Council; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I will next meet the chairman of the Sports Council at the Commonwealth games in Auckland.I expect that we will discuss informally a range of current issues relating to sport and recreation—including, I hope, British successes at the games.

  Low-cost Housing
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to increase the rate of provision of low-cost housing both to buy and for rent in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Over the last two years the Government have announced a series of measures to promote provision of low-cost housing to rent and buy in rural areas. We have more than doubled public funding through the Housing Corporation for new investment by housing associations, so enabling the corporation to increase the targets for rented housing under its special rural programme to 1,500 a year by 1992–93 and identify a rural element within its low-cost home ownership programme. We have also made changes to the planning rules, to permit development of low-cost housing for local needs on sites not previously designated for housing, and introduced a repurchase scheme to ensure that shared ownership housing in rural areas remains available for local people. Taken together, and along with the steps we have taken to free the private 748
  rented market, these measures should make a major contribution to increasing the supply of low-cost housing to meet local needs in rural areas.

  Clean Air
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives from the National Society for Clean Air.

  Mr. Trippier
  While my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met representatives of the National Society for Clean Air, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health met representatives when she addressed the society's 90th anniversary celebrations on 15 May last year, when she was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what international commitments on environmental protection Her Majesty's Government have entered into since 1987.

  Mr. Trippier
  Since 1987 the United Kingdom and the other member states have adopted European Community measures on the following:

  Directives:

  Motorcycle noise

  Construction plant noise

  Testing new chemicals

  Dangerous preparations

  Vehicle emissions

  Diesel emissions

  Pesticide residues

  Dangerous substances in water

  Large combustion plants

  New municipal waste incinerators

  Existing municipal waste incinerators

  Air Quality—smoke and SO2

  Titanium dioxide

  Regulations:

  Monitoring of forest damage

  Forestry action programme

  Trade in endangered species (enforcing CITES)

  Ivory imports

  Set-aside

  CFCs, halons and ozone layer

  The United Kingdom has also signed the Sofia protocol
  to the 1979 convention on long-range transboundary air pollution and the Basel convention on transfrontier movements of hazardous wastes.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent per head of population in 1988–89 on the control of pollution and improvement of the environment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  Statistics are not available in a form that would allow an exact reply to this question. Broad estimates suggest that the UK spends for the purpose of pollution control and environmental improvement a proportion of its GDP comparable to that in other industrial countries.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals on environmental protection his Department is currently urging the European Community to adopt.

  Mr. Trippier
  The United Kingdom plays a leading and constructive role in shaping European Community policy
  749
  for protecting the environment. We are currently urging agreement on a wide range of proposals, including the following:
  A regulation establishing a European Environment Agency to underpin environmental policy with comparable and authoritative information on a Europe-wide basis;
  A directive to protect the habitats of wild fauna and flora which will enable all member states to implement the Berne Convention and which will have added value
  over and above what can be achieved nationally;
  A directive to consolidate existing directives on exhaust emissions from passenger cars and which will include evaporative emissions;
  A directive to tighten controls over emissions from large diesel vehicle engines, which are responsible for about half the emissions of NOx from road transport and which are the principal source of smoke in cities;
  A resolution that advanced industrialised countries should aim to become self-sufficient in disposing of their wastes so that we may put an end to virtually all transfrontier shipments of wastes;
  A proposal establishing a community-wide scheme of labelling to provide consumers with impartial advice on the environmental characteristics of products and to reinforce incentives for manufacturers to produce goods which are environmentally more benign;
  A directive designed to improve public access to environmental information which will be consistent with the register-based approach used successfully in this country for a number of years
  The production of an agreed list of substances which are particularly dangerous for the aquatic environment and which require priority action to minimise imputs from all sources;
  A directive establishing a mechanism for up-dating certain existing directives on water quality in the light of technical progress and practical experience.

  In addition, we have already persuaded the Community to adopt our ideas for reducing and eliminating chlorofluorocarbons as its position in the current revision of the Montreal protocol. These proposals are the most stringent of any put forward in the negotiations.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the numbers of council tenants who have exercised the right to buy since 1980.

  Mr. Chope
  From October 1980 to September 1989 about 900,000 tenants purchased their homes from local authorities and new towns in England under the right-to-buy legislation.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to co-ordinate the activities of city action teams and inner-city task forces.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Effective co-ordination of Government action in the larger cities is delivered through the city action teams while the inner-city task forces operate at a more local level based in the heart of inner-city districts. The CATs and task forces work closely together to bring about regeneration in their areas.

  On 6 December my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced the formation of a new ministerial team to spearhead and co-ordinate action in inner-cities. Each city action team and inner-city task force now has a Minister to advise and assist it in its vital regeneration work.

  Derelict Land Clearance
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the provision of additional money for derelict land clearance in the city of Bradford.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We are currently considering local authority bids for derelict land grant resources and the regional distribution of grant for 1990–91 will be announced shortly.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current estimate of Britain's carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy gave to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on 13 December 1989 at columns 647–48.

  Drink Cans
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to reduce the propensity for discarding metallic beverage containers as litter.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Environmental Protection Bill contains various measures intended to discourage people from discarding litter in general, including powers for local authorities to impose fixed penalty tickets on litterers and the raising of the maximum fine for littering from £400 to £1,000. The Bill also promotes the recycling of waste by requiring local authorities to prepare recycling plans and to consider recycling as a vital part of their waste management strategy. The industry is also developing new products such as the non-detachable pull-ring which will contribute to reducing the problem of litter.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give urgent consideration to extending to London and other cities, the principle of encouraging the provision of affordable housing which already applies to rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government's policy is to encourage provision of affordable housing in both rural and urban areas. We have recently taken a series of measures to promote the provision of low-cost housing to rent and buy in rural areas; but special priority continues to be given to inner-city areas in distributing resources to both local authorities and housing associations.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider initiating a study into the feasibility of using the planning system in high land value areas to reserve land for affordable housing as a specific land use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The general question of what role the planning system can and should play in helping to secure the provision of affordable housing has been raised in a number of the responses to the draft planning policy
  751
  guidance note on housing (PPG3) which we published for consultation last October. I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion in that context.

  Houses (Demolition)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new measures he is considering to curb the uncontrolled demolition of unlisted dwelling houses by developers creating sites for redevelopment, outside of conservation areas.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend is considering this and other planning aspects of housing development in the context of responses to the draft revised planning policy guidance note 3 (housing) which was issued for consultation on 4 October.

  Sport and Recreation
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to implement the recommendations contained in his review group's report on the provision of sport and recreation in the inner cities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government will be giving careful consideration to the recommendations contained in the report of the review of sport and active recreation provision in the inner cities and to appropriate follow-up action. I very much hope that the other organisations to which recommendations are addressed will take them forward positively.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made under the Estate Action programme in selling run-down council properties to private developers.

  Mr. Chope
  Good progress. In the four years that the Estate Action programme has been operating 123 schemes have been approved which include planned disposals by councils of some 12,500 dwellings1 to the private sector.

  A research report2 recently published by the Department of the Environment confirmed that selling run-down council properties to developers for improvement and sale to individual owners was welcomed by both the new occupants and former tenants.

  The report endorses the Government's work under the Estate Action programme in promoting such schemes to help local authorities improve the quality of life on run-down estates.

  Notes
  1 Excludes dwellings sold under the Right to Buy scheme
  2 The Sale of Local Authority Housing to the Private Sector' HMSO £12·50.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to visit an Estate Action scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has not yet done so, but hopes to do so in the future. For my part I visited three Estate Action schemes in Salford last month and look forward to further visits to other schemes.

  Children's Play Facilities
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to increase the amount of money available for grants for the provision of children's play and recreation facilities in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Primary responsibility for play provision rests with individual local authorities which fund facilities according to their judgments about the need for and level of priority attached to particular projects. The Department allocates money specifically for children's play through the Sports Council which in turn funds the national children's play and recreation unit. The unit is currently supporting a number of demonstration projects which will examine good practice in play provision for children in rural areas. This Department also grant aids the Rural Development Commission, which funds a range of social and community projects, a number of them concerned with children's play and recreation. It is for both the commission and the play unit to decide within their overall budgets the priority given to children's play projects in rural areas.

  British Scrap Federation
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the president of the British Scrap Federation; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside met the president of the British Scrap Federation on 16 November when he attended its half-yearly dinner. Various matters relating to recycling and the valuable reclamation work undertaken by members of the British Scrap Federation were discussed.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to end rates and uniform business rate holidays for retail properties in enterprise zones.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Under paragraph 27 of schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and paragraph 19 of schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 the rate exemption will end as each area concerned ceases to be an enterprise zone. My right hon. Friend has no plans to change the position.

  Environmental Health Officers
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authority associations concerning environmental health officers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None, but the work of environmental health officers has been relevant to a number of matters, such as the revenue support grant, which my right hon. Friend, my colleagues and I have discussed with the local authority associations.

  Local Authorities (Tendering)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce orders under the Local Government Act 1988 to extend those council activities required to be put out to public tender.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  An order extending the competition requirements of the Local Government Act 1988 to the management of sport and leisure facilities was made on 28 December 1989. There are at present no plans for extending those requirements to other services.

  Local Government Finance (Barnsley)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will arrange an early meeting with representatives of Barnsley metropolitan borough council to discuss its allocation of revenue support grant.

  Mr. Chope
  The then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) met a delegation from Barnsley metropolitan borough council to discuss revenue support grant (RSG) on 29 June 1989. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received no further request from Barnsley for a meeting on RSG, and the House approved the Revenue Support Grant Report (England) 1990–91 and other reports on the settlement on 18 January 1990. But we are, of course, prepared to meet authorities if they so wish.

  Planning
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce more effective and progressive public involvement in planning processing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the existing arrangements safeguard the public interest effectively.

  Rented Houses
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what requests he has received from the Rural Development Commission to develop more housing for rent in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend's predecessor, and the then Minister for Housing, met Lord Vinson, chairman of the Rural Development Commission, in December 1988, and discussed the need for low-cost housing in rural areas; and the commission's officials have regular discussions with my Department and the Housing Corporation. The commission makes grants to the National Agricultural Centre Rural Trust for its work in helping to establish village-based housing associations. Public expenditure provision for subsidised rented housing in rural areas has increased substantially over the past two years, and the Housing Corporation has established a special rural programme for villages.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what legal action is currently being pursued by the European Commission in respect of drinking water quality; and if he will make a statement.
  754
  Heathcoat-Amory
  The European Commission and member states regard the detailed formal correspondence on infraction proceedings as confidential, hence detailed information on infraction proceedings is not freely available. However I understand that, with regard to the drinking water directive, the Commission is at various stages of legal action against virtually all member states, including the United Kingdom.

  Environmental Research
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much his Department plans to increase expenditure on environmental research between the current year and 1992–93.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 13 December to my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) and for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale)Official Report column 717.

  Director General of Water Services
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the powers available to the Director General of Water Services to protect consumers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Director General of Water Services' powers to protect consumers are set out in the Water Act 1989 supplemented by the water and sewerage undertakers' instruments of appointment. Under section 7 of the Act he must exercise his powers so as to secure that the functions of water and sewerage undertakers are properly carried out and that appointed companies are able to finance the proper carrying out of those functions. Subject to these general duties, he is subject to specific duties to protect consumers, to promote economy and efficiency and to facilitate competition.

  Under section 6 of the Act the director general must establish up to 10 customer service committees and must allot each appointed company to one of those committees. It is the director general's intention to establish 10 customer service committees as soon as possible. The committees must keep under review all matters affecting customers' interests, consult and make representations to the companies, investigate those customer complaints within their remit and report to the director general on their activities in each financial year on any matter affecting the interests of customers or as required by the director general.

  The director general has a duty to consider any complaint that the customer service committee is unable to resolve and any allegation that a committee is in breach of its duty, to consider any complaint asserting a contravention of any condition of an undertaker's appointment or any other requirement enforceable under section 20 of the Act, which he decides not to refer to the Secretary of State, and to take such steps as he considers appropriate.

  The director general is also responsible for administering the regulatory system established under the Act and set out in the companies' instruments of appointment, which provides significant safeguards for consumers in relation to charges for water and sewerage services and to standards of service, and protects consumers from abuse of monopoly power.
  755
  The main provisions of the conditions of appointment are
  Limits on increases in charges. These may be adjusted by the director general in certain circumstances and reviewed periodically in the light of the principles set out in section 7 of the Act;
  A prohibition on undue discrimination between classes of customers or potential customers so that, for example, domestic and industrial consumers both pay their fair share;
  A requirement to submit audited accounts which, among other things, enable the director to protect the customer from cross subsidy between the appointed business and other businesses or companies in the group;
  Requirements as to the procedures to be followed before a domestic customer may be disconnected for non-payment of charges and for dealing with leakage with respect to metered domestic customers, and requirements to prepare, submit to the director for approval, and publish code of practice for relations with customers and the customer service committees, for disconnection procedures and for liability for changes in the event of leakage;
  A requirement to report performance against specified customer service indicators, to set targets for three key indicators of service—pressure of mains water, interruptions to water supplies and foul water flooding—and to make available to the public information on performance against these indicators. The director may vary the matters on which companies are required to report. Where performance is unsatisfactory he may ask the Secretary of State to make regulations under sections 38 of 68 to the Act to lay down standards of performance enforceable under the Act;
  Procedures to ensure that the best value is obtained from the sale of any surplus land and that the customer benefits from the proceeds;
  A requirement that the assets needed for the carrying out of the statutory water and sewerage functions remain available to the company, and a requirement to prepare, keep up to date and submit to the director an underground asset management plan to enable him to satisfy himself that the maintenance of long term assets is not being neglected.

  The director has wide-ranging information powers under the Act and the instruments of appointment to
  monitor the performance of companies. Should a company be in breach of its appointment conditions the director general may take enforcement action under section 20 of the Act.

  The director general is not responsible for regulating the quality of water supplied to customers or the quality of sewage discharges. Those are matters for other regulatory bodies but the director general has powers to ensure that the charges paid by consumers properly reflect the expenditure required to provide a satisfactory performance standard.

  Itinerants
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding nuisance caused by itinerants.

  Mr. Chope
  I receive various letters, from hon. Members and the public, about problems caused by illegally camped itinerant gipsies.

  Pharmaceutical Wastes
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the continued dumping of pharmaceutical wastes in the North sea.
  756
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In common with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is responsible for licensing of the disposal of waste at sea, I have had a number of letters and representations from members of the public about the disposal of liquid industrial wastes. None of the wastes concerned is toxic and nor do they contain more than trace elements of contaminants such as metals. Use of the sea disposal option for this type of waste has been reduced by 50 per cent. since 1980 and is expected to end within a very few years as practicable land-based alternatives become available.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans there are for monitoring radioactivity after a nuclear accident.

  Mr. Trippier
  Arrangements for monitoring following an overseas nuclear accident, are set out in the booklet "The National Response Plan and Radioactive Incident Monitoring Network (RIMNET). Phase I". Copies of this booklet have been placed in the Library of the House. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Wales, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are responsible for making arrangements for dealing with accidents at civil nuclear sites in the United Kingdom.

  Lead
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures Her Majesty's Government have taken since 1985 to lower the amount of lead in the atmosphere over Britain; and with what results.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The main thrust of the Government's policy has been, and is, to tackle lead in petrol which still accounts for the bulk of lead in air. We reduced the maximum permitted lead content of petrol from 0·40 to 0·15 per litre from 31 December 1985, and have taken a number of steps to encourage the widest possible supply and use of unleaded petrol. In particular the introduction of the differential between the rates of duty on leaded and unleaded petrol has meant that 95-octane unleaded can normally be found some 12p a gallon cheaper than leaded four star.

  As a result, airborne lead concentrations have fallen by some 50 per cent. between 1985 and 1988, the latest year for which complete figures are available, and the use of unleaded petrol has risen from 2 per cent. to 28 per cent. of the market within the last year. Vehicle regulations will ensure that uptake continues to rise. Since October 1989 all new models of cars have had to be capable of running on 95-octane unleaded petrol. This requirement will apply to all new cars from October 1990, and from 31 December 1992 all new cars will be fitted with catalysts and will have to use unleaded petrol.

  Water Standards
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates of the capital investment required to meet European Community directives on water standards.
  757
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh).

  Environmental Improvements
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources Her Majesty's Government are making available to international organisations and to other countries to assist and encourage environmental improvements.

  Mr. Trippier
  In the current year the Government expect to give financial assistance to a range of international organisations as follows:

  £

  The United Nations Environment Programme

  3,000,000

  The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change

  750,000

  The Convention and Protocol for the Protection of the Ozone Layer

  83,000

  The Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution

  72,000

  The OECD Chemicals Programme

  52,000

  The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance

  14,000

  The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

  41,000

  CITES

  1 85,000

  The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

  50,000

  The European Environmental Bureau

  5,000

  1 Approximately.

  This is in addition to the general financial contributions by Government to the European Community, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations.

  Government assistance to developing countries is provided through the aid programme which has as a central aim the promotion of sustainable development. Environmental issues are addressed in all projects and programmes under the aid programme, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. On eastern Europe, we are working through the Group of 24 and the 300 million ecu aid fund established by the European Community.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to improve the environment in the towns and villages of southern England.

  Mr. Trippier
  A sound and up-to-date planning framework is essential if we are to protect and improve the urban and rural environment. We have recently urged county planning authorities to revise and update their structure plans where necessary, and we are encouraging district planning authorities to extend the coverage of local plans. While plans must make adequate provision for necessary development, the decisions they embody about the distribution of new development can and should reflect communities' concerns for the protection of the local environment.

  We also issued new draft planning advice last autumn which removes the previous strong presumption in favour of releasing land for housing development; stresses the importance of good design in new housing schemes; and encourages planning authorities to develop policies for the protection of existing residential areas, where their
  758
  character is threatened by excessive infilling and redevelopment. Such policies should be embodied in local plans.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effects of acid deposition on trees within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the recently published terrestrial effects review group report which has chapters on the effects of air pollutants, including acid deposition, on trees. This report summarises current understanding and draws widely on research programmes funded by the DOE, NERC and Forestry Commission. Copies of the report can be found in the Library of the House.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the integrated pollution control provisions of the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Trippier
  A total of 91 responses were received to the initial consultation paper on integrated pollution control which was published in July 1988. Further documents setting out our proposals for cost recovery charging and public access to information under integrated pollution control drew 53 and 74 responses respectively. The proposals for integrated pollution control, which will place the United Kingdom at the forefront of pollution control within Europe, have been welcomed across a broad spectrum of opinion.

  European Environment Agency
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to support the selection of a site in the United Kingdom to host the proposed European Environment Agency.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Secretary of State for the Environment publicly stated his support for the proposed European Environment Agency to be located in Cambridge, and wrote to the European Commission in confirmation on 8 December 1989. Documentation advocating the merits of Cambridge has since been compiled which will shortly be forwarded to the European Council and the Commission.

  Tidy Britain Group
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional resources are being provided by his Department to support the Tidy Britain Group during the current year.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department is providing £3 million to support the work of the Tidy Britain Group in 1989–90. The grant was substantially increased over that provided in previous years specifically to finance the development of the group's pilot projects scheme and for preparations for 1990—Tidy Britain Year.

  In view of the considerable amount of work generated by Tidy Britain Year and the success of the group's people

  759
  and places programme, the grant for 1990–91 has been set at £1·812 million. This is an increase of £1·2 million over the original PES planning figure of £612,000.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to promote international action to tackle the greenhouse effect.

  Mr. Trippier
  We actively support the work of the intergovernmental panel on climate change and our contribution to its scientific assessment will be enhanced by the establishment of the new climate change prediction centre. We are leading efforts to gain support for an international framework convention on climate change and hosting the second conference of the parties to the Montreal protocol at which we will press for the strengthening of the protocol to phase out the use and production of CFCs which are important greenhouse gases.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him regarding provisions in the Environmental Protection Bill to separate local authority responsibilities for the management and regulation of the disposal of waste.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have received no representations regarding the provisions in the Environmental Protection Bill to separate local authority responsibilities for the management and regulation of the disposal of waste. But the responses to our consultative proposals to separate regulation from operation were generally favourable.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of planning appeals in(a) Bracknell and (b) Windsor and Maidenhead, have been granted during the last 12 months for which figures are available, and the two previous 12-month periods.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information requested is given in the table. In each case the figures are those for the 12-month period to 30 November.

  Year

  Appeals/decided

  Appeals/allowed

  Per cent. Appeals/allowed

  Bracknell

  1986–87

  45

  18

  40·0

  1987–88

  56

  18

  31·1

  1988–89

  58

  18

  31·0

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1986–87

  130

  64

  49·2

  1987–88

  131

  68

  51·9

  1988–89

  189

  64

  33·9

  English Heritage
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the grant in aid to English Heritage will have increased since 1984–85 by 1991–92.
  760
  Mr. Trippier
  Grant in aid to English Heritage in 1984–85 was £49·9 million. The provisional allocation for 1991–92 is £79·816 million. In the intervening years English Heritage has taken on additional responsibilities—notably the Greater London Council's historic buildings division and historic house museums—which makes direct comparisons between 1984–85 and 1991–92 misleading. Nevertheless, the figures reflect steady increases in grant in aid and confirm the Government's strong commmitment to assist the preservation and protection of the nation's important heritage assets.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals English Heritage has made to spend the additional resources being made available to it over the next two years.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have allocated an additional £3 million to English Heritage in 1990–91 and an extra £3·02 million in 1991–92 taking the total grant in aid in each of those two years to £77·977 million and £79·816 million (provisional) respectively.

  These substantial increases signal the Government's recognition of the importance of our heritage to the quality of life and the contribution it makes to a healthy tourism industry. They mean that English Heritage will be able to build on its successful record in several different ways. It plans to invest more in the maintenance and presentation of its key historic sites, already a source of significant enjoyment and education for an increasing number of adults and youngsters.

  We are particularly pleased that some of the increase is being earmarked for preparatory work on the proposed new visitor centre at Stonehenge. Recent agreement with the Ministry of Defence on an access route to the centre has ended a long period of uncertainty and concern. English Heritage will now be directing its energies wholeheartedly towards the preparation of detailed proposals for visitor facilities worthy of this outstandingly important monument.

  Other areas of English Heritage's responsibilities which will benefit from the extra resources include archaeology and the review of lists of historic buildings produced in the early 1970s.

  Water Leakages
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the leakage levels from the English water distribution system.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The latest information on water losses, which includes water lost by leakage, was published in the prospectus "The Water Share Offers", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Limestone Pavements
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken under the Wildlife and Countryside Act to protect limestone pavements; and what further steps he intends to take.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under the provisions of section 34 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, county planning authorities may make orders designating land containing limestone pavements and prohibiting the removal or
  761
  disturbance of limestone on or in it. To date, 12 orders have been made. The system is working satisfactorily and we have no plans for additional protective measures.

  Dolphinaria
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now received replies from all the dolphinaria operators in the United Kingdom regarding their plans to implement the new standards; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Trippier
  One dolphinaria operator has supplied full details of its plans for the implementation of new standards. The Department is awaiting replies from the remainder. A reminder has been sent and we shall continue to press for full responses from all operators. The steering group report on dolphinaria, published in August 1988, and endorsed by Ministers, made it clear that failure to reach the required standards by August 1993 would constitute grounds for revoking an operator's display exemption.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy regarding dolphinaria exhibiting single specimens of cetacea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The standards recommended by the departmental steering group set up to review Dr. Klinowska's report on dolphinaria, and endorsed by Ministers in August 1988, state that no single specimen of any species of cetacea may be kept. We would therefore expect any dolphinarium which held a single specimen to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation as soon as practicable.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken to implement the recommendation of the dolphinaria steering group report regarding the provision of guidance on educational criteria for displaying cetacea in captivity.

  Mr. Trippier
  Several items recommended by the dolphinaria steering group, including the provision of guidance on educational criteria for displaying cetacea, raise scientific and technical questions on which we intend to seek appropriate specialist advice.

  Water Act Consents
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many(a) consents and (b) authorisations have been made subject to any conditions in accordance with section 152(4) or (5) of the Water Act 1989;

  (2) how many (a) consents and (b) authorisations he has made for the disposal of land, or rights or interests in or over any land, in accordance with section 152(3) of the Water Act 1989;

  (3) how many requests he has received for his (a) consent or (b) general authorisation for the disposal of land, or of any interest or right in or over any land, in accordance with section 152(2) of the Water Act 1989;

  (4) if he will list the location of all land, or the nature and location of any right or interest in or over any land, which has been subject to a request for consent for disposal in accordance with section 152(2) of the Water Act 1989,
  762
  specifying which have received his consent or general authorisation under section 152(4), and what if any conditions were attached under section 152(4) and (5);

  (5) on how many occasions he has had an opportunity to enter into covenant with a company holding an appointment under chapter I of part II of the Water Act 1989 for the purposes set out in section 152(7) of that Act; how many covenants have been entered into; on how many occasions he has declined to enter such covenants; and what were the reasons in each case.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Secretary of State has received one application for specific consent to dispose of land, or rights or interests in or over any land, under section 152 of the Water Act 1989. Consent has been given. This permits the sale of two areas of land at Bamford in the Peak District national park by Severn Trent Water. The disposal is subject to condition K of Severn Trent's appointment. The Countryside Commission, after consultation with the Peak Park joint planning board, raised no objection to an unconditional sale. No covenant was therefore required.

  The Secretary of State has not entered into any covenants under section 152(7) or declined any recommendation that he should do so.

  The Secretary of State has issued two general authorisations under section 152 to each appointed water undertaker which allow disposal of land if certain conditions are satisfied. These concern application of the Crichel Down rules to compulsorily purchased land, arid protection for land in national parks, the Broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and sites of special scientific interest. In all cases there is a requirement to satisfy condition K of their licences which relates to ring fencing, disposals of land, and changes of use of land. I am placing copies of the authorisations in the Library. No further general authorisations have been requested. Land disposals under the general authorisations do not require the Secretary of State's consent.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to prevent oil pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The primary responsibility for preventing oil pollution at sea lies with the owners and operators of ships, offshore installations, pipelines, refineries and other industries whose operation have the potential for a damaging impact. In the light of improving technology for reducing waste discharges, regulatory standards for these activities are continually under review and, on an international basis, in fora such as the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in the case of shipping and the Paris Commission for land-based discharges. In the case of preventing damage from oil pollution at sea, the United Kingdom has well tried and tested arrangements co-ordinated by the marine pollution control unit of the Department of Transport. The recent initiative within IMO to develop an oil spill convention will consider how such arrangements can be improved on a worldwide basis.

  Public Land
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the rules for sale of public land to private companies.
  763
  Mr. Moynihan
  Guidance on disposals by Government Departments of land which is surplus to their requirements is given in chapter 32 of "Government Accounting—A guide of Accounting and Financial Procedures for the Use of Government Departments", and in a Treasury letter to accounting officers (DAO 4/88).

  Local authorities have a general power under section 123(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 to dispose of land. However, subsection (2) of that section requires them to obtain consent from the Secretary of State for the Environment for any proposed disposal at less than the best consideration reasonably obtainable. My Department has from time to time issued advice by circular to local authorities about particular issues relating to land disposals.

  EC Water Service Guidelines
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the water service guidelines for all member countries laid out by the EEC Commission on new connections for sewerage service;

  (2) what EEC guidelines are laid out for member countries' water services in reference to service response time to sewerage problems;

  (3) what EEC guidelines are laid out for member countries' water services in reference to sewage flooding;

  (4) what guidelines are set out by the EEC Commission for its member nations' water services with reference to customer contact by telephone calls, correspondence and appointments.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am not aware of any such guidelines being issued by the Commission of the European Communities.
  Water Services

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what codes of practice are required of member states by the EEC Commission in their treatment and disposal of sewage;

  (2) what codes of practice are required of member states by the EEC Commission in their handling of complaints and commendations on their water services;

  (3) what standards are required by the EEC Commission of its member nations in their sewage works' control of odours and effluent discharges;

  (4) what standards, in terms of summary details and measurements used, are required of member states by the EEC Commission for the availability of raw water in the supply system;

  (5) what standards, in terms of summary details and measurements used, are required of member states by the EEC Commission for the water pressure of their water supplies;

  (6) what standards, in terms of summary details and measurements used, are required of member states by the EEC Commission for the restoration of clean water after the interruption of that service.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am not aware of any such requirement on member states from the Commission of the European Communities.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the process by which the standards and prices for water services are agreed in each member country of the EEC;
  764
  (2) which governmental bodies decide what the water standard will be for each member country of the EEC;

  (3) which governmental body within each EEC member country determines water service prices; how these prices are constructed; and if he will give details of pricing policy and price construction on a member country basis.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  These are matters for individual EC member states.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of(a) properties and (b) population is connected to a clean water supply in each member state of the EEC.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The available information is to be found in table 13c of "Waterfacts '88" published by the Water Authorities Association, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what, in terms of bandings and representative national averages, are the unit prices of(a) water, (b) sewerage and (c) trade effluence for all member states of the EEC.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We do not hold such
  information.

  Common Land Forums
  Mr. Steen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to implement the recommendations of the Common Land Forum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 27 November 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) at column 89.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to take in response to findings of significant increases in the levels of emission of naturally occurring radon gas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  There have been no findings of significant increases in the levels of emission of naturally occurring radon gas. I announced on 19 January that the Government accept the National Radiological Protection Board's advice on the risks to health associated with exposure to radon, and endorse its recommendation that action should be taken in houses where the radon concentration exceeds 200 bq/cu m. I have arranged for a copy of the National Radiological Protection Board's advice to be placed in the Library.

  Politically Restricted Posts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date the contracts of those local government officers regarded as politically restricted under section 2 of the Local Government and Housing Act will incorporate those restrictions prescribed by him under section 1(5) of the Act.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]The local authority associations will be consulted about the necessary regulations as soon as possible.
  765

  Property Services Agency
  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 January 1990, c. 582–83]If PSA is incorporated as a Government-owned company it is intended that the staff in it will be transferred under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. 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.

  Dogs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to ensure that dogs are taken into care prior to any court hearing when an allegation of cruelty is made against
  a dog owner.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The court has power to make such an order after an offender has been convicted of cruelty to an animal; but we have no plans to provide for the prior removal of the animal.

  New Zealand Flatworms
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the prevalence of flatworms from New Zealand in soil; what assessment he has made of the potential damage to soil the presence of this worm presents; and what action he proposes to take to protect soil fertility.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]I have been asked to reply.

  Agricultural Departments are aware of the press reports. These worms need damp conditions and are unlikely to survive in well drained agricultural land. They appear to be established in Northern Ireland and there have been sporadic sightings in Scotland over a considerable length of time. The latest recorded sighting in England was in 1965. The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland is studying ways of controlling them.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Brussels Agriculture Council held on 22 and 23 January.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting together with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), Parliamentary Secretary in this Department.

  The Council had a first exchange of views on the Commission's proposals for 1990 farm prices. I emphasised the need for a settlement to redress the unfair burden which the green pound gap lays on the British farmer and to complete the dismantling by 1992 at the latest; to continue and consolidate the process of CAP
  766
  reform and to take full account of the stabilisers fixed for certain products; to respect budgetary guidelines; to be consistent with the Community's GATT commitments; and urged that greater scope for market forces should be introduced into the CAP, including providing for a reduction in the degree of external protection. Like several other Ministers, I questioned the need for the new non-price support measures proposed by the Commission. The Council will next consider the proposals in more detail at its meeting in February.

  On bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the Council considered a Commission proposal, which would have the effect of banning most United Kingdom exports of live cattle over six months old to other member states. 1 opposed on the ground that the scientific evidence showed clearly that such restrictions were unnecessary. No decision was reached, but the rules allow the Commission to adopt the proposal as it stands, which it is now expected to do with effect from 1 March. Of some 266,000 live cattle exported from the United Kingdom in 1988, 249,000 (94 per cent.) would still have been able to be exported had the present proposal then been in force. The most important effect of such a ban is likely to be on exports of breeding animals. However, the Commissioner confirmed that authoritative veterinary advice made it clear that there were no grounds for suspecting that beef produced in the United Kingdom posed any risk to public health. He stated that all member states should now act in accordance with this fact and that any measures interfering with trade in beef would be contrary to Community law. The German authorities will now be reflecting on this statement and I hope that they will soon remove their unjustified measures, which are hampering trade.

  I urged the Commissioner to bring forward proposals for Community measures to deal with salmonella infection in poultry, so that all eggs produced in the Community can reach the same high health status as those produced in the United Kingdom. He stated that he would produce wide-ranging proposals as soon as possible.

  The Council agreed a tranche of emergency food aid for Romania and agreed in principle that further tranches both to Romania and to Poland should be made when the necessary legal formalities have been completed.

  Agricultural Products (Trade)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish details of the occasions in each of the last five years when article 36 of the European Communities treaty has been used to ban the trade in agricultural products between member states, indicating in each case the product, the stated reason for the ban and the countries involved.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not available. Article 36 of the treaty of Rome provides an exception (applicable in specified circumstances) to the provisions of articles 30–34 of the treaty. It is not in the nature of a statutory power. Consequently, a member state would not expressly cite article 36 in a legislative or administrative measure regulating trade with other member states, even if it considered that the measure was justified under the exception provided by that article.
  767

  Dumping Licences
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences for the dumping of materials at sea were issued by his Department in(a)

  1988

  1989

  Licences Issued

  Licensed Tonnage

  Licences Issued

  Licensed Tonnage

  Dredged Spoil

  133

  61,644,923

  141

  66,663,150

  Liquid Industrial Waste

  19

  311,411

  16

  292,968

  Solid Industrial Waste

  10

  5,856,200

  10

  5,928,917

  Sewage Sludge

  16

  7,503,580

  15

  8,321,305

  Disposal sites are approved by the Ministry for each licence. Licensees are normally harbour and port authorities, dredging operators, operators of sewage treatment works and industrial companies producing waste or their agents.

  Details of each licence are available on a public register
  held by the Ministry.

  Animal Feed (Contamination)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each county in England and Wales the number of farms(a) currently under restrictions and (b) from which restrictions have been lifted following the recent contamination of animal feed.

  Mr. Curry
  A total of 1668 farms in England and Wales are currently under restriction. To date, 536 farms have been released from all restrictions. The breakdown by county is as follows:

  County

  Number of farms currently restricted

  Number of farms released from all restrictions

  Avon

  82

  48

  Cornwall

  246

  84

  Derbyshire

  1

  0

  Devon

  600

  169

  Dorset

  104

  10

  Dyfed

  7

  4

  Gloucester

  192

  73

  Gwent

  66

  44

  Hampshire

  4

  2

  Herefordshire

  43

  7

  Leicestershire

  1

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  43

  8

  Oxfordshire

  6

  1

  Powys

  2

  2

  Somerset

  150

  28

  South Glamorgan

  31

  2

  Warwickshire

  2

  2

  West Glamorgan

  7

  2

  Wiltshire

  65

  48

  Worcestershire

  16

  2

  In addition, all dairy farms were released from milk restrictions by 13 December last year and approximately 117,000 individual animals have so far been released under livestock clearance arrangements

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Italy Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the total loss 768
  and(b) 1989; what materials they were issued for; what quantities were involved; what areas of sea were used; and what organisations or companies received them.

  Mr. Curry
  Licences are issued in respect of England and Wales. Figures for 1989 are provisional. The information is as follows:

  milk production to date, by volume and value, arising from restrictions placed on producers following the recent contamination of animal feed.

  Mr. Curry
  I am not aware of any loss of production, as all the milk from farms under restriction was collected by the Milk Marketing Board. It will not be possible for the board to assess the extent of any loss in sales income until the milk powder and butter have been sold.

  Cattle and Cattle Products (Export)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by value and volume the exports of(a) live cattle and (b) cattle products to each importing country during (a) 1988 and (b)

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is as follows:

  i. Exports of live cattle

  Quantity (tones)

  Value (000 ecu)

  1988

  France

  7,025

  27,913

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  70

  178

  Netherlands

  5,451

  18,169

  Federal Republic of Germany

  859

  2,453

  Italy

  353

  1,316

  Ireland

  6,863

  12,847

  Denmark

  76

  374

  Greece

  13

  62

  Sweden

  22

  119

  Finland

  25

  274

  Austria

  2

  11

  Portugal

  624

  1,393

  Spain

  133

  370

  Soviet Union

  61

  482

  Morocco

  58

  107

  Nigeria

  3

  18

  Uganda

  54

  121

  Zimbabwe

  17

  56

  South Africa

  41

  336

  United States of America

  8

  104

  Canada

  5

  24

  St. Lucia

  4

  14

  Lebanon

  1

  3

  Japan

  10

  72

  Australia

  5

  68

  1989 (January to July)

  France

  3,618

  15,749

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  29

  59

  Netherlands

  1,520

  6,393

  Federal Republic of Germany

  378

  1,405

  Italy

  84

  201

  Ireland

  2,912

  6,507

  769

  Quantity (tonnes)

  Value (000 ecu)

  Denmark

  36

  130

  Austria

  14

  38

  Portugal

  312

  890

  Spain

  147

  469

  Soviet Union

  8

  53

  Uganda

  27

  55

  United States of America

  4

  37

  11. Exports of cattle products

  1988

  1989 (January-July)

  Quantity (Tonnes)

  Value (000 ECU)

  Quantity (Tonnes)

  Value (000 ECU)

  To EC

  Fresh, chilled, beef and veal

  74,801

  248,892

  47,953

  173,463

  Frozen beef and veal

  15,168

  56,528

  11,535

  42,347

  Fresh chilled and frozen edible offal

  5,744

  11,889

  4,408

  10,423

  Meat of bovine animals salted, in brine, dried or smoked

  3

  29

  2

  23

  Prepared or preserved meat, offal or blood of bovine animals

  2,616

  7,130

  1,412

  4,242

  Fats of bovine animals1

  8,127

  2,867

  6,577

  2,279

  To Third Countries

  Fresh, chilled, beef and veal

  1,263

  3,313

  552

  1,622

  Frozen beef and veal

  26,212

  60,574

  14,585

  36,388

  Fresh chilled and frozen edible offal

  632

  1,387

  341

  1,202

  Meat of bovine animals salted, in brine, dried or smoked

  —

  —

  1

  6

  Prepared or preserved meat, offal or blood of bovine animals

  538

  1,424

  324

  909

  Fats of bovine animals1

  57

  43

  936

  369

  1 Also includes fats from sheep and goats.

  Detailed raw information, which may include later information for 1989, is contained in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", a copy of which is held in the Libary of the House.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the value of hill livestock compensatory
  allowance expressed at 1986 prices.

  Mr. Curry
  The values of the rates of hill livestock compensatory allowance are as follows:

  Rate per head

  1989£

  Equivalent value at 1986 prices (£)

  Severely Disadvantaged Area

  Cows

  54·50

  46·33

  Hardy breed ewes

  6·75

  5·74

  Other ewes

  4·50

  3·83

  Disadvantaged Area

  Cows

  27·25

  23·16

  Ewes

  2·25

  1·91

  Algae Poisoning
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department's veterinary service has in its departmental library a copy of the article on algae poisoning contained in the 1976 edition of "Black's Veterinary Dictionary"; and whether the veterinary service is familiar with its scientific findings.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department's veterinary service has in its library a copy of the article on algae poisoning contained in the 1976 edition of "Black's Veterinary Dictionary." It is familiar with its scientific findings and also has knowledge of more recent articles on the subject.
  770

  Quantity (tonnes)

  Value (000 ecu)

  Canada

  5

  79

  St. Lucia

  24

  61

  Peru

  10

  67

  Uruguay

  2

  23

  contained in the 1976 edition of "Black's Veterinary Dictionary." It is familiar with its scientific findings and also has knowledge of more recent articles on the subject.

  Whitefish Fishery
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has given any north-east English fishing ports directions as to the number of days that boats engaged in the whitefish fishery should be laid up to ensure distribution of quotas.

  Mr. Curry
  We are consulting the industry about how to meet our commitment, agreed at the December 1989 Fisheries Council, to reduce United Kingdom fishing for North sea haddock in 1990 by 30 per cent. Our proposals include a number of ideas, among which is the possibility of reducing days at sea. We shall decide what measures to introduce in the light of the industry's views.

  Lead Contamination
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to lift the lead contamination restrictions from the Sherrell herd of pedigree-accredited British Friesians at Great Prideaux, Membland, Newton Ferrers, Plymouth, Devon.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry has a scientific programme in hand to assess the rate of decay of lead in the tissues of cattle which received contaminated feed. In the light of this and continuing study of the impact of the contaminated feed, we are looking at all possible ways of easing the restrictions as soon as it is safe to do so without risk to public health or consumer confidence in meat.
  771

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how much cod from the United Kingdom cod quota was conceded to Denmark in the negotiations for allocation under the common fisheries policy;

  (2) how much cod was traded off to Denmark in order to obtain agreement on United Kingdom cod and haddock quotas within the common fisheries policy.

  Mr. Curry
  As part of the final overall settlement which enabled the December Council of Fisheries Ministers to reach agreement, the United Kingdom, Germany and France transferred respectively 500 tonnes, 260 tonnes and 240 tonnes of their 1990 North sea cod quotas to Denmark. The outcome of the Council was very satisfactory to the United Kingdom and we secured all our major objectives, including increasing the Commission's proposed TACs for North sea cod and haddock, maintaining relative stability in the allocation of quotas at Greenland, securing recognition of our Hague Preference in relation to North sea haddock and flexibility to fish part of our western mackerel quota in the North sea, as well as the deletion of fishery management proposals that we did not like, maintenance of the minimum mesh size of 100 mm in the cod box in the German Bight, and the introduction of a seasonal control on the take of western horse mackerel.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has formally responded to the report of the Tyrrell committee on research into bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend's response to the report of the Tyrrell committee on research into BSE comprised his written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 9 January (Official Report, column 572).

  Equines (Slaughter)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many equines, in weight tonnage, were slaughtered for meat in each of the past three years; how much of this total was accounted for by Southall horse market; how many animals are estimated to have been involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Records of the number of horses slaughtered for meat or sold for slaughter for meat are not available.

  Single Market
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether all green currency systems and MCAs will be abolished before the single market is enacted on 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Curry
  The Council of Ministers and the Commission are agreed that monetary gaps, and therefore MCAs, should be removed by the end of 1992.
  772

  Food (Sell-by dates)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of food products which have passed their use-by dates.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am presently considering this very matter.

  Poultry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the sale of thawed, previously frozen poultry, advertised as fresh; and whether he will introduce legislation to prohibit the practice.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received no representations on this matter. The Food Labelling Regulations 1984 already require the name used for poultry meat which has been previously frozen and thawed to include or be accompanied by the words, "previously frozen—do not refreeze". It it also an offence under the Food Act 1984 to apply a false or misleading description to food.

  Eggs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has raised at the Council of Ministers the issue of a common health standard for egg production; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend the Minister raised this issue at the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 22–23 January and pressed for Community measures to control salmonella in poultry flocks to be introduced as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to prevent the sale of imported eggs in cartons labelled "British Packed".

  Mr. Curry
  It is a requirement of the EC egg marketing standards regulations that producers and packers who put terms of origin on their egg packs should keep special records. These records have to be made available to the egg marketing inspectorate for any necessary checking and reconciliation.

  Aflatoxins
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what system of regular testing for aflatoxins is undertaken on imported foodstuffs; and if he will make a statement on the findings of such tests during 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  Port health authorities, which are responsible for controls on imported food under the Imported Food Regulations 1984 are fully aware of the possibilities of aflatoxin contamination and carry out such testing as they consider appropriate to ensure that food is fit to eat. Details are not held centrally. However, in the case of fig consignments, problems in 1988 led my Department to introduce special testing arrangements. Of the 99 containers of figs tested in 1989, seven of fig paste and three of whole dried figs were refused entry because samples contained more than the action level of 10 micrograms of aflatoxins per kilogram of figs.
  773

  Hill Farm Support
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to announce the levels of hill farm support for the current year.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 23 January 1990 (Official Report, column 641).

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has as to what the decline in fish stocks would have been if the recent quota reductions had not been introduced.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]The estimates available to Fisheries Ministers, principally from the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, on the impact of various possible catch levels on the status of stocks show that, for example, had fishing continued at the 1989 level for North sea cod and haddock, there would have been serious and further depletion of the spawning stock biomasses by nearly 40 per cent. for haddock and 15 per cent. for cod. Such serious further depletion of the stocks would have been very damaging to future prospects for fishing. The quotas agreed represented the highest level recommended by ACFM for haddock and a slightly more cautious approach for cod.

  Sulphadimidine
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the results for the tests he has carried out on the presence of sulphadimidine in different types of livestock carcases for 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department has an action level based on advice from the Veterinary Products Committee and endorsed by the Department of Health's Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products 774
  and the Environment. This level incorporates a very significant safety margin. Its purpose is to ensure that if monitored residue levels rise above it, we can take appropriate action even though there may well be no danger to human health. My Department carries out a regular residue sampling programme and in 1989 tests were carried out on 1,142 pig carcases in Great Britain. A total of 94 per cent. of these were below the action level and in the 6 per cent. which were not we carried out follow-up visits to all the farmers concerned to ensure that corrective measures were taken.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what analysis he carried out on livestock carcases for the presence of sulphadimidine; where the samples are taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Kidneys are taken from pigs at randomly selected slaughterhouses and tested for sulphadimidine as part of the residue sampling programme under EC directive 86/469. A thin layer chromatographic procedure is used to screen the samples at the central veterinary laboratory, Weybridge and the level of residues present is determined by high-performance liquid chromatography.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what safe level for the presence of sulphadimidine in tissues of meat products is prescribed by his Department; whether the level was recommended by an advisory committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Our approach is not to rely simply on a "safe level". Instead, we set a maximum residue level, which is very much more stringent. Exceeding this level would not normally represent any danger to human health, but it provides an immediate trigger for follow-up official action. The action level for sulphadimidine is 0·1mg/kg. This level was originally set by the Veterinary Products Committee and has twice been endorsed by the Department of Health's Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). COT advised that this level offered a considerable safety margin for consumers of products from treated animals.

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.

Tropical Forests: Preservation
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking in concert with the governments of like-minded countries to secure the preservation of tropical forests.
Lord Reay: My Lords, since October 1988 the Overseas Development Administration has been managing a forestry initiative to promote the wise and sustainable use of forest resources. In November last year my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that we would aim to commit a further £100 million bilaterally to tropical forestry activities over the next three years.
Internationally, we work with other donors and developing countries through the Tropical Forestry Action Plan. We strongly support the International Tropical Timber Organisation. We continue to encourage other bilateral and multilateral donors to give the same priority to forestry that we give.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. While the Government are clearly giving high priority to providing finance for afforestation abroad, can more be done to prevent the cutting down of tropical forests which is happening on a huge scale? The pace of destruction is running far ahead of renewal.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree that the destruction of the tropical rain forests would be a tragedy. We believe that the best way of preventing it is for the aid-donor countries and international agencies to act in co-operation with the governments and people of the countries in which the forests are to be found, and to take initiatives to save those forests. That is our policy.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one method of relieving the pressure on overseas forests is to encourage domestic forestry? Is he aware that this country's total bill for imported forest products is now £6 billion per annum, while our planting programme is falling far short of the Government's target?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the development of forestry in this country has an important role to play in supplying timber requirements. As regards the suggestion that imports from developing countries should be banned, we believe that it would be wrong to prevent developing countries from enjoying the
1052
benefits of their natural resources. However, it is important to ensure that that is achieved on a sustainable basis.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, can my noble friend name any of the unco-operative countries which have national forests, or can he approach the question the other way and name any which are co-operative?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is important to secure the co-operation of the governments and the people of the developing countries. The Overseas Development Administration is now involved in the running or preparation of 165 projects in 25 different countries. Therefore, there is a wide measure of co-operation.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem of cutting down forests in those countries is linked with their population explosion and poverty, and there is an urgent need for policy to be directed towards those issues?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree that the main cause of deforestation arises from the poverty of the people living around the forests. In many countries the population is growing rapidly. People need land for agriculture, and wood for fuel for cooking and heating. We must address ourselves to those problems.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the work being carried out into tropical forest preservation by the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute at Chatham? What additional money are the Government making available for its work?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not have the particular figures available, but I shall write to the noble Lord and send them to him. The Government believe that the non-governmental organisations in general have a valuable role to play in conserving tropical forests. In total, the ODA supports 38 such projects worth £3 million.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the debt for development scheme now operative in Sudan? Thereby, instead of repaying debts to certain banks —notably, Hambros, Deutschesbank and Midland —the Sudanese Government pay them to UNICEF to be spent on development projects concerned mainly with afforestation schemes. Will the Minister say what the Government are doing to encourage other banks to take part in the scheme, and to assist a country such as Brazil in preserving its rain forests?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Baroness is referring to what is sometimes known as "debt for nature swaps". We believe that where they are voluntarily agreed between the holders of debt and developing countries, they can make a useful contribution.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the destruction of rain forests also involves the destruction of whole tribes and their primitive cultures? Can anything be done to try to stop that happening, as was the case with the Red Indians and others?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is extremely important to take to heart the interests of the people who live in the forests.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is not the key point of the entire discussion that we should try to make it profitable for countries to keep their rain forests? Does my noble friend agree that unless we can manage to do so, we shall continue to be on a loser, and that sooner or later we shall have no rain forests whatever?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Viscount has made a good point. The forests are an important asset for the developing countries, and we must encourage them to develop them on a sustainable basis.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, what do the Government think can be done on the other side of the equation —that is, looking towards countries which are richer than us and perhaps less conscientious and whose imports of tropical timber constitute a greater part of the problem?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, we do not believe that we should pursue the path of restricting imports of tropical timber; rather, we should seek better management of the forests so that that can be done on a sustainable basis.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say more about the Tropical Forestry Action Plan which he mentioned? How wide internationally is the participation in it, and from where is it organised and directed?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Tropical Forestry Action Plan was drawn up in 1985 by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Bank, the United Nations development programme and a North American NGO, the World Resources Institute. It provides the main mechanism by which donors can have a dialogue with developing countries about their forestry policies. Accordingly, our own forestry programme in each country is, where possible, carried out within the framework of the TFAP.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, do the Government believe that the present rate of extraction of rare hardwoods and their use can be sustained by a policy of the growing nations? Is it not a fact that the present rate must deplete the stock of timber?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I certainly agree that the tropical forests are being depleted at an unsustainable rate. My point is that the main cause of this deforestation arises from the poverty of the
1054
people living around those forests. Commercial logging is a factor, but is not the main cause.
Lord Moran: My Lords, do the Government propose to take advantage of the forthcoming visit of the new President of Brazil to discuss this problem with him?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure such matters will be discussed when the president visits this country.

NHS: Staff Ratios
2.45 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
By how much the balance between medical and non-medical staff in the National Health Service has changed each year since 1979.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, for the UK in 1979 there were 49,200 medical and dental staff—by that I mean doctors and dentists —and 927,000 non-medical staff. That figure includes nurses. By 1988 there were 55,900 medical and dental staff and 953,700 non-medical staff. That shows an increase in medical and dental staff over the period of 13·6 per cent., with non-medical staff increasing by 2·8 per cent.
For the convenience of the House I have placed tables showing the position year by year in the Library.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those interesting figures. Is it not alarming and a tremendous challenge to the management that the NHS now employs over 1 million people and is thereby the biggest employer in the whole of Europe, with the one exception of the Red Army? Is it not also satisfactory that the number of people concerned particularly with patient care —the doctors and dentists —has increased by 7,000 in the 10 years and that the number of nurses has increased by 60,000? Those groups now number over half a million. That is a very great achievement for the organisers and all those dedicated to this wonderful task.
Is it not satisfactory that as a result of putting matters out to contract the ancillary staff has fallen in this period by no less than 74,000?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for informing the House that the National Health Service as an employer is second only to the Red Army. I am also grateful to him for drawing attention to the very encouraging trend in the provision of direct patient care. The number of ancillary staff has fallen by 33·4 per cent., and although administrative and clerical staff have risen by 12·9 per cent. the nursing and midwifery, medical and dental staff have risen by 13·2 per cent. and 13·6 per cent. respectively. I believe those are very encouraging figures.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I understand the staff of the Red Army is now being cut, but perhaps that is not relevant.
What conclusion does the Minister draw from those interesting figures? Do they in any way explain the current disturbing trend towards the treatment of fewer patients rather than more, which was confirmed by figures from her department last week? Those figures show a 42,000 fall in in-patient treatment together with the closure of 5 per cent. of the total of NHS beds —a reduction in one year of 14,000. Does one flow from the other?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the conclusions I draw from the figures —and indeed other figures —are that they are proof that we are spending more on our National Health Service than ever before; proof that we have more doctors in the National Health Service than ever before; and proof that even taking account of the reduction in nurses' working hours, nursing staffs have increased by 13·2 per cent. since 1979, which must speak volumes for our patient care.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, that is spending more on fewer patients, is it not?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as the noble Lord will realise, with technical advances many of the treatments that have to be provided are far more expensive than they were.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is the reduction in in-patients mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to some extent due to the great increase in day-patients?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for making that point.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the recent campaign to recruit more nurses has been successful?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. The nursing campaign has proved to be successful. We are in the process of fully implementing the recommendations of the KÖrner Steering Group on Health Service Information which will provide us with more information on nursing trends.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, can the Minister tell us her estimate of the increase expected in administrative staff as a result of the implementation of the new health and community service Bill? The noble Baroness told us that there has been an increase of 12·9 per cent. between the years 1979 and 1989. I believe that the House will be very interested to hear how much the figure for administrative staff will increase under the new conditions.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, what is interesting about the increase in the number of administrative and clerical staff to which I referred is that the major increase is in relation to the direct support
1056
of clinicians. The number of non-clinically-related administrative and clerical staff has in fact decreased by almost 10 per cent. In regard to the effects of the White Paper, it is too early to give the noble Baroness any detailed figures. There is a document called Working Paper 10 which outlines future proposals for the service. This paper is now out for consultation. The consequences arising from that consultation will be effective somewhat later. In due course we shall have the relevant information.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that simply to keep pace with expenditure on the NHS in 1979 we have to spend more? Is she aware that many nurses and junior doctors are concerned that they have to do work which was formerly done by ancillary staff? Does the Minister further agree that this state of affairs is damaging the National Health Service? Other important people in the NHS —for example, the ambulance drivers —are also upset. Therefore we have junior doctors, nurses, ancillary staff and ambulancemen who are all disgruntled with the present manner in which the NHS is being organised by this Government.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have an important programme of education and training going forward. Perhaps I can cheer up the noble Lord by saying that, as a result of the improvement in the ratio between consultants and junior doctors, a greater proportion of medical care is given by fully-trained doctors.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I ask the Minister whether she will reject the disparaging remarks concerning ancillary staff made by her noble friend who asked this Question. They are an essential part of the National Health Service. Is the Minister aware that since the reduction in such staff and the privatisation of some services there has been increasing complaint about the state of some of our hospitals? I suggest to the noble Baroness that that proves that the ancillary staff are essential to a good, working National Health Service.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I cannot speak for my noble friend, but I am sure that he did not intend to be disparaging about the important work done by many ancillary staff. The decrease in staff of nearly 74,000 between 1979 and 1988 represents a reduction of 33·4 per cent., to which I referred. That decrease reflects a more efficient use of staff in this area and the effects of competitive tendering.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that the employment of staff in privatised services of this kind has often led to severe underpayment among people who are often already very poorly paid?
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am disturbed that the noble Baroness did not reply to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. Is it really true that another place is now considering the National Health Service and Community Care Bill without

1057
knowing what the extra administrative burden will be? Can the noble Baroness give the House an assurance that before the Bill reaches your Lordships' House we shall know what are the implications in terms of the administrative burden?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I give the noble Lord an assurance that I shall give the House the best information available at that point.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, perhaps I may return somewhat nearer to the original Question by asking my noble friend whether she will comment further on the alleged reduction in treatments referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Can the Minister say whether it is really a fact that the number of treatments has been reduced, or rather that the number of patients staying overnight in hospitals has declined? If it is the latter, can the Minister say whether we should expect that to happen because so much more treatment is now given on a without-stay basis?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the encouraging trend in hospital care is towards more day care in order to avoid the unnecessary use of beds.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, can the Minister say whether therapists are classed as medical or non-medical staff? I am referring to occupational and speech therapists and physiotherapists. Does the Minister feel that there are enough of these therapists to carry out the rehabilitation needs of patients within the National Health Service?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that therapists come within the category of professions allied to medicine. In terms of statistics I believe that they come within the definition of medical staff. Manpower requirements are a matter for local bids and for the regions to consider.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, perhaps we can get this matter into perspective. The National Health Service is a magnificent service. Does the Minister not agree that in the past 20 years —never mind the past 10 years —there has been a dramatic improvement in the quality and the knowledge of medical staff? That situation is now being reflected in patient care. Does the Minister not agree that it is a fact that a few years ago, for example, we had never heard of hip replacements; of transplants or some of the other advances which are now taken for granted? I suggest that we should give credit where it is due.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am very happy to give credit where it is due. We have an excellent National Health Service which we intend to improve and keep absolutely up to date.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we have now spent 20 minutes on
1058
two Questions? That is the amount of time we are supposed to devote to all Questions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, 21 minutes!
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that we should speed up a little?
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords —
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belsteacl): My Lords, I think we should take the next Question. I know that the noble Lord would like to speak. Perhaps we can take his supplementary question and then pass on to the next Question.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain why, if the numbers of nurses and doctors have increased, waiting lists are getting longer and longer?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that in part that is due to the fact that expectations are increasing and there are new methods of treatment.

Homelessness: Local Authority Funding
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will quantify the financial and other resources made available to local authorities in order to fulfil their obligations to house the homeless arising from the recent review of the homelessness legislation by the Department of the Environment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Government's overall aim in their housing policy is that a decent home should be within reach of every family. This will be achieved through much improved targeting of public expenditure.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, in addition to the remarks that he has just made, can the Minister say how many new lettings he expects to be provided as a result of these new statistics? Further, can the Minister say how far they go towards satisfying the demands of the homeless?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in 1990–91 the total capital expenditure on housing will be some £4·41 billion. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware that, on top of that figure, over the next two years the Government have a commitment to provide £250 million specifically for the relief of homelessness.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while we bounce statistics across the Dispatch Box to one another, the Government's own report on this subject shows a requirement for a million new homes to be built for rent by the turn

1059
of the century? Is the Minister further aware that the consensus opinion of the people grappling with this problem is that the only way to solve it is through a substantial increase in the building of low-cost property for rent so that a low level of rent can be reflected in the cost of the housing? Have the Government any plans for dealing with this matter? The present building programme is totally inadequate to deal with this problem and its current dimensions.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I am sure he does not believe that this question provides a suitable means for dealing with the matter of housing requirements in this country between now and the year 2000 and the provision of a million units, to which he referred. However, I can assure your Lordships that the £250 million to which I referred relates to some 15,000 units in London and the South-East. The Association of London Authorities has referred to a figure of some £208 million. It is clear from those two figures that the Government have more than met the demand in the greatest area of pressure that we face today; namely, to remove the homeless from bed and breakfast accommodation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if that is the case, will the Minister explain why, day by day, the number of homeless people in other major cities is increasing dramatically? What is the answer to that problem, or do the Government not have one?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government certainly do have an answer to the problem raised by the noble Lord. With the new capital resources introduced by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, we have produced the new generalised needs index, which we believe will accommodate those requirements outside the pressure area of the South-East and London.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, given the fact of the high and rising proportion of homeless people who are former in-patients of psychiatric hospitals, can the Minister confirm that resources are to be made available under the new mental health grant scheme to house between 300 and 500 of those people? Can he also say what provision will be made for the rest of these people, as at least 1,000 people discharged from psychiatric hospitals are not in squats or in bedsits but are now sleeping rough on London's streets alone?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the problems raised by the noble Lord. Part of the problem goes wide of the Question on the Order Paper. The Government have nonetheless recognised the problem of homelessness. We have suggested and produced a figure of £250 million, which, as I pointed out earlier, is in excess of the figure suggested by the Association of London Authorities to alleviate the problem in London and the South-East.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, perhaps I may point this out. More than 40 per cent. Of
1060
homeless people on the streets of London have histories of mental instability and of being in psychiatric hospitals and my question was far from being wide of the Question on the Order Paper. It dealt with the central issue of homelessness which is referred to in the Question.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, in addition to the financial contribution being made for people released from institutions and those who are members of homeless families, is my noble friend contemplating any provision for the single homeless of whom there are many around our streets?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government recognise that "homeless" as a definition encompasses all of the population, and not only families.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the work done by the Salvation Army in providing shelter for the homeless, and in particular on the recent financial difficulties of Salvation Army hostels? How far might these result in problems in the system of payments by the Department of Social Security, especially in regard to the habit of paying benefit in arrears?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government recognise and welcome the contribution made by the voluntary sector. I would point out that within the financial package for the homeless which I mentioned earlier, some £2 million is allocated to the voluntary sector.

Housing: Private Rented Sector
3.3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Housing Act 1988 is working well, in particular the provisions relating to the private rented sector, in the light of Shelter's recent comments.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we believe that the new Housing Act is encouraging the supply of privately rented accommodation, offering tenants greater choice and providing a better return for landlords. Furthermore, the Shelter report Forced Out contains evidence that the tough new sanctions which we introduced against harassment in that Act are proving to be effective.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that of the 26 local authorities surveyed, 85 per cent. of them noted an increase in harassment and illegal evictions? Is it not sad that out of the 255 complaints made, only 13 led to prosecutions? Is he further aware that those figures are a direct contradiction of what he says? It was not good enough for the newly appointed Minister in another place to try to discredit the report by saying that the Act had not been in place long enough to indicate what was happening, when he himself had been in the department for less than a fortnight. This is a

1061
serious report. When the Bill was being discussed the Government were made aware of the fears of noble Lords that this might well happen. Will the Government take urgent action to prevent the problem growing and indeed do something to get rid of it completely?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure the House will be interested to know that only 48 out of 412 local authorities were actually contacted regarding producing these figures. However, it is important to show that the Government believe that we are seeing satisfactory success from the Act. In Lambeth, a tenant received total damages of £46,000 under the new Act; in Blackpool, a tenant received damages of some £17,000; in Reading, a tenant received some £8,500; and in Westminster, one landlord received six months in prison.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures he announced refer to only a small part of the nation? Is he further aware that Shelter has from time to time been both a guide and a critic of all governments? Can he say precisely whether or not he in particular has read Shelter's recent comments to which my noble friend referred?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, not only do I have in my folder a copy of Forced Out, but I have actually read it. The Government believe that we must increase housing provision in this country partly by using the private sector. I remind the House that in 1919 90 per cent. of the population lived in rented accommodation. That figure has fallen to some 8 per cent. It is below the 30 per cent. figure in West Germany and France. The initiative shown in the Budget whereby the return of the institution of providing capital encouragement by taxation in the business expansion scheme has produced investment of some £370 million which would not otherwise have existed and which should be added to the total overall housing provision. That rented accommodation will provide relief to local authorities where people who do not wish to buy will be able to move out into a restored private rented market.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the Minister's replies do not bear any relationship to the facts. These facts come not only from Shelter but from surveys up and down the country. The Minister's statistics were even more selective than the ones he accused Shelter of producing. The Housing Act 1988 has failed in its alleged objective of producing more housing for rent. Landlords are now finding it easier to obtain evictions.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that landlords are now finding it easier to obtain evictions? Is he further aware that there are now more illegal evictions than ever? Does he accept that homelessness is on the increase? Does he further accept that the houses that are being emptied as a result of the provisions of the Act are not being returned to the rented sector but are being sold
1062
because of their high capital value to the landlord? Does he not accept that something has to be done about the Housing Act 1988?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government are committed to broadening the basis of housing and the choice that is available to the population. The Government are interested in the consumer. The Government do not have the obsessional hatred of landlords which resulted in the abolition of one-third of the housing sector of this country.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government have an obsessional hatred of local authorities? Is he confident that the housing associations will be able to take over the role of local authorities in providing the massive number of houses that are needed not only in London and the South-East but all over the country? Is he confident that the Housing Corporation and the housing associations will be able to provide housing not only for the homeless but for the thousands on housing registers?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the fact is that the Government have absolutely no intention of taking over the local authorities' housing stock. Local authorities have some 29 per cent. of the housing stock. We believe that local authorities should be the directors and the enablers, and that in future the housing associations should be the new arm of development for public sector housing.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his earlier reply the Minister indicated once again that the Government saw this particular Act as a major solution to the question of rehousing the homeless. However, he did not give us any concrete evidence other than the fact that one person had received a prison sentence for violating the law. Therefore that person can no longer be deemed as homeless. Can he now give us figures to indicate in any respect whatever how many people have left the homeless queue and been rehoused in private tenanted property as a result of the Act? I should tell him that I cannot find evidence of any.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am most: surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, should try to confuse your Lordships by returning to the previous Question on the Order Paper. The Government have provided an initiative which has surprised everyone in the way in which it has been taken up. The housing, or rent, provision, which is additional —I repeat, additional —to those figures which were projected, provides opportunity of a diverse nature in housing in this country.

Business
3.10 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. It is customary in short debates that

1063
the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debates. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of five minutes and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to eight minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, it would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

London Traffic
3.11 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff rose to call attention to the deteriorating state of London's traffic and the need for comprehensive initiatives to tackle the problems; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this debate is to give your Lordships the opportunity to discuss the discussion document on initiatives to tackle the problems of traffic in London which was issued by the Department of Transport in December. Before I continue, perhaps I may say how pleased I am that so many Members of the House have put their names down to speak. In fact, I rather wish now that we had made this a longer debate, but one can never judge these matters in advance. Indeed, normally transport debates attract only a limited number of speakers. At the same time, I should like to suggest that noble Lords be absolved from the necessity of thanking me for putting forward this Motion. I think that that will probably save about 20 minutes.
I do not think that there is any need for me to dwell upon the magnitude of the problem. There seems to be general agreement that the traffic situation in London has reached a very serious stage; nor is there much reason to argue about the major cause, because I think that there is also general agreement in that respect. The fact is that there are too many motor cars in too little space. The answers to the problem become more controversial. We could of course increase the space available, but in a city like London it becomes increasingly difficult to do so unless you do so to the detriment of the rest of the community. But even if you did expand the space, cars would tend to expand to fill the space available. That is the new "Parkinsonian" law, of which there are many examples throughout the world.
We must try to do something to reduce the number of cars, otherwise we simply move the problem from point A to point B. However, in doing so we must not forget that the motor car is a great liberating force for many people. It provides the ability for people of all shapes and sizes to move from door to door without having to wait at draughty bus stops or on crowded railway platforms. Moreover, it is weatherproof, it is warm and dry and it takes a lot of luggage.
The problem is that we rather cheat ourselves when costing our journeys. We treat each individual journey as if it were costing the marginal cost of
1064
petrol. We only mentally reckon that fact when deciding whether to go by car or by public transport. We forget the depreciation, the maintenance and the insurance. It is a very seductive argument to say, "I'll go by car because it is a bit cheaper". Therefore the answers to the problem lie in the area of trying to dissuade car users from bringing their cars any more than is absolutely necessary into a crowded city like London. We must also make public transport more attractive. At this point I suspect that we begin to diverge.
The Government are locked into a political philosophy which, I believe, inhibits the bringing forward of necessary measures. Perhaps I should state clearly that I do not believe that the free operation of market forces will relieve London's congestion. There must be co-ordination; there must be intervention; and there must be financial support on a large scale. On the question of co-ordination, my attention was drawn to an interesting article which appears in today's Evening Standard. It reads:
"The same traffic flows in and out of Westminster, Kensington, Chelsea and Camden. It is too unrealistic for example to imagine that the borough authorities and London Transport and the relevant minister could actually decide or be ordered to set up special bodies to plan and co-ordinate London traffic and transportation and take responsibility through the electoral system for the results?"
The fact that the article was written by Mr. Enoch Powell gives me some pause for thought. But, nevertheless, I think for once that we are on the same side.
I believe that the discussion document is flawed because it does not accept those facts. I have received an enormous amount of correspondence since this Motion appeared on the Order Paper. I should point out that all of it, to a greater or lesser degree, has been critical of the document. Two basic comments have been made. First, a public transport system in a great city such as London cannot rely on fares alone without becoming unattractive; and, secondly, there is some need for a London-wide authority capable of co-ordinating road, rail and Underground systems. However, instead of that we are in danger of further fragmentation.
When we consider how far the Government proposals will discourage cars and encourage the use of public transport, what do we find? We find, for instance, that Network SouthEast is having its subsidy reduced which means that fares will rise and that will in turn encourage people to get into motor cars. We also find that British Rail is having to consider schemes only on the basis of their commercial attractiveness and therefore, Park-and-Ride schemes are less profitable than others and have so far been dropped from the future programme. Again, we have a missed opportunity.
We are told that London Underground is increasing its fares in order to dissuade people from travelling. That, again, will encourage people to travel in motor cars. In each case the separate organisations are pressurised to maximise their own sectoral balance sheet. That is to the detriment of the traffic situation as a whole. Meanwhile, the investment situation has been terribly slow and there is an enormous backlog. As we know, trains are

1065
old-fashioned, signalling is antiquated, buses are unreliable and staff are demoralised and under-paid in relation to London living costs.
Yes, there is greater investment in the pipeline. But, again, we find that the reliance on market forces distorts the decisions. The badly needed British Rail cross-London links are at least delayed. For example, the east-west link is delayed for a year at present and may be delayed even further, and the north-south link seems to have disappeared from the agenda.
However, we are to have a Jubilee Line extension. That is nice to know. We are to have this because it will go to Canary Wharf and because the private sector is injecting money into it. I have no objection to encouraging private sector funds to be directed into our transport system. But this particular line makes the least possible contribution out of all the possible lines to relieving congestion. Moreover, any cost benefit analysis of the various schemes would have given the lowest priority to the Jubilee Line extension.
I do not pretend for a minute that there is not a massive cost to be faced. For example, new rolling stock is necessary for Network SouthEast, with better acceleration and sliding doors which will speed up the station stops and provide the opportunity for more trains to run on the system. Higher wages are needed to attract key workers into areas such as signalling, where safety is involved, and to produce more drivers so that there are fewer train cancellations on our commuter lines because of driver shortages. Instead, Network SouthEast will lose all its PSO grant within the next couple of years, which will lead to higher fares and more cars.
However, the discussion document has a magic ingredient. It is called "Red Routes". We are told in the document that they are a fundamental part of the Government's approach; that people's aspirations to own and use a car should not be artificially constrained. There we are: a motor car free-for-all lies at the heart of government policy. Therefore, we must not restrict parking spaces; we must not have physical restraints; we must not increase the tax on company cars; we must not increase the tax on fuel; and, at all costs, we must not have road pricing. The answer lies in none of those solutions nor a combination of them; the answer is red routes so that more cars can be encouraged to go more quickly to the big jams in the middle of the city.
All right, with red routes and with severe penalties, our major roads may be freed to a degree. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The RAC is broadly in support, but it points to the fact that enforcement will not be easy. To enforce the type of parking restrictions that there will be on 300 miles of red routes is no mean feat, so Batman is to be brought to the rescue in the shape of the traffic director of red routes. However, we find that he is not to be in day-to-day organisational control. He will merely be there to monitor the activities of the local authorities and the police.
We shall have a new breed of traffic warden —if they can be recruited. The AA points out that at present the force of traffic wardens has been under establishment for years. The department blames that
1066
upon the uncertainty of future employment. That may be, but I do not believe it. It is more likely that people do not become traffic wardens because it is a rotten, uncomfortable, unpopular and underpaid job. If a full establishment of traffic wardens is not achieved red routes will fail.
If the proposal succeeds, it will help to free the bus lanes. Buses are a crucial element in disentangling the London traffic problems, If they run to time, buses provide a vital link within the transport network; but at present they are being strangled out of existence. Otherwise, the vicious circle continues: more cars, more congestion, less reliable bus services, more cars, worse bus services, and so we go on down the terrible spiral until nothing moves and London literally chokes to death.
I say "literally chokes to death" because I have not so far discussed the environmental problem. Last summer I believe that we came close to experiencing the type of situation which occurs, or used to occur, in Los Angeles. We were on the brink of a photochemical smog, where the sunlight acts on the gases produced by car exhausts to produce dangerous conditions in the air. By 2001, the beginning of the next millenium, the CO2 level in London will be 50 per cent. higher than it is today, so when I say "chokes to death" I mean it literally.
In the short time that I have, I cannot deal with the whole range of other aspects of this complex problem. The difficulties of the disabled are one instance. GLAD (the Greater London Association for Disabled People) estimates that about 500,000 Londoners are handicapped by poor public transport. I hope that that is an issue to which we can return when the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, finally manages to get a Question on to our Order Paper. I should like to contribute to that debate when we reach it.
I have not discussed the impact of the Channel Tunnel, which will cause considerable problems in Central London; I have not mentioned the need for a speedy rail link to Heathrow, which is crucial to the development of our aircraft and airport policy; I have not mentioned helicopter access, although I understand that there is likely to be an increase in the number of helicopters flying into the Charing Cross area; I have not talked about the better use of the Thames; I have not talked about the dangers of the deregulation of the buses which, heaven forfend, the Government may spring on us one of these days. I beg them not to deregulate the buses in London because that will be the death of the London bus service.
I have not talked about single manning on the buses, which is another extremely contentious problem. I have not talked about the problems of pedestrians, pedal cycles and motor cycles. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Falkland will touch on that subject when he speaks.
All those problems, and more, need investment on a far larger scale than the Government are prepared to contemplate or support. They need a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach which will be achieved only by a London-wide traffic and transport authority. The dogmatic, penny-pinching and piecemeal approach of the Government, which

1067
is contained in the discussion document, does not begin to address the problem of London's traffic. I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in the short time that I have at my disposal I should like to concentrate primarily on four principles, and none of the detail, contained in the discussion document. I give a general welcome, albeit somewhat guarded, to the document. I said when my noble friend the Minister repeated the Statement on 14th December that there was a general welcome for it. Whatever one may think about red routes or through routes, in a certain measure they will take some of the traffic away from crucial areas. That is not the point of what is before us, because in the discussion document the department talks about the change since 1983. In fact, the change has been occuring since about 1953. Successive governments have failed to recognise the importance of traffic and transportation for the country's general economy; hence they have always put it near the bottom of their investment list.
We now arrive at a crucial point which demands serious consideration by the department. It commissioned four studies. The great pity was that there was no co-ordinating body among those four separate consultants. All have produced worthwhile reports, but in the discussion document they have been treated as four separate issues —as four villages, if one likes to put it that way. Unfortunately, in looking at each of those villages, the Government have dispensed with the more radical, dramatic and bolder solutions which the consultants put forward.
First, we have a four village summary, unconnected apart from a traffic director. I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, over the traffic director's responsibilities. In parenthesis perhaps I should thank my noble friend the Minister for responding to my Question on 14th December about the traffic director's responsibilities.
I have always wanted, looked forward to, and even now believe that we should have, a co-ordinating body, because no one director with the limited authority which I perceive he will have can embrace the interests of those four villages.
I move quickly from that point to question of expense. The department has sought to discover the cheaper —if there is a cheap option —option for solving London's traffic problem. I do not believe that the more expensive option is necessarily the correct one, but I believe that the bolder and longer-term attitude is the right one to take, almost irrespective of cost. When he comes to wind up, my noble friend the Minister will no doubt tell us of the amount of money that is currently being invested in the general road network and in this problem, which we discussed in December. That is not true. There is no total and firm commitment over the long term —10, 15, 20 years —to spend a particular amount of money. It will always be subject to the Treasury and to the PES round, and one cannot enter into a long-term investment with those kinds of constraint. So I see real problems there.
1068
I believe that when examining the longer-term considerations we must consider the planning implications. We must streamline the planning procedures, which are desperately expensive and time consuming. As each year goes by, the cost of road building increases proportionately. We cannot allow that: we should take some notice of what happens on the Continent. The general planning of the route should be prescribed and those injuriously affected —and only they —should be allowed to enter the inquiry. They should be properly recompensed; in its submission the RAC talks of something like 140 per cent. This is the type of principle which I do not believe the Government have addressed.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I hope that we can all agree that the present traffic confusion cannot be ended by building major new roads in inner London. Those of us who in the 1960s opposed inner London motorways always argued that major new roads in inner London would simply generate more traffic. That has since been proved correct. Minor improvements, yes, but major new roads and widening schemes would cause great destruction, involve enormous cost and simply shift the bottlenecks half a mile or more further on.
The London problem is mainly the commuter rush hour to and from the centre. There are basically only two ways in which that can be eased. I say "eased" because cured I do not think it can be. One way is by slowing down and steering more of the commuters off the roads and on to the Underground and suburban railways. The other way is a wider use of regional policy which will restrain the pressure of employment and population on London and the South East and use instead the capacity and labour unemployed elsewhere. However, at present the Government are doing almost exactly the opposite in each case. They have virtually abandoned any effective regional policy.
Further, far from making it easier for people to travel by rail rather than road, the Government have imposed financial targets on both British Rail and London Regional Transport which have led to crippling shortages of manpower on those services, a sharp rise in fares and delays in maintenance, all of which have in turn worsened the service and in some cases, I believe, threatened safety.
Far from learning from these lessons, the Government are now cutting still further the revenue grants to both British Rail and London Transport. The latter will receive no more revenue grants at all by 1993–94. Since 1984 British Rail has cut its staff by 25 per cent. London Regional Transport has stated officially and candidly that the rise in fares is intended to deter passengers from using the Underground. The effect of deterring commuters from the Underground can only be to push them back on the roads, unless they are to give up working altogether.
The purpose and justification of a revenue subsidy to public transport —as almost every other capital city in Europe has found —is to avoid the chaos otherwise produced on the road. I do not blame the

1069
management either of British Rail or of London Regional Transport. They are simply trying to carry out the Prime Minister's decree that in all this the profit and loss account must come before service to the public and everything else.
To give one example, at least one constructive and sensible policy on this issue has been introduced by British Rail in the past few years. That is the development of large free or cheap car parks on surplus land at suburban stations around London. That is a policy which benefits everybody by reducing the traffic in London and by helping the commuters at the same time. But we now learn that British Rail have been compelled by these financial cuts to cancel plans for their further programme of developing these suburban car parks. That seems to be folly.
What can be done now in practice? First, that foolish decision on station car parks around suburban London should be reversed. Secondly, a continuing revenue grant should be restored to British Rail and London Transport in compensation for their public service in at least helping to keep some traffic off the London roads; and the present undermanning and lack of staff on both rail and bus services should be ended. Thirdly —and here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—we should proceed with the Jubilee Line from central London to Docklands. I think that the Government have the priority right there. Fourthly, we should do something effective in the Budget to check the present major abuse of what are called company cars. They certainly contribute to the chaos.
Finally —and this costs very little —the Government should enforce efficiently parking restraints on main London roads both by night and by day. Unless the object of the whole operation is to improve public services rather than simply to save money, very little will be achieved.
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, in his response to the debate last May on this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, outlined the steps which the Government were then taking to improve road conditions in London and which are further described in the report. He then dismissed the need for a strategic authority for transport in London on the grounds that we want, "action and not bureaucracy". However it is difficult to avoid the clear impression that the Department of Transport is actually being forced to set aside more and more resources in order to provide some kind of strategy for London's traffic. Good and comprehensive initiatives require good strategy, as the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Lucas, have already pointed out.
There is surely no necessary connection in a pejorative sense between having a central strategy and bureaucracy. No other capital city that I know of leaves major decisions about transport needs to this curious mixture of a department of central government and numerous independent local authorities.
My concern as a London Bishop is twofold. First, there is the social cost of doing too little and too
1070
late. I know that "social cost" is a vague phrase and we do not yet have precise ways of measuring it in financial terms, though it exists in part for assessing road building schemes. But it is surely beyond dispute that certain things are happening which exact a very high toll on increasing numbers of people and that these are directly attributable to the state of London's traffic and transport.
I should have liked to say more about this, but I shall simply mention briefly these factors: accidents; pollution (immediate and long term); stress and ill-health; consumer costs. Nobody intends that these should happen, they flow from a rising standard of living and a multitude of individual decisions which we all make to use a car or a lorry because it seems to be cheaper or convenient or both. But now we are beginning to realise the cumulative impact and to see that the operation of the market in transport is actually delivering a set of consequences in our cities which it is becoming impossible to contain.
The Victorians learnt the hard way. Their successive governments found they had to tackle public sanitation, health issues, public education, the problem of the mentally ill and other matters because neither market forces nor private charity could cope with the scale of the problem. There were social needs and social costs in the new cities which the whole community had to recognise and address in other ways.
My second concern relates to the question of rail fares and the danger of putting rail travel beyond the reach of the low paid. We have already heard that fares may be put up literally to dissuade people from using the train. Last May the Minister said:
"it is BR which runs the railways and not Ministers … A blanket subsidy to keep fares artificially low perpetuates inefficiency and insulates management from the customer. It cannot be justified".
We all accept that British Rail manages the railways. I am equally clear that we do not wish to perpetuate inefficiency or overmanning. However, it is the Government who decide the level of capital grants which British Rail and the Underground receive, as well as their capital spending. Without more help it is difficult to see how one can avoid further deterioration through lack of investment as well as fares rising well above their present level and driving yet more people onto overcrowded buses and roads.
I wish to stress that point more strongly by comparing it with housing. It is an important comparison to make. Both adequate transport and adequate housing are basic needs of a civilised community. Strenuous efforts have been made to reduce indiscriminate subsidies in the housing field, as these have contributed to artificially low rents for people who could afford to pay more, as well as distorting the market in house prices with mortgage interest tax relief. This has been done by putting more funds into the Housing Corporation and by introducing thereby mixed funding. However, all the time there is a balance to be maintained between subsidising the building and subsidising the person.
What is now absolutely clear in the housing field is that one cannot do away with capital subsidy altogether if one is to provide adequate housing for

1071
all at rents people can afford, especially those on low incomes but incomes that are just above the level which would entitle them to housing benefit. Such subsidy must be considerable in London and other places where land values are high. The point I am making is that the same thing surely applies to public transport in London.
I, alas, am running out of my time but I wish to stress that we must learn the lesson that we are learning in one area and apply it to this other crucially important area too. That is absolutely essential if we are to have a comprehensive set of initiatives which takes genuine account of the present unacceptable social costs which all of us living in London now endure in one way or another.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, I hope that I shall not try the patience of your Lordships' House if I begin my few remarks with a short personal recollection. Some years ago when driving through the recently reconstructed Bullring area of Birmingham —that area was not particularly familiar to me, anyway —I found myself faltering in deciding which way to go. I was amazed when a policeman came up to me and addressed me in the local dialect. Although I was not able to interpret precisely what he said, his message was clear enough. It was that I should get a move on. That was an extraordinary experience as I do not think it had ever happened to me before when driving in England. Usually every influence that is brought to bear on a driver is directed towards slowing him down.
In Paris, the faces of the police are set in rictuses, if that is the plural of frenzy, while they endeavour to get one moving freely. In New York, there is a special category of public official. These officials are dressed in brown uniforms and are known as traffic police. They supplement the mechanical and insensitive inadequacy of traffic lights at busy intersections by overriding the instructions of the traffic lights in order to enhance the rapid movement of cars.
I hope that the corps of traffic wardens, in the envisaged enlargement of their responsibilities, will take on more of this work and that it will compensate for what was quite rightly referred to as one of the unattractive features of their present employment, which is that they tend to generate a measure of hostility as their immediate contact with the public is of a somewhat distressing nature to those they address. That contact excites revengeful attitudes.
The role I envisage for the traffic wardens is one along the lines of the New York traffic police. That role will bring upon them only gratitude for preventing unnecessary clogging at intersections. I regret to say that much of that clogging is brought about by a certain form of individual enterprise; that is to say, by people who "shoot" the red light because it looks as though they can get into the intersection. As a result of that, although the intersection is crossed it becomes blocked and an enormous magnification of delay is brought about.
I do not believe in the general principle that was implied by something said by the noble Lord, Lord
1072
Tordoff, that a given increase in the volume of traffic passing through a road system leads to an absolutely arithmetically correlated converse increase in delay, or an arithmetically correlated decrease in speed. There are all kinds of lubricating or palliative actions that can be performed. One simple one would be some slightly more far-seeing way of giving licences for building work, of which there is a great deal in London at the moment. The number of streets on which people appear to be licensed to have skips permanently parked, as it were, on either side of the road seems to represent some kind of administrative breakdown. I should have thought that a large Battle of Britain type map which indicated the sites of licensed building work would at least ensure that no building work was allowed to start in a given bit of roadway until the work that was already being carried out had been brought to its close.
Perhaps the same principle could be applied longitudinally, as it were. In recent months, for example, drivers on the M.40 have been experiencing something like the existence of a damned soul in hell. One passes the Hillingdon ski slope where one has been warned that delays are likely from April 1988 but one imagines they will continue into the distant future. After a long digestive ordeal, one proceeds down the hill and not far away is Acton where highly desirable but readily deferrable barriers are being interposed between the two main lanes of traffic. My earlier suggestion about not allowing building work on both sides of a road was for the benefit of traffic. My next suggestion may be more to the benefit of drivers. I believe that general congestion would be alleviated if it were rationed out so that one given approach to London did not sustain so much of it at one time.
Noble Lords have rightly alluded to the fact that they are in one way or another opposed to any attempt to alleviate the problem by massive road building. That surely must be correct. However, there is one area where we seem to be in a position to benefit from foreign experience and that is along the banks of the Thames itself. The traffic in Paris in recent years seems to have benefited from those fast, low-slung roads hanging onto the sides of the banks of the Seine. I should have thought it was trickier to construct such roads along the Seine than it would be along the Thames, which is a considerably wider river. No doubt there is an engineering problem as regards putting supports under such roadways, but one would not have to buy anything from anyone; nor would anyone have to be displaced. Further, one would not have to interfere with any continuing activity on the banks. The next danger to avoid would be that of having too many exits off such roads. However, at this point I must cease to unveil any other intoxicating possibilities of improvement.
3.48 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, in a debate of this kind everyone will have a story to tell and a remedy to propose. I would only say that in 1930 when I used to travel from Fulham to Westminster —I have

1073
always lived in the same borough —it took 20 minutes on a No. 11 bus. Last week when I travelled from the Savoy to the House of Lords in a cab it took 40 minutes, mainly because of the roadworks down the Strand, Whitehall, Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square. I do not understand why it is necessary to dig up the middle of the roads. There was no formal explanation for that.
The Government's proposals are interesting but, in my opinion, totally useless as they again suggest transferring more responsibility to the boroughs. Such a system is bound to be inefficient as each borough will operate a totally different policy. That will only add to the total confusion. The introduction of a new traffic director for roads has been proposed. However, as we have heard this afternoon, everyone is hammering the case of the car. Let us not be mealy-mouthed about this. We encourage people to buy cars. It helps the economy. However, if they use the car they are polluting the atmosphere and clogging up the roads. If they park on a double yellow line they will receive a stiffer sentence than if they hit an old lady over the head. So we already hammer the car user.
My solution is different. I am delighted that the previous speaker mentioned the matter for the first time. Why do we allow so much freight to pass through the capital city? This morning coming along the Embankment I noticed that there was something like five very large freight lorries to every car passing along the embankment. No other capital city allows that. The policy of previous govenments —one of which I had the honour to serve in —was to have a co-ordinated approach combining road and rail. That has all gone by the board. Of course freight is cheaper by road. Consider the problems created by deliveries. When I sat as a magistrate deliveries had to be made before 8.00 o'clock in the morning. What has happened to that regulation? I attribute the slowness of traffic through the city to the fact that we allow too much heavy freight traffic.
As for the property developers, they epitomise the Government's view of what our society should be like. They pull down a perfectly good building, tart it up again and charge the unfortunate tenants three times as much. In the course of that process they clog the roads with delivery lorries. Having an office in central London I have suffered as a result. Vans deliver one piece of wood and are left there for the rest of the day.
Some of the remedies are immediately to hand. However, I say only that there has to be a co-ordinated approach. The GLC could have carried out such an approach. It is no good suggesting that there will be a few red routes and that responsibility will be handed over to the boroughs. That will not work. There has to be a co-ordinated plan.
Why do people not want to travel on public transport? I have lost staff because they will not come into London. London Underground is dirty and slow. Trains wait for hours in tunnels, and it is dangerous. People will not travel on the Underground as they used to. Heaven help us, you would never get anywhere now if you travelled by bus.
1074
We have to recognise that there has to be a co-ordinated approach and that freight is as much at fault as the private car.
3.52 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, traffic in London has become intolerable to those who use the city roads every day. I have long since taken to two wheels. I admit that I am rather lazier than I was and I now use a motor cycle to come to your Lordships' House although I have on occasions used a pedal cycle. It is on behalf of those who use or could use the pedal cycle that I should like to devote my limited time in your Lordships' debate today.
Every day some 12,000 people use company cars in the London area. That is a monstrous waste to the taxpayer. It costs more than £2 billion a year. Nevertheless the company car seems to be part of our culture. It is a matter of status. I have known from my own experience endless wrangles within companies about the kind of car that is given to different grades of executive. Valuable executive time is used up in arriving at those decisions. Even then those who receive the company cars are not satisfied. They get into their company cars and sit in traffic jams all day. Indeed today I saw in the newspaper —I think that it was in the Evening Standard—that on average each week people who use their company cars regularly lose about two hours eighteen minutes, stationary in traffic jams.
If one considered the transfer of those people from cars to bicycles what a difference that would make to the life of the nation. I suggest that it would not only ease the problem that we are discussing today, it would have an immediate effect on the environment by lessening pollution. It would reduce the wear and tear on the roads. It would have an enormous effect on the fitness of those who used bicycles.
I am told by the organisation which deals with cycling in London that according to their records —I do not know how they check this —in the London area there are about 1·25 million bicycles. I am afraid that during the week most of those bicycles are kept in basements or chained to railings because for one reason or another people prefer not to use them. It was noticeable that during the recent Tube strikes the number of people cycling increased enormously. The number of people who walked also increased. It may seem a trivial matter but there seemed to be, rather as there is in this country during wartime, an enormous difference in people's manner and behaviour.
Normally if one looks at people in a traffic jam one notices the pallor of their faces, the tension on their faces and the white knuckles on the steering wheels. On one occasion last week I happened to be behind a lady who was at the head of a queue at a temporary traffic light at roadworks. She had clearly had some bad experiences with roadworks because every three seconds she pumped on her horn. Such was the fury and anger of her impatience that everybody was astonished and nobody complained. In the end she went against the red light, nearly causing an accident. I suggest that such was the strain and stress of travel to that lady that she had become

1075
nearly unbalanced. I do not suppose that she is the only one—indeed, yes, my Lords, that also apples to men. I should not like to enter into that argument.
More people could use their bicycles and would like to do so. There needs to be encouragement from government and the idea should be promoted, particularly with the railways. The railways used to offer free transport in the guard's van for bicycles so that people could bring them into London on the train. Now that is very rare. When that became difficult I bought a bicycle which folded up. It was known as a Creaker. I put it into a bag and put it onto the luggage rack. That was not a satisfactory arrangement because one day it folded up on me involuntarily as I was going round Parliament Square. So I should not recommend that solution to your Lordships. However, I believe that British Rail could be encouraged to provide facilities for people to take their bicycles on trains.
I see that my time is up. I do not believe that I have done the subject justice but I hope that noble Lords get my drift.
3.58 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, this is a problem which has many possible answers. I do not believe that any one of them will solve the whole problem. It is a matter of a number of different solutions, each of which will produce some effect.
I have looked at the situation in Los Angeles where the problems seem to be even worse than it is here. They always seem to be a little ahead of us. They have recently tried out a joint venture between private enterprise and the municipal authorities involving investment in small electrical runabout vehicles. I do not call them cars because I believe that a full-sized electric car is possibly not the answer.
We are not talking about pollution, although the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned it. We are talking here about road pollution and the blockage caused to our transport facilities. That is mainly due to the fact that every individual on the road uses far too much road space. Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that we must not try to rationalise these matters, we must have some way of making sure that people use less road.
For that we need smaller vehicles. That is what Los Angeles is doing. It is going in for small, electric runabouts which take up less road space and can be used from special municipal parking areas. They take up much less road space than the vastly expensive cars do at present.
One does not need much horsepower to navigate our roads. Bicycles use little horsepower. Although motorbikes are noisy and use a great deal of horsepower, they take up much less space. We do not need to use all the space that we use at present per car. It is a matter of using small cars, bicycles and motorbikes.
I am keen to deal with the question of pollution; but, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, perhaps I should deal with that in another debate. However, on the question of what one might call
1076
road pollution —the taking up of too much space —I stress that we must go in for much smaller vehicles. We must make more use of the small electric runabout and of public buses, although they already carry many people in a small amount of space. There must be a general realisation that we are now talking about the amount of space per human being. That is what we should now consider.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, we have worried about the amount of traffic in cities for many years. It is certain that, as the roads improve and more cars use them, traffic will become worse. Sooner or later it will be necessary to face the facts and some unpalatable decisions must be taken over the next 100 years.
I should like to make four points. First, one can divide traffic in London into four categories. One cannot expect residents not to keep cars in London. However, the noble Lord is quite right, we must encourage by economic means greater use of small cars, electric cars and bicycles. I recommend bicycles from personal experience. There are then delivery vans which one cannot do without; but, again, they should be economically encouraged to make greater use of night-time and early morning. There are casual visitors who must come in for one reason or another. But the one great problem is the rush hour. We see people clogging up the capital, usually with only one person per car. It will one day be necessary —we should prepare for it now —to say that they cannot come in, and to close the gates between 8 and 9.30 in the morning. In that case, there must be park-and-ride facilities, but they cannot be offered at the moment because there is such a crush on the tube services. There is more room in a sardine can than in some of the tube services at rush hour.
Secondly, there is a vital need for more and better public transport so that people may park and ride, but that might take 20 or 30 years to sort out. There is little inclination now to park and ride because of the crush. If there were fewer cars on the road, buses would move much faster.
Thirdly, London's connections with Heathrow and out to the north and south are crowded and few and far between at certain times of the evening. It is easy to miss an aeroplane because of the lack of tube services to Heathrow. There is to be a fast train service from Paddington. If one is going on holiday and there is no time factor involved, one can take two hours to reach the airport by the tube service. That is fine. The people who need the fast train to Heathrow are those from the City, Whitehall and Fleet Street who are on a flying visit to or from the continent and when time matters. I wonder whether they will take the tube from the City, trundle away to Paddington, wait 10 minutes and then catch the train. They will probably take the tube all the way. Plans must be made now to extend the fast train service from Paddington to Whitehall and the City. Once there is a fast train to the City with very few stops, it should also serve the park-and-ride facilities so that people from the City may go straight to their cars near Heathrow. That kind of transport will encourage people to use park-and-ride facilities.

1077
My final point concerns Heathrow. Every time I come down from Teesside, the aircraft is delayed in taking off and is then an hour late landing. That is usually because it has then missed its slot or because there are too many aircraft coming in to Heathrow. That situation will only become worse as the years pass. We must plan for the next 100 years —certainly 30 years —and support plans for high-speed trains and monorails into the City centre in order to take the pressure off aircraft travel.
We should plan our transport needs not only for 20 years ahead, but for 100 years ahead. We must think in those terms. It takes a long time for large structural plans to be achieved. As the population and its wealth increases, the number of cars will increase and we must therefore prepare for some radical decisions.
4.8 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I read in the papers the other day that, according to a recent survey, the Exchequer loses £113 million a year through people failing to licence their cars. My poor mathematics therefore leads me to believe that over 1 million people dodge the tax. It would be a great help if, instead of going into the Exchequer, that money went towards helping London. Eighty per cent. of all cars going into London receive some financial help. Of those, at least 40 per cent. are company cars. I am not against company cars but it seems to me that most of the cars only have one person in them —that is, the driver. I must admit that I myself do not often drive into London. I hold the strong belief that people are given company cars as a status symbol. That is fine but therefore they use those cars. They drive into London, park—possibly in a company car park —and in the evening drive home. They never use the car during the day.
I feel that such people are mad, because it is far easier to go by train. If the company car is taken away or priced out, people will then resort to using their own cars and will demand massive increases in their salaries. There is one group of people —company representatives —who use their cars during the day, but for those who do not one of the simplest solutions would be to make a surcharge of, say, £3 a day for anyone who drives into London and parks but does not in fact need his car. That would be a fairly simple matter.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. He managed to get a wonderful sneer into his voice when he was speaking about red routes. I do not think that red routes will work. Last Wednesday I mentioned bus lanes and the fact that the police never seemed to do anything about cars parked in them. If the bus lanes worked and were free from obstruction that would speed up the buses.
I turn to London Underground. We have been told that it intends to increase fares to such an extent that it will drive people away from the Underground service. They will not turn to the buses at the moment because the buses are unreliable and slow. People will travel by car. That will put even more cars on the road. It is absolutely crazy. London Underground is installing wonderful automatic gates. However, no
1078
matter how often London Transport says that they all work very well, when I started to attend to your Lordships' House there were never any queues going into the stations or coming out of them. Now at rush hour there are long queues in both directions. It seems to me that that is very silly. It is no good saying that the gates work, although I admit that their reliability has much improved.
Presumably the gates have been installed to stop fare fiddling. I think that most of the Fare fiddling was probably done by staff who took the excess fares and put them in their pockets. That is fairly well documented, although I do not make any accusations.
The Government say that they will build more roads in London. That would be a fatal step because, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, if one builds more roads one will get more cars. The classic example of that is the millions of pounds that were spent on the Hyde Park underpass to relieve the traffic around Hyde Park. It did so; but it simply moved the traffic jams 50 to 60 yards further down the road. That was very silly.
Finally, I think that the idea of the bicycle put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is a lovely one except that bicycles are fairly slow and the cyclists breathe in fumes all the time. As an asthmatic I certainly would not do it. I tried commuting on a moped but stopped because I got fed up with continually being knocked off it by motorists.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is obvious that there will be no miracle cure for London's traffic problems. All that one can do is identify a few of the problems and suggest some partial remedies.
One might start at random with the one-man operated buses, which were touched on briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. These are buses where the driver collects the fares. The new single decker buses, which have evidently been designed for midgets, are bad enough but at least there is a flat fare of 60p. Far worse are the double decker one-man operated buses where a variety of fares have to be proffered so that boarding takes twice as long, with consequent traffic obstruction. That difficulty could be partially alleviated if books of tickets could be sold at tobacconists, newsagents and similar retailers, as happens in Paris, preferably at a slight discount in order to encourage passengers to buy their tickets in advance at those outlets rather than wait until they board the bus.
As has been mentioned, there is a lack of co-ordination in planning and synchronising road works. Surely that could be partly alleviated by giving local authorities greater powers to regulate such works. Another factor contributing to congestion is that the utilities —both public and, even more shockingly, privatised utilities —have evidently been exempted by the Government, as I discovered the other day, from any requirement to compensate local authorities when those utilities appropriate parking spaces in order to carry out sundry repairs and improvements. For example,

1079
about 250 yards from where I live in London British Telecom sterilised no fewer than three parking spaces for a total period of well over four months. One of the reasons was that British Telecom had botched the job in the first place and had to start it all over again. If the borough council had been allowed to charge British Telecom for every day that each parking space was sterilised, there would have been some incentive to get the job right in the first place and complete it speedily. I suggest that remedial legislation should be introduced as soon as possible.
Another cause of severe congestion —albeit happily less frequent since recent public order legislation was enacted —is demonstrations. By that I mean marches rather than static demonstrations, which cause practically no problems. All such marches in future ought to be confined to weekends, except in instances when the marchers agree with the police to walk in single file along pavements and wait to cross at traffic lights just like everybody else.
Road pricing has hardly been mentioned. It will surely have to come as soon as some foolproof method can be perfected. But it is essential that any such road pricing should bear down particularly heavily on heavy goods vehicles. On no account should it be confined to private cars.
I suggest that two-tier fixed penalties should be introduced. The current fixed penalty is quite adequately severe for motorists who, for example, park illegally at parking meters: after all, such people cause no obstruction. However, for motorists who park on double yellow lines in a busy traffic artery, whether it be on a main road coming into London, such as King's Road, or a narrower but still vital artery such as Beauchamp Place, the present fixed penalty should at least be doubled. Conversely, vehicles should only be towed away when they are in fact causing an obstruction; otherwise, the tow-away trucks more often than not cause more problems than they cure.
I agree with my noble friend Lord St. Davids and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, that cars of excessive and unnecessary length certainly contribute to traffic congestion. Let there be a differential road fund licence that varies with the length of the car. There would, say, be the present £ 100 for cars up to 13ft. long, £110 for cars between 13ft. and 14½ft. long and £125 per annum for cars longer than that.
I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and other noble Lords that company cars could well be more heavily taxed. I understand that Britain has the highest proportion of company cars in Europe.
Finally —and here I must declare an interest as I hold a handful of shares in the company that at present operates the service —let us do everything possible to encourage riverbus services. The difficulty which this service has encountered stems mainly from the fact that Britain is a nation of litter louts. There is almost as much litter in the Thames as there is on the streets of London, which is really saying something. This flotsam and jetsam fouls the engines of boats so that they frequently have to slow
1080
down or even be taken out of service. Once that problem has been overcome, the Thames can become an invaluable bypass artery which will divert some of the pressure from the almost fatally clogged tarmac arteries of our capital city.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, there is one way, and perhaps only one —I beg the pardon of the noble Baroness.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I would happily have spoken after the noble Lord.
I am delighted that this debate is taking place, because I wish to say something about the loss and inconvenience caused by building works obstructing roads. It enables me at least to mention the point today. I believe that we have to seek a comprehensive solution because the problem is very complex and not easy to solve. Without doubt there could be a larger role for local authorities in helping the flow of traffic. I have heard it said that the GLC dealt with that well. I believe that it was one of the matters that it did handle well, but I do not wish to see such a huge bureaucratic system again. However, control by strategic planning by means of road plans was a very good scheme. I was vice-chairman of one area —such schemes were broken down into areas. I notice that in the article in today's Standard it states that the Greater London area is too big. The area was never operated as a whole but was broken down into a number of areas and a central area. That worked very well.
There are many things that local authorities can do even now. The most important is to be able to take a much greater role in enforcement of existing parking controls. Indeed I have been asked to bring forward fairly soon local government miscellaneous legislation which will seek power for local authorities to carry out the enforcement of parking controls within their own areas. That is supported by all the London local authorities.
As has been mentioned, there are not enough traffic wardens. We all feel that the police would be better off if they were freed from the burden of enforcing ordinary traffic parking restrictions in order to be able to deal with criminal cases or other serious and major infringements of the law.
I believe that the red routes mentioned will be a very good idea. However, everything comes back to enforcement. When a policeman is present in the Brompton Road in the morning, pulling up anyone who is in a bus lane, the bus lane system works very well. For the rest of the day when no one is enforcing the bus lane scheme it is ignored totally. This is the typical pattern almost everywhere. Unless such a system is enforced it is no good.
I mention to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that the Secretary of State has already confirmed that there will be higher fines for the red routes, although I do not think the fines are as high as they would need to be in order to deter people from stopping on those red routes. I do not believe that Beauchamp Place will qualify for a red route, as the noble Lord had rather hoped.

1081
The most effective means of enforcing parking restrictions is without doubt the clamping of cars or removal of vehicles. People may not like to have to pay a large sum but they are much more irate when they undergo the inconvenience of having to wait until their car is unclamped, or discover that it has been removed when they believe that it has been stolen.
Other things can be done to help the traffic flow. Since time is short, I shall have to run through them quickly. London is one large building site. If one leaves this House and turns into Great Peter Street, half the road is occupied by large building works. The same is true of Brompton Road and Hyde Park Corner. I could go through dozens of examples within reach of this place. I believe that the law we passed last year may give the local authorities the right to do what is called lane charging: that is charging the developers for occupying a portion of the road that is normally available for traffic and instead has been removed from use. I hope that that will prove to be so. I understand that the local authorities are shortly to submit a list.
Last year we had burst water mains causing obstructions in Russell Square for up to four months.
There must be a total strategy for London. I should like to see a small bus moving round the centre of London on a clockwise and an anti-clockwise run. The GLC tried to do that with a large yellow bus which was constantly stuck in traffic. There are numbers of people who wish to go from north to south across Hyde Park, and from Piccadilly to Oxford Street. In order to do so they have to get on and off one bus after another. If there were a small bus circulating, with a flat fare charge, and one hopped on and paid as one went, everyone would be able to get around. I believe that that would move more people more rapidly around the centre of London.
The bus lanes are good in the right place; but they are terrible in the wrong place. I am very pleased that we have been informed that the bus lane immediately outside this House on this side of the road has gone because it has been extremely difficult to get out of our own car park. I hope that that will improve matters a little.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for jumping in before my turn. I assure her that I do not drive like that. However, I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Monson, so often that it has now become force of habit. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me.
There is perhaps one matter on which we can all agree, including Her Majesty's Government. The London traffic problem is bad, it is getting worse; and something must be done about it. But what should be done? There is the rub. I suspect that there is a wide difference between thoughtful Londoners and the Department of Transport. It seems that the Secretary of State has decided wisely, and not before time, to appoint a London traffic director. But to whom is the director responsible? The answer, it seems, is the Secretary of State himself. Surely
1082
Londoners reject this old Romanian idea of democracy and demand that the traffic of this great capital be the responsibility of a directly elected strategic authority.
I admit that there are signs of grace in the Department of Transport. But they are faint. We shall have to make them plainer. By "we" I mean Members of both Houses of Parliament backed by local traffic associations that Londoners have thrown up and by mass meetings that such associations can organise among angry and apprehensive citizens.
The department still believes in the old remedies —once effective but no longer so —for clearing congestion from our streets; namely new roads, widened roads and enlarged junctions. These remedies are no longer effective. Road improvements would be useful only if the volume of traffic was constant and not growing as it is. But the evidence is compelling. Road improvements generate more traffic and impair the efficiency and the resources of public transport. Hope of having managable and flowing traffic in London depends on creating and facilitating public transport, practising firm traffic management and making imaginative approaches to traffic restraint. This will demand over the years massive capital expenditure and heavy subsidies. It is a problem, however, on which Conservatives, Liberals and Socialists can all agree. Five borough councils in west and south-west London, controlled by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour, have a united approach to the problem based on improved public transport and traffic restraint.
The assessment study report for west London produced by consultants appointed by the Department of Transport echoes the traditional view of their paymasters. However, with scanty evidence the study concludes that better public transport can make no significant contribution to the problems. It states that improvements to British Rail and rail community services would be costly but would not persuade many car drivers to make what is described as a modal transfer and to leave their cars at home. Nor do the consultants seem able to accept that if buses were more frequent, more dependable and less expensive many more people would use them. I would make the modal transfer tomorrow if the Nos. 22 and 11 routes were more frequent and more dependable.
The report too lightly dismisses the park-and-ride facilities used in the United States. It cannot deal with the inadequately taxed company cars which make it cheaper for thousands of people to commute by private instead of public transport. Surely it is common sense to recognise that, with the number of cars constantly increasing, some form of restraint will become eventually inevitable.
Some day, not too far away, a government will have to face that fact. Perhaps it will require a major incident, such as central London being brought to a standstill —it happened some years ago in Kingston —for drastic action to be taken. The solution may require road pricing, rationing by registration numbers, with odd numbers only on odd dates, peak hour restrictions on private cars or discouragement of all-day car parks in central

1083
London. All these solutions sound grim. But so is the problem. So is the condition of the people who stand for long in the cold and wet awaiting an erratic bus. So is the condition of people crammed in the Tube or a commuter train —surely, an unwitting denial of a human right.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he accept that it is not really a question of roads against public transport? It is really a matter of roads and public transport. The London system is inadequate—
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this is a timed debate and the time is very short for each speaker. I think we ought to get on with the debate.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I have to yield. I have made my point.
4.31 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Liberal Democrats are the only party which take a truly empirical attitude to the free market. The Government are in favour of it. The Opposition are against it. We suspect both of them of knowing the answer before they know the question. We should like to know: suitable to what, and suitable to achieving what purpose?
London is one of the places to which the notion of free markets is particularly unsuited. I have been many times reminded recently of the political atmosphere of 1963 when, once again, we came to the end of 13 years of Conservative rule with massive complaints about congestion, overcrowding and homelessness in London. It is not a coincidence that it was car commuting in London that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, was discussing when he said that this was a case where the pursuit of each person's convenience becomes the cause of everyone's inconvenience. But I would not mind so much if the Government were consistent in their own principles. Principles honestly followed usually in the end rub up against experience. What we do not have is a level playing field in London's transport markets.
The roads—and I know that we pay for them in one way or another —are free at the point of delivery. We therefore have a distorted market in favour of roads. We have the tightest requirements of return on capital and the lowest proportion of subsidy to fare in any major city in Europe.
Occasionally I ask myself whether London's transport has really run down as badly in the past few years as I thought. Last week I had the rare pleasure of a night off and watched an old film on television which included some shots taken at Piccadilly Circus Underground Station. I was quite astonished by how clean, smooth and tidy it all looked and that film was made in only 1973. The decline has been even worse than I remembered.
Among many hundreds of examples of the state of London's transport, I shall mention the escalator at Bond Street going down to the Jubilee Line. I regularly have to use it at about 11 o'clock on a Monday night. My wife assures me that for 16 consecutive Mondays it has been switched off. I
1084
was reminded of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, concerning court clocks. It occurred to me to wonder whether the requirements of return on capital for London Transport are acting very much in the way of a cash limit and compelling them to withdraw services, because otherwise they cannot meet their financial targets. It is a point worth thinking about.
We are told —indeed it is in danger of becoming conventional wisdom —that London Transport is reaching saturation point. But when I was young trains used to run through Tottenham Court Road station every 90 seconds. London Transport now claim that the average wait is 3·3 minutes. I do not know any passenger who believes that. Why can we not have more trains? Instead, we are being offered London road assessment studies carried out by a flawed method, rightly described by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, as four village surveys. We are finding, as we found in the debates on the ILEA, that this Government have no concept of a social unity called London, but there are plenty of Londoners who do.
We have had the point made that roads generate traffic. I shall quote in support of that studies by my colleague, Dr. Adams, on the North Circular Road. When roads generate traffic, the cars have to go off somewhere else. So, as in the case of the Piccadilly-Hyde Park underpass, you simply shift the jam from one place to another. Roads also cause vast destruction of housing. I listened with interest to the exciting proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, for a road along the bank of the Thames. But it occurred to me that one of the casualties of such a road would be this House and I, for one, would regret it.
I have not forgotten either an occasion 20 years ago when I had to stand on the pavement at Swiss Cottage at 4 o'clock on a hot Friday afternoon. In that circumstance, the phrase of my noble friend Lord Tordoff about choking to death seemed entirely apt. We have had surveys quoted which show that the public are opposed, so there is the opportunity of making the situation worse at vast expense in order to lose popularity. I ask the Government: is it worth it?
4.37 p.m.
Lord Milne: My Lords, that the position is getting worse is generally accepted, but I do not believe people realise the degree unless they live on a main thoroughfare. In North Barnes, suffering from north, south, east and west traffic, the rush hour now lasts about three hours starting at 7 a.m. and again in the evening at 5 p.m. Observation that this is steadily increasing is borne out by the statistics given in the working document. It points out that the working population, car ownership, incomes, etc., are all on the increase and gives projections for the future.
Due to the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to heavy traffic, our problem is almost entirely car commuting and it is notable, as other noble Lords have said, that almost every car has but one occupant. The fact that 80 per cent. of private cars carried but one occupant was pointed out in 1986, in Stage 1 of the West London Assessment. On the

1085
basis of one occupant per car, it takes 100 cars to carry the same number of commuters as a London bus, though at about 50 times the space.
Yet at Section 4 of the same document the Minister says that,
"Car commuting into Central London is not the main problem yet."
It appears to decry any serious means of physical or financial restraint. At least the Chancellor has seen the light by increasing taxation on company cars, though these are still subsidised.
At Section 5 we learn that, so far as cars are concerned, the expansion of public transport would not much affect the situation; not apparently because the 14 per cent. of car commuters could not be assimilated, but due to their preference for private cars. At Section 2 it is stated that the Government,
"looks upon restraint of the car very much as a policy of last resort."
The Government might like to know that this is not the view held by the inhabitants of our general area, its councillors and local associations. Here in three meetings, each of about 1,000 people, and a petition to Parliament containing about 10,000 signatures, they and the general area have shown their deep indignation at the options proposed and have passed a resolution to the effect that restraint on traffic was number one priority.
I fully appreciate the difficulties involved in organising the car commuter but it is there where I believe the trouble lies and the greatest and speediest benefits can be gained. Most major schemes take years to fructify and in the meantime the trouble becomes worse.
Today, quite suddenly, we have become aware of our environment and of all kinds of pollution caused by the car. I believe that, by an organised campaign pointing out the benefits in terms of time saved and increased traffic flows during rush hours the car commuters could be convinced to make a concerted, voluntary effort to pool their resources. The failure to do so may mean that coercion is the only alternative.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I am glad to be the first speaker to thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for the opportunity to debate the subject, because it is of the utmost importance. London has a tremendous future and a wonderful past but it is being strangled to death. The through-ways of London are important not only to the people who live here but also to those who work here and transport goods. In real terms, the cost of the delays in London's traffic are quantifiable and I do not believe that today they have been too accented.
To an extent the Government's proposals published last December recognised that. Like my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I was surprised to learn that four separate consultants were used in the London assessment studies. The problem needs to be looked at strategically. The four consultants were given briefs which were difficult to carry out in isolation and individually.
1086
The problem demands radical thinking. I may be at odds with Her Majesty's Government, but "planning" appears to be a dirty word; it appears to smack of bureaucratic state control, and so forth. However, as regards subjects as important as London's life-blood I believe that an overall planning strategy is important. I welcome the improvements that have been suggested and the extension of the Jubilee Line. An extension of another Underground line will be announced next year. As noble Lords have pointed out, doing too much at the same time causes even more disruption to London's traffic.
The assessment studies present problems because I believe that some of their proposals are flawed. For example, the West London assessment study suggests a western environmental improvement route. As a result of the proposal, I was asked to chair a local association called the Cheney Walk Trust. I was interested to do so not only because I live in Cheney Walk but because of my interest in London as a whole.
The WEIR, as it is called, is neither environmentally desirable nor an improvement. Basically, its purpose is to serve as a bypass around the Earl's Court corridor, which we all know is a bad spot in London. I believe that even the assessment of the Department of Transport is that after the opening of WEIR the Earl's Court corridor will be just as bad and WEIR will be blocked from end to end. I ask Her Majesty's Government to reconsider WEIR and I hope that my noble friend will give me hope.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I promised myself that if I was to speak late in the debate and might repeat what had already been said I should choose not to speak because of the time factor. I shall try not to repeat anything that has been said, but I should like to pick up one theme that has been established by almost every speaker. Noble Lords on all sides of the House —I see that most speakers are not members of my party —have pointed out the need for a co-ordinated policy with regard to transport. It is a theme which a quarter of a century ago the government of the day enshrined by allowing a man named Buchanan to prepare a report for the nation entitled Traffic in Towns.
I shall not enter into the details of the problems of London. They have been dealt with ad infinitum so it would be ad nauseam to repeat them. However, I wish to make one small point about the hypocrisy of some people who are responsible for transport in London and the effect of that. I have seen the stupid advertisement placed by London Transport which states that if you are in a bus lane you are a clot and you are clotting the arteries of London. First, I could find a word other than "clot" to describe a person who stops in a bus lane. Secondly, there is a supposition that the only arteries in London are bus lanes. Anyone who drives in London during the rush hour on any evening, particularly anywhere near Clapham Junction, knows that one of the contributory factors to the congestion on Wandsworth Road is the one-man operated bus. The driver takes all the time in the world to allow people

1087
on. What is it for? It is not to improve the bus service but to save money; that is all. That is the hypocrisy that we face.
The Buchanan Report, Traffic in Towns, was widely hailed all over the world as a good analysis of city problems in regard to transport. It pointed out the affinity between land use —that is how you use the land, how you create employment and how you create the demand for transport —and the planning of cities. London Regional Transport has a strategy for policy; it has a strategic officer. As I have said before in this House, during a meeting at which he was present I asked what he considered to be the consequences of building on the site at the south end of Vauxhall Bridge. It was an undertaking which would create 6,000 more demands from people wishing to be moved in and out of the area. London Transport did not even know that the site was to be developed nor where it was. It certainly had no idea of the consequences.
During our debate on the London Docklands Light Railway I tried my utmost to persuade Members of this House that before beginning the building it was necessary to find out the consequences of creating 80,000 more jobs for people who would then need moving through the city. What was the response of this House? I could not even find a seconder.
I tabled a Question asking what the Government intended to do about the site at the back of the Tate Gallery, and I hope that today the Minister can comment further on that. The site cost £350 million and the PSA bought it. I asked the Government why they wanted it but they did not know. They knew only how much it cost and that was the end of the matter. Is that planning? Now we are told that MI5, MI6 and God knows what other government departments are to be situated right on top of Whitehall, right behind this Chamber. Ask London's transport authorities, when they are preparing their plans, whether they are taking into account that little effort. The answer will be no.
My time is up. I have been told before that if we have five minutes we have to stop when the clock shows four. I will finish on this one note. Given all the complaints, all the suggestions, concerning London's transport, it is clear that the problems will never be resolved without a comprehensive examination of the question of land use in our capital along with transport and other allied subjects. Creating a new London County Council is not the only way to do it; we need a combination of local and central government. Central government is deeply involved in this question and should by now have sent out of London all those civil servants who are determined not to move. It should also have persuaded all those private industries that have no need to be here to move out of London. The chances of that are very remote when the rest of the country subsidises London to the extent that it does in regard to wage weighting and payments for civil servants. But that is what is needed.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I appreciate that time is pressing but perhaps I may start with two
1088
personal comments. My first is to express my regret that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has had to delete his name from the list. A transport debate, for those of us who specialise in transport, is not a transport debate without the noble Lord. I am sure my transport colleagues will join me in wishing him a speedy recovery.
My second is to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, who is to reply tonight, for his amazingly detailed response to those of us who were here last Wednesday when we debated railways and roads.
Last week I said that I was not looking for more subsidy or for more investment. Having listened to the debate today I feel that perhaps we do need to spend more, but I hope we will not set out to spend more on the peaks. No one in industry invests to cope with peaks. Shell, BP, Mars and Unilever do not invest to satisfy peak capacity; they set out to spread the demand.
One of our first tasks must be to examine why we are failing to make use of what we have at the moment. I give three examples. The first is, inevitably, rail. It is often said that trains are always full, but British Rail's trains are only full for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening, five days a week. That is a total of 20 hours which could perhaps be stretched to 24. It means that for six days a week the trains are running at less than 50 per cent. occupancy. Should we be investing to cope for those two-hour periods? I believe we should not.
Lord Ardwick: Yes we should.
Lord Mountevans: We should seek other means —and there are other means —to cope with the problems we face. One which is very close to hand is flexi-time. This is practised in much of enlightened industry in Britain. It is practised by government departments. In fact, I am indebted to officials for reminding me that the Department of Transport practises flexi-time. However, members of staff must be at work by 10 o'clock and to satisfy that requirement must travel in the peak. So they miss the economic fares available after 9.30. Perhaps we need a culture change to alter our working habits.
Similarly we have a problem on the roads. Roads have peaks. To read the tabloid newspapers or listen to some of the speakers today you might feel that the roads in London are perpetually choked. They are not. There are lengthy periods of time in the 168 hours of a week when travelling on our roads is easy. However, we have an opportunity to make better use of our roads.
Baroness Phillips: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. When is central London not full to the brim whith traffic? Which hour of the day?
Lord Mountevans: I walked today from Regent's Park to the South Bank and from the South Bank to Parliament. Between 9 and 10 o'clock this morning the traffic between Regent's Park and South Bank was moving pretty well. I walked along the road between Waterloo and here, across the bridge, and the traffic was moving pretty well. That is an instant

1089
answer for the noble Baroness based on personal experience. During the past five or six years we appear to have lost touch with car sharing. Several noble Lords have mentioned making more use of the available road capacity. We passed legislation on car sharing to make it more simple and the department ran a campaign to make it more attractive. Again on my walk today —and I intended to mention this without prompting from the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips— I hardly saw a car with more than one person in it. Will the noble Viscount tell the House what happened to car sharing? It seems to me that it may be a short-term solution to some of our problems.
Taking the medium term, on the edge of London we have our airports. I am delighted that the Heathrow Express is at last making progress. I am grateful that Westminster has withdrawn its petition against the Heathrow Express Railway Bill. We have what I will call the "Stansted Express", because as yet it has no other name, coming on stream. When the Government blessed and endorsed the Heathrow Express proposals, they promised a study which I believe was called the Heathrow and South West Quadrant Study. Can the noble Viscount tell us anything about progress on that? I ask because the purely local demands of west London are putting that area under pressure.
Airport demands and airport traffic are growing. We thought airport traffic growth would slow down; but year on year it increases. Traffic to Heathrow in December had increased by 7·1 per cent. The M.4 and M.3 corridor traffic is growing. Are we making any progress on road access to Heathrow?
My final point —because my five minutes are up —is to ask: what are we doing about our river, that great unused transport resource that runs through central London? Have the Government any proposals to make?
Taking a five to six year view perhaps I may mention the Secretary of State's new objectives for British Rail. To abolish subsidy for Network SouthEast, I believe, is right. I do not believe that the poverty-stricken citizens of Tyne and Wear should subsidise through their taxes the affluent people who live in the South. However, if we aim for an 8 per cent. return in 1995 on Network SouthEast's assets —perhaps £4 billion to £5 billion —we will not only have to abolish the subsidy, which I think is right, but we will so have to increase fares that people will, force majeure, be driven back on to the roads. That does not seem to me to be the integrated transport policy which so many of your Lordships have asked for today.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I welcome the Government's new initiative in their discussion document. I believe that it will make a big improvement as regards London traffic. Incidentally, I have observed that the majority of vehicles in London are light delivery vans, not private cars.
The first and fundamental feature of the new initiative is the appointment, despite constitutional
1090
objections, of a London traffic director by the Secretary of State who will be responsible for all road traffic movement within a designated area which will be bigger than any London borough. The next major point to welcome is the priority attention to be given to the enforcement of parking regulations on all trunk roads in the area during the heavy commuter traffic flows in the morning and evening.
The concept is that these roads must be kept clear of all parked vehicles during those periods: three hours in the morning and three hours in the evening. Even one parked vehicle at the kerb will deny movement to a whole lane of traffic. The logic is simple. The primary objective is to keep the whole width of the road clear for moving traffic. The result is that double the amount of traffic can move along the road. Even loading and unloading goods vehicles cannot be allowed during these peak periods. Obviously much careful planning will be needed to accommodate the central commercial requirement; neither private cars nor skips should be allowed, as one noble Lord observed.
The area chosen for the initiative is essentially the central London area of the West End and the City, including an important area south of the river. There are strong arguments for making it bigger, but the drastic nature of the proposals is such that the right policy is to introduce these stringent new disciplines into a limited area which can be closely monitored so that difficulties can be ironed out as they occur. When this scheme has been proved a success, public support can be won for the extension of the scheme to other areas and, I would hope, to the whole metropolis later.
The relationship between the traffic director and the London boroughs concerned is obviously of key importance. Although the Secretary of State proposes to give the traffic director reserve powers, it is obviously essential that there should be a partnership between them. I also include the City in the partnership. Seventy per cent. of the roads in the designated area are trunk roads and therefore they are already the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Furthermore, he is prepared to pay the considerable extra cost for enforcement and sign-posting which will be needed in the area.
The core area proposed is evidently the minimum which can give a real prospect of increased traffic movement. In American cities it is normal for the traffic commissioner to be responsible for the traffic in the whole city. He can then use his powers to control the traffic flow from the periphery of the city to the centre by co-ordinating the traffic lights and phasing them. Preference is given to through traffic and the crossing traffic is reduced to a small part of the traffic light phasing. I do not doubt that that method will be carried out in the designated area. Eventually I hope that, the scheme having been a success, the Secretary of State will consider extension of the arrangement to the whole area because the full benefit can be achieved only by the commuter flow being given free movement in and out.
The constitutional difficulties have been rightly commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. However, the scheme suggested is the only way to

1091
achieve sufficient authority at the centre and funding so as to obtain the maximum mechanical benefit of a traffic flow going from the periphery to the centre to the benefit of everybody. My noble friend and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have to get out and about in order to persuade local authorities and the general public of the benefits of the scheme for everybody. In that way the Secretary of State will have a fair wind when he comes to legislate. He has a formidable task.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the stage has been reached in this important debate, so effectively introduced by my noble friend Lord Tordoff, to begin the winding-up process. I propose to do so under four heads. The first is the problem. It is very clear from every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate that they all feel that not only at present is there a very serious transport problem in Greater London, but that in all likelihood it is going to get worse.
Many noble Lords have contributed their own particular horror stories by telling us of the problems that they or people they know have encountered in getting around London. The cost of this problem has been very carefully evaluated by the CBI. A number of figures have been mentioned, taking the situation on a country-wide basis, though the problem is even greater when applied to Greater London where congestion is greater. The cost of congestion in one form or another, whether commercial or personal, adds up to £5 per household per week which is equivalent to two pence on income tax. If ever there was a factor bearing on inflation that is it, and the sooner we eliminate or reduce it the better.
Secondly, there are the solutions. The solutions so far tried have been piecemeal. Noble Lords who have spoken also felt that was so. Something has been tried here and there. The most recent proposition that the Government have put forward is the red road system. That is a system of traffic management which has many attractions. However, it is only one part of the whole problem. The fear is that if we go on applying piecemeal solutions, the piece that is dealt with will in turn only create more problems for the other pieces which are not being dealt with at the same time.
I come to my third point. What should be the solutions? They are much more fundamental and long-term than anything that has been proposed so far. The first and obvious truth that emerges from consideration of the London traffic problem is that we have too little road space for the vehicles using it. That was a point made initally by my noble friend and repeated by many other noble Lords who have spoken. Simply adding to the road space will not solve the problem because that space will be very quickly filled to overflowing.
Very clearly, there has to be some plan for bringing the number of cars coming into the metropolis into line with the space reasonably available. That cannot be achieved, even by the most repressive measures, unless there is an alternative way of getting into the capital. I have been advised that Singapore
1092
introduced road pricing on a large scale. Initially the scheme did not work because the level of alternative public transport was inadequate. However, as soon as public transport was improved, the scheme began to work. Therefore, the second leg of the exercise is that, very clearly, we have to concentrate on improving public transport.
To begin with, the mere fact of restricting the flow of cars into the limited road space will itself free the movement of surface public transport. In addition, we have to do very much more with the Underground system. I use Sloane Square station and each time I get out there I have to trudge up to street level because nine times out of 10 the elevator is not working. I then think of the many questions that have been asked about this in the House: when are we going to get the system working properly and adequately? That is just one part of the problem.
From what has been said one must conclude that a combination of limiting the influx of cars on the one hand and improving public transport on the other, are the long-term proposals. The question which has arisen time and time again is the need for the co-ordination of effort. There are no fewer than 39 different bodies which are concerned with transport in London. There are 32 London boroughs. There is the Minister for roads and traffic who is responsible for trunk roads. There is the Minister responsible for public transport investment. The Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for land use planning. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner is responsible for parking enforcement. London Regional Transport has its responsibilities, and there is also British Rail. Finally, and much to my surprise, I found out that the London Residuary Body deals with London's computerised traffic signal network and data on road traffic accidents.
How on earth can 39 different bodies deal with a problem which is integrated, linked and ascertainable and which needs effective co-ordinated action? The sooner we have a co-ordinated body either at ministerial or other level to deal with this problem, the sooner we shall get a solution.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Underhill has a heavy cold and he is sorry that he is unable to be here today. As the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said, it is hardly a transport debate without the presence of my noble friend. Knowing him extremely well, I am sure that he will read every word of what is said today and he will no doubt raise these matters in a future debate.
There are ways of looking at the transport problem in London. I believe that the final summing up of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was most explicit and covered many of the important points. In the first instance, we can look at the immediate problems and solve one or two of the difficulties. But we shall not in that way tackle the real problem of traffic congestion in London. We shall find ourselves continually improvising and thinking that we have improved the position. However, as London becomes even more congested with traffic, any

1093
alterations may make fundamental change even more difficult.
Noble Lords have made many useful and important points in this interesting debate. Several speakers referred to the one-person operated buses and to the delays and dangers caused by them. This point has been discussed in transport debates both in your Lordships' House and in another place. It was said that one-person operated buses may be fine for the suburbs and for outlying areas where there is more space but that they cause problems in the centres of cities. One noble Lord referred to Oxford Street. Assurances were given that these buses would not be used in Oxford Street. Although most of the buses being used in that area have conductors, new buses will be operated by one person. Another difficulty with one-person operated buses is the sheer inconvenience they cause to passengers. I am thinking especially of passengers having to wait in severe weather to board a bus. Everyone wants to get rid of the one-person operated bus in city centres.
One point was raised by nearly every noble Lord. In this connection I could imagine my noble friend Lord Underhill saying, although he would not say it, "I told you so". I refer to the Home Report. My noble friend has referred to it in every transport debate over the past three years. The Government have had the report for about three years but we have yet to hear of their attitude to it, never mind what powers they propose to take to implement it. When first I came to London I thought that the traffic system was better than I had seen elsewhere. A time-limit was given to roadworks and building works. We have heard today that London is virtually one large building site. People complain about builders' skips, portakabins and lorries. As my noble friend Lady Phillips said, lorries sometimes come along with one piece of timber and stay all day. That is possibly an exaggeration but it gives a flavour of how people feel about lorries, roadworks and building sites.
Company cars have been mentioned. I referred to the issue in some detail last week and I notice that more and more noble Lords are raising it. In Britain we have many more company cars than other countries. In some European countries 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of new cars are bought as company cars. In Britain more than 60 per cent. of new cars are bought by companies for their employees.
Car sharing can help to reduce the number of cars being brought into London. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has probably seen some of the problems in San Francisco where out of sheer necessity cars are segregated on the Golden Gate bridge. A car containing only one person has to use the slow lane to cross the bridge. It is claimed that people have been found with tailor's dummies beside them in their cars in order that they can cross the bridge in a faster lane. Car sharing can help but we must not pretend that it is a long-term solution. I agree with my noble friend Lord Sefton, who said in his usual cogent manner that fundamental changes are required and that there should be control over land use planning in the city of London.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made a marvellous introduction to the debate and set the scene very
1094
well indeed. He referred to the Jubilee Line. I do not believe that the Jubilee Line is the answer. It strikes me that the Jubilee Line proposal is put forward in order to help Canary Wharf pay its way. A proposal involving one of the other lines would be very much better.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about planning permission. A Select Committee of which I was a member suggested some time ago that fairly liberal compensation should be given, although people should still have the right of appeal. We need a controller for London. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, 39 different bodies look after London. The city used to be admired for its standards of municipal organisation. Now, that organisation is fragmented. Helpful suggestions have been made, but in the long term we must be more radical and shrug off some of our prejudices. We need to get around the table and think of something more advanced than the Minister's suggestion of 14th December.
5.17 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think I can start by saying that this has been a rush-hour debate. I am sure that noble Lords will not expect me to answer or comment on all the points that have been raised but I shall do my best. I can assure the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will read with the greatest of interest the debate in the Official Report.
There are two features of debates in this House on transport. One is that all those who speak have their own personal experiences; the other is that they can all find something to complain about. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for providing the House with the opportunity to debate the important subject of traffic in London, and for providing me with the opportunity to explain the Government's initiatives for tackling the problems.
The Motion before the House calls attention to the deteriorating state of London's traffic and the need for comprehensive initiatives to tackle the problems. During the next 20 minutes or so I intend to prove to the House that the Government are not only fully aware of these problems, but have already put into operation plans to resolve them. Moreover, the Government have announced further programmes which are both far-sighted and far-reaching to deal with the anticipated growth in both road and rail traffic in London in the foreseeable future.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the Government are always prepared to listen to constructive criticism and constructive ideas, but in the end it is the Government who have to take the initiative in implementing many of the measures which are necessary to deal with the problems. And that is exactly what we are doing.
It is worth emphasising that traffic problems are neither new nor unique to London. Other capital cities have many of the same problems. In London's case, many of the present difficulties are the result of the up-turn in London's economy ghat started in the mid-1980s. The Government are proud of having created the conditions that made this growth

1095
possible. And we are responding with a coherent approach which looks at the operation and development of London's transport systems, both road and rail. The main elements of this approach are: providing through traffic with good alternative routes around London; making the best possible use of existing roads; ensuring that London is properly linked to national and international transport networks; tackling congestion black spots in inner and outer London; and meeting the growth in demand for rail transport to, from and within central London.
The aim of this approach for London's traffic is to ensure that people and goods can move around London safely and efficiently. Wherever possible we want heavy and through traffic to move on safer, high standard roads rather than on unsuitable local roads. We are working with the local authorities, the public transport operators, the police and others to achieve that aim. We are improving trunk roads to take traffic around London and to serve developing areas. We are supporting borough road schemes, encouraging better parking controls and using new technology to improve traffic management. In addition, and most importantly, we are promoting safe, efficient and attractive public transport services: rail, underground and bus.
If someone had said in 1980 that we would now be so concerned about growing demand for rail transport and that new lines under London would be a possibility, that person would have been laughed out of court. Throughout most of the 1960s and 1970s, demand for rail travel into London declined, as did investment, while deficit subsidy steadily increased. Then, in the early 1980s, as the economy strengthened, demand for rail travel boomed to an extent that could simply not have been foreseen, and that certainly was not planned for in the 1970s. As a result, the transport operators have had to do a great deal of catching up. Tough financial disciplines set by the Government have fostered a more efficient, productive and responsive railway which has been able to generate more revenue and justify ever-increasing amounts of new investment while reducing its call on the taxpayer.
The action to improve transport in London is being supported by massive investment. The trunk road programme in London will cost over £1 billion over the next 10 years. British Rail plan to invest £2 billion on Network SouthEast over the next five years; and London Regional Transport will be investing £1–7 billion over the next three years. This investment excludes the proposed extension of the Jubilee Line and further additions to London's rail network arising from the Central London Rail Study.
Last month, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced a further major series of initiatives for improving traffic conditions in London. These included consultation on a number of ideas for new public transport projects and for a limited number of road schemes, mostly to improve existing roads, arising from the assessment studies. They also included a range of traffic and parking proposals, including the creation of a 300-mile red route network. We are seeking views by the end of February.
1096
I shall now try to deal with most of the points which have been raised during the course of today's debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark spoke of the need for a strategic authority in London. We do not see the need for such an authority. We want action, not more bureaucracy. The traffic director proposed for the red routes and the parking strategy is quite different. He will be there to help existing highway and traffic authorities implement proposals in a coherent manner.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that more people would be coming into London. I do not think that it is inevitable that more people will do so. Indeed, the number of cars entering London during the morning peak has fallen by 10 per cent. since 1983. The noble Lord suggested that more capacity would lead to more traffic and commuting by road into Central London. Routes provide for orbital as well as radial traffic. The additional capacity can be used to draw traffic off unsuitable side and residential roads and some of the capacity could be used to provide extra facilities for buses. However, we have invited comments on the matter and will listen to the views which have been expressed. The noble Lord also asked why the Jubilee Line was chosen for extension. It is not a question of giving priority to that extension. We are not yet in a position to make a decision on which of the Central London Rail Study lines should be built first.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also suggested that reducing subsidies to Network SouthEast would push up the price of fares and therefore force people on to the roads. We want to see carefully phased reductions in subsidy. That should be possible without excessive fare increases. There is no point in subsidy if people are prepared to pay a fair price. Previous administrations recognised that blanket subsidies are inefficient and benefit the better off. However, we shall consider capital grants for local services where needed to secure external benefits, for example, relief of road congestion.
So far as concerns fares, the objectives do not require massive fare increases. Based on BR's plans, there should be a less than 10 per cent. real increase for London commuters over the next years. There is a general policy that the taxpayer should meet a lower proportion of the cost.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also said that British Rail's investment projects are judged by their commercial attractiveness only. On Network SouthEast, which is supported by the PSO grant, the majority of investment proposals are for the renewal of existing assets. Investment is appraised with the aim of finding out which option is the most cost-effective to continue to run the existing service. There is no requirement to earn an 8 per cent. rate of return in these cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also suggested that investment in Network SouthEast is insufficient and slow. Investment of about £× billion is planned for the next three years —as I have already mentioned —of which 70 per cent. will be spent on new rolling stock, both replacing old vehicles and providing for growth. There will be a 30 per cent.

1097
increase in real terms compared to the previous three-year period. That is the highest level of investment for a generation.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has approved the construction of 1,000 new vehicles over the past two years. He also approved five major schemes in 1989 worth £450 million. I should point out that this Government have never turned down an investment submission from British Rail. If progress is slow it is the result of the long lead times involved; for example, developing new trains and getting them right for the passenger is a costly and lengthy process, but one which BR would not wish to rush.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also spoke about the question of London buses. I must tell the House that LRT has been successful in halting the long-term decline in bus usage. The reliability of services has generally improved despite busy roads, and service levels are increasing dramatically —that is, by 4 per cent. last year and another 5 per cent. increase is expected this year. However, more remains to be done and the objectives announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in December give LRT measurable targets for performance.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth spoke about the assessment studies and strategy. I can tell him that the assessment studies are only one of the initiatives pursued to make London a better place in which to live, work and travel. We have a coherent policy, as set out in Traffic in London, for road building where necessary and encouragement of public transport. We propose new initiatives on public transport and the consultants have taken full account of the results from other studies and other studies will benefit from the assessment studies.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, suggested that the safety of railways had suffered because of BR's harsh financial targets which are set by the Government. I must point out to him that the railways are still one of the safest means of transport; indeed safety is of paramount importance to BR, and the Government support that view. About £250 million in expenditure is already planned by BR on specific safety measures over the next five years. The noble Lord also asked about company cars as did the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. It must be said that some company cars are not just a perk; they are required for essential business use. The Government would be reluctant to take steps to interfere to an unreasonable extent with choices on travel assistance made by businesses. Of course, the level of taxation on company cars is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the last two Budgets car benefit scale rates have been increased substantially and tax charges for fuel have increased. There is no intention to penalise those to whom the company car is an essential tool of their business.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark spoke about pricing off through fare increases. LRT is responsible for fare levels. At present the Underground is running at full capacity and it is necessary to check further demand while investment is taking place to meet future needs. The noble Lord, and other noble Lords,
1098
also mentioned the Park-and-Ride scheme. The Government are encouraging transport operators, London boroughs and commercial operators to look at the opportunities for providing such facilities.
In a delightful speech, my noble friend Lord Quinton raised the question of the need for more traffic police to get the traffic moving. We believe that a more productive solution is the new technology, principally traffic-responsive traffic lights. New urban traffic control systems now cover all of central London and 52 per cent. of all London traffic lights. Moreover, 240 of central London's signals are controlled by SCOOT, with approximately 120 signals being added to the system each year. If noble Lords wish to know what SCOOT is, I can tell them that it is the split cycle off-set optimisation technique. It is a most important innovative development.
There is also the Autoguide system which it is to be hoped will be coming on stream in the near future. We invited private sector proposals for the London Autoguide system last January and in July 1989 the Secretary of State announced the winning proposal. The Government are now negotiating with GEC regarding the licence for the London pi lot scheme. I should point out that the Road Traffic Act 1989 demonstrates our commitment to new technology.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, advocated a co-ordinated transport plan. As I have already said, we believe in a coherent approach to the matter. We do not want a detailed master plan to cover every facet of transport in London. It would take too long to prepare, is inflexible and quickly out of date. The noble Baroness also spoke about heavy vehicles and freight coming into London. I can tell her that the number of heavy goods vehicles in London has declined by about 20 per cent. since 1980. The decrease has resulted in part, of course, from the completion of the M.25.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked why BR does not use more guards vans, because the lack of them makes it difficult for cyclists to travel by rail. That is an operational matter for BR. I understand that BR chooses, with its suburban trains, to maximise seating capacity. The train formations depend upon demand. It is for BR to assess that demand. BR will no doubt take note of the noble Viscount's comments.
The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, suggested that we should try to reduce the amount of traffic in cities. I fear that that is a pious hope. No doubt many people would like to reduce the amount of traffic in cities so long as they did not have to pay or change their journeys. Pricing would affect people's lives dramatically. They might have to pay a charge to take the children to school, to do the shopping, to visit friends and not just to drive to work.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough suggested that the Heathrow Express line will not be quick enough for business travellers because of the need to travel via the Tube to Paddington. He suggested that there should also be through connections to the City. There will be a faster journey time. It is currently about 45 minutes from central London (Piccadilly Circus to

1099
Heathrow) on the smallest size Tube stock. The Heathrow Express will take 16 minutes from Paddington to the airport on brand new, pupose-built, air-conditioned trains. Cross-rail schemes are being considered (east-west cross-rail schemes from Paddington to Liverpool Street), and a decision will be announced in time for a Bill this year for at least one new line. We shall have to wait until then to see which line is the most viable.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, and many other noble Lords spoke about the need for road pricing. It is becoming increasingly fashionable to advocate road pricing. It is an ideal market mechanism to remove congestion from our roads, especially in London; but pricing has so many practical drawbacks that there is no possibility of a London-wide road pricing scheme being introduced in the foreseeable future. At present only a handful of cities charge traffic and none is remotely comparable with the size of London. Other problems with road pricing are: how to enforce it; how the exact area to be charged would be chosen; how to cope with the effects at the boundary of the area; what method of pricing would be suitable, proven and reliable; what the level of charge would be; and who, if anyone, should be exempted.
The noble Lord also asked about high fixed penalties. I shall answer that by quoting what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport said in his red route announcement, which included the following proposal:
"I strongly believe that the fixed penalty level for illegal parking on the red routes and possibly elsewhere in London should be increased. The Government will consult representative organisations on possible legislation and the appropriate level of fine".
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes talked about the need for better parking enforcement. Again, I quote from the red route announcement:
"Effective enforcement of traffic and parking regulations will be a key element. The police and traffic wardens will remain responsible for enforcing parking bans. The role of the traffic wardens will be enhanced. They will be given powers to authorise removals and wheel clamping. Local authorities would take on the control of parking at meters and residents' bays, allowing traffic wardens to concentrate their efforts on the red routes and the more serious offences".—Official Report, Commons, 14/12/89; col. 1184.]
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, asked about the traffic director. We propose that his main function will be to ensure that local authorities introduce the priority routes on their roads in a timely and orderly way. Once the network is established, we propose that he will ensure that it is managed in accordance with my right honourable friend's objectives and maintained to an appropriate standard. It is also proposed that he encourages better co-ordination of parking controls off the main routes. In short, his job will be to help bodies with their existing responsibilities. On the noble Lord's more general points about improving public transport, I have to tell him that massive investment is already going into public transport, but that will not of itself solve the traffic problems. We need a balanced approach, including road improvements, mostly to existing roads. New roads generate more traffic, but prosperity also generates more traffic. The objective
1100
is take traffic off residential roads on to major routes. We need to provide better access in areas in need of development.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, complained that the Underground is unsafe, slow and unreliable. I disagree completely. Great improvements in the quality of service have been made in the past year. Full provision has been made for all safety expenditure in the light of the Fennell Report into the King's Cross fire. Finance will not be a barrier. LUL estimates that £1 billion will have to be spent on safety by 2000. LUL announced quality of service objectives on 20th December last year and it has set performance targets for reliability, mileage, lifts and escalators, and performance against targets will be published regularly.
My noble friend Lord Renwick also mentioned assessment studies. They looked into the four areas of London that suffer from the worst congestion. They came within the Secretary of State's broad strategic approach. Objectives for the studies were agreed with the local authority associations, the London Planning Advisory Committee, major transport operators and the police. He also spoke of his concern about WEIR. We recognise the strength of the opposition of those outside the immediate Earl's Court area, and the feeling among those overlooking the route. No final decisions on WEIR will be taken until after the end of the assessment study consultation period on 28th February 1990. If the go-ahead is given, it is almost certain that a public inquiry will be held before an independent inspector. WEIR is justified because of the severe problems faced by the Earl's Court one-way system and other north-south routes.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, asked about transport and land use planning. The Government have issued London local authorities with strategic planning guidance. That addresses the land use issues and includes a transport chapter for the local authorities to take into account in developing their new unitary development plans.
On the question of one-person operated buses causing delays, London Buses takes congestion into account when appraising each route conversion. A high level of pass card usage speeds boarding times. There are no plans for 100 per cent. one-person operated buses, and crewed buses will remain on the busiest routes.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and other noble Lords, asked about car-sharing. In theory, car-sharing schemes might produce benefits to individuals and to the community; in practice, it has proved difficult to find people willing to share their cars even, for example, where companies have provided services for matching addresses or road lanes have been reserved for high-occupancy vehicles. He also asked about the need to improve road access to Heathrow. All I can tell him is that the objective of the HASQUAD study is to improve the reliability of journey times from London to Heathrow.
I probably have another five minutes left in which to speak, and I shall try to answer the other questions.

1101
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, also asked about BR investing to meet peak hour demand and trying to spread the peak. I shall write to him on that matter.
My noble friend Lord Nugent asked about the traffic director, and I welcome his comments. The traffic director will be working with the Department of Transport and local authorities looking at central London and the busiest routes for through traffic, including those in outer London where the traffic growth is greatest and where public transport does not have the flexibility to meet people's needs.
I have more to say, but I want to leave a few minutes for the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. So in conclusion I should like to stress that the Government are pursuing a wide range of measures and initiatives to deal with the problems facing London's traffic. They are doing so within a coherent framework and in a way which provides a balance between public and private transport. Our prosperity today requires us to invest in infrastructure and equally our prosperity today enables us to do so. Record amounts are being invested in public transport and in strategic road links. The need for them has come about largely due to the success of London as a premier financial centre. Their purpose is equally to maintain London and the City as competitive business and cultural centres in the century ahead.
The Government have a leading role but they are not alone. They need the co-operation of everyone concerned, including the boroughs, the transport operators and the enforcement authorities, and we are encouraging them all to join us so that London has the transport systems it deserves.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I had a check list of matters that I had not mentioned. I am glad to say that virtually all have been mentioned. One of them was the Horne Report which I left deliberately, because I had assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would deal with it. I join with other noble Lords on the normal transport circuit in your Lordships' House and very much regret his absence today. We hope to see him back shortly.
The Minister has assured us that the Government have a coherent approach. That is not altogether obvious from what he said today or from what appears in the discussion document. He said that the Government will listen to what is being said. I hope so. This is virtually the only occasion upon which Parliament will have a chance to debate the issue. The response from the Government Front Bench does not indicate that they will do anything other than assert what they had on their brief before the debate started. I hope that that is not the case.
We are reminded that fares must rise on Network SouthEast because people have to pay for things; that the Underground has to increase fares to stop people travelling on it. All these points have been made throughout the debate. The overwhelming balance of the debate has been very much in favour of the two basic issues that were raised right at the
1102
beginning: namely, that there has to be a restraint on cars, and an overall strategy with a co-ordinating body if sense is to be made out of the chaos into which London's traffic is declining at the moment. The point has been well made from all round the House. I hope that the Minister will take note of what has been said and take some action on that basis. I thank everybody and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Hong Kong
5.40 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter rose to call attention to the situation in Hong Kong; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Let none of your Lordships suppose that we on these Benches think that the situation of either the Vietnamese boat people or the people of Hong Kong is easy and one which has easy answers. On the contrary, it is extremely difficult. It demands from the Government a mixture of flexibility, compromise and firmness. I am glad to say that listening to the ITN one o'clock news today I noted that some encouraging developments were reported. It was reported first, that the 29-nation UN conference on refugees had reached an agreement, which would be announced, that there would be a moratorium of six months on forcible repatriation in order to give voluntary repatriation time to work. Secondly, it was reported that an effective and swift means of processing Vietnamese boat people who arrived in the new season would be established.
It was further reported, as I understand it, that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees would supervise and monitor these arrangements. Such was the report that I heard on ITN. It repeats almost word for word all the recommendations made by my right honourable friend Mr. Paddy Ashdown in another place on 19th December, before Christmas, and in a succession of letters to the Foreign Secretary. I am very willing to congratulate the Government on taking his excellent advice, and I only wish that they had taken it a little earlier.
The fact is that the Vietnamese boat people have always been an international problem which can only be effectively handled on an international basis. I am delighted to hear the progress which appears to have been made. I add that the prospects for voluntary repatriation are not discouraging. Under the UN scheme, 1,000 people have been repatriated already and the forecast for the coming year is 10,000 —a not insubstantial figure.
However, two matters which are of importance and significance were not mentioned in that report. Both refer to the difficult problem of how to stem the flow of further refugees leaving Vietnam, with or without the knowledge of their Government, and coming to Hong Kong. First, it is generally agreed that a substantial proportion of the Vietnamese boat people are economic refugees, driven to take the desperate course of sailing to Hong Kong to escape the poverty in which they find themselves. Thus one

1103
would suppose that it was in our interests to do what we could to diminish the poverty of Vietnam which has been brought about by the policies of the Government, by the effects of war, and by the aid embargo which we have imposed on that wretched country. It seems folly in the circumstances in which we are struggling with this flood of refugees who impose themselves on Hong Kong, that we should maintain this aid embargo. I hope that at the conference a further agreement was reached with the assent of the United States that the aid embargo would be abandoned forthwith. If it was not, I think that this country should abandon it unilaterally.
Secondly, arrangements should be made and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees should be helped to disseminate information within Vietnam, to stem the exodus, to discourage people from going to Hong Kong. On this I should have thought we should engage the co-operation of the Vietnamese Government as one of the quid pro quos for resuming aid. I also hope that the BBC's external services and other broadcasting organisations should collaborate. That seems to me about all I can say on the subject at present.
The settlement of the situation in Hong Kong must depend and fall finally as a responsibility on the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and China. Since the terrible events at Tiananmen square this summer, the Government of the Chinese People's Republic, driven by fear and insecurity —and we know that fear is always a bad adviser —far from relaxing their internal or external policy, have done neither.
If we look at the internal manifestations of the Government's policy, we thought—and it was presented as such —that it was a relaxation when martial law was lifted. However, it did not show much signs of being a relaxation. When martial law was lifted, there was no suggestion that the 150,000 troops in Beijing and around it would be withdrawn. They are still there. It was reported in a Hong Kong newspaper that 40,000 of the troops had simply changed out of military uniform into the uniform of paramilitary police. At the same time, a new municipal law was published banning strikes and demonstrations. Therefore, I have seen little sign of relaxation in the internal policy.
As to their posture towards Hong Kong itself, it has unquestionably hardened. In July, the Chinese Government insisted that Chinese troops should be stationed in Hong Kong after 1997. At the Commonwealth Conference they objected to what they called the "internationalisation" of Hong Kong. Since then they have demanded that the pace of democratisation should be modified. More recently, they have suggested the introduction of a two-tier legislature. Only 15 per cent. of those elected should have the right of abode abroad. More recently still, they have objected to the package of 20th December.
The question which we must face is: how do we respond? The answer is that of course we have to continue to negotiate with the Chinese People's Republic, no matter how intransigent it appears, because we hold cards much stronger in the
1104
negotiating position than is sometimes represented. It is our duty to try to persuade it of this. Further, we have to persuade them that the name of our policy is not appeasement. The idea is prevalent in some quarters and was given plausibility, I regret to say, by the secret visit of Sir Percy Cradock, the Prime Minister's personal foreign policy adviser, to Beijing. That was a most unfortunate venture in personal diplomacy. It was widely interpreted as going behind the back of the Foreign Office and a sign of weakness.
The criterion by which British policy must be judged is whether or not it increases the confidence of the people of Hong Kong. Does it or does it not encourage them to stay put? Does it help to reduce the haemorrhage of emigration which is running now at about 1,000 people a week? Although they are by no means the only bargaining counter we have, our strongest bargaining counter must be the skills and talents of the people of Hong Kong. Therefore it is important that we do everything in our power to stem that flow of emigration. If one applies that criterion to democratisation or to a Bill of Rights, we should support the OMELCO proposals for hastening democratisation simply because that is the consensual view of the people who are most important to the prosperity of Hong Kong. They are the people who make Hong Kong so fundamentally important to China. I support a Bill of Rights not only because the former Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, pledged himself to it in July of 1989, but also because it is the view of those who live in Hong Kong that it is desirable for itself and as a confidence building measure.
On the question of passports let us apply the same criterion. We must ask ourselves whether the December package of 50,000 families or 225,000 people covered by it which Mr. Tebbit so strongly objects to and which has also caused confusion in other quarters is sufficient as a confidence-building measure. I say in all seriousness that the way we should decide the answer to that question is whether that number is sufficient to act as a trigger to mobilise international co-operation in an effort to increase that number.
I have said from the beginning that I believe we should try to mobilise our friends in the European Community, in the Commonwealth and in the United States to collaborate with us in providing a place of abode, in the event of the worst possible case occurring, to the population of British citizens in Hong Kong. The question we have to answer is whether our December package is big enough to persuade them. I ask most urgently that the Government call at the earliest possible moment a meeting of our colleagues in the European Community, in the Commonwealth and in the United States so that they can help in assuring the future of those people for whom we have a special responsibility. Such an international effort makes the problem facing us much more manageable. It would also provide the kind of confidence that would stem the haemorrhage and would increase the pressure on the CPR to act in the spirit of the joint declaration and in the idea of one nation, two systems.
I have said that I do not think we should underestimate our bargaining position, nor do I need to remind your Lordships of the immense and vital contribution that Hong Kong makes to the Chinese economy. That is astonishing when one thinks of the size of that place. It is astonishing that it creates 70 per cent. of total industrial investment and 33 per cent. of foreign currency. Two million people in southern China are directly or indirectly employed from Hong Kong. Trade between Hong Kong and China has increased in the past 10 years by 1,500 per cent. to £23 billion. That is quite apart from the huge investment being put into Hong Kong, for example in the port and sea development scheme.
Our policy therefore should be to be firm, to encourage the confidence of the people of Hong Kong and to do everything in our power nationally and internationally to provide security for the citizens of Hong Kong in the event of the worst possible case occurring. The Chinese People's Republic cannot want to inherit a ghost town. I beg to move for Papers.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, the Liberal Democrats have been very helpful in putting down this Motion. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is important to keep developing events in Hong Kong under frequent review. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made a wide-ranging and interesting speech. I agreed with quite a lot of that speech. I congratulate the Government on making some movement on passports. It is not enough, but it is a start. I am sure that if the Chinese are looking really nasty as 1997 approaches, the warmhearted British public will be willing for the numbers with right of abode to be increased. However, we now have something which we can show to other countries to encourage them to give similar help to Hong Kongers.
The Government must be admired for their courage in taking on the section of the Tory Party which has forgotten the pride with which the old Conservative Party honoured its obligations to protect citizens of the once great and benevolent British Empire. Mr. Tebbit and his friends have a blind spot. They cannot distinguish between immigrants from British Empire countries which sought and obtained their independence and those in Hong Kong whom we are about to hand over to a President Ceausescu-type of communist regime. The former were not refugees from political persecution. Hong Kongers have a high probability of becoming victims of it.
I believe that the Government will get through the necessary measures to obtain the limited number of passports. I am sure there are many Labour Members and non-Conservative Members in both Houses who are too decent to support the strange official Labour line that either all Hong Kongers should be given proper passports, or none. That effectively means, as it is intended to mean, that none will get them.
The feeling of bitterness in Hong Kong against Britain is still strong. However, the feeling is not as angry as it was. But the mood is nervous and volatile.
1106
It could erupt into ugly scenes as 1997 approaches, making Hong Kong increasingly difficult to govern. China is ruled by men who are frightened by the amazing overturn of seemingly solid communist governments in Europe and even in Mongolia. This induces them to make menacing threats to Hong Kong. The Basic Law now being formulated in China, with little input from Hong Kong, may contain a provision against Hong Kong being used as a base for subversion. This would rapidly be interpreted as grounds for censoring the press and television, although all democratic rights now existing in Hong Kong were guaranteed in the joint declaration of 1984.
Recently Li Peng, the Chinese Prime Minister, said that even if Mr. Martin Lee and Mr. Szeto Wah were elected to the Legislative Council by a 100 per cent. vote before 1997 they would not be allowed to keep their seats afterwards. That is because they have criticised China's attitude since 4th June. Peking is terrified of democracy. The provisions for electing the chief executive, the equivalent of the governor, will ensure that no one disapproved of by China could have the job. China jibs at the very modest proposal of OMELCO for direct elections to the Legislative Council. It is amazing that after more than 150 years there is still no one voted on to that body by popular suffrage.
OMELCO asks that in 1991 one-third of the council should be elected by popular vote, one-third should come from indirect elections in the functional constituencies and one-third should be officially appointed. For the 1995 election it asks that half should be elected by popular vote and half should come from the functional constituencies. Peking says no. By 1995 only 30 per cent. should be popularly elected, with 50 per cent. from functional constituencies, plus a sinister 20 per cent. from a so-called election committee. Those will be Peking's yes-men. No laws would be passed without the consent of those election committee members as well as of the rest. However, it is said that rejected Bills could be resubmitted and passed by a simple majority. I doubt it.
The election committee would be a second chamber, with Peking holding the veto. For 1999 OMELCO proposes 67 per cent. be directly elected, with 33 per cent. from functional committees. Peking says only 40 per cent. can be directly elected and the election committee members will have 10 per cent. of seats, thus retaining the veto from Peking.
The British Government are about to give their verdict on the composition of the Legislative Council in 1991–1995, the last time elections will be held under British rule, with the subsequent election due in 1999. The Government adopt a paternalistic attitude. They advise Hong Kongers not to annoy Peking by pushing for more than Peking proposes or beyond what the British Government consider it is safe to propose without outright rejection by China. We are behaving as though Hong Kongers are our children for ever and we are their nanny. We are not.
If the British Government proposals do not meet Hong Kong's expectations they will be rejected by

1107
the Executive Council. The governor would then have to override the Executive Council. That has never happened before. It would be a wonderful present of a precedent for China whenever it wanted the chief executive not to take the advice of the Executive Council or the Legislative Council. If the Governor persisted in pushing in adequate British proposals the Legislative Council would amend them. Otherwise the people of Hong Kong would throw them out, as communist governments all over the world are being thrown out for not following the people's will.
The British Government warn against the risk of annoying China, but it is the Hong Kongers, not us, who take that risk. If there is a reasonable government in Peking in 1997, all will be well. If it is the same Stalinist government as today it will have the embarrassment of openly reducing democracy in Hong Kong. Hong Kong would then be no worse off than if it agreed to China's present proposals.
We are out of date in trying to repress popular demands for democracy. They cannot be put back in the can. If we tried to do that, the Hong Kong people might even demand and seize complete independence now, just as parts of the Soviet Union are trying to do. Where would we be then if Chinese troops came in before 1997 to assert Peking's despotism? The joint declaration would be meaningless.
China is anxious that we should endorse the Basic Law when it emerges in its final form in February and March. That gives us a weapon to insist that any part of it which conflicts with the joint declaration should be removed. The other weapon belongs to the Hong Kongers; it is to insist on a strong element of genuine democracy before 1997. I advise them to go for broke and ask for 100 per cent. to be elected by popular vote in 1991. The longer such a system is in place the harder it will be to destroy.
Long happy with the rule of law and the democratic processes of British administration, Hong Kong has only recently realised the need to run its own affairs. How can we say to those intelligent, able and industrious people that they are less qualified to have one person, one vote than Romanians or Indians? Hong Kongers may not have had complete democracy but they know what it is all about. They will struggle not to be left out of the full democracy tide sweeping through the world. We must help them, not hinder them. We must hope that by 1997 there will be a more or less democratic government in Peking which will allow Hong Kong genuine autonomy and remove all our problems over Hong Kongers fearing to stay in Hong Kong.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it is a rare privilege for me to be able to speak in this House on a subject other than health. I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for permitting it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for introducing the debate, and grateful too to the Foreign Secretary for having invited me, together with Timothy Raison, to go to Vietnam and submit a report on the boat people. My main contribution
1108
to the debate will concern the problem of the boat people with its obvious profound implications for Hong Kong.
I have been to Hong Kong on so many occasions that I should like to say two sentences on the broad issue. First, in my view it would be a shameful end to the long history of the British Empire and subsequently the Commonwealth if we were to betray our trust to the energetic, industrious people of Hong Kong. Secondly, Britain must, even though belatedly, push forward the process of democracy, as has been so powerfully argued by the people of Hong Kong themselves. Time is both short and precious and we must lay the foundations for a genuinely democratic system in Hong Kong before 1997.
If my first point has been the need for courage now to avoid the need for a mass flood of refugees from Hong Kong, then my second point and the rest of my speech must be dedicated to those who have fled from Vietnam as refugees or asylum seekers since 1975. They, too, were fleeing from communism. They were also, especially in recent times, fleeing from poverty. Of those whom Timothy Raison and I met who had been returned by plane on 12th December and who had wished to improve their standards of life in other parts of the world, none claimed to be refugees. They had hoped that they could be able to go to Australia, the United States, Canada, New Zealand or elsewhere, as nearly a million of the population had been able to do in the years before.
Vietnam's poverty cannot be blamed on its government alone. It has suffered from long years of occupation. It has struggled against occupation by Japan, the United States and France. It has been denied any form of compensation for the appalling damage that was done to the country during long years of war and for the boycott on trade imposed by the United States, with the support of Britain and other countries within the Community. I am certain that, although it obviously takes some time to see the effects of economic aid, at this moment it would bring great hope both to those in Vietnam —and discourage them from departure —and to those in Hong Kong —and encourage them to return —if Vietnam were incorporated within a world system of aid to the benefit of its people.
It would be unfair to blame the boat people for leaving. So many before them had left. If one considers the group of people interviewed by Timothy Raison and myself, one sees that they all left on 10th or 11th June 1988 and arrived on 20th June 1988. The rules changed on 16th June when they were half way there. They left with the entitlement to be refugees, arrived with that entitlement removed and quite rightly joined the screening process.
I thought it quite proper, although some people might say that it was a little late, that we should decide to draw a line between those who are refugees fleeing from persecution or fear of persecution and those hoping to find a better life in another country. It is vital for the long-term interests of refugees that that definition should be drawn. If we were to say that all who flee from wherever to wherever for a

1109
better life are refugees, there would be no definition of refugees left and all the guarantees provided for them since 1950 and supervised by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees would be lost. It is therefore right that the definition should he drawn.
Because Vietnamese citizens have for 10 years been permitted to be accepted as refugees on arrival in Hong Kong, one must try to understand their plight. In a sense they must still be treated as a special case. I was delighted to learn of the agreement reached in Geneva. It was exactly what had been recommended and hoped for. One of the first things I did after publishing our report was to have long discussions with UNHCR about how it would accept the responsibility. The United States' decision to come up with a genuine, orderly return programme after six months' strengthening of the voluntary programme was right for all concerned.
In our report we said that the most important issue was voluntary return. It is best if one can get people to do it because they want to do it. It is fascinating to note that some of the members of the group that we saw complained that they had been kept waiting. They all knew that they would go back o Vietnam. They did not complain about being back in Vietnam. They were complimentary about what had happened to them since they returned.
We have a major responsibility to help in the resettlement programme and to help boost the return programme. That means two things. As we said in our report, it means a major education programme in Vietnam which the Vietnamese Government are prepared to carry out. Much is already being done. Video material is now being prepared and I hope that it will be used with the help and backing which Britain can give to ensure that it is shown throughout Vietnam. Many organisations indicated that they would be ready to support that. It is essential that the message gets through to the camps in Hong Kong. I heard many people, including those whom we interviewed, say that they were not fully informed about the opportunity of volunteering to go back. The six-month moratorium which has been decided today is of great importance.
There is more that we can do to help those people who have returned. For example, the fishermen whom we interviewed went off their with their boats and came back without them. Vietnamese fisher families not only fish from their boats but live on their boats. If they do not have a boat, they have neither a job nor a place to live. That is the kind of aid that we can give them. We can help them with the money needed to make a boat. We can also help others, including farmers, agricultural workers and carpenters, with the tools of the job to enable them to settle back properly. If the British Government are responsive to the proposals made in our report and at the Geneva conference, a proper and effective solution might be found to the problem which is so sad for Vietnam, Britain and Hong Kong.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, I wish to acknowledge most sincerely the courteous and gracious manner in which your Lordships received
1110
my admittance to your Lordships' House. I wish, too, to acknowledge in advance the usual courtesy extended to one who is making his maiden speech. I hope that your Lordships will accept that I have made strenuous efforts to sanitise my speech to ensure that I do not breach the convention which commands your Lordships' respect and attention.
It is in that spirit that I have to declare my special interest in the subject of this debate. I am chairman and chief executive of Cable and Wireless plc which currently owns 75 per cent. of Hong Kong Telecommunications Ltd., of which I am also chairman. Hong Kong Telecom provides Hong Kong's domestic and international telecommunications networks. It is Hong Kong's largest company with over 18,000 employees and a market capitalisation of over £4 billion.
Hong Kong is one of the world's most successful economies. It is in fact the eleventh largest trading territory in the world and little Hong Kong has achieved a level of exports nearly one-third of that of mighty Japan. Britain has a special role in Hong Kong as the sovereign power. That includes an obligation to maintain Hong Kong's stability and prosperity up to 1997. But, apart from moral and legal obligations, I believe that it is in Britain's economic self-interest to help Hong Kong.
The list of British equipment bought by Hong Kong Telecom includes satellite earth station equipment, broadcasting towers, fibre-optic cables and pay telephones. Those purchases are part of the £1 billion a year of visible exports from Britain to Hong Kong. Moreover, the dividends that Hong Kong Telecom pays to Cable and Wireless are part of the £1 billion a year of invisible earnings which the UK derives from the services of all British companies operating in Hong Kong. Other examples are power generation equipment for the electricity companies, rolling stock for the mass transit railway, cranes at the container terminal and the structural steel for the Hong Kong Bank's magnificent headquarters building; all these have been bought from Britain.
Those exports have been achieved because of the considerble British commercial presence in Hong Kong. British-managed or controlled companies have a gross stock market value of £20 billion which is 40 per cent. of the Hong Kong stock market. That far outweighs any other national business influence in Hong Kong which is an excellent base for expansion of British influence in the Asia Pacific region before and after 1997.
I should like to speak briefly about the so-called brain drain which is one of the most serious problems facing Hong Kong today. Although many Hong Kong people were optimistic when the joint declaration was signed, emigration has since accelerated and the tragic events of last June make it likely that that trend will continue. I believe thal there is very little disagreement on the reason for that emigration. People in Hong Kong fear uncertainty about the kind of lives that their families will have after 1997. They therefore seek the insurance policy of a foreign passport. At present, the only way to obtain one is to leave Hong Kong and spend several years abroad.

1111
I hope that the nationality package which was announced before Christmas will go some way towards alleviating the problems of emigration and I emphasise that the objective of the package is for the Hong Kong recipients to remain in Hong Kong.
I should like to refer noble Lords specifically to one key part of the Government Statement made in your Lordships' House and in another place on 20th December last which has been virtually lost sight of in the welter of emotion —much of it, I fear, ill-informed —which has followed. Here I quote:
"within the total numbers I have given, the Government propose to introduce a special measure designed to help companies and institutions in Hong Kong to retain their key personnel … The companies and institutions concerned would arrange secondments of key personnel for work or training in the United Kingdom for relatively short periods of time, thereby minimising any disruption to their work in Hong Kong."—[Official Report, 20/12/89; col. 281.]
It is clear that under this part of the package those concerned, having come to the United Kingdom for a period of secondment to work for a British company, will then have to return to Hong Kong for a much longer period before they can acquire the right of residence here. I welcome the targeting of the scheme at key workers whose presence is vital to Hong Kong. I know that it is not the Government's intention to give citizenship to a wealthy elite, and I hope that the legislation will make that clear.
I know that the scheme has been criticised as divisive but in my experience Hong Kong people are not jealous of their neighbours. They do not begrudge them success or good fortune. Rather they aspire to emulate them. Indeed when I visited Hong Kong a few weeks ago no one was opposed to the package on the grounds that it would cause jealousy or resentment. Their disappointment was that only 50,000 heads of household would benefit and not more.
I should like to end on an optimistic note. I believe that Hong Kong will weather this storm, that China's economic self-interest will prevail and that Hong Kong's success will continue long after it becomes a Special Administrative Region. That belief has been strengthened during my recent discussions with the CITIC, an external agency of the People's Republic of China, about the acquisition of a significant stake in Hong Kong Telecom. Here is China wanting to invest billions of Hong Kong dollars of hard currency in a Hong Kong company. That investment will bear fruit only if Hong Kong's capitalist system and way of life are maintained. I believe that this is a sure sign of China's long-term good intentions.
Boileau, the eminent French philosopher, said: That which is accurately conceived is accurately expressed. I hope that your Lordships will extend to me your sympathetic understanding if, on this special occasion, I have strayed from that splendid maxim. I should be grateful to your Lordships for your indulgence in accepting my speech as non-controversial, even if I have tested the limits of that indulgence. I confess that I look forward to the freedom of future opportunities to address your Lordships in a less restrained manner, recognising as Lady Bracknell said: "On these occasions it becomes
1112
more than a moral duty to speak one's mind. It becomes a pleasure".
6.22 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, it is a considerable honour to be the first to follow my noble friend Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke. He has spoken not only with great lucidity but also from a very real depth of knowledge regarding Hong Kong. He happens to share with one of my forebears the illustrious name of Eric, though I must say I hope that any axe which he may have (dare I say it?) is not as sharp. He shares with me the wonderfully therapeutic recreations of music and gardening. On behalf of the whole House I congratulate him most sincerely on his excellent maiden speech and hope that we shall hear him often in the future.
In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for introducing this timely debate on Hong Kong, perhaps I may also say how very sorry I am that the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, is not able to be in his place this evening. I hope that it is in order on behalf of all your Lordships to wish the noble Lord a speedy and successful recovery from his operation.
The joint declaration of 1984 is,
"a formal international agreement, legally binding in all its parts".
It represents,
"the highest form of commitment between two sovereign states".
Paragraph 4 of that agreement states that during the transitional period leading up to the restoration of Hong Kong to China on 1st July 1997 (for the third time I quote),
"the Government of the United Kingdom will be responsible for the administration of Hong Kong with the object of maintaining and preserving its economic prosperity and social stability".
This evening I propose to outline to your Lordships the only way in which I and, I believe, many others suggest that the United Kingdom can acquit itself of those responsibilities. I should like to begin by repeating what I first said to your Lordships on 21st May 1984:
"Hong Kong has one, and really only one, resource—its people. Without them and their confidence in the system, Hong Kong basically is nothing". —[Official Report, 21/5/84; col. 112.]
In order to hand over to China a Hong Kong which bears some resemblance to the territory for which it negotiated in 1984, Hong Kong's main resource must be intact: its people must still be there.
Even before the events in China of June last year the people of Hong Kong were understandably nervous. But now there is a genuine and, I would say, wholly justifiable fear for their future. The recent events in Eastern Europe, particularly Romania, if anything should increase our concern for the people of Hong Kong. The demonstration in Hong Kong on New Year's Day this year which called for the downfall of Ceausescu's China highlighted the parallels only too clearly, and the extent to which it has drawn China's ire shows what a sensitive spot it hit with that country's leaders.
The Chinese will not relax their vigilance to search for and stamp out popular movements for democracy; quite the reverse. Martial law may have been lifted but the new PRC envoy to Hong Kong,

1113
Mr. Chou Non, is described —I quote from an article in the press —as an,
"unsympathetic, smooth talking hard liner who is likely to take a tougher line on Hong Kong matters than his predecessor".
Despite the commitment in the joint declaration that,
"the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will enjoy a high degree of automony [and] will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power",
Peking announced as recently as the 20th of this month that only 18 members of Hong Kong's 60-seat Legislative Council would be directly elected in 1997. Even that 30 per cent., as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, reminded us, will have their power curtailed by a two-tier voting system which would give blocking powers to indirectly elected members. We cannot acquiesce in such a situation and must ensure greater and faster democratisation.
The 1984 joint declaration and its accompanying Chinese memorandum said that China was not opposed to Britain giving passports to Hong Kong people and that it was entirely an internal matter for the British Government. Less than a year ago the same Mr. Chou Non and Mr. Qian Qichen, the Chinese Foreign Minister, separately stated that Britain's decision on how many Hong Kong citizens would be granted citizenship was an internal affair of the British Government. But now Peking is criticising this Government's brave — I use the word deliberately —nationality package and even stated that any Hong Kong resident who has the right of abode in any country other than China will be disqualified after 1997 from holding senior government jobs.
I base my case this evening on the United Kingdom's duty to fulfil its contract with China. I have not raised what to my way of thinking is the equally forceful argument of our duty to the people of Hong Kong. As that is an argument which apparently has no weight with certain Members in another place, I have altered my line of reasoning in case they are more readily convinced by our obligations to China under the 1984 joint declaration. I must say that I was more than shocked by some of the opposition to the Government's recent nationality package. Frankly, to me it smacks of racism. It is apparently based on what can only be described as the amoral and immoral excuse that it is a vote loser. This Government to my knowledge have never been known to shirk their responsibilities on that score —and heaven forbid that they should start now.
Those who make the claim that it undermines the Government's pledge not to allow any more full-scale immigration have entirely missed the point. The point is—as has been reiterated time and again—that granting the right of abode in this country to the people of Hong Kong is the surest way to prevent large-scale immigration. No one can any longer be in doubt that the only way to encourage the people of Hong Kong to remain there is to give them the freedom to leave.
We should make no mistake. If China finds itself presented in 1997 with a Hong Kong devoid of its main resource there will be little or no incentive for
1114
it to abide by its side of the 1984 contract and nothing in the Chinese leadership's behaviour should lead anyone to expect that it will honour its commitment without a powerful incentive.
A great deal is being said at the moment about the internationalisation of the Hong Kong question and the provision of an international safety net for Hong Kong. What that means in practical terms is surely that countries such as Canada, the United States and Australia will in an emergency accept Hong Kong people. But obviously they will accept only those people whom they see as an asset to themselves. The force of world opinion, and this country's undoubted higher duty towards Hong Kong, will be such that this country will be forced to take the remainder. Quite apart from the Government's duty to China, or even to Hong Kong, that is surely not the way to fulfil our obligations to the citizens of this country.
If we hand over to China a Hong Kong devoid of the majority of its key personnel, China may well say that the subject matter of the contract has been altered and that it is no longer bound by the terms of the 1984 joint declaration. We have the clearest obligation to do all that we can to avoid that situation.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we should certainly consider ourselves fortunate to have been able to listen to such a well-informed and timely maiden speech as that recently made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke. It is indeed fortunate that with his enormous knowledge of affairs in Hong Kong he is able to speak at this time. I congratulate him most heartily on his speech and in particular on its confidence-building atmosphere. Too many of the speeches that we make in our attempts to improve the situation ignore the fact that our first duty is to restore, not to destroy, confidence in the future of Hong Kong. I therefore repeat my congratulations to the noble Lord.
Speeches by those who are particularly well-informed, such as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, have been made with regard to the boat people. Therefore in the time available to me I shall restrict myself purely to comments about the economy of Hong Kong and the need to sustain confidence in it. In spite of the obvious fact that the major interests of the three parties in a prosperous Hong Kong are at one, and that the common accord between the two Governments in their negotiations on the Basic Law existed before June, there is no doubt that he events of Tiananmen Square created what has rightly been described as a haemorrhage of key personnel leaving their country, and a consequent need to take some overt action to restore confidence by attacking the malaise at its root level. By "malaise at its root level" I mean that every resident in Hong Kong would say to himself, "Things are fine now, but what if after 1997 they develop in such a way that my personal liberty and prosperity are such that I must go?" It is to answer that question that the Government have come forward with their proposals which I warmly welcome and support, as do all my colleagues on these Benches.

1115
It is admittedly a minimum response that clearly will go some way towards restoring confidence and ensuring efficient government in the meantime. I very much hope and believe that it will encourage those who have already made a great contribution to follow our lead. Moreover, key workers who have an alternative choice —a right of residence in this country—quite obviously will not feel so much at the mercy of those who negotiated with them, as they would have done if they had no such rights, since they are likely to receive more sympathetic consideration.
I am sure that my long-term confidence is shared by the majority of people who know Hong Kong. I believe that it is still justified by the continuation of those economic policies of China—and I speak of Chinese mainland—which came into effect before June last year; namely, the movement towards a market economy and greater openness in foreign relations, especially towards the West.
I was particularly pleased to hear the noble Lord who has just made his maiden speech say that there is evidence of communist China taking a capitalist interest in the affairs of Hong Kong. Perhaps I may add that when I was in Canton less than two years ago my colleagues and I were being entertained by the authorities there. The main topic of conversation was the creation of a communist stock exchange in Canton. One may at first blush think that that is not necessarily the most obvious topic of conversation to arise in those circumstances.
There is a special Chinese angle to these matters. The Chinese Government have shown no difficulty in understanding the need to continue a capitalist market economy in Hong Kong and have reaffirmed their commitment under the joint statement. I see no reason, either because of current conversations with China —and I was talking to those in the embassy for two hours only a few days ago—or because of the precedents that China has set in the past, to believe that China will not honour its commitments in the way in which it entered into them, and which it has now reaffirmed. That may be considered somewhat naive. I do not believe that one achieves anything by doubting the honesty of nations when they have shown no propensity to be otherwise. Therefore I am glad that the Government have taken these steps which I am sure will help enormously.
I hope that the noble Lords will be good enough to bear in mind that by entering into the joint declaration of 1984, and by approving for so many years ahead the continuation of two systems in Hong Kong, the parties demonstrated that they had resolved the argument between sovereignty and economic prosperity. They decided that it was far better to have a prosperous Hong Kong open market economy than to exercise absolute sovereignty. I see no reason for believing that that will not continue.
Finally, as to democratisation, I hope that the Government will not rush the matter. I remember very well first hearing Clem Attlee's wise advice that a good statesman should only go as far as he absolutely needs. The Government need to negotiate, as they are doing, as favourably as possible.
1116
So far as the 1991 elections are concerned, I believe that as we move away from the crisis of last year, the Government would find the atmosphere much more favourable, if they negotiated the rest of the plan at a much later date. They have no need to do it now. We approve these proposals and we believe that the House as a whole should similarly do so.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke, on his maiden speech. Like the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who has just spoken, I found particularly warming the encouraging message which he gave to your Lordships' House. But I think we all recognised that, speaking as he does with such knowledge of Hong Kong and with such authority from his long experience of Hong Kong and of China, the words he spoke here will be faithfully recorded and reported, and much spoken about throughout Hong Kong.
In that sense, I am sure we should also thank him for the encouragement which he is giving through his speech, for the work he is doing in Hong Kong, for the condidence he is showing in the future of Hong Kong and for the encouragement he has given to its people. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for having taken the initiative to bring forward this debate. It is, as has been said, an extremely opportune and timely one.
Recently, in relation to Hong Kong the Government have had three extremely difficult decisions to take. I do not think anyone should underestimate how difficult they must have been. There has been the matter of the determination of the nationality package; there has been the whole difficult question of the Vietnamese economic migrants and the refugees associated with them; and there has been the question of democratization—to use that rather nasty, contrived word—which covers a much larger problem than perhaps is recognised.
On the first two, the Government have already announced their decision. On the third—democratization—they have not yet done so, but it seems that their decision is likely to be taken and announced very shortly. I hope very much that they will accept the proposals of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. They are modest. They are not in any way to be seen as excessive demands. They are the product of much debate and discussion internally within Hong Kong and as such they should carry considerable weight with us here.
Considering this matter reminds us that the United Kingdom Government still have sovereign responsibilities for Hong Kong right the way through to 1997, and it is essential that we are seen to be exercising our proper role in respect of those responsibilities. It would be unfortunate if the impression were to be given that on major matters we were falling too far over towards the views expressed from Beijing. However, that is not to say that we should ignore those views. It is absolutely essential, particularly in respect of democratisation, that we take those views very much into account. Therefore I recognise that there may have to be some form of

1117
compromise, perhaps over the phasing, over the number of steps which are taken for the introduction of democratisation.
I do not think that we can go immediately, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, wants to do, go for broke, 100 per cent. It would be much more sensible to go by degrees, because the important thing here surely is not the precise percentage that is taken as a first move but that the first move leads on to subsequent moves and that those subsequent moves and what they enshrine are secured for all time into the future. In other words, what is most important in the terms of democratisation is continuity after 1997, so that we have the commitment of the Chinese Government to back it all the way through and continue its development after 1997.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made a most interesting and informed contribution on the Vietnamese economic migrants, and he has done tremendous service in the careful study that he made of this subject. It could not have been easy for Ministers—I know he recognises this fact—to take the decision that they did to return a number of Vietnamese economic migrants by compulsory means. I am sure it is right that they did so. If it is now the case, as appears to be so, that there is some form of agreement for a six-month moratorium, I hope that that will at least provide for the treatment to be given to the new influx of refugees that may he expected from March, because it would be foolish indeed for the international community to close their eyes to the fact that more are likely to come as soon as the weather conditions permit.
I also hope that if there has been this agreement which has been signalled to us this afternoon, it indicates that the United States attitude has changed and that no longer will we have what a senior official recently said to me when I was in Hong Kong: "You must remember that for the United States Vietnam is still the enemy". That time is now past and it ought to have been buried in the past. I agree with those who have said that it is time to look ahead, to give economic aid to bolster up, to improve and strengthen the economy of Vietnam in dealing with this difficult situation.
Lastly, I want to say a word on the nationality package. I support very much the proposals of Her Majesty's Government. I believe that we have this commitment in this country which should be honoured and I would be dismayed if, by one means or another, however contrived, another place were to reject the Government's proposals when they come to legislative form. This is the very least we can do and I think that all Members of the other place should support the Government in the decision that they have taken.
What we have to ensure is that we do whatever we can between now and 1997 to secure and promote the economic strength of Hong Kong. I ask your Lordships to compare the successes of Hong Kong, about which we heard earlier today, with the circumstances which have overcome the people of Eastern Europe or those of other states where freedom of the individual is denied.
1118
In Hong Kong we have a shining example of a free market system with free people. I hope that it will not be too long before the Government of China recognise the fact that even though freedom may carry some risks (and what system does not?) a free people, given free choice, offers a much better prospect of happiness for all their citizens and the opportunity for the security of government. That is what we have achieved in Hong Kong and what we shall shortly be bequeathing to China. It must deserve the inheritance that it is gaining.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for introducing the debate. The fact that the House shows such a continuing interest in the future of Hong Kong is a positive factor in reassuring the people there that they are not forgotten and abandoned.
Apart from giving myself the pleasure of speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke, to whom we listened with the greatest attention, I had not intended to intervene in today's debate until I read the intemperate attack on the Governor printed last Sunday by one of our leading newspapers. The report speaks of "furious British business giants" who are alleged to have described Sir David Wilson as a "puppet of Peking" and to have called for his removal from office. The newspaper's editorial described him as a "lack-lustre errand boy".
I have no direct knowledge of what any British businessman or businessmen may have said to the press and I do not necessarily believe everything that I read. However, as some noble Lords may know, I am closely connected with some of the largest Hong Kong businesses controlled by Hong Kong Chinese people. I declare an interest in that respect. I wish to assure your Lordships that none of my friends would wish to be associated with any such denunciation of the Governor. Indeed, there is considerable admiration for the patient and dedicated way in which Sir David is trying skilfully to advance the cause of the people of Hong Kong. We find it to be profoundly unhelpful when the press or businessmen say anything which may undermine the authority of the man who must negotiate on our behalf with the People's Republic of China.
Tonight I wish to say only that I hope that one of the signals which will go out from this House to the Government in Beijing is that the Governor enjoys the full confidence of all noble Lords.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharp, on his most impressive and knowledgeable speech and thank the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for the opportunity to discuss a most important subject.
However much one approves of the historic agreement on the future of Hong Kong after 1997—and I happen to believe that it remains in the long-term interests of its people—this country will, whichever way one looks at it, be handing over more than 4 million people to the tender mercies and ultimate authority of a form of government

1119
which at the moment, has few if any attractions for the people of Hong Kong. When one sees the way in which people throughout eastern Europe have rejected forms of authoritarian government to which they have not even been handed over but have actually grown up with, we can appreciate what a major step that is.
China's compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of the agreement, giving a large measure of autonomy to Hong Kong for 50 years, will greatly ease the transition and soften the landing. But unless the Basic Law is tightened, excuses could be found to water down that autonomy. After the Union flag comes down and the British armed forces have left there can be no guarantee that China's view of autonomy will be the same as ours or that of Hong Kong.
It is not surprising that we, who took Hong Kong by an act of war and ruled it for 150 years (except for three years), who benefited from, and helped with, the self-generated and manifest success story, and to whose people, therefore, we have deep and binding obligation have some real problems on our hands.
Basically, other than the important problem of refugees which has already been fully covered, these fall into two parts. The first is to whom, and to how many of those who now live and work in Hong Kong, should we give the right of abode in this country? The second is to what extent we introduce soon a predominantly elected democracy as opposed to the merely free society which now exists, albeit in the guise of a benign autocracy.
As regards the first problem, the Government have taken a courageous and, I believe, correct stand. They have done so on the basis that, if certain people had a guaranteed escape route, they would not wish to leave Hong Kong—that is, at least not unless China manifestly shows (and we hope that it will not) that it does not accept the kind of freedom and autonomy which is hoped for if not expected under the treaty—and that they will certainly stay long enough to work towards the handover of a going concern in 1997 which, under the treaty, is our part of the bargain.
Peking, or Beijing, may not like that questioning of its ultimate good faith. However, there is little that it can do about it because in a free society no one can stop people leaving. All that it can do is to threaten, as it appears to have done, that after 1997 anyone so protected by us will not be employed or protected by it. If that happens we must expect all those who have been allowed to come to us or to go to other areas in Europe to do so. But in a world in which all areas are becoming more cosmopolitan I find nothing unacceptable about that. I believe that some people have greatly underestimated the ease with which such friendly, immensely able and innovative people can be absorbed into our society and the contribution that they can undoubtedly make to our general wellbeing. We should be under no illusions about what will hapen. As has been said, we may even have to take more people if something goes wrong.
1120
The other part of the problem is more difficult, as the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary is no doubt finding, perhaps giving an occasional, cursory thought to his erstwhile literary treatment of another traumatic if hopefully different scenario in Hong Kong in one of his novels.
When I was in Hong Kong during the 1970s it was the conventional wisdom that there could not be an elected democracy there because China would not like it. It was believed that China's particular friends would always have to win such an election and that if they did not all hell would break loose. Sadly, however much we should be moving forward together with China—and no stone must be left unturned to do so—some of that cautionary tale still applies. That is for the simple reason that at this moment, and since the fiasco of Tianaman Square, China fears the repercussions of a truly democratic society within its borders even more than it welcomes the enormous economic advantages of a profitable, foreign exchange earning powerhouse to help with its modernisation.
Of course, in time all those things may change and hopefully for the better. But for the moment, even the direction let alone the timing of any change is uncertain. On the other hand, Hong Kong probably sees such a logical development not only as a sensible way of governing itself freely and effectively over and after the transitional period, but also as an insurance policy within China and internationally against too many liberties being taken with its self-government after we have left. However much Hong Kong seeks to keep out of Chinese internal affairs, a conflict of interest is all too obvious.
As has been said, there may be some negotiable compromise and I sincerely hope that there is. But if not, Her Majesty's Government have the difficult job of deciding where they put their weight and influence. Loyalty and our own political system—the responsibility for Hong Kong is entirely ours—would seem to point to our meeting these most understandable and ultimately inevitably aspirations of the Hong Kong people. If we do, are we prepared for any confrontational situation which may then arise if China sees it as a strong incentive to change and democratise a political system before it is right to do so?
Are we prepared not only to maintain, but if necessary to enhance, a strong garrison in support of the police to ensure that while we are in charge no undue pressures can be put on the citizens of Hong Kong nor liberties taken, as has happened in the past?
If we proceed along this path—and, as my noble friend Lord Wyatt said, we may have no option but to do so—we must have the courage and resources to see it through. On the other hand, in the longer term can Hong Kong be certain that it is in the interests of the people who remain there to embark too early on such a high profile course of constitutional reform in advance of any prospect of changes in China which must in any case one day come about when Chinese goodwill is so fundamental to a harmonious transition? Certainly such political development will always remain a

1121
good bargaining point. One day, perhaps not too far off, it may be accommodated without friction on either side as China herself becomes, we hope, more democratic. However, only in Hong Kong will it really be possible to tell where this balance of advantage lies and what would be the best timing. For the moment very careful thought and statesmanship are required; and I know well that Hong Kong possesses citizens and public figures with just those qualities and capabilities.
The task of this country is to support in every way we can the true interests of the people of Hong Kong. Our responsibilities do not end when the Hong Kong ship of state has been piloted through the outer reefs and into the grand harbour of Chinese sovereignty; but only when she is safely and happily berthed alongside. There is still so much to do before we have fully met our obligation.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for initiating this debate. I join with other noble Lords in praising the noble Lord, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke, for his excellent maiden speech. I declare some sort of fellow interest because I too made my maiden speech on the subject of Hong Kong.
We all recognise what a thorny problem the Government have in Hong Kong, and it is all too easy for us as outsiders to propose, while the Government have to dispose. The question of passports has in particular exercised everyone concerned with Hong Kong. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, and my noble friend Lord Geddes that this is an opportune moment to congratulate the Government on their resolute stance in the face of strong opposition both in China and, regrettably, in another place. In an ideal world Hong Kong would have wished for more passports, but I believe the Government now deserve encouragement rather than criticism.
Leaving the passport issue on one side, it is now clear that we must answer the need of Hong Kong for a firmly entrenched guarantee of more rapid progress to democratic government. Until June of last year it was possibly true that Hong Kong was vulnerable to the criticism that there was little interest in politics and that representative government was low on the agenda; but that was only partly true. The governor's powers have always been exercised after thorough deliberation with EXCO and LEGCO. There was democracy, if not in form at least in substance. However, the opinion polls, the demonstrations and feedback to members of LEGCO, all indicate great support for a fully elected representative government in Hong Kong sooner rather than later.
This case was eloquently and persuasively pressed by Dame Lydia Dunn and Alan Lee on their recent visit to this country. Their question—and I put it to this House on their behalf—is this: why the hesitancy in granting a limited step forward? What is the bone sticking in the Government's throat that stops them
1122
from swallowing the OMELCO consensus for a minimal increase to 20 directly elected seats in 1991—as we have heard, that is rather modest and only one-third of the total of 60 seats in the legislative council—and a further increase to half the seats by 1995? This would mean that until 2003 there would not be a fully directly-elected Legislative Council; 13 years from now. That is a far cry from the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for 100 per cent. in 1991 and even less than the recommendation of the All Party Foreign Affairs Committee in the summer of last year which recommended that half the seats be directly elected in 1991 and all by 1995. I ask again: why the hesitation?
Our record in granting self-determination has been honourable. Our former colonies in Africa were given their freedom with a Westminster model for democracy as a parting present; in some cases it was with almost indecent haste that they were shown the door to independence with a bare year or two to assimilate and understand an alien system of representative government. We went to war over the wishes of the Falkland Islanders to be free. I understand that we have offered to help Romania organise its first free elections. We endorse freedom wherever we find it. All this is entirely to our credit. Why then do we still haver over the now strongly expressed wishes of the citizens of Hong Kong to participate more fully in their own destiny? Surely we cannot know better than the people of Hong Kong what is good for them. They above anyone else care about the stability of that territory in which they live.
We all realise, both here and in Hong Kong, that there has to be a dialogue with China; but dialogue not monologue. It was very encouraging to hear the words of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that this does not mean finding out what China wants and then doing it. It means putting Hong Kong's interests above the fear of treading on Chinese toes. It means not allowing China to eviscerate the joint agreement by altering the provision for an elected legislature. Of course, there has to be dialogue and we have to allow for the concept of "face"; but we too have "face", which is our duty to the expressed needs of the people of Hong Kong who, it is worth noting, were not consulted on their future at the signing of the agreement with China in 1984.
At 30th June 1997 the only protection they will have is what we give them now; thereafter, they will be on their own. How then can we deny them what they ask? They are willing to take the risk. They are not asking us to take the risk for them. This country risks nothing, yet it would help Hong Kong so much if we were to grant what are, after all, limited requests with ready good will rather than having each concession wrung from us as though we were not all on the same side.
I believe that in giving Hong Kong what it now seeks in terms of electoral freedom, the Government would be supported wholeheartedly not only in this House but by all sides in another place and there is nothing that would at this moment be more warmly welcomed in Hong Kong.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, in opening my speech, I should first like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for the Motion moved by him and also great appreciation for the maiden speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke. It is a great example of the assistance that can be given in your Lordships' House and of the people of his calibre and experience who come here to give us the benefit of their experience in such situations as we are considering today.
It is customary to make some comment on the speech of the previous speaker and although I do not wish to go over what has already been said in the speeches of other noble Lords this evening, I agree wholeheartedly with what he said about giving the responsibility for the government of Hong Kong to the people themselves long before it is anticipated that they should have it. However, before I come to that, I should like to say that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for calling attention to the issues involved in returning Hong Kong to China after the year 1997. These issues are bound up in securing the future happiness of the people of Hong Kong and the responsibility lies heavily upon Her Majesty's Government to achieve that, or at least endeavour to do so.
Perhaps I may say that it is not as if the grant of independence to Hong Kong and its procedures follows the pattern observed by Britain hitherto when granting self-government to other member countries when the former British Empire was being dissolved. That procedure has not been followed because it has not been possible to do so. In that procedure, and long before the territories to which I have referred were later advancing towards independence, the people within those areas were being given by the British Empire experience and responsibility within various administrative posts in the progress towards democracy and independence. That progress occurred in the territories for which they were responsible. They lived and worked in those territories while Britain was exercising a light and loose control. That has not been the procedure so far leading up to 1997 when Hong Kong will be handed back to China.
I find myself with a certain amount of anxiety concerning other matters. I refer to the 225,000 people from Hong Kong who will settle in Britain in certain circumstances. I do not believe that the people of this country markedly object to that. However, they tend to say that we, in the parliamentary sense, consider that we should help people who are in difficulties and not consider all the implications involved in a decision of that kind; namely, of absorbing that number of people without difficulty, and besides the question of the British interests involved. That is all I have to say. I have spoken for a very short time. Those are the matters that I wished to bring to the attention of your Lordships.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I also add my appreciation and congratulation to the noble Lord,
1124
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke, on his very impressive maiden speech. I wish to make his remarks almost the central theme of the few points that I want to make. I congratulate him on the remarkably good internal and international telephone service in Hong Kong, which I have enjoyed. I wish all strength to his equipment and activities on that front.
I am on my feet because I am the chairman of two education trusts in Hong Kong, which means that I spend quite a lot of time talking to young people who wish to pursue higher education in this country or elsewhere in the Commonwealth. I am embracing the importance of information because I find that the students surprise me from time to time with the strength of their feelings about what is taking place in Hong Kong. They have a very real concern that we shall be deciding with Beijing rather than with them in the future.
I was with some of the students at lunch today because they were all anxious that the chairman should entertain them to lunch in time for the Chinese New Year on Saturday. I must convey to your Lordships my surprise that in the past these young people thought that we feared that China might be very upset if we indulged in widespread democracy in Hong Kong. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, made the point. The students resent, and feel very bitter about, the fact that we have not given them much opportunity to have a voice in their future.
The message that comes through is that all of us who have the opportunity must, whenever we can, give the people of Hong Kong an opportunity to express to us their point of view. I fully support all that the Government are doing. I believe that their strategy so far has been excellent. I am anxious that we improve the intelligence service as best we can. I hope that any noble Lords who get strong signals about a lack of confidence in what we are doing will make sure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office hears what is in people's minds.
I am sure that all noble Lords who know Hong Kong are aware of how mercurial the situation is there. I believe that is reflected in the dreadful attack on the remarkable Governor, Sir David Wilson, who seems to embody all that is best in what we are trying to do in Hong Kong. He is leaving Hong Kong with a development programme concerning airports, communications, tunnels, education and health which is going to run well into the next century. That is exactly the way one would wish to see a strong man providing leadership and giving people confidence. I applaud all that he has proposed.
One of the interesting features about talking to students, which is inevitable when the students are in this country and therefore less concerned about passports, is that they are now beginning to believe there is more concern in Hong Kong about people having a vote. In a way a vote is more valuable in general to the younger people of Hong Kong than the possession of a passport. As an aside, I must tell your Lordships that I was a little disappointed when I explored the question of where they would like to go it they leave Hong Kong. There is no doubt that the new world, particularly Canada, seems to them

1125
to be a more glowing home for them and their families in the future. I fear that is because we diminish all the time the amount of money we are putting into research, which is a very important matter for students.
I wish to convey to your Lordships how much we are going to need strong nerves. We shall need to increase our personal information by listening to what these wonderful people of Hong Kong are telling us. We must have strong nerves in being willing to argue out with them whether the line that they are pursuing at any moment is right. Like the rest of us, they are empiricists and great opportunists. I apologise to your Lordships for another aside. A student said to me today: "I understand that your foundation gives £500 a year to the department where I work, but I do not seem to be able to get any of it to travel to London or to go to meetings".
I explained to him that the reason we give £500 to the department where he works is to offset all the incidental expenses that he incurs; for example, for electric light and even soap. As soon as that was explained to him he understood. That is part of my argument for embracing the need for the exchange of as much information as possible in the Far East and Hong Kong. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made the point that we are just beginning to make communication with Vietnam by using videos in order to try to slow down the flow of the boat people. That is another example of rather late communication with the Vietnamese.
We have heard from noble Lords two instances of the way in which the people of Beijing are prepared to embrace capitalism when it appears to be in their interests. These are pieces of information which we need to build into our own store of knowledge so that we are not blown off course by any unexpected development. The students said that there may be demonstrations in the streets of Hong Kong concerning voting. We shall need strong nerves to support our Foreign Secretary and the Governor if and when that situation comes about.
All the people I know who are involved with education in Hong Kong are absolutely committed to help the people there. My main signal to the students today was to say that all the trustees with whom I am concerned and who are interested in finding scholarship people in Hong Kong want it to be made quite clear that they intend to continue visiting Hong Kong while there is strength in their bodies, and long after 1997. There is no question that any of the people of that kind—any more than, I imagine, industrialists, commercial people and bankers—want to pull out from supporting this wonderful group of people.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of the issues of burning concern in Hong Kong at the moment, I should like to refer to two; the Vietnamese boat people and, almost as briefly, the process of democratisation.
1126
On the former, the current reduced rate of new arrivals, compared with the scale we saw last summer, should not lull us into a false sense of security. As my noble friend Lord Eden of Winton said, the sailing season will shortly be upon us again. The prospect of a further dramatic influx is all too real. I know from bitter experience how such an influx is likely to test, possibly even more dramatically than last year, the ability of Hong Kong to cope, and at the same time to strain further the patience of people in the territory. Whatever the facilities that might be developed to handle continued arrivals, not to take steps to discourage the continuation or the prospect of a further influx is unsupportable. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the issue is one of international significance.
Voluntary repatriation is only one element in bringing this sad story to a satisfactory conclusion. Moreover, I doubt that its pace could ever be adequate. Beyond that I say only that I should like to examine in detail what has been achieved today at Geneva, glad as I am that agreement has been reached. We all share humanitarian concern for the boat people, but such concern is at least tempered when set against the true reasons for about 90 per cent. of them leaving. I sincerely hope that if there is to be a six-month moratorium on forcible repatriation, it will not lead to a new and damaging influx. I am bound to say that there is a real risk that it might.
I should like to turn now to constitutional reform. For some time the wish of Hong Kong was indistinct on how representative government should develop. There was no clear view about how the proportion and totals of elected and other representatives to compose LEGCO should be made. The Government argued, and it is understandable that they should still argue, that due regard must be given not only to any emerging consensus, but also to the likely impact of any decision upon China and what that impact might mean for the continuity of approach up to 1997 and beyond.
I do not think that we or the Chinese authorities can pretend that the ambiance within which earlier consideration of this issue took place is now the same as it was before 4th June. Not only are the events of those days fresh in all our minds, but since then we have seen dramatic moves towards democracy in eastern Europe. Surely there is a moral dimension in this. It really is difficult to encourage democracy in one part of the world and adopt a more restrained approach in another. Members of LEGCO know that should the Government support their consensus view on constitutional reform, the United Kingdom's opportunity to influence matters if changes are made post 1997 will be non-existent. The force of the argument that adopting the consensus, based as it is partially on a degree of hope, is one of risk and of potentially damaging consequence is absolutely clear to me. I do not believe for one minute that it is lost on the people of Hong Kong. The greatest risk is that what we sign now could be unravelled in 1997, doing unique damage to the progressive mechanism of developing democracy and already transferred sovereignty.

1127
From all I have heard, however, OMELCO certainly acknowledges this dilemma. It realises that we could not help in that event. So does this not introduce another moral aspect, one of respecting the risks which OMELCO itself acknowledges? The difficulty of reaching a decision on this is all too apparent. I do not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, in suggesting that direct elections should be complete by 1991. But after much consideration it is now my clear belief that we should take careful note of the reasoning behind the OMELCO consensus, and with its clear understanding of the risks of adopting it, endorse it as the right way forward. The issue, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, requires very careful, measured judgment. Nevertheless, the effect on confidence in Hong Kong of adopting it now will be considerable, and the prospective damage of not doing so, as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said, very real. Like him I suspect that arrangements in place in 1997 will not perhaps be as easy to dislodge as some fear. The balance of argument, I suggest, has tipped measurably in favour of adopting the LEGCO consensus.
7.26 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, some while ago it was agreed that not every speaker would congratulate a maiden speaker on his speech. However, I intend to continue to break the rules, for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke, was so exceptionally brilliant and so extraordinarily relevant and valuable in today's debate that one can congratulate him on his contribution, not just as a matter of courtesy but with the greatest sincerity.
As one would have expected, at the beginning of the debate my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter, divided the subject into two parts. He dealt with the question of refugees and then with the future of Hong Kong. In dealing with the refugees, he drew on the welcome news which we heard today, though only on television —we have not had it officially confirmed—that there has been a United Nations agreement to a six months' moratorium on compulsory repatriation. This will give a chance for the voluntary scheme, apparently, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, indicated, inadequately advertised in the past and inadequately understood by the people concerned, to succeed.
My noble friend also stressed strongly that the reason why so many people who do not pretend to be political refugees want to escape from Vietnam is the stark poverty of that country. Therefore, if we want to avoid a continuation of attempted emigration from Vietnam, it is essential, whatever we may think about the government there and whatever we may have felt about them in the past, that we should get together internationally to do something to relieve poverty there. That would be in the interests of the people of Vietnam and also very much in our interests and in the interests also of the people of Hong Kong. That was my noble friend's message on that aspect of the subject.
1128
My noble friend said that democratisation in Hong Kong should be speeded up. He referred also to the important question of right of abode in this country and attitudes towards the Government's proposals. My noble friend said today, as he and honourable friends in another place have repeatedly said, that this is essentially a matter to be tackled on an international basis. Surely it is time to make yet another attempt to get our colleagues in the European Community, in the Commonwealth and in the United States to share the problem of giving assurance to the people of Hong Kong. It is very much in our interests and in their interests so to do because what everybody must want and what China must want is that people should stay in Hong Kong and not come here.
I know that what I am about to say has been said before, but it must be underlined. It would be better if it is known by the Chinese that there is somewhere where the passport holders of Hong Kong can go—be it Canada or Australia, it does not matter where it is. We are perhaps a little apt to forget, although we have been told this, that not all the world regards the United Kingdom as the most desirable haven in the world. Indeed, we were told by the noble Lord Lord Butterfield, that the young are rather more interested in going to the wide open spaces of Canada where the monetary opportunities can be found. If Canada can be encouraged to take them, good luck to them. It would ease the problem.
As regards the bargaining of the Hong Kong people with China, not only before 1997 but also thereafter, surely the knowledge that they have somewhere to go will strengthen their bargaining hand. That is the issue. However, if China knows that they have nowhere to go and they have no rights of abode, then the Chinese authorities can grind the people into the ground in any negotiations which take place. But if the people of Hong Kong can say, "If you push us that far we shall go off', China will surely wish to maintain these moneyspinners who, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made clear, contribute such a remarkable amount to the economy of that part of the world.
Once again, we beg the Government not to be frightened about numbers and to give guarantees on an international basis that will make it possible for the people of Hong Kong to put up an effective defence in arguing with the people of China.
I have recapitulated briefly what my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter said. I did so because I assumed, as I had the task of winding up the debate, that my job would be to reply to the people who opposed the point of view put forward and the issues raised by my noble friend. However, my difficulty is that no one has opposed them. Of course I should say that I noticed there is a total absence of speakers on the Labour Back-Benches. Indeed, the only speaker in today's debate from those Benches will be the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
Noble Lords: Lord Ennals has spoken!
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I actually referred to the Back-Benches. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will reassure us that in the general drift of the arguments which have been put forward today,

1129
on which there has been such unusual unanimity throughout the House, we should read no significance into the fact that there are no Labour Back-Bench speakers. I hope that he will also confirm that we can be reassured that the Labour Party—the official Opposition—supports the main arguments which have been so powerfully voiced and so strongly supported in your Lordships' House today.
It remains only for me to address the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—that indefatigable warhorse on the Front Bench. We know that he cannot give us straight answers to these questions today; but the feeling of the House must be plain to him. Can he not say that the Government will at least look at the issue of increased aid to the people of Vietnam? Can he say whether they will respect and perhaps even attempt to extend the period for voluntary repatriation and that they will do a great deal more to ensure that the people concerned know what are the opportunities and conditions? Can he also confirm that the Government will cease to be so frightened about giving rights of abode in this country?
I find it very difficult to understand why this capitalist Conservative Government is so frightened of letting the people of Hong Kong into this country. Indeed, such people seem to me to be the archetypal marketeers and the best source of prospective yuppies, so beloved to the Tory Front Bench, that they could possibly find. Therefore, the idea that such people would be a burden on the country is hard to accept. I would lay a wager that for every person from Hong Kong who comes into this country, there will be two new small businesses within two years of his arrival.
Will the noble Lord please say that the Government are open-minded in this matter, and that they are prepared to change their attitude from the miserable, guarded and nervous attitude which they have adopted up until now?
7.34 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for enabling us to have this debate today, and for his thoughtful and stimulating opening speech. As usual, we have heard a number of expert speeches on the subject. I join noble Lords who congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Sharp, on his maiden speech. He made an admirable and witty speech and spoke with great knowledge, experience and wisdom. We look forward to hearing many speeches from him in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharp, referred to the Foreign Secretary's Statement following his visit to Hong Kong. I shall refer to the main points contained in Mr. Hurd's report. However, before I mention those, I must acknowledge the fact that Mr. Hurd had a very difficult task to perform in an atmosphere of apprehension and uncertainty. He conducted himself with dignity and sincerity. I feel that I must say this even if I do not agree with every detail of government policy. The difficulties facing the Government are complex. I am conscious that they would not be less so if they had to be tackled by a Labour Government. I hope that that remark satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
1130
When the House debated the joint declaration in 1985, we did so in a reasonably relaxed atmosphere, as noble Lords will recall, because we had some confidence that after 1997 Hong Kong as a special administrative region would continue to enjoy essential rights and,
"a high degree of autonomy as well as executive, legislative and independent judicial power including that of final adjudication".
These and other constitutional details are included in the Basic Law which is still under discussion. The tragedy, as many noble Lords have pointed out in their speeches, is that the events in Tiananmen Square shook the confidence of the Hong Kong community and that of the rest of the world. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made plain, it is against that background that this debate is being held.
The Basic Law now under discussion is crucial. It is the Basic Law which will decide the future of Hong Kong. The proposals of OMELCO on the Basic Law appear to me to be reasonable. In last Wednesday's Statement, the Foreign Secretary said that the joint declaration must be made to work. He said:
"An important element in that is the extent and pace of movement to democracy in Hong Kong before and after 1997".—[Official Report, 17/1/90; col. 681.]
We agree with that. But, at that point, Mr. Hurd was not able to go into detail. He said that he would announce a decision within the next few weeks. Moreover, when the Prime Minister spoke to Dame Lydia Dunn yesterday she repeated that assurance. We hope that there will be a constructive outcome and that OMELCO's proposals for the evolution of the Legislative Council can form the basis of the development of a democratic structure in Hong Kong.
The acceptance of the OMELCO formula would give great confidence to the Hong Kong community, especially the financial and business community. OMELCO's recommendation is a modest one because there is a case for all members to be elected by 1995.
The point to note here is that this is well within the provisions and the spirit of the joint declaration. After all, autonomy means home rule, and home rule—that is, except foreign affairs and defence—can operate through the agency of a directly elected legislative council which will in turn help to sustain the outstanding Hong Kong economy which is and which will continue to be so important to China. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in his speech. We must continue to negotiate with the Chinese Government, but I see no good reason why that government should not accept this, as Mr. Deng himself envisaged two systems of government operating in one country. What is to be the difference between the two systems of government? Further, what difference did Mr. Deng envisage when he made that statement? He must have had in mind the difference which results from the fact that Hong Kong has been a British territory for a long period, and that therefore the influences of Britain in terms of democracy would be felt in Hong Kong.

1131
We shall await the Foreign Secretary's Statement on democratisation with interest. Perhaps I may assume that he will make it before Easter, which would be helpful. The House will recall that last July Sir Geoffrey Howe said that a Bill of Rights listing the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong would be passed. Can the Minister indicate what progress is being made on that, although I understand that it is primarily a matter for the Hong Kong Government and not for the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and other noble Lords dealt with the problem of the Vietnamese boat people. As I have no time to go into detail, I shall merely say that that is an almost intractable problem, and I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that it cannot be satisfactorily resolved without international understanding and co-operation.
The United States Government have far more responsibility for the state of affairs in Vietnam than the British Government, but Britain is left to find the answer to that awful dilemma.
We have all read the report prepared by my noble friend Lord Ennals and Mr. Timothy Raison. We listened to my noble friend's constructive speech with great interest. The report makes important recommendations. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the Government's response to them when he winds up.
As the steering committee is sitting in Geneva at present, perhaps the Minister can give us the latest information. We are delighted that progress has been made, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, I welcome the agreement on a six month moratorium on forcible repatriation.
The main purpose of the Foreign Secretary's visit to Hong Kong was to explain and to hear the community's reactions to his nationality proposals which he had announced here on 20th December. He then said that everyone he met had said that they hoped the proposals would have made provision for more people but welcomed them because they would keep more people in Hong Kong. The Foreign Secretary had a difficult decision to make. We also know that whatever solution he produced, it would have been open to criticism from some quarter or another. So it has turned out, with Mr. Norman Tebbit especially on his high horse. But the Government's proposed scheme deserves careful consideration. It has some flaws which must be scrutinised carefully when we come in due course to debate the Bill. For example, a points system will be difficult to operate, as we know from long experience. We shall need to go into that system in great detail. A fair system which does not discriminate in favour of the "top bracket" is essential. It seems to me to be our duty to help to achieve that. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I hope that it will lead to a greater response and readiness from other countries which have far more space than this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned Australia, Canada and the United States. Given time, and patient
1132
discussion and negotiation, I have some faith that there will be a response from our friends in the Commonwealth and other countries.
We should not forget that there are others whom we must accept, such as stateless persons, war widows (few in number now) and Crown servants under the British Nationality Act 1981, as well as people who would clearly be at risk if they could not leave; but we shall come to those matters again in due course.
Like the noble Lords, Lord Derwent and Lord Butterfield, I should like to pay a tribute to Sir David Wilson, the governor of Hong Kong, for the wise and calm manner in which he has conducted his duties over the past few difficult months. Criticisms of him were not helpful to Hong Kong's future. His recent visit to Peking was not easy. No doubt he had to argue for democratic advance against those who are afraid of it. Things will change over the next few years. I listened carefully to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and his proper warning, from his long experience, against over-optimism. We should heed his warnings carefully.
A warm tribute is due to OMELCO; and, as I have said before in these debates, we should all heed its views carefully. In close agreement with OMELCO and the Government of Hong Kong, the Government here must talk, persuade and seek international support for their arguments. I hope that the Government of Japan, whose influence in Peking is significant, is being kept informed. They more than most will appreciate the importance of Hong Kong to mainland China.
Much can be achieved in seven years, as we in Europe know only too well, and if we proceed with patience, determination and a commitment to a just and fair settlement, I believe that we can succeed.
7.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I join with all those who have paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for providing this further opportunity to debate Hong Kong at a time when the affairs of the territory are at the forefront of our minds. This evening's debate has once again demonstrated the detailed knowledge and experience which your Lordships bring to bear on matters affecting Hong Kong. I shall try in the time remaining, or perhaps a little less, to answer as many of the specific points as I can.
I must start by reiterating the tributes that have been paid to my noble friend Lord Sharp on his maiden speech. He was, as has been said, drawing upon a great depth of experience and authority on matters concerning Hong Kong and his speech will have greatly assisted your Lordships.
Today's debate has set out clearly the central issues of concern to Hong Kong, which include the continuing and fundamental importance of the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration and the need to maintain a dialogue with China in order to turn the joint declaration into a reality; the need for Britain to do all it can to reassure the people of Hong

1133
Kong that its commitment to their future remains undiminished, and in particular to control the outflow of talented and enterprising people from the territory; the need to build up a democratic system in Hong Kong in the remaining years of British administration which will develop up to and beyond 1997; and finally, the need to deter a further influx of Vietnamese boat people into Hong Kong this year.
Our fundamental objective is to build a secure future for Hong Kong. We continue to believe that the joint declaration provides the best framework to achieve that objective. No one has been able to suggest a better alternative.
Unlike other British colonies, Hong Kong has never had the prospect of independence. Under international agreements whose validity we have never disputed, 92 per cent. of its territory would revert to China on 1st July 1997. The remaining 8 per cent. could never have been viable on its own. Those are the realities of history and geography that cannot simply be ignored. We negotiated long and hard with China to ensure that Hong Kong reverts to China on the best possible terms.
What Britain achieved in the Sino-British joint declaration was agreement on specific arrangements for Hong Kong's future which would preserve its basic freedoms and way of life for at least 50 years after 1997. Our task now is to ensure that the safeguards in the joint declaration remain real and credible and that the undertakings given in that agreement are honoured. The Chinese leadership has repeatedly confirmed its commitment to the joint declaration and to the concept of one country, two systems. That is something we welcome.
The destiny of Hong Kong is inevitably bound up with the destiny of China. Any viable future for Hong Kong must depend upon successful and secure co-existence with China. That objective is enshrined in the joint declaration.
The firmest guarantee of any agreement is that it is based on common interest. China has a massive interest in Hong Kong's continuing success. Hong Kong provides one-third of its foreign exchange earnings and two-thirds, no less, of its foreign investment. It is China's largest trading partner and its gateway to the whole international system. That huge stake has not been diminished by recent events in China.
Our relations with China are undoubtedly going through a difficult period. It is right that we should seek to rebuild them. There must be a continuous dialogue with the Chinese Government about all aspects of Hong Kong's future.
It is in no one's interests, least of all Hong Kong's, for differences to be aired publicly or, as my noble friend Lord Carrington once said, for our relations to be conducted through megaphone diplomacy. That is why we are keen to return to rational discussion through private exchanges. The fact is that there are many issues related to our joint responsibility for Hong Kong which must be discussed. That is why we have been seeking to maintain a dialogue at various levels through the
1134
work of the Sino-British joint liaison group and through the recent visits to Peking by Sir Percy Cradock and the Governor of Hong Kong.
As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear during his recent visit to the territory, there is no question of the Government simply sitting back and letting the clock tick on towards 1997. As we have already demonstrated by the announcement of our citizenship scheme, we have not flinched from taking difficult decisions when these are necessary.
Over 40,000 people emigrated from Hong Kong last year, many of them key professional and business people. This year the figure is expected to be at least 55,000. Continued emigration on this scale would threaten the competitiveness of Hong Kong's economy and the efficiency of its public service. Without the package of measures which we are offering, more people would make up their minds to emigrate. That is something we must try to prevent, not only because we have a duty to Hong Kong but also because if confidence in the territory collapsed completely we could then be faced with a much more serious problem.
We hope that other countries will now follow our lead in offering similar assurances to Hong Kong. Of course Hong Kong is a British responsibility. But it is also an international financing and trading centre and its major trading partners have a strong interest in its continuing stability and prosperity. Some countries have already found ways to give Hong Kong people assurances without their having to leave the territory. This is welcome. We have been taking every opportunity to encourage others to take comparable measures and we shall continue to do so.
Hong Kong is rightly taking a positive view of its own future. An example of this is its plans for a £10 billion airport and port project. This is a major undertaking by any standards and one of the largest projects of its kind in the world. I should like to add that Britain supports these projects because of the positive contribution which they will make to the economy and that our companies are actively engaged in their pursuit. There is an opportunity here for Britain to work with Hong Kong to help it achieve the prosperous future which its energies deserve.
So we and the Hong Kong Government are doing all we can to build up confidence in the future of Hong Kong. But we do not pretend that it is the whole answer. China also has an essential part to play in helping to shape that future. The drafting of the Basic Law has now reached a crucial phase. The outcome of that process is a matter of major concern to the British Government. It will be a Chinese law. But as co-signatories of the joint declaration, we have a responsibility to ensure as far as we can that the Basic Law fully reflects the joint declaration. We have therefore been following the Basic Law drafting process very closely, including the recent meetings in Canton, and will continue to take every opportunity to underline to the Chinese the importance of a Basic Law which commands widespread support in Hong Kong.

1135
A key section of the Basic Law is the chapter on the future political structure, and this is the focus of intense debate. Discussion of the Basic Law and the provisions for constitutional development after 1997 have also stimulated interest in the pace of democratisation before 1997, which is a matter for decision by the British and Hong Kong governments.
Your Lordships have rightly drawn attention to the strength of feeling in Hong Kong on the subject of democratisation in the territory. A substantially larger number of directly elected seats will be introduced in the elections to the Legislative Council in 1991 than was hitherto envisaged. Our aim will be to ensure that the system we introduce before 1997 is durable and capable of further development after that time.
The best outcome would be one which reconciles the wishes of Hong Kong people for a substantial step forward in 1991 with the continuation and further strengthening of democracy after 1997. We are seeking to reconcile these two because that is clearly the best way. But if the best way is not attainable we shall have to take our own decisions in the best interests of Hong Kong. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has already made clear that the Government will be announcing their intentions very shortly.
The debate has also focused on one of the other immediate concerns of Hong Kong —the heavy burden on the territory of the Vietnamese boat people. Here again, the Government have not flinched from the need to take difficult decisions. In December we authorised the Hong Kong Government to proceed with the mandatory repatriation of 51 Vietnamese boat people. This was not something which we relished. But the plain fact is that Hong Kong cannot be expected to cope indefinitely with an endless stream of migrants from Vietnam, most of whom have no prospect of ever finding a new home. It is therefore imperative that we find effective ways of ending this futile exodus.
I should like now to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my right honourable friend Mr. Raison for the determination and dedication they showed in undertaking their arduous mission to Vietnam and for their thorough and comprehensive report. I am pleased to say that their report has been placed in the Library of the House. We are naturally glad that the noble Lord, and my right honourable friend were able to confirm that there is no evidence that the 51 people have been ill-treated since their return to Vietnam.
It is also clear from their report that the message has not yet got across in Vietnam that no country is willing to take those boat people who are found not to be genuine refugees. In this regard, we welcome the report's recommendation for a campaign of education. We shall be studying this and other recommendations in the report very carefully with a view to implementing them as quickly as possible.
Perhaps I may turn now to some of the specific points that have been raised. First, regarding the outcome of the Geneva meeting, I am sorry to say that the statements about that outcome which were
1136
made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter —I am sure in the best of faith and in accordance with some press reports that have been received —were both premature and over-optimistic. When he spoke, the conference was still in session. I understand that it has now finished and has failed to reach a consensus.
The United States and Vietnam are still standing out against the consensus. We very much regret that, but we understand that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees now intends, at the request of the committee, personally to carry out a round of urgent consultation. We hope that the United States and Vietnam will subsequently decide not to block what would otherwise be a full consensus.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, also suggested that there might be an international conference on the right of abode. We have already been doing everything possible in multilateral fora and bilateral contacts to rally international support for Hong Kong. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised the matter at the Kuala Lumpur Commonwealth Conference and at the Madrid European Council.
We have taken every suitable opportunity to press our friends and partners to follow our lead in announcing a package of assurances to give people the confidence to remain in the territory. We are certain that this is the best approach and the one most likely to achieve the desired results.
The noble Lord was concerned too about China's attitude to Hong Kong. There is, I must emphasise, no question of appeasing China. We negotiate firmly and tenaciously in the best interests of Hong Kong. Of course, if that does not involve immediate rejection by China, that is an added bonus. But in order to achieve the best results it is essential that we keep our channels open. That was the purpose of Sir Percy Cradock's visit which took place, contrary to some views expressed, with the full knowledge of the Foreign Office and in full accord with the Madrid declaration. That declaration did not in any way prevent contact by senior officials, of whom Sir Percy is one. Indeed, Sir Percy, having served as ambassador in Peking in years past, was a good man to undertake that mission. I can think of none better.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke about the need to end the aid embargo to Vietnam. It is of course desirable that conditions in Vietnam should improve so that its people are happy to stay there. That will require sensible economic policies on the part of the Vietnamese authorities. It is equally clear that international aid will have an important role to play. We are already giving financial assistance to help those being reintegrated back into Vietnam, but in order to qualify for full programme aid Vietnam must demonstrate that it is a responsible member of the international community. It must, for example, be ready to fulfil its responsibilities to its own people by agreeing to take back those screened out as non-refugees who have no future other than in their own country.
My noble friend Lord Willoughby felt that the Hong Kong people had not been properly consulted

1137
about the 1984 agreement. However, the Hong Kong people were given an opportunity to express their views on the draft joint declaration. A thorough survey was carried out with independent monitors and it was the clear view of the great majority of Hong Kong people that the agreement was the best that could have been achieved at that time.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, suggested that China had ruled out beneficiaries of our scheme for jobs after 1997. The Chinese have said that a small number of top posts will be reserved for Chinese nationals after 1997. I believe they are thinking of a number around 50. That is tiny compared with the 50,000 beneficiaries of the scheme that we have announced.
As many of your Lordships have pointed out this afternoon, confidence in Hong Kong is still at a low ebb. It cannot be rebuilt overnight. We do not underestimate the difficulties involved, but I can give a firm assurance that Britain will defend and promote Hong Kong's interests in any way we can. I do not imagine that we alone can lay the fears of Hong Kong wholly to rest, but Hong Kong and its people have the assurance of our good will, our support and our unstinting effort on their behalf. We are determined to do all we can to ensure that the final chapter in our long administration of Hong Kong is an honourable one and that our last substantial colony passes successfully through the remaining eight years of British rule.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships long following a constructive debate which, broadly speaking, has revealed a like-minded approach among your Lordships to the problems confronting Hong Kong. I wish to thank all those noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I wish to say in particular how much I enjoyed and how much I learnt from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, based on his experience in Vietnam. I found it a great pleasure for once in a while to be speaking in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford. That is an event which does not occur every day of the week.
The general view, it seems to me, has been one of encouragement to the Government to practise firmness and flexibility in their policies towards Hong Kong and to do everything they can to build up confidence there. There are only three points on which I disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said. On the question of a conference on the right of abode for British citizens in Hong Kong, I am not surprised that in the past there has not been much response to overtures from the Government to our friends. I do not think we can expect a response until we put our money on the table. Having put our money on the table, we shall be in a much better position to ask others to join us in that endeavour.
I am deeply sorry at the news that the United Nations conference on refugees has ended without agreement. One can only hope that the efforts to reach agreement involving the United States and
1138
Vietnam and the other parties will prove successful. Finally, I was rather disappointed by the noble Lord's response to the proposal, which was generally supported, that the aid ban to Vietnam should be discontinued. He naturally said that to send money to Vietnam until one knew that money was being used in a proper way and until one knew that the government was one for which one could have respect was a dubious policy. However, I can only say that I would prefer to send money to such a government than to send back men. We are prepared to do the latter but I think we should also do the former. This has been, I hope, a useful and timely debate. I shall not keep your Lordships any longer. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Probation Service
8.5 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their plans for the future of the probation service.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in reflecting on the future of the probation service I pay a strong tribute to its remarkable achievements. I shall quote, with approval, a passage from the document entitled Probation: The Next Five Years. That document was published on behalf of the probation service in July 1987. It states:
"Over the last two decades the probation service has taken on major new tasks: statutory aftercare, including parole, probation work in prison and community service, as well as significant developments in its working approaches and methods".
The probation service can point with pride to great achievements and developments in the period 1979 to 1986. While retaining the confidence of the courts in probation supervision and negotiating its high success rate, the service has achieved a 48 per cent. increase in probation orders. That has increased its proportionate use from 5.7 per cent. of all indictable cases in 1979 to 8.4 per cent. in 1985. Eighty per cent. of people who commence probation complete it successfully. The figures available to me give the House a hasty, superficial picture in statistical terms of the achievements of the probation service. They can really however only be measured in much more human terms.
I, like others here, have at all times supported proposals to expand the role of the probation service, even with its present scale of commitments. I, like others, have always urged that more resources should be made available to it. I have a weighty document published by the Audit Commission. It is entitled The Probation Service: Promoting Value for Money. I shall not deal with that document today. It is concerned with the economics of probation. No doubt noble Lords will wish to consider the document on another occasion or possibly even tonight. However, I must deal with what I consider to be more fundamental aspects of the matter.
One would think that a bright future lay before the probation service. I believe that to be true. One would also think that members of the service would

1139
approach the 1990s in optimistic mood. That, I am afraid, is far from the case. It is that aspect of the problem on which I shall mainly concentrate. There is widespread apprehension, justified or unjustified, throughout the probation service. That is undeniable. I shall illustrate the situation briefly. I shall quote from NAPO News of October 1989 which states:
"This unifying theme of the government White Paper will be transition from punishment in prison to punishment in the community. The strategy is viewed by many in the Home Office as the most radical government policy on criminal justice since the war. Its success depends on the transformation of the probation service into an agency of social control."
I cannot speak for individuals, but the probation service as a whole is showing itself to be immensely suspicious of what that transformation might involve.
NAPO makes the point, with which I agree, that the success of the government plan will in any case depend on the co-operation of the judiciary. All progress in penal reform in the years ahead depends on inducing the judiciary, by whatever means, to send far fewer people to prison or to send them for shorter periods. I have said that ad nauseam in this House, and others have said the same.
Tonight I shall content myself with calling urgent attention to the programme of sentencing reform. It may be that my acting leader for tonight, my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs, will say more about the Labour Party programme of sentencing reform which has been set out in a new Labour Party White Paper on criminal justice. If that is not discussed tonight it soon will be in view of the number of White Papers and Green Papers coming from the Government. I should add that the probation service itself has recently published an impressive paper on sentencing in the Crown Courts.
I turn now to probation itself. In this House I and others of various parties have more than once expressed approval of the principle of punishment in the community. I cannot imagine a society in which those who break the criminal law are not liable to be punished. If we are to have punishment, as I am sure that we must, it seems to me that punishment in the community —which could be just as severe but much more constructive —is far superior to punishment in prison. There are other aspects of punishment, such as the deterrent effect, which I shall not discuss now. However, if we consider the constructive aspect of punishment, it can work much more effectively in the community than in prison.
I believe that if we set about it in the right way and all parties co-operate we should fairly soon be able to punish in the community 10,000 people who would be in prison under the present system. Can anybody say that in principle if that is feasible it would not be a good result?
Punishment in the community must be constructive. It must be meaningful to the prisoner. Above all, and now we come to the question of who will operate it, it must be compatible with the ideals and the values and traditions that have made the probation service admired so widely not only here
1140
but all over the world. That is the issue —how we can achieve that double purpose.
The probation service is very suspicious. On the face of it there may seem to be an impasse. Not only the Government but well-intentioned people like myself who have been concerned with penal reform for half a century are convinced that punishment in the community is the way forward. However, if the whole idea repels the probation service how do we move forward?
I have toyed with the idea of some other service. A new service —not the police and not the prison service —might be created to do the job if the probation service would not. I am sure that that is wrong and that madness lies along that road. Therefore we have to think of some way of securing the co-operation of the probation service in giving effect to what seems to me, in principle, to be good ideas put forward by the Government.
That is by no means impossible, provided no one stands on their dignity and we do not quibble over words. As an old university teacher, quibbling over words was for a long time my profession. A habit acquired early in life sticks. However, whether one calls it punishment or something quite different, whether one calls it supervision or surveillance, in the last resort it is important to reach agreement with the probation service as to how to go forward.
That is my message tonight. We —by which I mean the community, although I am speaking in particular to the Government who must act on our behalf—must find a way of giving effect to the idea that in the future thousands of people who have committed serious crimes (because people will go on committing serious crimes) will be dealt with in the community but in a way which the probation service will be proud to handle.
The probation service has achieved a great deal in the past. Perhaps its greatest achievement lies in the future if it can widen and deepen its vision. It is in that spirit that I have opened this debate tonight.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as the noble Earl has explained, this short debate is taking place when the probation service is at a crucial point in its history. Like the noble Earl I understand from press reports that the Government have it in mind to publish a White Paper and a Green Paper covering this very topic. I imagine that the Minister will not be able to say very much in advance this evening, not that that is entirely without precedent. This is however an opportunity to put forward views to which the Government will no doubt listen. We may also have the bonus of discovering what the policy of the Labour Party is, a matter on which I remain in some doubt.
I am conscious that much has changed in the probation service since I had some direct involvement with it. Some of the underlying problems about which I used to wonder have not changed all that much. Recent developments in the criminal justice field have now brought those problems to a head, as the noble Earl has so clearly explained.

1141
I should like at the outset to pay my tribute to the dedicated work which men and women in the service have rendered over the years and are continuing to render. We have indeed much to thank them for.
All the same, it is a service with a number of somewhat remarkable characteristics. Although the Home Office provides most of the money, it has only a limited responsibility for saying how the service should operate. The local authorities put up a very modest proportion of the total but have a large share in settling the size of the service. The courts have no financial responsibility, but it is they who in practice decide how the service should be used. The lines of accountability are hazy.
The 56 separate probation areas and their probation committees can still to a considerable extent pursue their own separate ways. Although there is a great deal of good local experimentation and enterprise, the pattern varies greatly and the arrangements for evaluating those enterprises and making knowledge more generally available leave something to be desired. There can hardly be said even now to be an overall strategy.
Although a great deal of valuable work is undoubtedly done, for example, in preparing reports to the courts and in supervising discharged prisoners —a point crucial to the Carlisle Committee recommendations —the fact remains that in this country, as elsewhere in the world, it has proved extraordinarily difficult to evaluate the success of much of the work. The Audit Commission report to which the noble Earl referred suggests for example that over the past 10 years —it says over the last decade, but the decade has not yet ended —the fact that there have been more probation orders by the courts is mirrored by the fact that there have been fewer fines and other minor penalties, rather than because of any reduction in the number of those sent to custody.
There have been previous crises. I recall that, when we went in for prisoners' after-care and prison welfare services, there was quite an argument then for setting up a separate service or adding those functions to those of the prison service before it was in the end decided to entrust them to the probation service. When the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Seebohm was considering the future of the local government social services, the rather rough people then in charge in the Home Office warned him off the grass so far as the probation service was concerned. However, I suspect that, if he had been given a free hand, he might possibly have recommended the course of action which has been taken in Scotland where, as I understand it, the probation service has ceased to have a separate existence and has been rolled up with the other local government social services. When community service was introduced here, there were some tremors about the probation service taking on any responsibility for something which has a punitive tinge to it. Even now, the individual who is required to undergo community service does not do so under the direct supervision of a probation officer.
I realise that the Home Office has for some time been wrestling with problems of financial control
1142
and accountability, the targeting of resources —to use the modern jargon —setting out objectives and principles and measuring performance. But the present crisis goes deeper than that, and I fear that it cannot be solved by the choice of suitable words.
The Government are, very properly, concerned that too many people in this country are sent to prison and have been looking around for new methods of treating offenders in the community, as they explained in their Green Paper Punishment, Custody and the Community which we discussed in some detail on an earlier occasion. That Green Paper has been followed up by experiments in, for example, electronic monitoring or tagging.
However, as I understand it, the Government believe that the courses outlined in the Green Paper will provide effective alternatives to custody only if they are regarded by the courts and the public as being not soft options but forms of punishment. The Government have given a clear sign that, if the probation service will not go along with the idea of enforcing sentences which, although they do not involve custody, are nevertheless punitive and intended to be seen as punitive, they are prepared to consider establishing a new service to administer those new penalties. If that happened, it would be inevitable that that new service would take over some of the existing responsibilities of the probation service.
I am not privy to Home Office thinking, but it would not altogether surprise me if there were contemplation that if, after all, those new responsibilities were entrusted to a refreshed probation service, it might be best to tackle the problems of accountability and inconsistencies between the different areas by going in for some form of nationalisation. After all, the Home Office could claim to have denationalised the national fire service at the height of the Labour Party's enthusiasm for nationalisation. What better department could there be than the Home Office for going in for a spot of nationalisation now? But all that is pure speculation and may be totally misconceived.
To return to my main theme, that punitive approach must be anathema to the ordinary probation officer, with all the traditions of the service since the early years of the century and its origins in Victorian times. It is not all that much of an exaggeration to say that the individual probation officer is likely to see much of his present responsibility as being to supervise the return to the community of one who has finished his punishment or, alternatively, as looking after the well-being of someone who has been entrusted to his care as an alternative to punishment.
It is a painful dilemma. On the one hand, can the probation service depart from its traditions and philosophy and accept that it should adopt a changed role in carrying out the Government's new policies of punishment within the community and face the prospect of substantial changes in its organisation if it agrees to go down that road with the possible benefit of more staff and more money; or, alternatively, is the solution to turn aside from the probation service and to create some kind of new

1143
service to discharge those novel responsibilities? If that second course is followed, would not the justification for a separate probation service be considerably diminished? Would not the arguments for following the Scottish precedent and putting the service along with the other local government social services be correspondingly strengthened?
I am the last person to underrate the difficulties, but I hope that the leaders of the service will in the end opt for the first of those hard choices and that they will be able to bring the individual members of the service to accept that decision.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it always gives me great pleasure to follow my old boss in any debate in this House, but particularly on this occasion, because the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has made a particularly thoughtful speech, with the contents of which I agree without reservation. Like him, I welcome the fact that the noble Earl put down this Unstarred Question, although the debate is taking place only a relatively short period before the Government publish their White Paper on criminal justice policy.
I want to raise three issues tonight: first, the Home Offices's statement of national objectives and priorities for the service which was published in 1984 and the degree to which the statement has been accepted by the service; secondly, the further development of non-custodial alterations to imprisonment; and, thirdly —an issue touched on specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Allen —the relationship between the service and government. That seems to be a matter of exceptional importance at this moment for the reasons explained by the noble Lord, Lord Allen.
By way of introduction let me say that we are discussing these issues at a time when it appears that prison numbers may have peaked, for the time being at least. Nevertheless, the numbers still held in custody are alarmingly high, conditions in many prisons remain squalid (as was demonstrated in our debate on the chief inspector's report on Wandsworth Prison) and there is the clearest evidence that imprisoning defendants unnecessarily is likely to increase rather than diminish the future level of crime.
It is self-evident that these problems cannot be resolved unless we succeed in diverting large numbers of defendants from custody. That cannot be achieved unless the probation service enjoys the full confidence of the courts, has adequate resources and deploys those resources intelligently. That brings me to the first issue that I want to raise: the Home Office statement of national objectives and priorities.
As the noble Earl will be aware, the statement sets out three principal tasks for the service: first, the provision of reports to the courts, which may include reasoned advice on sentencing; secondly, supervising offenders subject to probation supervision and
1144
community service orders; and, thirdly, providing through care for offenders sentenced to custody and exercising supervision after release in cases where required by law. In short, the service is seen primarily, though not exclusively, as a criminal justice service.
The statement does not argue that the service's civil work should be entirely dropped. However, it says:
"The proportion of resources allocated to civil work should be contained at a level consistent with local circumstances and the foregoing priorities".
I agree entirely with that view. I know that many probation officers do most valuable work in the civil courts. In some cases at least they often enjoy it a great deal more than work in the civil courts. In the civil courts they are often concerned with making extremely difficult decisions in highly sensitive cases and long hours of work are involved. But that work is performed entirely on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department because the Home Secretary has no responsibility for work in the civil courts.
I find it distinctly odd that the probation service should still continue to do this work without receiving any financial support from the government department on whose behalf it is working. I believe that this issue deserves a great deal more consideration than it has received in the past. On the wider issue —that is, the national statement —I should like to put to the noble Earl this question: are the Government satisfied by the response of the service to this statement of national objectives? It is a highly important document. When it was published it was welcomed unreservedly by many Members of this House in the debate that we had at that time.
However, the noble Earl will be aware that the National Audit Office, in its relatively recent report published in May last year, raised some serious questions as to how far the statement of policy made by the Home Office on that occasion had been adopted by the service. The issue is dealt with in paragraphs 2.9 and 2.12 of the National Audit Office report. I should be grateful for anything that the noble Earl could say on that point.
I turn now to the question of non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment, which we have discussed in this House on many previous occasions. I think that we all would certainly accept that community service has been an outstanding success. It was introduced on a trial basis by the Government of Mr. Heath. It was extended to the rest of England and Wales by the succeeding Labour Government, who also provided the resources for that extension. I believe that we all accept that it has been one of the most hopeful developments in penal policy since the war. I remember having a slight difference of opinion with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, not long after the extension of community service. We had an argument in this House about how many people had in fact been diverted from custody as a result of the introduction of community service.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, did my argument turn out to be right?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I think that the evidence was ambiguous, as it always is when one looks at criminal justice statistics. I am sure that we all accept that many thousands of people have been diverted from custody as a result of community service. There is no doubt that without it the prison system might well have faced the breakdown which so many people have anticipated during the last decade. So much for community service.
I should like to ask about progress in two other areas which are highly relevant to the work of the probation service. First, where are we now so far as bail information schemes are concerned? I know that there has been substantial progress. Such schemes have been introduced in the areas of 50 magistrates' courts and I understand that extensions are planned. However, I think that one should ask how long it will be before these admirable schemes, which are undoubtedly having a beneficial effect on the size of the remand population, can be extended to the rest of England and Wales.
I believe that the Association of Chief Probation Officers estimated that in the areas concerned where these schemes have been introduced there has been a 13 per cent. trend in favour of bail in respect of defendants who have appeared in court for the first time. That is encouraging but I repeat that what we want to know is how long it will be before such schemes can be introduced in the rest of England and Wales.
Speaking entirely for myself at this point, I find it extremely disappointing that such schemes, which were introduced on an experimental basis in the 1970s, did not make greater progress. I am afraid that the reason for that was the strong resistance to the work of volunteers in the courts by many members of the probation service in the three experimental areas which were set up during the lifetime of the Labour Government. It was on narrow trade union grounds of that sort that these schemes did not proceed further. Unfortunately, as a result of that opposition many people went to prison unnecessarily. That is another reason why I very much hope that the probation service at all levels will be as positive as possible when reacting to policy initiatives —I hope well-meaning—by the Government.
The other non-custodial disposal to which I want to refer is far more controversial. It is the question of tagging. I know that many people in the probation service, and, it has to be said, outside it, oppose it resolutely —indeed, without any form of qualification at all. Yet were it to be established that tagging of defendants led to a situation in which fewer defendants were in custody, would it be right to continue to oppose in principle the introduction of tagging? My own answer to that question is: no, certainly not.
My noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge unhappily cannot be with us tonight. With his notable record in the field of penal reform, he has asked me to say that he would support the principle of using it for category C prisoners on the governor's recommendation and at the prisoner's express request, thus shortening the period of incarceration
1146
of the individual concerned. However, the case has still to be proved. Neither of us would support it unless there were clear indications that there was a serious prospect that it would reduce the number in custody. After the evidence from Nottingham, it is obviously right to proceed with further experiments before coming to a firm decision on the introduction of tagging in the remainder of Britain.
I come now to my third and final point: the relationship between the probation service and government. It is inevitable that there will be a row from time to time between the probation service and any government in this country. Of course there will be. It is altogether healthy to have vigorous arguments in public over questions of penal policy. But nothing would be more damaging than to allow these differences to lead to a situation in which the service threatened a policy of non-co-operation. In my view there have been far too many such threats in the past.
There was the fierce opposition —which was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale —by some members of the probation service at the time of the introduction of community service which has undoubtedly diverted thousands of offenders from prison. Al other times there were suggestions that they would refuse to supervise certain categories of offenders. And there was the folly —and it was folly —of the one-day strike ignored by the majority of members of the probation service, but undermining its reputation as a caring profession and, I fear, damaging itself substantially in the eyes of the judiciary.
In the situation that I have described there is certainly a corresponding requirement that government should listen seriously to the views of the service and not seek to impose highly controversial policies on an unwilling probation service unless there is clear evidence that the public interest so requires. I believe, as do both the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that the probation service has immense opportunities before it. There is now widespread public agreement that our prison population is intolerably high and that steps must be taken to reduce it. The principal vehicle for that change can only be the probation service. It has been given substantial additional resources both by this Government and by their predecessor. I hope that the service will seize this moment of opportunity.
8.44 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure for me to speak from the Front Bench in support of another attempt by my noble friend Lord Longford to bring attention to some improvements to some aspects of our penal or prison system. I am very glad —it has been echoed —that he gave such a well deserved tribute to the work and achievement of the very important and dedicated service that we are discussing this evening.
I was very interested, and thought it very relevant, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Allen, stress that the probation service was at a very crucial period of its existence. He then traced the movement of the

1147
probation service from its inception and described how it has moved towards taking on more responsibilities. That points to the fact that there is now the fear that the service is on a slippery slope and has moved too far away from the purpose which it took up in the first place.
From everything that has been said this evening, and from what we know, there is very little doubt that probation plays a vital role in our penal system. In such a debate as this it is important to re-assess the different parts of our criminal justice and the roles that they undertake in dealing with crime. First, we use custody in order to punish the offender, and —and many people think this very important —to provide deterrence, and a reflection of society's condemnation of wrongdoing. I believe that most people would say that the second objective —that of reflecting society's condemnation of wrongdoing —is achieved more effectively by custody than the first objective of deterrence. There is unequivocal evidence of a re-conviction rate of 60 per cent. within two years of those convicted for a custodial sentence. That is very high indeed.
Probation services start from the same standpoint: it is working towards a deterrence of offenders and therefore towards the protection of the public. However, they try to achieve the same goal but by an entirely different route. It is important that one approaches whatever the problem by a variety of different routes. The position is exactly the same if someone has an extremely bad headache. Some might take half a dozen aspirin and have a nasty stomach ache afterwards; and others might try to decide why they have a headache and to find some remedial system to deal with it and to prevent it happening again.
As has already been described this evening, members of the probation service are concerned that their methods of providing assistance, advice and supervision will be undermined through being asked to administer an additional system. It is described in the Green Paper, Punishment Custody in the Community; that is one of surveillance and monitoring. They feel very keenly from everything that I have heard that their traditional role must be kept entirely separate from the administration of punishment. The two should never be allowed to overlap.
The yardstick for the success of the probation service is impressive, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, it is very difficult to evaluate. Nevertheless, the re-conviction rate among those following probation orders is 40 per cent. However, more significantly there have been studies that have shown that non-custodial sentences for comparable offences have a better result than prison sentences. There has been certain evidence that that is true. Moreover, the probation service is not convinced that some of the methods mentioned in the Green Paper, such as electronic tagging, tracking and intensive probation, will produce good results. In fact, they believe that they might even have the negative effect of increasing the number of breaches. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said —and I quite understand his point —with regard
1148
to the need for further experimentation with electronic tagging, he may agree with me that so far the experiment does not look very successful. As many as 60 per cent. of those tagged have breached already. That is a high level of failure. When one looks at the American experiment, it is significant that electronic tagging, although begun there, has been used extremely little. The probation service feels that the focus on punishment is already well met by the excessive use of custody, and that it is the alternative remedial services that it provides to deter re-offending which need strengthening. This is a view which has a great deal of support.
That is the first point; namely, that the Green Paper suggests that the probation service should be asked to administer a new order, thereby going down a more punitive path, in spite of the fact that the punishment process is utterly alien to the service's outlook. So the first question to the Minister is: what exactly do the Government want the probation service to do? On the one hand, the Government appear to be telling it that it is doing an excellent job; and, on the other hand, they seem to be suggesting a change in its traditional role. So it is a very valid point that there seems to be an inconsistency in the attitude of the Government towards the probation service and there is a lack of clarity on which I hope we shall be getting some answer this evening.
The next source of unease in the service comes from wondering what will be in the criminal justice White Paper and in the further Green Paper. This is most significant, for the service and the changes to its structure that might be contained are of immense importance. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has said, the Minister will no doubt tell us that we shall have to wait and see, that we shall have to wait for the criminal justice White Paper. But the anxieties as to the number of probation areas which might be changed and which will affect officers' jobs, and the fact that the level of Home Office control might change are of fundamental importance to the service. Therefore there is very little mystery as to why there is a great deal of undermining of morale within the service, which my noble friend Lord Longford mentioned this evening.
I should like to make two brief points in conclusion. First, I should like to mention the views of New Bridge, of which I am chairman, which was founded by my noble friend Lord Longford, and which carries out work which is supportive of the probation service through its befriending service and its employment service. An organisation which is a voluntary agency is able to go further, as it can be more innovative in its approach and its volunteers can also become more involved with the offenders with whom it works.
There is little doubt that New Bridge would be most concerned to see the probation service joining the punishment process, as it believes this would go right against the whole concept and ethos of the probation service which it as an organisation always has had. Moreover the Penal Affairs Consortium, made up of 16 agencies working in penal affairs and which now has a very strong voice, certainly recognises full well the difficult job facing the probation officers. Those agencies are

1149
organisations which are very well placed to do so. They acknowledge the important role in keeping down the number of people in custody which is carried out by the probation service, and all 16 agencies agree that there should be increased funding for the service. That has also been mentioned this evening.
My other brief point concerns the Labour Party's White Paper on criminal justice which my noble friend has already mentioned. They comment at length on expanding the probation service. They recognise the contribution of the probation services in providing effective and constructive alternatives to custody. They envisage an expanded probation service; expanding not at the expense of other alternatives to custody, which has so often been the case in the past, but taking an increased percentage of those offenders now in prison.
However, the paper adds that they feel that the service needs to communicate more effectively with other agencies and, in particular, with those who pass sentences, if it is to win greater acceptance of its approach to tackling offending. The paper also refers to the range of flexibile alternatives to custody already in existence, and how the availability of these options varies from area to area, and it states that the full range of non-custodial sanctions should be available to all courts.
It too, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned, talks of reforming the bail process and mentions the provision of more bail hostel accommodation, the establishment of bail information schemes at magistrates' courts throughout the country and ending the 28-day custodial remands introduced by the Government. There are many other points which it makes, but naturally I shall not go into them this evening.
Finally, may I ask the Minister whether he really will answer the questions put to him this evening? Will he also explain why the Government have adopted such a confrontational style with the service, as has been mentioned already this evening? Why instead do the Government not concentrate on strengthening the service by, for example, following up some of the Audit Commission's recommendations? That has also been put forward by all speakers this evening. Moreover, why do the Government also reserve so much criticism for the probation service and never find anything wrong with the judiciary? It, after all, plays a very important part in the criminal justice system and certainly comes in for blame from certain quarters. Again, the Labour Party in its document refers to its commitment to establishing a sentencing council.
So there has been clear agreement this evening that the probation service is vital, that it must be improved and not undermined, and that for the Government to stress the word "punishment" seems unnecessary, for everyone would agree that there is a punitive element already in a probation order. None of us would be particularly happy to serve a probation order.
So why are the Government insisting on stressing that word "punishment"? One can only believe that it must be because some element in the Conservative
1150
Party wishes to be appeased, that there are certain Back-Bench MPs who would like to think of there being punishment rather than another form of dealing with criminality. There are also certain ladies at the Conservative Party conference, and on the tabloids, which are very strong influences.
However, stressing the word "punishment" is completely indigestible to members of the probation service and goes right against their view of their traditional role. So I think all speakers this evening have said that they would like to see the probation service expanding if it is necessary to take in these orders, but that the confrontation really goes against some successful accord with the service. So we ask the Government to try to come to that accord, and I very much look forward to the Minister's answer as to what are the Government's plans for the future of the probation service.
8.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for having introduced this debate on the future of the probation service. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said, as she sat down, that she hopes I would provide all the answers this evening. She knows full well that I will not provide all the answers this evening if there is likely to be a White Paper and a Green Paper in a short while. It would be more than my life was worth. But I shall do my best to answer such questions as I can, and to put your Lordships into the picture of how we feel the probation service is going and the sort of guidelines we feel it ought to follow in the future.
The probation service, as we all know, plays an important role in the whole of the criminal justice system. It is, after all, responsible for supervising all those offenders whom the court places on probation or on community service, and all prisoners who are released on parole. It is a very important part of our system. It is crucial therefore that the courts and the public should have confidence in the probation service and in what it does.
The basis of our present thinking was set out in the Green Paper, Punishment, Custody and the Community, published in July 1988. The document argued that those who commit serious and violent offences should continue to be sent to prison for long periods. We have ensured that tough sentences are available to enable the courts to do that. But the offences of some who break the law are far less serious and they could effectively be punished in the community. I believe that in general your Lordships would agree with that. However, I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, did not believe that we should use the word "punish". Her noble friend Lord Longford had no hesitation in saying that he thought that people should be punished and that there is nothing wrong in punishing because it is giving retribution. Our view is that there is scope for doing that in the community.
The advantages of a community penalty are that offenders are not removed from society and placed in the company of hardened criminals. They can

1151
perform work of real value to society through a community service order. They can be made to discuss their wrongdoing and be shown ways of avoiding further offending by attending a day centre as a condition of a probation order, for example, and by remaining in the community. By doing so they are better able to learn self-control and take responsibility for their actions. In many cases a community penalty may be a more effective way of keeping them away from crime in the future than would be a prison sentence.
I do not believe that any noble Lord would disagree with that view. The probation service has developed a considerable degree of expertise in helping the offenders whom it supervises to come to terms with their offending behaviour and to see how it can be avoided in the future.
One of the aims of the Green Paper was to increase the number of offenders punished in the community as opposed to being sentenced to custody. In order to do that we need to convince the courts that probation and community service are not soft options. That entails developing methods of supervision which are appropriate for the more persistent but, nevertheless, less serious offender who at present goes to prison. That work is not dissimilar to the work already done by the probation service with the offenders under its supervision who otherwise would normally have received custodial sentences. It means that the officers in the probation service must put a greater emphasis on the control of offenders but not at the expense of their other skills.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, approved of the words "punishment in the community." The punishment lies in the restriction which it imposes on the liberty of the offender and the demands which it makes on him. A community service order may require an offender to give up many evenings and weekends when he or she would rather be doing something else. The work should be demanding and it may be difficult. A probation order may have conditions attached to it which require an offender to report to a probation officer at a day centre several times each week. It is not easy for anyone to have to face up to their wrongdoing and the effects which it may have on other people. It is a salutary experience to have to do so.
The Green Paper published in 1988 initiated a wide-ranging debate on the best way to deal with such offenders and the role of the probation service. We have considered the many responses that we received. As noble Lords know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, reminded us, we hope to publish our proposals shortly.
As did every speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to widespread apprehension within the probation service. I hope that that is not so and I agree that we must find a way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, also referred to that matter, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who hoped that the probation service would be as constructive as possible. I agree with him. The noble Lord also hoped that the Government would listen to the views of the probation service. Indeed, we shall.
1152
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that punitive measures should be separate from the work of the probation service. The effectiveness of our criminal justice policies depends to a large extent on the probation service. If punishment in the community is going to work —and we all want it to work —there must be a shift of emphasis and a new style of probation officer; that is, one who is conscious of his or her role as an officer of the court as well as of his or her traditional duty to advise, assist and befriend offenders. Those roles are not dissimilar but a shift of emphasis is required.
The probation service of the future needs to exercise authority and care over those whom it is called upon to supervise. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked whether there should be a new service and whether we should follow the Scottish pattern and allow it to become part of the local authority services. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked what the Government want the probation service to do and said that we must not be confrontational. It is not our desire to be confrontational but one cannot have a change in the system if one does not also have a change in attitude. As I have said, it is a question of shifting the emphasis.
It is not the view of the Home Office that there should be a new service, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. We do not intend to set up a new service. But we should like to bring the working practices in every probation area up to the standard of the best. There is no point in destroying what is good. We see a considerable future for the probation service if it can grasp the challenge of carrying out punishment in the community—
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I wish to point out that the idea of setting up a new service was not mine but one that derived from the Green Paper.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not mean to imply that it was the noble Lord's idea. I meant to imply that he asked the question.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked what would be the impact of the statement of national objectives which was issued in 1984. The impact has been good. The Audit Commission said that, overall, the statement had a profound effect. It has accelerated the move from a service consisting of a loose network of independent practitioners to a much more coherent organisation with a clearer pattern of management.
The noble Lord also asked whether the probation service should receive financial support from the Lord Chancellor's Department for its civil work. The financing of the probation service is one of the issues concerning the organisation of the probation service which we will examine following the publication of the White Paper. I am bound to say that there are no plans at present to receive support from the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to tagging or, more appropriately, electronic monitoring. The

1153
success of electronic monitoring so far has been that the results of the pilot projects are coming through and are being carefully evaluated. We want to assess the results of all these experiments before we decide what the next steps will be.
I said that the courts need to have confidence in the value of what the probation service does; and so they do. We have sought to increase the courts' confidence in one sphere, through the introduction on 1st April 1989 of the national standards for community service. These represent an attempt to ensure that the best of local practice in community service is implemented throughout the country, and that a community service order will make consistent and tough demands on every offender who is sentenced to it. The evidence we have is that the probation service is changing in order to accommodate these standards and we hope that the courts will recognise this; but it is as yet too early to say what effect the standards have actually had on the sentencing decisions of the courts.
We have also tried to increase the confidence of the courts in the way in which the probation service deals with young adult offenders —those who are aged between 17 and 20 and who are at risk of going to prison.
Shortly after the Green Paper came out we issued a document called Tackling Offending, which urged local probation services to review their policies and practice in relation to this group of offenders —the 17 to 20 year-olds. We asked each probation area to draw up an action plan which would concentrate on those offenders who are most at risk of going to prison; provide individually-tailored programmes of supervision to address each offender's wrongdoing; aim at arrangements for closer co-operation with other agencies who are working in the criminal justice system; and monitor the results of probation efforts to see how effective the action plan is in diverting offenders away from custody and in reducing reoffending.
Most of the 56 area probation services have sent us copies of their action plans, and they are implementing them locally. Again, however, it is too soon to say what effect they have had. There will need to be other changes in the way in which the probation service operates. Many probation officers are themselves, I think, aware of this.
The recent Audit Commission report on the service identified some scope for concentrating the efforts of the probation service more specifically on offenders who are at risk of custodial sentences. The report also suggested that the service could make progress in demonstrating the effectiveness of probation programmes in reducing reoffending; in disseminating examples of good practice more effectively; and in aiming for more effective working relationships with other agencies.
Nevertheless, the service is in good shape, and its achievements over the past decade give us an encouragement for the future. My right honourable friend the Minister of State recognised this in a letter which he sent to the Association of Chief Officers of Probation just before Christmas.
1154
The service is supervising more serious offenders. The proportion of those who are on probation and who are known to have had a previous custodial sentence has risen from 20 per cent. in 1979 to 36 per cent. in 1988. The number of offenders who are beginning probation has increased by 52 per cent. since 1979, while the proportion of offenders who were sentenced for indictable offences and who received a probation order has increased from 6 per cent. in 1979 to 9 per cent. in 1988. The number of offenders who are receiving community service orders has increased by 122 per cent. since 1979. The recent decline in the remand population —down by 1,200 in the 12 months to October 1989 —may in part be the result of the increased numbers of bail information schemes and bail hostels which are available.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, wondered whether I could give him any information on those schemes. We find it encouraging that bail information schemes are developing as well as they are. They are at present operating in 45 courts in England and Wales on a full or part-time basis and provision has been secured for schemes in more than 100 courts by April 1992. We are also examining how the bail information schemes and accommodation networks can best be integrated.
An extensive development programme is already under way to provide an additional 1,000 bail places at approved hostels by April 1993. I am glad to say that more than 150 places are already on stream. All this shows that more people are now serving their period of punishment in the community. In short, over the past decade, the probation service has dealt increasingly with more serious offenders and it has taken on a higher proportion of those who are sentenced for indictable offences. In my view, all that is good progress.
We are looking to the probation service to build on this in the next 10 years, and to draw confidence from its achievements to date in order to meet the new professional and organisational challenges which the future will bring. In all this, we recognise that the work of the probation service has increased greatly over the past decade. The probation service obviously needs sufficient resources to do its job properly, and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made provision in his Autumn Statement for nearly 300 more probation officers and ancillaries in the year 1990–91. This is an increase of nearly 4 per cent. on current staffing levels.
Central Government expenditure on the probation service rose by 51 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1988–89. On top of this, we have provided for an increase in the specific grant which is payable to local authorities in support of capital and current expenditure on the probation service from £184 million in 1989–90 to £206 million in 1990–91.
It is important that the probation service of the future should have the resources which it needs in order to cope with the increasing demands which will be made of it. These increasing demands are, I suggest, a mark of the confidence which we feel in

1155
its capacity to do the important work for which it was set up. We have seen very considerable progress in what has been done. We hope that there will be more progress in the future.
I have done my best to answer the noble Earl's very important Question today within the constraints which inevitably apply. As the noble Earl knows, the Government intend to issue a White Paper shortly, and it would be peculiarly imprudent, and indeed unwise, of me to trespass on what it
1156
might say, and, even worse, to divulge it. However, I hope that what I have been able to say will at least have given some indication of the guiding principles on which it will be based.
The House will I know be grateful to the noble Earl for once again having displayed his assiduity and knowledge of a subject on which he is known to have such a keen and intense interest.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past nine o'clock.

  LEGISLATION: VOLUME
  LEGISLATION: VOLUME
  HUMAN CELLS: IN VITRO FERTILISATION
  HUMAN CELLS: IN VITRO FERTILISATION