Sitting of 30 January 1990

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

    BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker:No. I am on my feet.
    ADELPHI ESTATE BILL
    EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL
    HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL
    LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL
    LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL
    PENZANCE SOUTH PIER EXTENSION BILL
    SHARD BRIDGE BILL
    TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL
    VENTNOR HARBOUR BILL
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday
    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read
    To be considered tomorrow.
    KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL
    Motion made,
    That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 121 (Quorum of committee on opposed bill), leave be given for the Committee on the King's Cross Railways Bill to proceed with a quorum of two.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered tomorrow
    BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Order for consideration read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Initial Teacher Training
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures are being taken to improve initial teacher training in the area of classroom experience.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth):On 1 January the Government introduced revised criteria for the approval of initial teacher training courses. The requirements for school experience have been strengthened. This autumn we shall be piloting the articled teacher scheme, in which more than four fifths of the training course will take place in schools. I am pleased to say to my hon. Friend that his own local authority, Hampshire, is participating in one of the pilot schemes.
    Mr. Hunter:I warmly applaud the Government's commitment to improve initial teacher training, but may I ask my hon. Friend to take matters a stage further? Does he accept the proposition that in no circumstances should any teacher be granted qualified status unless he or she has first demonstrated in the classroom that he or she is capable of doing
    the job of teaching?
    Mr. Howarth:I readily accept my hon. Friend's proposition. We have made it a rule that no qualification attracting qualified teacher status should be awarded unless the student has demonstrated a satisfactory standard of teaching in the classroom. That means that the student will have to show that he or she can keep order and manage children in the classroom and can teach in such a manner that children learn effectively.
    Mr. Flannery:What an alarming lack of knowledge about teachers Conservative Members show. The Education Reform Act 1988 does not even apply to the private sector. The Government have imposed it on the public sector, yet it has nothing to do with the sector in which they are involved. How can the Minister advance the cause of children and teaching by putting in front of a class a so-called licensed teacherߞsomeone who has never taught a class? Are not the Government demeaning our children and our teachers by that dreadful Act and by their sheer ignorance of teaching children?
    Mr. Howarth:The hon. Gentleman all too frequently chides us for not doing enough, in his view, to increase the supply of teachers. The licensed teachers scheme is a new initiative that will encourage mature entrants--people who have been doing something else in life, who decide that they would like to teach. Many valuable recruits will be brought into teaching in that way. There will, of course, be a carefully designed teacher training package, individually designed to suit the particular licensed teacher. The scheme will be arranged between local education authorities and the schools in question and am pleased to note that more than half the local education authorities in Britain dissent strongly from the hon. Gentleman's view and have applied to us for funding under the scheme.
    Mr. Thornton:Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a vast amount of experience in the classrooms in our schools and that more ways should be found of utilising that classroom experience in initial teacher training? Will he give an undertaking that he will look into that, with a view to allowing opportunities for career development for teachers, so that their classroom experience can be used in our initial teacher training colleges?
    Mr. Howarth:As I mentioned earlier, we have strengthened the requirements for classroom experience. The new criteria that we have published for the accreditation of teacher education strongly insist that there should be an increased element of practical classroom experience for trainee student teachers. Therefore, there will necessarily be a close working relationship between teacher training institutions and schools. It is for them to develop the flexible pattern that meets their own requirements. The fact that there should be a close working association between teacher training institutions and schools is not in doubt and we have insisted that those who teach and lecture in teacher training institutions should have no less than one full term's teaching experience
    every five years to update their experience.

    Supply Teachers
    Mrs. Ann Taylor:To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local education authorities about the number of supply teachers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alan Howarth:My right hon. Friend has not had any such discussions. He is aware that supply teachers are more readily available in some localities than in others. A total of £2 million of expenditure by 45 local education authorities will receive education support grant in 1990–91 on schemes designed to enable local education authorities to encourage qualified teachers in their area to come back into service, whether as supply teachers or on a
    part-time or full-time basis.
    Mrs. Taylor:Does the Minister accept that the national shortage of supply teachers is just one reflection of a deeper malaise in British education? Does he further accept that until we restore the confidence and morale of our teachers, we shall continue to see a shortage of classroom teachers? Does he agree that the main reason why we have those shortages is the pressure that the Government have put on teachers and the way in which this Government have undermined the confidence of the classroom teacher by the weight of legislation and by not taking proper account of experts and of those who actually teach?
    Mr. Howarth:All of us on the Government Front Bench, including my right hon. Friend, honour teachers and have the greatest respect for what they do. We shall continue to give them all the practical support that we can. It would better become the hon. Lady if she spent less time on opportunistic and cynical denigration of the position in which teachers are held in society and was a little more generous in her recognition of the respect in which they
    are properly held.
    Mr. Sims:Is my hon. Friend aware that teachers who have taken early retirement from full-time teaching are
    144
    liable to have their pension reduced if they take up part-time teaching in the state sector, whereas they suffer no such penalty if they work in the private sector or in higher education? Would it not be as well to remove that anomaly and to encourage teachers who have taken early retirement to resume part-time teaching if they feel able to do so?
    Mr. Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to ensure that there are no pension obstacles to enabling teachers either to continue in the teaching profession or to return to teaching, or that may discourage other people who may wish to come into teaching later in life. We have that area of policy under review. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I am consulting various sectors of industry and taking their advice on how we can best ensure that pension arrangements do not provide the discouragement to which my hon. Friend alluded.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Bill Michie:To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress there has been on the city technology college programme.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science(Mr. John MacGregor):The city technology college programme continues to make excellent progress. Three colleges are now open and at least a further eight will open in 1990 or 1991. I have just announced the establishment of two new colleges in Corby and Derby.
    Mr. Michie:As it now looks as if industry will contribute about 20 per cent. of the capital cost of CTCs, which means that the taxpayer will have to pay 80 per cent., is it not time that the Secretary of State admitted that the programme is a failure? Is he aware that senior educationists describe it as a criminal waste of public money? Is it not time that money went into the present maintained schools? One such school in my constituency, Carfield infant junior school, has waited many years for repair and maintenance work to be done. Is it not time that the Government stopped their rhetoric, which is doing nothing for education, swallowed their pride and admitted their mistake?
    Mr. MacGregor:The three new colleges have already demonstrated their worth, not least in helping to improve standards in the area where they are located. I reject entirely the suggestion that they are a criminal waste of public money. City technology colleges have many advantages and they involve industry in education. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would pay tribute to, rather than denigrate, the £43 million or so that has been offered by sponsors and industry. He should also pay tribute to improving and pioneering technology in education and above all to raising standards in inner-city areas. I do not usually hear the hon. Gentleman complain about expenditure in those areas. I hope that he will recognise that expenditure on CTCs is fundamental to improving standards in
    inner-city areas.
    Mr. Pawsey:Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is concern about CTCs among Conservative Members, too? We are worried that there are not enough and that the programme is not going forward quickly enough. We believe that CTCs will help to improve the quality and

    145
    standard of state education, where the overwhelming majority of our children are educated. Will my right hon. Friend bring forward a policy to accelerate the development of CTCs?
    Mr. MacGregor:I agree with my hon. Friend about the contribution that the colleges make to improving standards and I have talked to him before about it. He recognises that there are practical constraints on the speed at which one can operate, not least of which are finding sites and developing them. I hope that he will acknowledge that my announcement in the past few weeks of two new CTCs in Derby and Corby illustrates that the programme is moving ahead as swiftly as possible. I hope that he also noticed the announcement that I made about funding curriculum development in the CTCs, to ensure that the benefits of CTCs go more widely into the whole maintained sector.
    Mr. Simon Hughes:Will the Secretary of State explain how he reconciles the statement of his predecessor ߞwhich gained the most applause at the Tory party conference ߞthat CTCs would not be part of the local education authority, with the proposal of the Tory-controlled Wandsworth borough council that Battersea Park school, currently a local authority school, should become a part-local authority, part-private CTC? Has not the CTC programme become so bogged down that the only way to rescue it will be to break two major pledges? First, CTCs will include Church schools, which were originally excluded. Secondly, CTCs will include local authority schools, which will remain with the local authority, as the Tories in Wandsworth now propose.
    Mr. MacGregor:I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman believes that the programme is bogged down. I find it difficult to understand how he can reconcile that with the fact that I have just announced two more CTCs. We are making progress. The proposal to which the hon. Gentleman refers is for a CTC in the voluntary-aided sector. It is being considered by the local authority. I was interested to hear of that development. As it is worked out, I shall consider it carefully.
    Mrs. Currie:I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing a new CTC to Derby, where it will be welcome, and we shall make it a great success. Would he care to reflect on how it will raise the level of technical and engineering education in Derby and south Derbyshire, which is now the engineering success story of the country?
    Mr. MacGregor:I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that she will be an enthusiast for this latest development. I am sure that, like me, she will wish to thank the industrial sponsors for the part that they played. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. CTCs, the technical and vocational education initiativeߞwhich the Government have undertaken, and on which we are spending considerable sumsߞand the national curriculum all aim to improve technical and engineering excellence in schools. I am sure that the CTC in Derby will make a major contribution to that.
    Mr. Straw:As the previous Secretary of State promised that 20 CTCs would be in operation by the end of last year and as this Secretary of State has managed to produce only three, he must know that his bluster about progress is wholly unconvincing. Is he aware that the business
    146
    sponsor of the new Wandsworth CTC, a sleazy, Bermudan-based second-hand car trader, Mr. Michael Ashcroftߞ[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker:Order. We should all calculate how we frame our questions.
    Mr. Straw:A sleazy, Bermudan-based, second-hand car trader, Mr. Michael Ashcroft, has admitted in a letter to the leader of Wandsworth council that he sees his sponsorship of the Wandsworth CTC as no more than Conservative party political propaganda, but at the taxpayers' expense. In view of that, is it not now clear that expenditure on CTCs is not only a criminal waste of money, but deeply corrupt?
    Mr. MacGregor:The hon. Gentleman is getting really desperate in the way in which he is trying to criticise the CTC programme. His attack is disgraceful. The other day the hon. Gentleman made a similar attack on the industrial sponsors of CTCs generally. Was he including in that attack the following sponsors, all of which are contributing to CTCsߞAustin Rover, W. H. Smith, Boots, Marks and Spencer, Coats Viyella and Wimpey? Such an attack does no credit to the hon. Gentleman and represents a disgraceful attack on the industrial sponsors that are contributing so much to the CTC programme.
    Mr. Matins:Is my right hon. Friend aware that in September a new CTC will open in Croydon, the Harris CTC? There are 180 places at that college, but more than 500 parents have applied to send their children to it. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that there have been more than 500 applications for the 40 staff vacancies? Surely those figures demonstrate that the CTC operation is a huge success among teachers and parents.
    Mr. MacGregor:My hon. Friend is entirely right and the programme for that CTC is going well. My hon. Friend has already given some of the figures and, in September, there will be an intake of 180 pupilsߞ160 have already been accepted. That is not all, howeverߝplaces have been allocated to pupils across the full ability range. Ninety pupils will come from Croydon and 90 from the wider catchment area, including Southwark, Lewisham, Lambeth and Bromley. As my hon. Friend said, the applications for the teaching posts are going well. It is a clear illustration of the fact that the CTC programme is making a major contribution in certain parts of the country and is on course.

    Nottinghamshire
    Mr. Allen:To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assistance by Government is given to pupils per head (a)at schools in Nottinghamshire and (b) at the Nottingham city technology college.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold):This year Nottinghamshire received almost £150 million of block grant. CTCs receive recurrent grant equivalent to expenditure by local education authorities on schools in
    comparable areas.
    Mr. Allen:I should like to extend to the Minister another chance to apologise to the parents and children of Nottinghamshire for spending three times more on one school, the CTC, than on all the other schools in

    147
    Nottinghamshire. While she is at it, will she offer an explanation for the appalling disciplinary record of the CTC in Nottinghamshire and of those elsewhere?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Far from apologising, I should be congratulating the parents in Nottingham on their ability to send their children to a good school that has been provided in part by industry. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we have every confidence that those schools will be highly successful.
    I must explain to the hon. Gentleman that he is talking about capital grant. I have already explained perfectly clearly that CTCs, in common with other schools, receive recurrent block grant, which is equitable to expenditure on schools within the maintained sector.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Instead of knocking Nottingham's magnificent new CTC, which is widely welcomed by local people, why does not the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) admit that, in the past 10 years of Conservative Government, Government education expenditure per pupil has gone up by no less than 71 per cent. in real terms? That expenditure has increased from under £1,000 per pupil to more than £1,700 per pupil.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right. The Government's record of education expenditure per pupil is extremely good. He is also right to say that the people of Nottingham should be grateful. I second that, as the establishment of the CTC is in spite of the disgraceful behaviour of Nottinghamshire county council, which tried to do everything that it possibly could to prevent its establishment.

    Agricultural and Food Research Council
    Dr. Bray: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the primary role of the Agricultural and Food Research Council.
    Mr. MacGregor:The council was established by royal charter to organise and develop agricultural and food research; to establish or develop institutions or departments of institutions for investigation and research relating to the advancement of agriculture or the production and processing of food; and to make grants for such investigation and research.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that it will only confuse and prolong uncertainty if the merger with another research council, with quite a different role, is pursued? Does he acknowledge that the AFRC has been going through a time of major change? It has successfully pursued new science and is tackling new problems. It has important work to do in the genetic engineering of plants, food safety and the effects of diet on health. Arrangements have been made for co-ordination with other research councils. Will the Secretary of State let the
    AFRC get on with its job?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that I know a great deal about the AFRC because I have been involved with it in more than one of my departmental responsibilities. He will know that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils recently made recommendations to me about its reconstitution, which I accepted and which will greatly improve its co-ordination role and various
    148
    other matters relating to research. The ABRC also advised about a proposal for improving co-ordination between the AFRC and the Natural Environment Research Council, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The Government are actively considering that and will announce their conclusions as soon as possible. I hope that we shall do so fairly soon because I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need
    for a response to that matter.
    Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend consider that it might be a little short-sighted to withdraw Government funding from the AFRC's specialist meat laboratories in Bristol when there are anxieties about issues such as mad cow disease and so on? Surely, to cut back on £1.6 million of expenditure on an industry that earns more than £8 billion a year is a false economy, given the need for high quality specialist research such as that laboratory has provided for many years?
    Mr. MacGregor:My hon. Friend is not quite right. We have been withdrawing Government funding from near market research, the primary objective of which is the development of a specific product or process for commercial sale or use. That is absolutely right because it enables us to concentrate our priorities on where public funding should be spent and to avoid duplication and overlap with the private sector. One part of the restructuring of the Institute of Food Research, Bristol to which my hon. Friend referred, was related to that. He will know that the restructuring means that we are concentrating on the Norwich and Reading laboratories, where we will increase the number of scientists. That will ensure a more effective outcome from research.
    Mr. Skinner:What about Bristol?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am coming to that. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should allow me to continue. I partly dealt with that point when I explained the restructuring.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) will noticeߞI am sure that he willߞthat this Government have actually increased Government funding of food research by more than 120 per cent. in real terms. We have just announced an additional £12 million to deal with the very livestock problems that my hon. Friend's question addressed.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite all that he has just said, the Government intended to close down the Institute of Food Research, Bristol? When the Japanese found out about that, they proposed to the Prime Minister, during her visit, that they would hand her £1 million to take back to save that research institute ߞand took the money out of Japan's Third-world budget. What a sorry state this country is in
    Mr. MacGregor: As usual, the hon. Gentleman prepares his question before he has heard the answer to the previous one. The research project, which has had so much attention, was reaching the end of its useful research life, as those evaluating the research made clear. The restructuring affecting Bristol is part of a general restructuring. The clear sign of how the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong is that we have announced an additional £12 million for bovine spongiform encephalopathy research for the coming yearߞa
    substantial increase.

    Nursery Schools
    Mr. Knox:To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on nursery school provision.
    Mrs. Rumbold:The number of under-fives in school rose by 28 per cent. over the last decade and the age participation rate rose to 45 per cent. Our plans enable that healthy trend to continue.
    Mr. Knox:Is my hon. Friend aware that in Staffordshire there is excellent nursery school provision in Stoke-on-Trent, but virtually none in the rest of the county? Does she think that that is satisfactory or fair to the rest of the county?
    Mrs. Rumbold:My hon. Friend will be aware that it is for the local education authority to decide how best to deploy its educational spend, but there has been a tendency for local education authorities to concentrate on the provision of nursery education in the urban rather than in the county areas.
    Mr. Win Griffiths:Will the Minister confirm that the 20 best providers of nursery education are Labour-controlled authorities and that the 20 worst are Tory or Social and Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities? Is it not a fact that some of those Tory-controlled authorities do not spend any of the money provided in the old rate support grant for nursery
    schools or classes?
    Mrs. Rumbold:The hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. It is true that funds go to the urban areas as part of the Government's strategy to help those who are in most need, but it is not true to say that there is no provision within the county areas for education for the under-fives, because there is through the voluntary sector.
    Mr. Harry Greenway:Do the Government accept the principle, enunciated in the recent report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, that under-five provision should be available to all parents who seek to avail themselves of it for educational reasons, and will my hon. Friend seek to persuade all local authorities in principle to move towards that end?
    Mrs. Rumbold:My hon. Friend knows that I am at present chairing a committee which is looking into the quality of education for the under-fives in the voluntary and state sectors. We must remember that that falls between two Departments, but we hope to improve the quality of the provision for the under-fives in the voluntary and the state sectorsߞthe very point that my hon. Friend makes.
    Ms. Armstrong:I am pleased that the Minister recognises that the policy often falls between two Departments, but the Department of Education and Science has a responsibility for the education of our young children. When will the Government ensure that all children have the opportunity about which the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) talked, and when will they recognise that a child has twice the chance of attending a nursery class or school at the age of three or four in a Labour-controlled authority than in a Tory-controlled authority? Will she congratulate those Labour-controlled authorities, and make sure that money is available next year for all children in all areas?
    Mrs. Rumbold:As my committee is considering just those questions, perhaps the hon. Lady will read its report with great interest when it comes out later this year.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks:In view of the amount of surplus accommodation in many of our schools, would not this be an appropriate time to see whether some of that accommodation can be adapted for pre-school use by the private or the public sectors, or in partnership? Would not that help to deal with the problem of attracting more women, whom we so badly
    need, back into the workplace?
    Mrs. Rumbold:My hon. Friend may be aware that many authorities are sensible about adapting some of the surplus primary school accommodation to do just that, working in concert with the voluntary sector to provide pre-school education. In addition, many authorities are now taking children into school before the age of five in order to give them a good start in their first year of compulsory
    education.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Darling:To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of the cost of administering student loans in respect of students attending universities in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland in
    each year until 2010.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson):The administration costs of the loans scheme for United Kingdom students will be in the order of £10 million to £20 million in the first three years. Precise costs will be published shortly.
    Mr. Darling:I understand that the banks have agreed to write off half the cost of the sums incurred when it was thought that the banks would go ahead with the scheme. What is the Government's share of the money that has now been written off and when does the Minister expect to know how much the Student Loans Company will cost during the next 20 years? Who will pay for that, or will those sums be recovered from the banks by way of the retribution that the Prime Minister has apparently promised them?
    Mr. Jackson:Much of the expenditure incurred in line with the supplementary estimate approved by the House is adaptable to the student loans scheme in its new form, so the question of additional costs to the Government does not arise. The banks' £500,000 contribution will be gratefully received. As to long-term costs, with any loans scheme there is a period when money is being advanced before it starts to come back. We have told the House that we expect current savings from the beginning of the next century.
    Mr. Allan Stewart:Does my hon. Friend agree that what really bothers the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is that all that money will be spent in central Glasgow? Can my hon. Friend give an up-to-date estimate of the number of jobs that the Student Loans Company will create for the Glasgow area?
    Mr. Jackson:We estimate that some 200 additional jobs will be created in Glasgow as a consequence of the company's premises being located there.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will students attending colleges and universities in Northern Ireland draw from the same scheme or will there be a separate one for them?
    Mr. Jackson: The loans scheme will be national, so students in Northern Ireland will also draw from it.
    Mr. Bowis: Has my hon. Friend been able to estimate the cost of existing bank loans to students when they have to pay for them at the full commercial rate? Will he reveal the savings that students will enjoy as a result of his new scheme?
    Mr. Jackson: Our survey suggests that the average student has an overdraft at the end of each year of study of the order of £340. Much of that money is loaned at commercial rates of interest, whereas the Government scheme will operate at a zero rate of interest, with repayments deferable if income is below 85 per cent. of national average earnings.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Minister admit that his estimates of additional costs amounting to £2·17 billion over the next 20 years, over and above the cost of uprating grants in line with inflation, excludes administrative costs and interest rates subsidy—both of which will add hundreds of millions of pounds to the cost of the scheme —and provides for no expansion in student numbers beyond the end of the century? Does not that show that his deeply flawed scheme is financially as well as educationally bankrupt and ought to be abandoned forthwith?
    Mr. Jackson:The hon. Gentleman complains that the Government are being too generous to students.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the number of students entering higher education in 1989 and the number making applications to do so in 1990 confirms that the scheme provides no barrier to entry?
    Mr. Jackson: Yes, I can confirm my hon. Friend's proposition. Last year's recruitment of higher education students reached a record. They were also the first generation of students applying in the knowledge that there will be a student loans scheme.

    Bradford
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to visit Bradford to meet local education authority members.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Madden: Before the Minister meets members of Bradford local education authority, will she read chapter 11 of "The Pickles Papers" and pass copies of that book to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to the Audit Commission? Will she invite the DPP to investigate the recent abortive management buy-out of Bradford school meals service and the recent and unexplained resignation of one of the two senior council officers concerned? While the Minister is at it, will she lean on Bradford council to reduce substantially the cost of school meals, which have been substantially increased to boost profits on privatisation, resulting in—
    Hon. Members: Too long.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mrs. Rumbold: No, Sir. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the people of Bradford elect their local councillors. They did so recently, and Bradford's Conservative-controlled council is doing extremely well.
    Mr. Riddick: When my hon. Friend next visits Bradford, will she congratulate its Conservative council on its successful efforts to encourage a city technology college to Bradford? Will she also congratulate Councillor Riaz on his good sense in resigning the Labour Whip and going over to the Conservative group, thereby doubling the Conservative majority on Bradford council?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I shall take great pleasure in congratulating Bradford council on both counts. I am particularly delighted to be able to commend the opening of Bradford's new CTC in September.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the administration of the student loans scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: The Student Loans Company Limited will be responsible for the administration of the scheme. As recent announcements demonstrate, preparatory work is well in hand.
    Mr. Doran: I understand that the scheme is to operate commercially. Has the Secretary of State any plans at this stage to privatise the loans company, and as part of its commercial operations will it allow the sale of lists of student addresses and names and the debts of students?
    Mr. MacGregor: The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. We are still setting up the company. It must be commercial in the sense that we shall have to pay commercial rates for the staff with the kind of expertise we want. It is being set up as a private company and that is how we intend to run it.
    Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. Friend consider discussing with the Open university the possibility of extending the student loans scheme to Open university students? During those discussions, will he take the opportunity of congratulating the Open university on the first 20 years of its existence and the graduation of its 100,000th graduate?
    Mr. MacGregor: We have no plans to extend the loans scheme beyond where it is. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I did indeed congratulate the Open university this morning, when I presented the 100,000th graduate with her certificate. There is no doubt that from many points of view the Open university has been a great success and one which the United Kingdom has been pioneering.

    Natural Environment Research Council
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the primary role of the Natural Environment Research Council.
    Mr. MacGregor: The council was established by royal charter to promote, support and carry out research in the earth sciences and ecology; to provide and operate ships, equipment and other facilities for common use in such

    153
    research; to provide advice and disseminate knowledge in the fields of its responsibility; and to make grants for such research.
    Mr. Mullin: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is important that the Natural Environment Research Council be kept independent of pressure from farmers and food manufacturers and that therefore it should not be merged with the Agricultural and Food Research Council?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it plain that I hope to make an announcement on that issue as quickly as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise, as the ABRC recommendation and the report of the Select Committee from another House recognised, that there are many areas in agriculture, land use and on environmental questions where there is an overlap and an identity of interest. Therefore, it makes sense to look at how better co-operation can take place. But I hope to make an announcement on the matter as soon as possible.

    Self-governing Status
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates he has of the average sum from central education overheads of local education authorities which would be available to schools seeking self-governing status.
    Mr. MacGregor: The addition for services previously provided centrally by a local education authority amount on average to £94,000 in 1989–90, which is 15 per cent. on average of the direct costs of grant-maintained schools. Grant-maintained schools have the freedom to choose how to spend most efficiently their share of this central spending.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that it confirms that the additional money will be available, if schools want it, to spend on additional staff or extra equipment instead of on the salaries of bureaucrats and providing offices for them to work in? Does he further agree that it would be available for all schools if there were a big cut in the amount of bureaucratic overheads that schools have to carry?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that this gives much greater scope for flexibility for resources to be deployed as the school wishes—as the head teacher, staff and governors wish—and to use the resources more efficiently. There is already considerable demonstration that that is happening, and that is one of the many merits of grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Fatchett: Will the Secretary of State explain how he equates last week's statement on opt out schools when he made available in capital terms 42 per cent. more to each of those schools than to equivalent maintained sector schools? How does he justify that when he told the House that there would be no difference in treatment between those schools and maintained sector schools? Is it really a case that the social division of this programe can be maintained only by the political bribes that are involved in that amount of money?
    Mr. MacGregor: That is a nonsensical question. There is no social division in this programme because the schools continue to draw, and their character is precisely as it was before. As for the comparison, the hon. Gentleman makes
    154
    a point that fails to take into account many other factors —for example, that the grant-maintained schools are concentrated entirely on the secondary sector, whereas 80 per cent. of all maintained schools are primary schools and are therefore smaller; that in the maintained sector other sources of revenue are available for capital expenditure, including capital receipts; and that the maintained schools have to pay VAT. The hon. Gentleman really does not have his facts right.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: When considering the reallocation of central education overheads, will my right hon. Friend consider extending that principle to schools operating under local financial management? Is not their track record one of obtaining more value for money than the central bureaucrats?
    Mr. MacGregor: As local management of schools comes into operation, I expect savings to be made in the central administration of local education authorities, reflecting the direct transfer of a considerable amount of their responsbility to the schools.

    Standard Assessment Tests
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what decisions have been made about the publication of standard assessment tests at seven years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Standard assessment tests for seven-year-olds in English, mathematics and science will be piloted in a sample of schools this summer. In the light of lessons learned, revised SATs will be produced for the first full national assessments in these subjects in summer 1991.
    Mr. Turner: How will the Secretary of State ensure that the tests are used diagnostically to improve education development, rather than being employed simply to pit one seven-year-old child against another?
    Mrs. Rumbold: As I think hon. Gentleman knows, we are very keen to ensure that the purpose of assessments, and standard assessment tests, is to help teachers, parents and the children themselves obtain the best possible education, and assessments will be undertaken with that in mind.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Government's dogged inflexibility a fair response to the exceptional sense of duty shown by our ambulance men when dealing with injured and dying victims of this week's gales and tempests? What greater catastrophe is required to bring home to the Prime Minister the justice of our ambulance men's case?
    The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman says is not correct. The Government and management have

    155
    moved on the ambulance men's case for more pay; it is the ambulance men who have not moved at all since their unions recommended, a long time ago, that they accept a 6·5 per cent. increase. The Government moved to an 18-month settlement, which would offer the men increases of between 9 and 16·3 per cent.—a considerable increase that would cost £6 million more to implement in this financial year. That is far from being inflexible; it represents actual movement.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when we are faced with the present historic uncertainty in eastern Europe and the collapse of law and order in East Germany, idle talk of a peace dividend is premature? Would it not be prudent for the United Kingdom to look to Vienna for serious and constructive negotiations, rather than slashing our defence forces unilaterally?
    The Prime Minister: I agree wholly with my hon. Friend. Piecemeal reductions would be fatal at this time of great uncertainty. In such circumstances, the right way is to negotiate through the conventional force reduction talks in Vienna. That is how we managed to secure effective reductions in the Warsaw pact forces—larger reductions than those on our side, indeed—and also some verification. NATO is already considering precisely how those reductions should be shared out equitably between its members.
    Mr Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us her response to yesterday's statement by Church leaders appealing for the Government to set up an independent inquiry with the purpose of resolving the ambulance dispute?
    The Prime Minister: Had the right hon. Gentleman listened to my previous answer he would already know that the Government have moved on the ambulance dispute. There is already a negotiating body, which is the right body to conduct negotiations, and the increases that the management has offered would cost the taxpayer some £6 million more this financial year.
    Mr. Kinnock: On the subject of the cost to the taxpayer, can the Prime Minister confirm that she has already spent £10 million of the public's money on keeping the dispute going? That is more than it would cost to settle it. Where is the sense in that, either for the public or for the ambulance personnel or, indeed, even for the Government? When the public so clearly support the ambulance workers' case why is the Prime Minister so completely out of touch with the feelings of the British people?
    The Prime Minister: The sense is to stick to established methods of negotiation, whether a pay review body or a Whitley council. Once one departs from that, it is very difficult for those who have honoured their own methods of negotiation and, indeed, settled at the amounts they were offered, as 85 per cent. did early last summer. It is a great pity that ambulance men did not accept the advice of their union and settle at that time.
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carrington: My right hon. Friend will know that my constituents who live around Stamford Bridge greatly welcome the determination of herself and of the Home Secretary to bring football hooliganism to an end. Is not this in marked contrast to the attitude of those who reject all-seater stadiums and, incredibly, even seek to deny that football hooliganism exists? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to use the licensing powers under the Football Spectators Act to close any ground where football hooliganism persists in the street outside the stadium?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear yesterday in his very robust way, the Government accept the Taylor alternative strategy for dealing with these matters in football stadiums, and we accept Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations. During the passage of the Football Spectators Bill we made it clear that having all-seat stadiums could be made a condition of a licence being given by the Football Licensing Authority. It would be open to the licensing authority to do that. I think that the conditions for a licence do not apply to hooliganism outside the grounds. That matter is already dealt with by other measures, such as the Public Order Act, and by some of the changes that have been made to prohibit the availability of alcohol on buses and trains travelling to designated football matches.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: On this day when there has been support for ambulance workers in Britain, why is the Prime Minister so quick to praise them but so slow to pay them?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I am always quick to praise ambulance men, as I am quick to praise other people who work in the Health Service, 84 per cent. of whom accepted pay increases between 6·5 and 6·8 per cent. last summer. We have, in fact, offered the ambulance men, according to where they work or their qualifications, increases of between 9 and 16·3 per cent. over a period of 18 months. That offer represents an increase on the first one, which was rejected.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Gorman: In view of the Hansard Society's report on women at the top, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it makes sense that a job created in the home, or elsewhere, that helps a woman to go out to work is just as valid as any other job and should be treated in the same way for tax purposes? While we are on the subject, what about a few jobs for top women in our own Whips' Office and in the Cabinet —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should ask only one question.
    Mrs. Gorman. rose? —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. To ask more than one question would be unfair to the hon. Lady's colleagues.
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that all my hon. Friend's comments were interesting, but I heard only the first half. I should like to reply to the half that I heard. My hon. Friend asked for tax allowances for people who look after children. As she knows, this is not allowed for tax purposes, any more than are the expenses of travelling to work or of having someone at home to look after an elderly relative would be allowed. That is the present law. A change in the Finance Bill would be needed to change it. I hope that my hon. Friend will make her representations to different quarters, because I can say nothing about that matter.
    I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary will have heard my hon. Friend's other request, and will consider what further action to take.
    Dr. Owen: What is going wrong with Anglo-American relations? The United States President is cutting defence expenditure by 2 per cent; further, faster and deeper reductions are emerging in the conventional forces European negotiations; and the United States President is openly advocating a NATO defence review. The Prime Minister refuses to do any of those things. The two Governments cannot even split their differences between six months and a year on the compulsory repatriation of Vietnamese boat people.
    The Prime Minister: That is two questions in one. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the United States spends a much bigger proportion of her national income on defence than does any other major NATO country. She spends 6 per cent. of her national income on defence whereas, on a similarly calculated basis, we spend 4 per cent., so I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can criticise the United States if it makes some changes.
    Any changes that affect the mainland of Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, are made through the CFE negotiations. Any proposals go through the NATO machinery first, so that we are all consulted and agree what should go forward to the CFE negotiations. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that that is perfectly right.
    I agree that there is a difference of opinion on the Vietnamese boat people—possibly because of America's history in Vietnam and because she lost 55,000 people in her fight there which kept communism back long enough to prevent its extending throughout the area. We shall, of course, go forward with compulsory repatriation.
    Sir Hal Miller: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Hal Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever other Governments feel able to do, the main responsibility for maintaining the confidence of the people of Hong Kong, on which their prosperity and stability must depend, inevitably lies with the People's Republic of China? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conclusions of the draft basic law committee on elections in Hong Kong are hardly likely to add to their confidence? Are we yet ready to say what we will do?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in saying that China has an important part to play—although not
    158
    the only part—in maintaining confidence in Hong Kong, as do the Hong Kong people and as does Britain during our administration until the lease is terminated in 1997. Ideally, we obviously wish to agree with China improvements in democracy and increases in the democratic process in Hong Kong which could be continued through 1997. We shall continue to do our best by the people of Hong Kong and to observe the Sino-British agreement on the future of Hong Kong, in the belief that that is in the best interests of the future beyond 1997.
    Ms. Short: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Short: Does the Prime Minister agree that the ambulance workers have overwhelming public support? Does she consider herself to be a democrat and, if so, why does she not listen to the view of the people and agree to binding arbitration so that this dispute can be brought to an end?
    The Prime Minister: No. The ambulance people have their own negotiating body through which the negotiations should take place. As the hon. Lady is aware, this claim comes from last year when 84 per cent. of the people with whom the ambulance men work in the National Health Service settled at 6·5 and 6·8 per cent. Since then, the ambulance men have been offered an increase, so it is not the management which has not moved, but the ambulance men themselves.
    Dame Jill Knight: Bearing in mind that the union leaders of the ambulance men have not always been straightforward in the matter, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is a question not only of a 9 per cent. increase on offer now, but of an offer that goes hack to April 1989? That should also be taken into consideration.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. The offer is backdated to April 1989 and for those who have still been working at their posts, considerable back-dated lump sums are to be picked up now, which vary from about £650 to about £1,400. They will be available when the ambulance men settle in respect of their back pay.
    Mr. Boateng: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Boateng: Why does the Prime Minister continue to set her face, like stone, against the ambulance workers while giving a £40 million tax handout to the private medical insurance industry? If she were to fall under a bus tomorrow—and it would have to be a brave one—would she call for BUPA or for an ambulance man?
    The Prime Minister: As I have already indicated, the ambulance men had an offer, according to where they work and their qualifications, of an increase in pay varying from 9 to 16·3 per cent. Many of them are still maintaining an accident and emergency service—and we honour them for it—although others are not. I should have thought that 9 to 16·3 per cent. was a very fair and reasonable offer.

Hill Farming
3.31 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
My right hon. Friends and I have now completed the annual review of economic conditions in the United Kingdom's less-favoured areas, in consultation with representatives of farming interests. The conclusion of this review was delayed until after the decision of the EC Council on the new hill livestock compensatory allowance conditions.
The review has shown that average net farm incomes of livestock producers in our hill and upland areas are forecast to fall in 1989–90, following an increase in Great Britain in the previous year. In particular, there is a reduction in the incomes of specialist sheep producers in the high hill areas, where the opportunities to diversify are limited. In farming as a whole, diversification is an important matter and in these areas such opportunities are not very wide.
I am therefore, pleased to announce that, subject to parliamentary approval, my colleagues and I are proposing to increase the rate of hill livestock compensatory allowance payable under the 1990 scheme on hardy breed ewes maintained in the severely disadvantaged parts of our less-favoured areas. The rate per hardy breed ewe will be increased by 75p, from £6·75 to £7.50 per animal. All other HLCA rates and conditions will remain unchanged in 1990. We shall be laying before Parliament a draft statutory instrument giving effect to this rate increase as soon as possible. The additional HLCA payments are expected to cost £5·2 million in a full year. This will increase total HLCA payments to about £125 million a year, which represents a very significant commitment to the hill and upland areas of the United Kingdom.
As I said in the early part of my statement, which some hon. Members may have missed, the reason for the lateness of this statement is the discussions in the European Community about changes in the HLCA regime —changes which are discriminatory against the United Kingdom because of the headage limits which are provided. We are therefore aware of the concern felt by the LFA livestock sector at the possible impact of the reduction in FEOGA funding of HLCAs based on the size of holding which I reported to the House on 22 November 1989. The House will remember that on that occasion I was able to report that we had made some significant improvements in what the Commission had proposed. One of those was that it would not apply this year but would start next year. But of course many in the industry are concerned to know now what it will mean for them then.
First, the changes in the European Community rules will not affect the 1990 HLCA scheme. From 1 January 1991 the mandatory European Community limit on payments of 1·4 livestock units per hectare will come into operation and will have some environmental benefits. We cannot anticipate at this stage the level of HLCAs or the other arrangements for 1991, but I can say that there is no question of automatically carrying through into our payment arrangements the impact of the new European Community ceilings on FEOGA funding. We do not believe that they should be related to the size of the
160
enterprise. Therefore, any changes would be made only after the needs of the LFA livestock sector had been assessed in the normal way following the autumn review later this year. This will be our review, on our terms, about our hill problems, and we will not automatically carry through the views that have been approved by the European Community contrary to our wishes.
Finally, there is the new provision in the European Community regulation which allows member states to include measures in the HLCA scheme to take account of environmental requirements. [Interruption.] Some Opposition Members do not find these matters important, but for those farmers in our most difficult areas they are vital. I hope that those farmers will notice the cavalier way in which the official Opposition, although not others, have received this most important announcement for their future.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I represent a hill farming area. I have been trying to hear the Secretary of State and cannot do so because of the noise from the Government Benches. I hope that Conservative Members will keep quiet so that I can find out how this statement affects my constituents.
Mr. Speaker: I will refrain from saying what I was going to say about that on behalf of the hon. Member. Let us hear the statement.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to say this, but I found the last remark of the Minister objectionable. Would you ask him to withdraw?
Mr. Speaker: Nothing out of order was said.
Mr. Gummer: The HLCAs already provide a significant contribution in terms of environmental benefits, but the British Government will be looking carefully over the next few months to see whether this should be made more specific. One of the things we seek in all the actions of the European Community is to make sure that what we do in farming is applied not only to the need to produce the food that the nation requires but to keeping up the countryside, which is one of the most important jobs of farmers and one in which they serve the country and the countryside well.
Dr. David Clark.: This is the first time ever that we have had an oral statement to the House on hill farming. My colleagues and I welcome it. We have a particular interest in upland areas and over the years we have often demonstrated that in the House. I only wish that the Minister's statement had had a little more substance in it, but I hope that it will become a precedent and that we will have an annual statement to the House on this vital subject. So that we might explore his proposals further, may I suggest to the Minister that he should initiate an early debate to find out whether we have constructive ideas to put forward from this side of the House?
I also welcome the increase in the hill livestock compensatory allowance for sheep from £6·75 to £7·50. As the House knows, the payment has been frozen for four years. However, the increase hardly keeps pace with inflation. Even with the increase to £7·50 the allowance is not in real terms at the same level as two years ago because

161
of spiralling inflation and interest rates running at 18 per cent. for many upland farmers who face many other economic difficulties.
Hon. Members may have missed the fact that there was no mention in the statement of HLCAs for cattle. That is a serious omission. The Minister spoke about environmental considerations. He has missed a great opportunity for extensification and improving the environment of upland areas by refusing to uprate the support for cattle. That is doubly so when beef rearers are facing falling prices for cattle because of the effect of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the Government's mishandling of that crisis.
Towards the end of his statement the Minister mentioned FEOGA payments. As the House knows, the level of those payments will be reduced. The Minister talked in strange terms when he said that he could not ensure that the system would be guaranteed. What does that mean? Will the Minister make up the shortfall of FEOGA contributions? Will he ensure that upland farmers get the guaranteed benefits which they need? If he did, he would have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House because we believe that upland farmers need much more support.
May I clarify a further point? The Minister mentioned that the scheme would cost £125 million per annum. In the Government's expenditure plans, which were published just five minutes ago, I noticed that the budgeted figure for next year is not £125 million but £120 million, a shortfall of £5 million. Will the Minister assure the House that the figure of £125 million which he has quoted today supersedes the Treasury figure published in the Government's annual expenditure plans? That is very important.
We welcome the Minister's statement, but it is most unimaginative. He said nothing about cattle or about direct income payments to farmers. He said nothing constructive about how he intended to improve the environment of upland areas. He said nothing about diversification or environmentally sensitive areas. In short, there was no single constructive proposal in the statement other than to increase HLCAs for sheep to take account of inflation. It is a most unsatisfactory statement.
Mr. Gummer: I think that you, Mr. Speaker, would have found it embarrassing had it been necesary to call me to order for speaking about environmentally sensitive areas when I was supposed to be making a statement on hill livestock compensatory allowances. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) gave a whole list of matters that I did not mention, which might have gone on ad infinitum. I did not mention them because they had nothing to do with my statement. Nevertheless, my statement was of considerable importance.
The figure in the estimates published today is £5 million less than the figure that I cited because the figure that I announced today represents an increase of £5 million. That does not need any underlining. Whereas before the proposal that I announced in my statement the cost would have been £120 million, it is now £125 million. I should have thought that it was obvious from my remarks that an extra £5 million was being made available.
The hon. Member for South Shields also asked about the fact that the amounts have been frozen. Last year the real terms increase in farm incomes was 19 per cent. and it was therefore not appropriate to increase the payments.
162
This year, we estimate that there has been a fall in real terms in farm incomes, which overtakes the level of the payments.
I wanted to do something helpful, and I found the way in which the hon. Gentleman announced his opposition somewhat curmudgeonly. He should have said, "Look, we have been pushing you for this for some time and we are pleased that you have done it." It is sad that the Opposition's welcomes, which have become almost Spanish in their brevity, should be succeeded by a whole series of attacks on everything that the Government do.
The hon. Gentleman made a curious comment about bovine spongiform encephalopathy. I do not think that anyone else in Britain would share the hon. Gentleman's view. Most people accept that the Government have dealt with the matter extremely well. We have put the health of the public first and foremost and we have sought to help the farming community out of a difficult position. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on trying to make bricks out of no straw, but I fear that the bricks that he tried to produce would build no house.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend understand that his statement is warmly welcomed, both in the House and especially in hill areas where the extra support was very necessary? Will he spend a good deal of his time in the next year or so explaining to the British public that if they wish to have high-quality, moderately priced food, on the one hand, and the maintenance of our glorious upland scenery, on the other, there is no better way of investing in those aims than by putting money where my right hon. Friend has put it today?
Mr. Gummer: With his considerable constituency and ministerial experience on this matter, my right hon. Friend has spoken the truth. No payment contributes more to the maintenance of the British countryside than a payment that ensures that we have sheep in our upland areas.
Mr. James Wallace: The Minister rightly identified the problems of fallen income last year and limitations on diversification. Is he aware of the impact on upland farmers of interest rates running in their teens and of the fact that the green pound is disadvantaging the farmers as they seek export opportunities? Clearly he is not, or he would not have given the industry this kick in the teeth—a paltry sum to be awarded to one sector and nothing for any of our other hill livestock producers.
How far short of the ceiling allowed by the European Community does the increase that the Minister has announced fall? What steps does he propose to take to seek devaluation of the green pound in the sheep and beef sectors? In the past, the Highlands and Islands have had an enhanced rate for the HLCAs at times. Is that also to be the case under the present review?
Mr. Gummer: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is taking account of the special position of the Highlands and Islands, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased with the results. I am sorry that he should use such emotive language. I can only suggest that his words have less connection with the truth than with his desire to drive a division between himself and those of a different political

163
view. No one else will regard the statement as a kick in the teeth to the farmers. It is what has been asked for, and I am pleased to be able to deliver it.
I fight extremely hard for a change in the green pound rate, which I believe is the most important thing affecting the future of price fixing. I am extremely concerned that Britain should be discriminated against in this way. I am especially concerned that many of our colleagues in the European Community do not want such a change. I am even more concerned by those colleagues who do not believe it necessary, even in 1992. It is an uphill battle, but I am determined to win through because nothing is more important to the future of British farming than a fair deal that will enable us to compete fairly. There must be no distinction or differentation against us by the time we get to the single market. If we can do a great deal this year, I shall be best pleased.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his announcement on sheep will be well received in the western most parts of my constituency and, I suspect, all the way along the marches as well? However, will he clarify the position on cattle, because many of my hill farmers indulge in suckler calf rearing in the hills for pure-bred beef? Does he agree that pure-bred beef from suckler herds is the source of beef that is least exposed to any of the dangers of BSE in that the cattle are fed on hay, silage and grass? Does he further agree that a constant flow of pure-bred beef from the suckler herds can only be good for the beef industry in this country? Finally, if my right hon. Friend is not satisfied, would he care to come to my constituency to talk to the beef suckler herd producers because I am certain that they want the confidence that has been given to the sheep industry?
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend would want me to remind the House that cattle producers in the less-favoured areas benefit from the 42 per cent. increase in the suckler cow rate. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say that they are already dealt with under another aspect of the way in which we provide support. That is why I thought that it was rather unfair that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) did not mention that in his catalogue of woes. If the hon. Gentleman had wanted the public to feel that he was being properly balanced on this matter, I think that he would have mentioned that fact.
I should not like to make a distinction with my hon. Friend about BSE. The fact is that any beef that is bought in this country is entirely safe for human consumption and is very much better than the beef that is bought from many other countries.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was being generous to him because the increase has not kept up with the rate of inflation and certainly does not meet the demands of the farmers? Will he answer my hon. Friend's question about hill cattle? Why has no announcement been made on hill cattle, which are important in my constituency and in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends? Finally, does the Minister accept that his whole statement has been sullied by the overlay of his unique combination of impudence and arrogance?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is an expert in both those subjects, as the House no doubt remembers. I wonder why the hon. Gentleman did not ask for a cut in the HLCAs last year when there had been a 19 per cent. increase in real terms in the incomes of the farmers concerned. He did not ask for a cut because he knew that the rates are not fixed on a year-by-year basis. They are fixed properly to compensate for people's needs at any particular time. The hon. Gentleman is in his usual position of always asking for more money without mentioning the bill that has to be paid by the taxpayer if that extra money is to be spent. The cattle producers in the LFAs have not had a similar or parallel increase because we thought that, in view of the 42 per cent. increase in the suckler cow rate, it was more important to concentrate our aid on the sheep sector.
Mr. William Hague: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the House welcomes his firm stance in European negotiations in recent weeks? Does he also accept that there will continue to be grave anxiety about the future of hill livestock farming in the uplands of Britain? Will he take this opportunity to re-emphasise the Government's commitment to maintain the value of support for upland farming in future, pointing out that such support provides the best value for money of any environmental spending?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. He shows his close understanding of the problem when he emphasises that the future is of the greatest anxiety to the industry. That is why I was surprised that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), did not emphasise the industry's advantages in having an assurance that the decisions on next year's HLCA payments will be based on the needs of our industry and will not be affected by the changes that the FEOGA funding has brought about. That is an important assessment for the Government to make, so far in advance of deciding the rates. It shows our support for an industry which, above all others, maintains the countryside.
Mr. John D. Taylor: While one welcomes any statement by Her Majesty's Government that support for hill farmers will be increased, we require clarification. The statement given to us says:
"incomes of livestock producers in our hill and upland areas are forecast to fall in 1989-1990, following an increase in Great Britain in the previous year … my colleagues and I are proposing to increase the rate of hill livestock compensatory allowance payable under the 1990 scheme on hardy breed ewes maintained in the severely disadvantaged parts of our LFAs. Subject to parliamentary approval, the rate per hardy breed ewe will be increased by 75p, from £6.75 to £7.50 per animal"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member ask a question?
Mr. Taylor: The Minister said that that represented a
"significant commitment to the hill and upland areas of the United Kingdom."
In my experience during the past 10 years, the European Community recognises the difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom. As the Minister referred to Great Britain and the United Kingdom in the same sentence, will he tell the House whether his increase applies to the United Kingdom or only to Great Britain.
Mr. Gummer: It is a United Kingdom increase.
Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of my constituents on his announcement today, which comes at a difficult time for hill farmers, particularly those who farm sheep? Is he aware that the North York Moors national park committee will shortly launch a scheme designed to combine essential support for sheep farming in the LFAs with much-needed environmental protection? Does he agree that the future of our farming industry, supported by taxpayers, can be assured only if we can combine the need to support the farmer with care of the environment? The HLCAs are an important part of that package.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to underline the close connection between the production of food and the maintenance of a beautiful countryside. The British countryside is as it is because it is farmed. Almost 80 per cent. of Britain's land area is farmed. We must increasingly make sure that farming is done in an environmentally acceptable way. Most farmers already farm in that manner, but some need particular help to continue to do so. The Government are determined to provide that help.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister rightly praised upland farmers for the way in which they tend our countryside. He then referred to their difficulty in obtaining alternative incomes. Will he consider carefully the possibility of improving access to the countryside by allowing millions of people in our cities who want to walk freely in the countryside to do so and giving farmers compensation for allowing people to walk on their land? Is he aware that the national parks have powers to enter into access agreements, but that, apart from the Peak District national park, they rarely do so? Will he encourage the development of access agreements so that people in the towns can walk in the countryside and people who farm in upland areas receive monetary income from it?
Mr. Gummer: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a close interest in this matter. I spent yesterday in the hillsides of Scotland and the problem there is that increased access, which is now a feature of many parts of Scotland, has a deleterious effect on the ability of farmers to look after their stock and to protect the countryside. It is not always possible to increase access without causing considerable damage. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of that because of the problems encountered in the environmentally sensitive area of the South Downs.
It is not always possible to increase access and to regard it as a means of extra income. I notice that that income will be paid for not by the people who have access but by the taxpayer. There is a certain competition for use of the countryside, and the right balance is always necessary.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Welsh hill farmers will greatly welcome the statement on LFA compensatory amounts and the statement on the green pound? Will he confirm that in future negotiations with continental producers he will ensure that British lamb from LFAs has an open market on the continent?
Mr. Gummer: We must stop any repetition of the situation in which British lamb, which is the best in Europe, was excluded from markets that it had taken over because it was the best. I am pleased to say that, in large measure, our colleagues are accepting British lamb as they
166
should. We shall continue to ensure that that happens. In the negotiations on the green pound I have stated my case extremely strongly, and I shall continue to do so. In the end, however, I must have a majority of the Twelve and a proposition from the Commission.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister agree that we must consider not only the quality of our countryside, but the quality of life of its inhabitants? The fragility of the economic base in many of our rural areas means that support is necessary to retain not only that economic life, but the social and cultural heritage of the countries of the United Kingdom. Will he top up the EC payments on HLCAs to ensure that there is a good level of support for our hill farmers?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's comments are entirely in line with my thinking, and that is why I have sought hard to look carefully at the disadvantaged areas. There are various ways in which we can help those areas, not least by our environmental payments and by the extensions and improvements that have led to the ESAs. I hope that there will be further extensions in the future. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the ESAs and their subsequent extension will benefit parts of the Principality, as they will the rest of the United Kingdom.
We must ensure that the money goes in the right direction. My announcement today is one way by which we can ensure that, but we shall continue to look for other means of achieving that aim. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I take a close personal interest in ensuring that the most difficult farming areas of Britain are properly supported and that there is confidence for the future. That is why I made a statement about the parameters of our decisions next year. That statement has not been paralleled previously as it commits us in such a way that previous Governments were not prepared to be committed.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Scottish hill farmers, the mountain farmers—I have 2,000 sq miles of mountain in my constituency—will welcome his statement. If the environment of the Scotish Highlands is to be properly looked after, the balance to which my right hon. Friend drew attention must continue. The farmers are the best people to look after that balance.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problems in the Highlands are largely brought about by uncertainty? Much of what he has said today will remove that uncertainty, including his pledge to look after farmers' interests. His pledges on other matters will go a long way to ridding the public of certain worries that they have had for some time.
Mr. Gummer: I spent yesterday with Lord Sanderson of Bowden, who is the Minister in the Scottish Office responsible for agriculture. On my visit a little north of my hon. Friend's constituency I looked at many of the problems that he has mentioned, and I confirm what he has said.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the Minister agree that the oddity of the statement and its timing is contributed to by the fact that we have not had a parallel statement on Scotland, despite the fact that, proportionately, the Scottish interest in this matter is much greater than elsewhere? Does he also agree that he has no right to speak about this as an all-British matter if

167
he is unable to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) about whether the premium within the Highlands and Islands Development Board, currently running at 58p, will be maintained? That information is crucial. Will he kindly get it?
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that his reference to the environmental benefits of reducing the headage in many LFAs is by no means undisputed? If one reduces the headage one also decreases the number of people living in many communities dependent upon sheep. There is nothing worse for the environment than for living communities to be killed.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. That is why I did not say it, did not dream of saying it and would not have said it. I said perfectly clearly that the present system has considerable environmental benefits. We fought hard to ensure that the headage limits of which the hon. Gentleman speaks were not so low as to have the effects that he feared. Because we fought it, the figure rose to 1·4 rather than the much lower one that we had before. I went on to say that I hoped that under our new freedom we would be able to make those payments even more environmentally beneficial. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would support me in that.
This is a United Kingdom statement because the changes I mentioned cover the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State for Scotland was here to listen to the statement. I promise the hon. Gentleman that the points he made have been taken into account, and changes commensurate with them are being made by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Paul Marland: I extend a warm welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement. The increase in payments for hardy ewes has two benefits. First, as other Members have said, it will help to ensure a better standard of living for those who live in the hills. Secondly, it will ensure the foundation stock, for which many hardy ewes are used. They are the pure breeds from which commercial herds are developed. For both those reasons, I welcome the first part of the statement.
With regard to the second part of the statement, I am glad that my right hon. Friend will stand against the flock limitation sizes imposed by the Community. I hope that that will be a forerunner and that he will persuade the Treasury to open its purse, be more generous and maintain the payments for all the flocks of this country's farmers.
Mr. Gummer: We are committed to ensuring that when the decisions are made next year they will be made on the basis of the economic position affecting the less-favoured areas and the farmers who receive those payments rather than the impact of the changes in the European Community. Therefore, we make the decision and nobody else.
As for the stock position of the hardy ewes, my hon. Friend is perfectly right: the rest of Britain depends considerably on the quality of stock produced in the upland areas. I pay considerable tribute to those farmers who work in extremely difficult conditions to keep the countryside as we would want it and produce the food that we need.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Why has it taken so long—since last October—for the
168
Government to come forward with this paltry increase which will be greeted with dismay in hill farming communities in Scotland? Can the Minister confirm that the increase of £5 million—from £120 million to £125 million—is an increase of 4 per cent. in public expenditure? That must be a cut in real terms in the livelihood of the hill farmers because of the increasing costs that they face. Will he also confirm that he had it within his power to increase the ceiling from £6·75 to £10 per head? Hill farmers will see this statement as demonstrating only a lukewarm commitment to the continuation of the vital HLCA system of support which provides such an important livelihood to the farming community in Scotland.
Mr. Gummer: That is not the view of the hill farming constituencies. I am sorry that, although the hon. Gentleman has sat through our discussion, he has not appreciated the points that I made.
The reason that the statement could not be made earlier was simply that the Common Market had not made a decision about the HLCAs. I said that I would not make any decison about the British position until I knew what would happen in Britain this year. That was because I needed to fight the European Community's proposition that its new proposals would come into operation this year. I managed to succeed in pushing them off so that they did not come into operation until next year. I then started the negotiations and discussions to prepare for a figure for this year. It took us less time to produce the figures from the starting date than it normally does.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow questions to continue for a further five minutes. [Interruption.] Order. It is my usual practice to ensure that Back-Bench Members have twice as much time as the Front-Bench spokesmen.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be usual, after 40 minutes on a statement, for you to remind the House that today is an Opposition day?
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for the statement. I do not make such decisions. I always endeavour to give Back-Bench Members twice as much time as the Front-Bench spokesmen on important statements.
Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Points of order take up time, and I shall have to make allowances for that.
Mr. Allen: Is it not a fact that, since live television coverage finished at 4 pm, these proceedings can be wound up quickly?
Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman's point of order need my immediate attention?
Mr. Skinner: Yes.
When you, Mr. Speaker, receive applications for statements from the Government and for private notice

169
questions from the Opposition, you look at them carefully. Did it cross your mind today that the Opposition's ten-minute Bill in support of the ambulance workers would have been seen on prime time television were it not for the Government's statement?
Mr. Speaker: I do not hear such arguments when Government business follows.
Mr. Alan Amos: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that to the EEC British hill farmers are the forgotten men of agriculture, despite the fact that they produce high-quality meat and look after the environment? Will he accept an invitation to visit my constituency where I can assure him that he will receive every possible support in his continued battle against EEC discrimination against my hill farmers?
Mr. Gummer: I have been to my hon. Friend's constituency before, and I shall be happy to go again. I very much have in mind the farmers who work so diligently in his constituency when I come to fight such battles. We have done much better than people thought that we would, but we have not yet done well enough because we do not wish to have that discrimination. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is notable that the last few exchanges did not take place when the public could have seen them because they would have been ashamed of people who do not care about hill farming.
Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that hill farmers have existed recently on incomes well below those of lowland farmers? Since farmers' margins on Dartmoor have become so slender that they are invisible and they are nearly living on fresh air, will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will revise hill livestock compensatory allowances at far more regular intervals?
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased that we have made the changes that we have made today, but I cannot promise to review the allowances more regularly. However, when we review them next we shall do so on the basis of the figures from our own industry and not take into account automatically the changes in FEOGA funding, which would have meant a great deal of discrimination against British farmers.
Mr. David Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the importance of this matter to all those concerned about the countryside in our national parks which have just celebrated their 40th anniversary? Is he also aware that farmers in the Exmoor national park in my constituency face not only income difficulties but considerable problems caused by damage from the recent
170
storms? Will he do all that he can to diminish discrimination from the EEC in the support for United Kingdom producers?
Mr. Gummer: Non-discrimination is the fundamental right of all British farmers, because they can compete effectively on equal and fair terms, but they cannot accept a situation in which they receive less for their products than their competitors and those competitors receive support for exporting their products into our markets.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: The farmers of Derbyshire welcome the statement and I welcome the opportunity to say so. Will my right hon. Friend take on board their professional view that sheep are an important part of conservation in the upland areas and that without them there is more likely to be erosion, the growth of bracken, and other unacceptable deterioration?
Mr. Gummer: That is why I sought in my announcement today to help sheep farmers in particular.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend's announcement will be greatly welcomed. Is he aware that thousands of people throughout the country walk the uplands and enjoy the countryside? His statement referred to environmental measures to help farmers and those who use the uplands for recreation. Will he say what he has in mind?
Mr. Gummer: We shall be looking at circumstances in which overstocking has the opposite effect to that achieved by the vast majority of sheep farmers, who help the environment, to see whether there are ways in which we can prevent that overstocking.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Hill farmers in my constituency will warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I take this opportunity to ask him to consider extending the North Peak environmentally sensitive area to take in the village of Marsden in my constituency, where there is a serious problem with sheep wandering into people's gardens, and in some cases into their homes. Is he aware that provisions within the ESA would give hill farmers an incentive to take 25 per cent. of sheep off the hills during winter, which could be of significant help to the residents of Marsden village?
Mr. Gummer: Obviously there is an interrelationship between HLCA payments and environmentally sensitive areas. I shall examine the point my hon. Friend makes, hut I hope that the villagers of Marsden, like so many others in the rest of the country, will note the degree to which the Opposition do not seem to care what happens to hill farmers.

Points of Order
4.17 pm
Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a few moments, we shall be asked to consider a ten-minute Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). It is my submission that that Bill should not be proceeded with, for a number of reasons.
If you, Mr. Speaker, consult page 464 of "Erskine May", you will read that the normal rule applying to ten-minute Bills is that
"a private Member may not move for leave to bring in a Bill of which the main object is to create a charge by way of taxation or expenditure."
A footnote explains that, under a ruling made in 1985,
"Even the use of the word 'Finance' in the short title has been refused."
That ruling resulted from a decision made earlier that a ten-minute Bill could not be proceeded with because it sought to raise money.
The word "pay" in the Bill's description could be construed as a form of expenditure. My first reason for objecting to the Bill's consideration relates to its short title, which, because it refers to Ambulance Staff Pay Determination, is not permissible. Secondly, the mention of the appointment of a pay board in the Bill's description again endorses the belief that it seeks the expenditure of revenue by the creation of a pay board, and for that reason the Bill cannot be countenanced.
My third reason concerns the operation of the Bill. I refer right hon. and hon. Members to Hansard for 5 March 1929, when there was a debate on a ten-minute Bill whose subject was superannuation. A former hon. Member, a Mr. Kelly, raised that issue because in those days a civil servant who was asked to serve in one of the colonies lost his entitlement to superannuation payments during the time that he was away. Mr. Kelly sought to introduce a ten-minute Bill to correct that situation. On that occasion, Mr. Speaker listened for a few moments, and then said:
"It is the question of the exact operation of the Bill if it becomes an Act of Parliament. Probably he"—
the civil servant in question —
"would be entitled to a larger pension if the Bill passed."
Later he said:
"I could not allow a private Member to bring in a Bill which increases the charge on the Exchequer".—[Official Report, 5 March 1929; Vol. 226, c. 218.]
The Bill about which we may shortly hear would, by inference, commit the House to expenditure by setting up a pay board and, because the description of the measure refers to annual increases in ambulance staff pay, would more or less commit us to increases in staff pay. I submit, therefore, that, under the precedent which I have cited, the Bill cannot be proceeded with.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker:Order. An important matter has been raised with me—[Interruption.]—and I trust that hon. Members will allow me to deal with it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) for having given me notice of his intention to raise it because that has enabled me to look up the precedents, as he has done.
172
I am satisfied that the main purpose of the Bill about which we are to hear is the appointment of a board. However, the hon. Member is correct in saying that, if leave is given for the introduction of the proposed Bill, its text should not have as its main object the creation of a charge. The Public Bill Office may be relied on to ensure that that will not be the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "On a point of order."] Order. I cannot see how there can be anything further to that point of order, with which I have dealt.
Mr. Tony Marlow:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After most of us have left the House and have been long forgotten—that is, if any of us have been noticed in the meantime—[Interruption.] You, Mr. Speaker, will be remembered. I am not seeking to ingratiate myself. I am not an ingratiating sort of person. You will be remembered, Mr. Speaker, as the Back-Benchers' Speaker, the tribune of the Back Bencher. You will also rightly be remembered for being concerned about the dignity of the House. Governments and Oppositions are powerful machines, but from time to time they are a little clumsy and allow issues to pass by. On such occasions, it is the Back Bencher who can sometimes have the opportunity to bring forward vital issues. One need only mention——
Mr. Speaker:Order. What is the issue that the hon. Member is raising?
Mr. Marlow:The issue before us is the question of the ten-minute rule Bill, the jewel in the crown of the Back Bencher's armoury. For most of the time, life for a Back Bencher is splendid, but is dependent on chance, others and the ballot. The ten-minute Bill allows the humble Back Bencher who is persistent the opportunity in prime time to bring an important measure before the House of Commons. That right has traditionally been reserved for the Back Bencher. An arduous process is involved ——
Mr. Speaker:Order. If the hon. Member is seeking to allege that members of the Opposition are not Back Benchers, that is not correct.
Mr. Marlow:I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is an arduous process. The hon. Member concerned must go to an office, a garret, an attic above the Chamber and spend a sleepless night tossing and turning about among yellowing folios, concerned lest he might lose his opportunity with a ten-minute Bill and another hon. Member might—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker:Order. I do not think there is any matter of order in the point that the hon. Member is now raising. The same procedures must be carried out whether hon. Members sit on the Government or Opposition side. I think we had better get on.
Mr. Roger King:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker:Order There can be no further point of order on the issue. I have given the hon. Member a considered ruling.

Ambulance Staff Pay Determination
4.23 pm
Mr. Robin Cook:I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the appointment of a pay board to supervise a pay mechanism for annual increases in ambulance staff pay; and for connected purposes.
This afternoon, if it chooses, the House can divide on the Bill, but the public have already given their verdict on who has won the debate on the ambulance dispute. Across Britain—in opinion polls, in petitions, in donations and in today's rallies—the public have demonstrated how they wish the House to vote. If only the majority party would listen to the public. If those taking part in today's rallies had been in eastern Europe, Conservative Members would regard them as heroes for expressing their views.
The members of the public who attended those rallies were prompted by two motives. The first was to show support for the ambulance crews on whose skills in saving lives they depend in an emergency—skills that we all saw in action only last week, when crews who had not been paid since before Christmas turned out to tend the casualties of the gale-force storms. Let me warn Conservative Members, however, that a second motive also drove so many members of the public to take part in the demonstrations: impatience with a Government who had begun the dispute too afraid to go to arbitration, and who are now too stubborn to sit around the table and negotiate with staff unless those staff surrender first.
That impatience is now mixed with incomprehension at the fact that, throughout the five months of the dispute, the Secretary of State has not once sat down with the staff side in an effort to find a solution. Today's demonstration will have been worth while if it persuades him to take 15 minutes out of his time to do that now.
The dispute is now in its 20th week. There are different ways of measuring the cost of such a prolonged dispute. There is, for instance, the cost of human suffering—the suffering of accident victims who have been left longer in pain and distress before being attended to by staff without adequate training; the suffering of elderly and infirm patients who have been denied treatment at the day care centres that they have been unable to reach since September. It does not help those people for us to argue about who is to blame for the dispute. The only question that will help them is: who will solve the dispute?
There are, of course, other ways of measuring the cost. There is the price that has been paid in the morale of ambulance staff, who have seen their work devalued and their commitment exploited. Among the casualties of the dispute are the ambulance staff who have left the service and will not return when it is over. Among them is Malcolm Woollard, who last year received the "Ambulance Person of the Year" award.
Mr. Woollard is known to Conservative Members, because six years ago he worked for 17 hours on the shift that was called to the Grand hotel in Brighton. At the time he did not feel that his work was properly valued, because he had had the opportunity of an exchange of views with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has just addressed the Chamber at such length. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman spoke more crisply, saying to Mr. Woollard:
"At least it makes a change from standing around at the county show."
174
In the second month of the dispute, Mr. Woollard left the ambulance service for a job that pays him 50 per cent. more for working fewer hours. The longer that the dispute is allowed to continue, the greater will be the loss of skilled staff, and the lower will be the morale of those who remain.
It is also possible, however, to put a cash figure on the cost of the dispute. When we debated it three weeks ago, I put the total bill for police and Army cover at£10 million. It is now clear that my estimate was too cautious. It is evident from figures that I have since obtained that the cost of cover by the police alone now exceeds£13 million, while the bill for Army cover must now be well over£5 million. The Health Service is now paying the police and the Army£2 million a week to do a job that ambulance staff can do better. There is a cruel irony in that figure:£2 million is exactly 1 per cent. of the total ambulance pay bill.
Mr. Roger King:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker:Order. Nothing out of order has occurred.
Mr. King:A speech on a ten-minute Bill is supposed to describe the workings of the Bill, not a lot of emotion.
Mr. Speaker:Order. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is in order.
Mr. Cook:As I was saying,£2 million is exactly 1 per cent. of the total pay bill. In other words, in the time since the House last debated the dispute—three weeks ago—the Government have spent on makeshift cover as much as it would take to improve the offer by the amount that might bring back full cover. If the money to settle the dispute is there, why is it not used to settle it rather than to prolong it?
The object of the Bill is to extend to ambulance staff the same pay mechanism as is currently enjoyed by people in the other emergency services. The Secretary of State has been unable to sell to the constituents of any hon. Member the notion that ambulance staff are not entitled to the same treatment as people in the other emergency services because only one in 10 of their calls is an emergency. In the recent debate the Secretary of State, to confirm that claim, referred me to figures collected in York. I have taken his advice: I have looked up the York figures. Having done so, I have to tell the Secretary of State that those figures do not support his claim that only one in 10 of ambulance calls is an emergency. On the contrary, the figures show emergency patients, on the basis of the Secretary of State's own estimate, as representing one in five of all patients collected by the ambulance service, and, in terms of all mileage covered by the ambulance service, emergency calls take up not one in 10, or one in five, but more than one in four of all ambulance miles.
It is now clear that people in the ambulance service spend an even higher proportion of their time on emergencies than people in the other two emergency services. Therefore, there can be no reasonable grounds for denying them the same pay mechanism as is available to the people in the other two services. As someone once said,
"All three deserve to have their pay negotiations put outside the arena of industrial dispute by being given firm and automatic linkage to national price or wage rises."
That someone was, of course, the Prime Minister, on whose behalf a letter in those terms was sent to two

175
ambulance men who had written to her. She was right then to recognise the logic of their case; she is wrong today in refusing to admit that the same logic still stands.
The Bill would give effect to that commitment by the Prime Minister. It would provide the pay mechanism that we know is supported by 40 out of 45 chief ambulance officers—the same local management to which the Secretary of State keeps promising local flexibility. It would give ambulance staff a guarantee that they would receive a fair award. More important, it would give public and patients a guarantee that this vital emergency service need never again be disrupted by dispute.
Today, the voice of the ambulance staff has been heard in rallies in every major town. That voice cannot be heard in this Chamber, so I shall let it speak for itself in the words of an ambulance man from Cheshire who wrote to me to describe the emergency work that deserves this pay mechanism. He said:
"I have been assaulted, more than once, but once sufficiently to be paid a sum of Criminal Injuries Compensation; I have disarmed a youth of a razor blade with which he had slashed himself and his girl-friend; I have made my way across roofs in pouring rain to reach an injured person; … I watched a baby burn to death in a motorway crash and still had to go on functioning to tend the other injured, including the mother.
I don't care whether you think my job is dangerous. I only think it is important and valuable to the community, and I will go on doing it whether they give me 11·4 per cent. or 6-5 per cent. or nothing at all."
That ambulance man does not deserve nothing at all; that ambulance man deserves a just settlement and a fair pay mechanism. On this day when the public have demonstrated their support for the ambulance men's claim, I challenge Conservative Members if they dare to mark it by voting down a Bill that would provide a just settlement.
4.34 pm
Sir George Young rose——
Mr. Speaker:Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?
Sir George Young:Mr. Speaker——
Hon. Members:Shame.
Mr. Speaker:Order. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was heard in silence.
Sir George Young:All Members of the House will want this industrial dispute brought to an early close. All Members have elderly or ill constituents who have been affected by the disruption over the past 20 weeks. Many of us are worried about the impact of the dispute on the volunteers who are trying to keep the service going and we are worried about the impact of the dispute on the families of the ambulance staff.
There is another matter on which I hope that we are all agreed. I should like to place on record my appreciation for the skills, courage and commitment of the ambulance men. That is not in dispute this afternoon. What is in dispute is the best way of recognising those qualities, which are shared by others in the NHS who work shoulder to shoulder with the ambulance men and who also display skills, courage and commitment. The solutions that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has put forward
176
to the House will not heal the divisions in the NHS as he suggests that they would. They will simply sow new divisions in the NHS to replace any that he may have resolved.
The Opposition have repeatedly maintained that industrial disputes are best settled by employers and unions sitting around a table. They have often maintained that Parliament has no useful role to play by passing legislation. Today they have stood on their head—they now think that legislation will resolve the industrial dispute. It is wrong to raise the hopes of the ambulance men and their families, the ill and the general public by implying that the Bill holds the key to peace in the NHS.
Let me explain why. Pay review boards, as proposed by the hon. Member for Livingston, have been set up to settle the pay and conditions of professional staff who, first and foremost, have pledged renunciation of industrial action. That is why the Government gave the nurses a pay review board—something denied to them by the Labour party. In the dispute, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees —the unions representing the staff—have never suggested that they are prepared to forgo industrial action. They have not put that on the table because they cannot deliver it. Given the history of industrial disputes in which those two unions have been involved—in 1978–79, 1982–83, 1988 and the current year—it would be naive to believe that those two unions would ever forgo the strike weapon. Therefore, the first condition for a pay review board is not met. There is no equity in offering 22,000 people who have chosen to take industrial action arrangements that are confined to groups that do not strike.
The message that the House should send out today is that those who are involved in the dispute should return to the negotiating table. As we heard during Question Time, 84 per cent. of NHS staff settled their pay last year without recourse to industrial action—840,000 workers settled at less than 7 per cent. and 500,000 nurses received a 6.8 per cent. increase. Against that background, how does one begin to justify substantially higher pay rises for another group in the NHS? The offer on the table already gives salary increases of between 9 and 16 per cent. over the next 18 months, depending on location and on the extent of paramedical training. By the end of last month, the back pay available to those in dispute already totalled between£680 and£1,450. In London, the new rates offer between 10·9 and 16·3 per cent. and increases of 22 per cent. in overtime rates. In addition to those increases, there are, on the table, flexible local arrangements to help recruitment and to reward local productivity and other service improvements as well as a joint review of the 1986 salaries structure and a national framework for staff with intermediate medical skills.
With that on the table, and against the background of the settlements that I listed, I see nothing dishonourable in the unions saying, "Yes, we would like to return to the negotiating table. We would like to talk in particular about local bargaining"—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker:Order. I ask hon. Members to stop the running commentary.
Sir George Young: I see nothing dishonourable in the unions saying that, and that they are interested especially in talking about local bargaining, which gives the

177
opportunity for yet higher offers. That is the way forward, unlike this exercise in political opportunism, which seeks to raise the temperature when it should be lowered.
The Labour party never offered arbitration to NHS workers in dispute. It never offered a pay mechanism for ambulance staff. It did not even pay the ambulance staff as well as they are paid now, even before the present offer. For those reasons, I urge the House to oppose 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 187, Noes 268.

Division No. 55]

[4.39 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Fisher, Mark

Allen, Graham

Flannery, Martin

Alton, David

Flynn, Paul

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Armstrong, Hilary

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Foster, Derek

Ashton, Joe

Foulkes, George

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Fraser, John

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Fyfe, Maria

Barron, Kevin

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Beggs, Roy

George, Bruce

Beith, A. J.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bell, Stuart

Gould, Bryan

Bidwell, Sydney

Graham, Thomas

Blair, Tony

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Blunkett, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Boateng, Paul

Harman, Ms Harriet

Boyes, Roland

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bradley, Keith

Haynes, Frank

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Heffer, Eric S.

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Henderson, Doug

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hinchliffe, David

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Buchan, Norman

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Caborn, Richard

Home Robertson, John

Callaghan, Jim

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Howells, Geraint

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hoyle, Doug

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cartwright, John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hume, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Illsley, Eric

Clay, Bob

Ingram, Adam

Clelland, David

Janner, Greville

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cohen, Harry

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys MÔn)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Corbett, Robin

Kennedy, Charles

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kilfedder, James

Cousins, Jim

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Crowther, Stan

Kirkwood, Archy

Cryer, Bob

Lamond, James

Cummings, John

Leadbitter, Ted

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cunningham, Dr John

Litherland, Robert

Dalyell, Tam

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Darling, Alistair

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Loyden, Eddie

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

McCartney,Ian

Dewar, Donald

McFall, John

Dixon, Don

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Dobson, Frank

McLeish, Henry

Doran, Frank

Maclennan, Robert

Duffy, A. E. P.

McNamara, Kevin

Dunnachie, Jimmy

McWilliam, John

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Madden, Max

Eastham, Ken

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Marek, Dr John

Fatchett, Derek

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Fearn, Ronald

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

178

Maxton, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Meacher, Michael

Short, Clare

Meale, Alan

Sillars, Jim

Michael, Alun

Skinner, Dennis

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

Morgan, Rhodri

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

Morley, Elliot

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Snape, Peter

Mowlam, Marjorie

Soley, Clive

Mudd, David

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Mullin, Chris

Stott, Roger

Murphy, Paul

Strang, Gavin

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Straw, Jack

O'Brien, William

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

O'Neill, Martin

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

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Turner, Dennis

Patchett, Terry

Vaz, Keith

Pendry, Tom

Wallace, James

Pike, Peter L.

Walley, Joan

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wareing, Robert N.

Prescott, John

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Primarolo, Dawn

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Randall, Stuart

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Wilson, Brian

Richardson, Jo

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Rogers, Allan

Worthington, Tony

Rooker, Jeff

Ruddock, Joan

Sedgemore, Brian

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sheerman, Barry

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mr. David Winnick.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Alexander, Richard

Carrington, Matthew

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Chope, Christopher

Amess, David

Churchill, Mr

Amos, Alan

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Arbuthnot, James

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Colvin, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Conway, Derek

Atkins, Robert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Couchman, James

Baldry, Tony

Cran, James

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Critchley, Julian

Batiste, Spencer

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Curry, David

Bellingham, Henry

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

Benyon, W.

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Day, Stephen

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dicks, Terry

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Dorrell, Stephen

Body, Sir Richard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Dunn, Bob

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Durant, Tony

Boswell, Tim

Eggar, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Emery, Sir Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Evans, David (Welwyn hatf'd)

Bowis, John

Evennett, David

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Fallon, Michael

Bright, Graham

Fishburn, John Dudley

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fookes, Dame Janet

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

Forman, Nigel

Browne, John (Winchester)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Forth, Eric

Buck, Sir Antony

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Budgen, Nicholas

Fox, Sir Marcus

Burns, Simon

Franks, Cecil

Burt, Alistair

Freeman, Roger

Butcher, John

French, Douglas

Butler, Chris

Gale, Roger

Butterfill, John

Gardiner, George

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

179

Gill, Christopher

Mills, Iain

Goodlad, Alastair

Miscampbell, Norman

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Monro, Sir Hector

Gow, Ian

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Moss, Malcolm

Gregory, Conal

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Grist, Ian

Neubert, Michael

Ground, Patrick

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Grylls, Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hague, William

Norris, Steve

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hanley, Jeremy

Page, Richard

Hannam, John

Paice, James

Harris, David

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Haselhurst, Alan

Patnick, Irvine

Hawkins, Christopher

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Hayward, Robert

Patten, Rt Hon John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Pawsey, James

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hind, Kenneth

Portillo, Michael

Holt, Richard

Powell, William (Corby)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Redwood, John

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Rhodes James, Robert

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Riddick, Graham

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Hunter, Andrew

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Irvine, Michael

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Irving, Sir Charles

Rost, Peter

Jack, Michael

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Jackson, Robert

Ryder, Richard

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Sayeed, Jonathan

Key, Robert

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knox, David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shersby, Michael

Latham, Michael

Sims, Roger

Lee, John (Pendle)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lightbown, David

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lilley, Peter

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Squire, Robin

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Stern, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stevens, Lewis

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Maclean, David

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sumberg, David

Madel, David

Summerson, Hugo

Major, Rt Hon John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Marland, Paul

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marlow, Tony

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thorne, Neil

Mates, Michael

Thornton, Malcolm

Maude, Hon Francis

Thurnham, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Tracey, Richard

Mellor, David

Tredinnick, David

Miller, Sir Hal

Trippier, David

180

Trotter, Neville

Wells, Bowen

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wheeler, Sir John

Viggers, Peter

Widdecombe, Ann

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Wiggin, Jerry

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Wilshire, David

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Wood, Timothy

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Yeo, Tim

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Waller, Gary

Walters, Sir Dennis

Tellers for the Noes:

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Mr.Nicholas Bennett and

Watts, John

Mr. Tim Devlin.

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Against the background of which you are aware, may I ask whether there has been any request from the Department of Energy to explain the eyebrow-raising matter of the sponsorship of a senior civil servant, Mr. Bernard Ingham, in very extraordinary circumstances by British Nuclear Fuels, in the light of the answer that was given yesterday?
Mr. Speaker:The hon. Gentleman raised that matter yesterday and I did look into it. I understand that he has received a letter from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the title of today's ten-minute Bill. You will note that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) asked leave to bring in a Bill specifically
"for the appointment of a pay board to supervise a pay mechanism for annual increases in ambulance staff pay".
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, first, to "Erskine May", page 464—
Mr. Speaker:Order. Is this not a re-run of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has already said? I have ruled about that.
Mr. Brown: My point of order has nothing whatever to do with that raised by my hon. Friend. My point of order relates to something that occurred during the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston, which happens, by coincidence, to appear on the same page, page 464.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that "Erskine May" states, in the third paragraph on that page,
"After a brief explanatory statement of the objects of the bill"—
and then there is a footnote, No. 5, which reads:
"The mover should explain what the bill will do".
There is then a further reference to a House of Commons debate in 1987. You gave the following ruling after the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) had presented the National Health Service (Provision of Services) Bill:
"in making an application to bring in a Bill, it is necessary to describe what the Bill contains."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1112.]
1 draw your attention again, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there were no details in the hon. Gentleman's application as to how the pay board was to be constituted, how it was to be supervised, who was to appoint it and to whom it should be accountable. I submit that that was a gross abuse of the procedure for presenting a ten-minute Bill.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened with care to what the hon. Member said and I gave a considered ruling, as I had had notice of his hon. Friend's point of order. I have

181
nothing further to add to that. In any event, the matter is now irrelevant, because leave has not been given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. Graham Riddick.: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you assure me that if I queue up for hours and hours to get the right to present a ten-minute Bill, it will not then be hijacked by a Cabinet Minister and presented by that Minister?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that it will not be. I shall be on the hon. Gentleman's side.
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to look at what happened during the ten-minute Bill, particularly the raising of a point of order in the middle of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)? It is a new development, as far as I am aware, for points of order to be allowed in the middle of a speech on a ten-minute Bill. It was not a genuine point of order; it was done because the points being made by my hon. Friend were effective and not liked by Conservative Members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes time out of the Opposition's debate.
When a point of order is raised, it is necessary that the Chair hears what it is. If it needs immediate attention, the occupant of the Chair must deal with it. That was not so today and I ruled it out of order.
Mr. Tony Marlow:On a mercifully brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that there is something undignified about somebody with the awesome responsibilities of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) having to spend the night tossing and turning in the Public Bill Office. My point, which you may want to discuss through the usual channels, is that Standing Order No. 19 says that you have the power to permit, if you think fit, a brief explanatory statement from an hon. Member who makes an application to bring in a ten-minute Bill. May I put it to you, as the Back Benchers' tribune and on behalf of all Back Benchers, that in future you use your discretion only when it is a Back Bencher, and not a Front Bencher, who is trying to use this great privilege of the House?
Mr. Speaker: The limit for a ten-minute Bill is 10 minutes.

Orders of the Day
  OPPOSITION DAY
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

  Poverty
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  As we have had a late start on this motion, I appeal to the House for brief speeches from the Front and the Back Benches.
  4.57 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher:I beg to move, That this House, noting that there are now some 3 million more people forced to live on or below the poverty line than in 1979, noting that total tax cuts over the last decade have been more than paid for by benefit cuts in excess of 20 billion pounds imposed on those on lowest incomes, especially pensioners, and noting that the Government's deliberate increase in inequality has not promoted economic efficiency but trapped millions of low-income individuals deeper in poverty, calls upon the Government to provide incentives for all to achieve pathways out of poverty and to gain the fair share in rising living standards that is offered elsewhere in Europe.
  It would be easy to make the case that the number of people forced to live in poverty on supplementary benefit —now income support—has risen by over 50 per cent. in the last decade to more than 9 million people today, and that there are now some 2·5 million people living below the level of income that Parliament has laid down as the minimum on which anyone should live.
  It would be easy to make the case that the worst-off in our society have seen their living standards fall sharply over this decade by comparison with those in work. It would be easy to make the case, too, not only that the rich have been made richer by this Government but that it has been done by making the poor much poorer. The savings that the Government have made at the expense of pensioners by cutting them out of rising living standards —savings to the Government, but cuts, of course, to pensioners—which over the decade now amount to over£20 billion, more than cover the total cost of all the Government's tax cuts since 1979.
  It would be easy to make that case, because it is all true and widely known to be true. That is precisely why I shall not rehearse it in detail. Instead, I intend to take the Government's own declared philosophy in its own right, and to assess that against reality, as far as possible through the eyes of those at whom it is directed. On that basis I shall then press three serious charges of which, even in their own terms, the Government are guilty.
  The Prime Minister's view on all this is clear and unequivocal. She told the House——this almost takes one's breath away but these are her words:
  "people who are living in need are fully and properly provided for."—[Official Report, 22 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 5611 Let us test that against the facts. The report of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, published this month, on social fund applicants includes this example:
  "Young man, tetraplegic, rehoused in flat following a year in hospital and two and a half years in residential care.

  183
  Refused grant for fridge to reduce need to shop, because there was no indication that 'without a grant you would have to enter residential institutional care'."
  I shall give one more example from another NACAB report published three months ago:
  "A CAB in Yorks/Humberside reported a client who first contacted them seven days after his bridging allowance had run out. He had an offer of a job, but it was not due to start for a week and would then be paid a week in arrears. By the time he was paid, he would have been three weeks with no money. DSS refused a crisis loan and told him to go to a soup kitchen. He was unable to take the job due to his deteriorating physical state and revisited the CAB a couple of weeks later. By this time he was starving, physically weak and unable to keep down a hot drink. The client's mother is dead and his father is terminally ill."
  So he had no one to turn to but the DSS, and the DSS turned him away.
  The Prime Minister's belligerent pretentions brook no doubts. In her letter just before Christmas chastising church leaders for attacking the Government's record on poverty—which I note they did effectively again yesterday —she went even further:
  "Over the last decade living standards have increased at all points of income distribution—and that includes the poorest."
  If that is so, one wonders how she knows, since her own Government have suppressed all the relevant evidence. They have abolished the Royal Commission on income and wealth, curtailed the general household survey, abolished the Supplementary Benefits Commission which regularly published relevant information, made more changes in unemployment statistics than there are holes in a colander, removed from "Social Trends" the material on the link between unemployment and ill health, and blocked the publication of the Black report on health and social class.
  How then does the Prime Minister know? We could do with a little glasnost, since the political concealment of the truth is highly reminiscent of pre-Gorbachev Soviet censorship. There can be no better indicator of official shamefacedness. Is that the reason why we have had no official statistics on low-income families for the last five years?
  Mr. Harry Barnes:My hon. Friend has given two examples. May I give another example from my constituency? I have a constituent called Melvin Wall who two years ago had his toes removed. He received mobility allowance. Later, one leg was removed below the knee. Then the other leg was removed below the knee. His mobility allowance was stopped after only two years. The junior Minister has the case in his in-tray, and we may get a response at some stage. What happens is that occasionally there is a trawl to try to remove people from the payments system. Obviously Melvin Wall was caught up in that.
  Mr. Meacher:It is a pity that the Prime Minister is not here, because it would be nice to know how she thinks that that person who is in need is fully and effectively provided for. My hon. Friend has illustrated one case from thousands around the country which show the complete indifference and lack of concern about need in Britain today.
  What we know shows that the Prime Minister is downright wrong. The latest information from official
  184
  sources shows that the number of people below pension age living on or below the supplementary benefit level more than doubled, to 6·5 million, between 1979 and 1985. The Government's explanation is that the rise in the real value of supplementary benefit, which was about I per cent., accounted for half the huge increase. That gives the whole game away. Even if we accept the Government's explanation, which I do not, the fact remains that the other half of the increase, nearly 2 million, is implicitly admitted by the Government to be due to a rise in absolute poverty.
  My real charge against the Government is not merely that there has unquestionably been a substantial increase in poverty in the 1980s, but that the Government's policy for redressing poverty is completely discredited. The Government claimed that, if entrepreneurs were motivated with big incentives, the trickle-down effect would ensure that some of the gains went to low-income families. What the Government never admitted was that the big incentives were to be paid for by squeezing the very people on low incomes who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of the policy. Indeed, the Government have done what no other Government, even previous Tory Governments, ever did before: they have pushed whole groups of people below a poverty line which was always accepted by all previous Governments as the minimum for healthy physical survival.
  People who get loans from the social fund are forced to repay them out of basic income support. Where, as in most places, the poll tax levy is higher than the Government's supposed national average, individuals on the lowest incomes will have to pay out of income support the amount by which the levy exceeds the 20 per cent. allowance. People living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation now have to pay amenity charges out of income support for facilities such as hot water or breakfast, which they often do not get.
  Let me quote just one example of the trend, which is far from untypical. A single girl, aged 17, was placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by a local authority because she was regarded as a vulnerable single person. Her basic income support was assessed at£18·72 from which£4.87 was deducted for repayment of a social fund loan. She actually received 13·85 in income support. Out of that she was required to pay£6 a week for heating, breakfast and other services, even if those were not available. Her actual living income was therefore£7·85 a week.
  My first charge is about the Prime Minister's boast, as she expressed it again in the House in 1988:
  "Everyone in the nation has benefited from the increased prosperity—everyone."—[Official Report, 17 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 801.]
  Not only is that boast completely phoney, as millions could tell her, but she has reduced even the little share that they already had. If the Prime Minister would only get out of her bullet-proof limousine and visit her subjects occasionally, if she would only take a short walk from here to cardboard city on the South Bank, or perhaps go on the Underground for a change, the truth would stare her in the face.
  Mr. Eric S. Heller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister could do nothing better than to read an excellent new report from the Church, "Living Faith in the City", which says:
  "Too much emphasis is being placed on individualism and not enough on collective obligation"?

  185
  The Prime Minister could read that report with great interest and benefit from it. It cites some statistics:
  "The official General Household Survey shows that in 1986 1 million households in Britain (5 per cent.) had a gross weekly income of£40 or less and 33/4million households (18 per cent.) had a gross weekly income of£60 or less."
  I suggest that the Prime Minister has a go at supporting a family on that sort of income.
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes an effective point. A former Conservative MP boasted that he could exist for a week on supplementary benefit, as it then was. He did so brazenly in front of the television cameras, but he could not get through to the end of the week. He was a fit young man, and people in a much frailer state of health have to endure that standard of living for months, if not years, on end.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Does my hon. Friend agree that matters can be even worse than that for an individual living on supplementary benefit? If he takes out a social fund loan, money will be taken away from him in repayments, and the poll tax may be deducted from his benefit as well. Such people will have to subsist on a pittance.
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend eloquently makes a point that I have touched on, and anticipated other questions to which I shall come.
  My second charge is that the Prime Minister has consistently talked about the incentive society with open opportunities for all, yet her policies have effectively shut out a quarter of the nation. That matters as remedying poverty is not primarily a matter of improving benefits but of giving people the chance to earn their own living. A major feature of British society today is the fast-growing number of marginalised poor people living alongside others who are increasingly affluent and consumer-orientated and unable to share in any growing prosperity. In their experience, this is not "opportunities Britain" but "obstacle course Britain".
  Lone parents, of whom there are now more than 1 million in Britain, three quarters of them previously married, illustrate that point poignantly. I shall cite one example:
  "for the past two years Mrs. Barnes has been out of work, living off the£33.28 weekly that is left in benefit after her mortgage has been paid … determined to do the best for herself"
  and her son, aged eight,
  "she has taken a job as a home help for Kent County Council, helping old people and the disabled with shopping, cleaning and cooking … As yet, she is not sure whether she will be left with more or less money out of her earnings of£2·3 per hour, once the mortgage of£171 per month is paid because Family Credit, the benefit that is supposed to make it worthwhile for the low-paid to remain in work"
  does not, of course, take account of mortgage payments.
  "Either way, it will be a matter of a few pounds which effectively means she is working for almost nothing … Money is not the fundamental problem which forces Mrs. Barnes into the underclass. It is the lack of child care after school and during school holidays which prevents her from earning"
  her living and becoming independent.
  Mrs. Barnes's case illustrates the mortgage trap, but there are two further ways in which Government policy has made it more difficult for lone parents to get work. First, there is the child care trap. While the earnings disregard was raised in 1988 from£12 to£15 a week, no account is taken of work expenses, and that effectively
  186
  traps those unable to get free child care. In addition, there is the benefits trap. Low-income families lost their entitlement to free school meals in the Fowler review, and that means that it is more difficult for lone parents, especially those with more than one school-age child, to go out to work. With sharper clawbacks, too, for the rate of loss of housing benefit, it is not surprising that fewer lone parents have a part-time job now than before the Government's social security review.
  Then there is the debt trap, in which persistent very low incomes force people into the arms of the social fund—with all the consequences to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred—or even into the hands of loan sharks. That drives people deeper into poverty and makes the recovery of economic self-reliance much more difficult.
  Many other people are discriminated against by the Government's rules. Two months ago, the Secretary of State introduced a£43-a-week means test on unemployment benefit. A part-time worker who works one day or more a week will now lose a whole week's benefit. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that that is a serious disincentive to people taking up part-time work.
  Perhaps the worst way in which the Government are blocking the way out of dependency is the double bind in which they have placed 16 to 19-year-olds over work and accommodation. In a report issued two months ago, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation cited one example from its case notes:
  "a 17-year-old girl, in care since she was four … was supposed to be repaying a social fund loan as well as a fine, but had received no benefit since she left YTS."
  She was
  "'homeless and without any income, in danger of prostitution and drug abuse, very vulnerable.' The likely outcome was `starvation and reoffending'. She had damaged a telephone to get into police cell for food and shelter."
  What is needed, and what the Labour party proposes, is a recasting of public services so that they become fully accessible as pathways out of poverty. High-quality training needs to be more widely available, particularly for women re-entering the labour market after caring for dependants, for 16 to 19-year-olds and for the long-term unemployed, if they are to gain entrance to the enterprise culture. Disabled people need improved local services, such as appropriate transport and community care, adaptation for access to buildings and skills and benefits that make part-time work worth while for the partially incapacitated.
  We would also abolish the unfair and discriminatory tax that is currently levied on the imputed value of workplace nurseries, which, despite being such a limitation, raise only about£1 million a year in revenue. We deplore and would reverse the worsening of the social wage in recent years, our poor public transport, the lack of home helps and other community services and damp and unfit housing—all of which not only lower the quality of life but stifle initiatives to gain and hold employment. Only then will we begin to transform excluded Britain into an enabling society.
  My third charge against the Prime Minister is that she is letting this country fall further and further behind Europe, in basic social rights as in so many other ways. I am well aware that there is rather a sterile debate about whether poverty is absolute or relative, but there can be no argument about the need for us to achieve, if not exceed,

  187
  common standards in Europe, and it is undeniable that in the 1980s our record became much worse in comparison with that of the rest of Europe.
  Take pensions. The latest figures from Eurolink Age suggest that, relative to earnings—and that is the right comparison—the basic state pension is only half that of other major EEC countries. On average, a single person in Britain now receives a pension that represents only 46 per cent. of his previous net earnings. A person in an equivalent position in Italy gets a pension that is 81 per cent. of his previous net earnings. In Germany the figure is 82 per cent., in France it is 92 per cent., and in the Netherlands it is 93 per cent.
  Mr. Tim Devlin:Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: Of course it is true—
  Mr. Devlin rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I may be anticipating what the hon. Gentleman is about to say, but perhaps he will just let me make this point.
  Of course, it is true that many pensioners in Britain have an occupational pension also, but it is equally true that for many people that pension is very small. The basic pension represents the safety net provision for older people throughout Europe, and Britain's low level of provision really does matter because we have the third largest number of elderly people in the EEC and one of the largest populations of old elderly, many of whom have no extra pension.
  Mr. Devlin:I was interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about comparisons with pensions in Europe, because my constituents raise that point with me all the time. However, I wonder how the hon. Gentleman responds to this point. Britain is the only country in the European Community that offers all its pensioners a guaranteed state minimum pension. It is also the only country that gives all women a pension, regardless of whether they have worked. It is all very well to say that pensioners in France receive 80 per cent. of their previous net earnings, but that means that some people have extremely low incomes because, not having earned a great deal during their lives, they do not get a great deal of pension.
  Mr. Meacher:The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which is a surprising one to come from a Conservative Member. The guaranteed state minimum pension was, of course, put in place by the Labour Government in the 1970s. I remind him that not only SERPS, which is excellent and which I am convinced is the best pension scheme available as a top-up to the basic pension, but our guaranteed minimum pension for occupational pensions is underwritten by the state. It was a Labour Government who did that, and since 1979 the Conservative Government have been doing their best to unravel it. It was a Labour Government who ensured that women would be able to receive a full-rate SERPS pension on the basis of 20 years' work, so that women who had brought up a family and could work for only 20 years would not be disadvantaged in any way.
  188
  I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that those are very real advantages, but I should like him to address his remarks to his right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, who have been doing their best to undermine that part of their inheritance from the previous Labour Government.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I thought that that might bring the right hon. Gentleman to his feet.
  Mr. Newton: Only briefly, to observe as mildly as I can that I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has addressed the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) put to him, which was that, against the comparisons that the hon. Gentleman has sought to make with Europe, people in Europe who are low paid almost certainly do less well than their counterparts here, and married women in Europe, not being entitled to a pension on their husband's contributions as they are here, may well end up without any pension. The hon. Gentleman should take those points into account in his comparisons.
  Mr. Meacher: I am the first to admit that it is difficult to make comparisons with Europe, not only on pensions, but on other aspects of social welfare, and any comparison must be significantly qualified. However, as the right hon. Gentleman regularly talks about "the average" in our debates—indeed, that is probably the fairest way of making comparisons—I remind him that I had been considering the pension that is available to a person on average earnings, and that that consideration leads to the picture that I presented.
  Mr. Devlin rose—
  Mr. Meacher:No, I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own speech and I have been speaking for some time now—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman.:Giving Meacherisms.
  Mr. Meacher: Well, I shall try to draw to a close now.
  I now turn to child care provision. Family benefits for a couple with three children under 12 now amount to£21·75 per week in Britain. In France they are double that, at£43·30 per week. British families are the worst off among the major EEC industrial nations, with only Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Greece paying less in family benefits.
  I now take low wages as an example, because low pay is such a potent cause of poverty. The minimum rate set by the wages councils in Britain, which cover one tenth of the work force, is£338 per month. In Germany it is nearly double that, at£653 per month. Again, Britain is behind all the main EEC industrial nations and ranks firmly in the second league, along with Greece, Spain and Portugal.
  All those facts speak for themselves. It is clear in my mind that the Prime Minister's rooted objection to the European social charter stems much less from any belief that it will undermine economic efficiency than from her recognition that, if implemented, it would expose her deplorable and shameful social record.
  The social charter is not about a drain on market forces. It is about providing a launching pad so that people can participate in and contribute to the society around them.

  189
  It is the Prime Minister's wilful obstinacy which makes her demand compliance with the enterprise culture, and which refuses to acknowledge that her own policies block people, however willing, from participating fully in society.
  I conclude with the story of Adrian Loveless, which has already been raised with the Secretary of State in correspondence by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). Adrian Loveless is an unemployed photographer whose wife Hilary had a bit of a windfall when her ex-business partner sent her $2,000 out of the blue. A condition of the enterprise allowance scheme is that the person concerned must put up £1,000 in capital himself or herself. They therefore decided to put that money into the enterprise allowance scheme.
  To make ends meet, Adrian was told that he would receive £40 in enterprise allowance, and that he could claim family credit. He was also told that he would lose his children's entitlement to free school meals. However, he was not told that his housing benefit would also be lost or reduced because he would be claiming family credit. He applied for family credit on 7 August last year, but it was refused. Mr. Loveless appealed and a claimant adviser told him to withdrawn the appeal and to claim again. The new application was also turned down. Adrian asked for help from the social fund, but was refused because he had capital. His housing benefit was cut off because the local authority assumed that he was receiving £60 in family credit. At this stage, the free school meals were withdrawn.
  Adrian Loveless commented later:
  "Since the summer I have lived in a Catch 22 situation … My family credit was withdrawn.
  I couldn't get income support because I was working for more than 24 hours. Things were impossibly tight, but I couldn't get a crisis loan because we were not destitute.
  We have had to spend the 2,000 dollars to keep alive, so now I haven't got the money for the EAS.
  On Tuesday 17 October, all our money had gone. All we had was the child allowance. It amounted to £29 for six of us."
  So much for the Prime Minister's enterprise culture. It is because there are millions of people across the country like Adrian Loveless, who are frustrated, embittered and deprived, that we shall press our motion tonight.
  5.27 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "notes with approval the Government's plans to increase substantially spending on social security in the coming financial year bringing the total to an unprecedented £55·6 billion reflecting further growth on top of the 36 per cent. real terms increase which has taken place since 1978–79; and commends it for introducing a reformed structure of benefits enabling these massive resources to be targeted more effectively on those in need thereby ensuring that, from April this year some 1·5 million families with three million children will again have their income-related benefits increased in real terms bringing the amount of extra help provided for them to over £350 million in real terms since April 1988, for improving incentives by virtually eliminating marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent., thus ensuring that working families keep more of the money they earn, and for providing an improved, more accurate and speedier service to the public."
  I do not propose to comment on some of the anecdotal cases that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) raised. Obviously we have had difficulty with some of the cases that have been raised by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, and where it is possible to identify the cases or where we have been given identifying details, I shall, of course, look at them. I shall
  190
  specifically look at the last case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned about which he said that one of his hon. Friends has written to me. I shall make sure that that case is fully and faithfully looked into with a view to seeing whether improvements could and should be made in the working of the benefit system. I can give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking, but beyond that I am sure that he will understand that it would be wrong for me to seek to make off-the-cuff comments about individual cases.
  I had some difficulty in relating what the hon. Gentleman said about millions of people being in the position that he described to what most people would perceive as being the broad reality. I remind him that the real take-home pay of married men in this country has risen by about a third in nearly 10 years and that in the past year alone the real take-home pay of a man on average male earnings has increased by about £20 per week, including the effect of cuts in national insurance contributions. In addition, we have had the longest period of falling unemployment since the war. Employment is at the highest ever level and the work force in employment has risen for some six years and has increased by more than 2·25 million. I do not make those points simply to dismiss what the hon. Member for Oldham, West said.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we have been asked to make brief speeches, in view of the curtailment of the debate. While I do not rule out giving way, I should like to complete my point.
  I do not seek to dismiss out of hand every point that the hon. Member for Oldham, West made. He put his case in what I regard as a characteristically overheated and exaggerated way which did not give a true picture of the social and economic realities of Britain. One of the important and encouraging developments of the past 10 years, which have been marked by a rapid rise in prosperity brought about by economic growth and productivity, is that prosperity is increasingly more widespread. There is a better regional spread of prosperity. There has also been an encouraging resurgence of many inner-city areas. That was acknowledged by the church men who produced their report yesterday. All those improvements rest on a significantly better economic performance in the past decade than in the two previous decades.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Newton: I have already said that I shall be hesitant about giving way. The House knows that I usually give way readily. In these circumstances, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and then to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend add to his catalogue of ways in which we have done exceptionally well the fact that separate taxation for women, from April, will be of enormous benefit to pensioners? Women will be able to receive tax relief on their pension, which they cannot do at present.
  Mr. Newton: That is one of the many instances where changes in taxation, which the hon. Member for Oldham,

  191
  West vilifies—to use a strong word—are by no means confined to helping those whom he chooses to describe as rich.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State take his mind back to his remarks about unemployment levels? He claims that the Government have presided over the longest continuous period of falling unemployment. I remind him that 1·2 million people were unemployed in 1979, that the Government managed to increase the number of registered unemployed to 3·3 million and that, on their own adulterated figures, there are still almost 2 million unemployed. That is still far higher than when the Government came into office in 1979, and it is one of the highest figures for industrial countries in Western Europe. Is he proud of that?
  Mr. Newton: I am proud that the Government have tackled some of Britain's long-running, underlying economic problems, in particular our relatively low rates of growth of productivity and of the economy as a whole, in comparison with other countries. We have tackled those problems far more effectively than many of our predecessors. As a consequence, we probably have the best record in Europe for creating new jobs and for the number of jobs that we provide for our work force. Our improved economic performance and the wealth that it has created for the whole country has enabled us to put steadily increasing amounts into many important forms of social provision, not least social security.
  One fact that should be firmly registered in this debate is that expenditure on social security will exceed £55 billion next year. That is £1 billion a week, or more than £20 every week for every man, woman and child. It is almost £40 billion more than in 1979 and, as the public expenditure White Paper published today states, will be further increased to over £63 billion in 1992–93.
  The plans that we published in more detail today imply a growth rate in spending on social security of an average of 4 per cent. a year for the next three years over and above the assumed increase in prices. That is on top of a 36 per cent.—more than a third—increase in real terms since 1978–79. That record and those plans are not those of a Government who, as the hon. Gentleman seeks to suggest, seek to undermine the welfare state. It is the record of a Government who recognise that a growing economy is the prerequisite for improved social provision.
  Mr John Battle: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman takes a careful interest in these debates, I shall give way.
  Mr. Battle: The Secretary of State referred earlier to average wages. Does he accept that one of the primary causes of poverty in our society is low pay, often for temporary or part-time work? Many people in inner-city areas and in my constituency earn less than half of the average take-home pay of £258 a week. Why do the Government consistently refuse to accept the Council of Europe decency threshold as a means of taking people on low pay out of poverty? That would provide an accurate assessment of poverty in our society.
  Mr. Newton: I make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, any assessment would require a national minimum wage. Some people, including perhaps the hon. Gentleman, support that, but most people accept that one of the first results would be fewer jobs. That would not benefit the people that he seeks to help.
  Secondly, the problem of people who find that they would be only a little better off by working usually arises primarily, not solely, out of family responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman and, to be fair, the hon. Member for Oldham, West are rightly worried about that problem. Family responsibilities are taken into account in the social security system, particularly through family credit, but they are not taken into account in the wage system. In any society it would be difficult to achieve—this is more than a debating point—a wage system that avoided the need for the type of help that we seek to give to low-income families through family credit—
  Ms. Clare Short: What about a national minimum wage?
  Mr Newton: A national minimum wage would not overcome that problem. It is difficult to see how it could do so. If a national minimum wage were set, for example, at the level required to overcome the need for family credit—
  Mr. Meacher: No one suggests that we eliminate family credit by that means.
  Mr. Newton: Exactly. The hon. Gentleman knows that any attempt to do so would cause a dramatic rise in unemployment because it would price many people out of work.
  Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Newton: I will give way because the hon. Lady is a Front-Bench spokesman. However, I hope that you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I seek henceforth to respond to Mr. Speaker's plea for brief speeches.
  Ms. Short: How does every other country in the European Community manage to have a national minimum wage while the British economy cannot?
  Mr. Newton: It may have something to do with the fact that we have had such a successful record in generating new employment. The hon. Lady will find that we have a good record in generating new jobs and, for example, on the level of employment among married women. Another reason may be that we have not set a national minimum wage.
  I hope that I have made it clear that I do not suggest that some people do not have needs for which we wish to do more. I simply wish to bring some balance to the framework of the debate after the hon. Gentleman's speech. If I were in a more aggressive frame of mind—I rarely am—I might say that I saw little reason to accept lectures from a former social security Minister in a Government who twice failed to pay the Christmas bonus to the pensioners. [Interruption.] I appreciate that the Opposition Front-Bench team do not like being reminded of these facts, but I am entitled to point them out, as I have done on a number of occasions, and to remind the hon. Member for Oldham, West—he is always good natured when I do so—that it is not so many years since he, as a

  193
  social security Minister, was shouted down by a trade-union organised pensioners' rally when he tried to defend the Government's record.
  Mr. Meacher rose—
  Mr. Newton: I can hardly resist the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Meacher: It is pathetic that the only riposte the right hon. Gentleman can make is to draw attention to the one occasion when the Christmas bonus was not paid—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It happened twice.
  Mr. Meacher: The important consideration—and the right hon. Gentleman, given his profound knowledge of the social security system, knows this perfectly well—is the percentage real increase in pensioners' income during the lifetime of the Labour Government. The basic pension increased by 20 per cent., even after taking account of the failure to pay the two Christmas bonuses. Under the Conservative Government, the safety net provision has increased by 1 or 2 per cent. only. The basic pension provision was 10 times better under Labour.
  Mr. Newton: I am not prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures, especially as he seems unable to remember that the Government of which he was a member failed twice, not once, to pay the Christmas bonus. He also conveniently forgets the manipulation of the uprating technique in the mid-1970s. That technique took about £1 billion in today's money from pensioners.
  I am led to remind the hon. Gentleman of what must be uncomfortable and displeasing facts because of what underlay the events of that time. I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to know that he would have been unwilling to go into Government with the aim of not paying the Christmas bonus or of undertaking the various other measures adopted by the then Labour Government. We know why it happened. The Labour Government's spending ambitions and promises so far outran the capacity of the economy to produce the necessary resources that the International Monetary Fund stepped in. In effect, it told the Labour Government not to pay the Christmas bonus and to get on with cutting expenditure in various ways. Against the background of that record, it is legitimate for me to say that I am at least sceptical about the receipt of the type of lecture the hon. Gentleman sought to give us this afternoon.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West is aware—he has not sought to dispute the fact seriously—that we have faithfully adhered to our obligation and commitment to maintain the value of the retirement pension in line with the increase in prices. As I have already emphasised endlessly, we have sought successfully to pursue policies to create a stable and increasingly prosperous economic environment in which the value of pensioners' income from other sources can grow. Although the hon. Gentleman may believe that I am repeating a point he has heard before, in the context of what he said about state pensions I must remind him forcefully that of particular importance is what has happened to pensioners' incomes as a whole, from all sources. One should not focus on one particular source. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the facts as they have been adverted to in the House on a number of occasions.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: We hear about them every week.
  Mr. Newton: I make no apology for referring to them every week as the facts are good and they are too little noticed either by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen or by people elsewhere.
  Between 1979 and 1986, the average total net income of pensioners increased by 22 per cent. in real terms. The proportion of pensioners in the lowest fifth of national income distribution fell from 38 per cent. to 24 per cent. To hear the hon. Gentleman talk, one would think it had risen. The proportion of pensioners whose only income is from state benefits fell from 24 per cent. to under 20 per cent., but those pensioners whose only income is still from state benefits have enjoyed a 25 per cent. increase in their income.
  The hon. Members for Oldham, West and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) know that the critical ingredients in that improvement are—
  Ms. Short: SERPS.
  Mr. Newton: No. It is the growth in occupational pensions and, above all, the fall in the rate of inflation. That has meant that pensioners' incomes from their savings and the returns from them have doubled.
  Between 1979 and 1986, pensioners saw a 64 per cent. real increase in their incomes from savings. That compared with the position under the Labour Government when their income from savings fell by 16 per cent.
  We have always recognised that those trends that are helpful to and welcomed by pensioners as a whole do not mean that all pensioners have enjoyed the same increase. I do not seek to minimise that fact in any way. Not all pensioners have occupational pensions or savings; increasingly, younger pensioners have such savings. We have, however, concentrated additional resources on raising the income support premiums, as we did in October. We have also increased the help given through housing benefit to the older or more disabled pensioner who is less likely to have the advantage of an occupational pension or a savings income, which help so many others. In all, those measures and other improvements have led to a real increase of 22 per cent. in spending on benefits for the elderly since 1979. I do not believe that anyone can suggest other than that that represents a strong commitment to help those who need help.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West also spoke about the disabled. Since they were debated at some length in the House less than a week ago, I shall make only a brief reference to them. I must remind the House that social security expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled has virtually doubled since 1979, to a total of more than £8 billion a year. That represents a huge increase in the coverage of all the main disability benefits. In 1979, fewer than 100,000 people were in receipt of mobility allowance, but now more than 600,000 people are in receipt of it.
  Ms. Short: That is all to do with take-up. It has nothing to do with the Government.
  Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I must remind the hon. Lady of something else of which she is obviously unaware. In 1979, we inherited from the Labour Government a snail's-pace implementation of the mobility allowance. We specifically speeded up the implementation of that allowance and we have contributed to the growth in the number of those in receipt of it.
  Ms. Short: Surely the increased spending on people with disabilities is due to an enormous increase in the take-up of rights created by the Labour Government and not because of new rights created by the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Newton: No, that is not true. The hon. Lady should listen for 10 seconds instead of popping up and down constantly as I might enlighten her.
  I accept that mobility allowance was introduced by the Labour Government, but it was implemented at a slow pace and, from 1979, we accelerated its implementation. The numbers in receipt of attendance allowance have risen from about 250,000 to 800,000 people. In the past 10 years take-up of that allowance has trebled. That benefit was not introduced by the Labour Government; it was introduced by a former right hon. Friend of mine, Lord Joseph, in the 1970s.
  Similarly, when the hon. Lady makes that point, she should remember that invalid care allowance—which has risen in coverage from only 5,000 in 1979 to 110,000 now—was confined by the Labour Government so that married women could not have it. Its extension to married women—which has mostly caused the huge increase in coverage—was carried through and paid for by this Government. That was against a restriction specifically imposed by the previous Government.
  I am sure that the House is well aware that we have recently come forward with another wide range of plans of various kinds to improve still further benefits for disabled people, give additional help especially to those who are disabled at birth or early in life, improve the coverage of help with the costs of disability and do more to help those disabled people who can and wish to work.
  I shall touch on some of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, including low-income families with children. As the House knows, last April we used the flexibility of the new social security system to give more help to low-income families, over and above what was needed to keep pace with inflation. In October, I announced that from April 1990 we shall do so again to help the families who most need it. We shall give increases in the family premium, income support and other benefits, and a particular increase for those working families on family credit. As a result of those policies, 1·5 million families, with 3 million children—roughly a quarter of the nation's children—will have their income-related benefits increased in real terms, bringing the amount of extra help provided for them to more than £350 million in real terms since April 1988.
  Our efforts have been directed not only at improving the help that we give to those who clearly need it, but helping those who wish to reduce or end their dependence on the benefits system. The hon. Member for Oldham, West focused on this. We are tackling some of the traps and disincentives which undoubtedly exist. That has been done in a variety of ways within the basic structure—most notably in recent months by abolishing the pensioners earnings rule. The proposals which I included in my uprating statement also increase the amount of earnings that people can have without losing their invalid care allowance, increase the amount of earnings which people can have in certain circumstances—the so-called therapeutic earnings limit for those disabled people getting
  196
  invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance. They also contain measures to encourage and help disabled people seeking to take employment rehabilitation courses.
  The hon. Gentleman touched on the fact that I have proposed a substantial improvement in the earnings disregard for lone parents in respect of housing benefit. That will particularly help lone parents who are working but do not receive income support.
  Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Newton: Yes, but this will have to be the last time.
  Mr. Latham: When my right hon. talks about thresholds, will he bear in mind the capital threshold disregard? That is particularly important for pensioners with small occupational pensions who will not receive community charge rebates because of the capital figure.
  Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that the capital limits in respect of what will now be community charge rebate, but until now has been rate rebate, were improved shortly after April 1988. That was a welcome move. He may not know that we recently introduced a small improvement in the capital rules connected with people receiving help from the social fund. Both moves show our awareness of the point made by my hon. Friend.
  In the wake of all the interventions in my speech, and in the interest of keeping my speech to a manageable length, I shall briefly make two further points. I have talked about the improvements in the earnings disregard and other rules which seek to help people who wish to work within the present system. A major strategic structural improvement has been made with considerable success which is directed at that very problem—the introduction of family credit. That takes about twice as much money to 50 per cent. more families than were being helped by its predecessor.
  We also plan to build on our strategic aim of doing more to help those who would like to work with our recent proposal for a disability employment credit. We shall work that out in detail with a view to introducing it in April 1992. That is aimed at a matter that has long been the subject of discussion in British politics—the need for a partial incapacity benefit to reduce the number of disabled people who feel themselves, rightly or wrongly, trapped on benefit by the present system, but who can and would like to work, at least to some extent.
  There is an issue which has had considerable discussion both inside and outside the House in recent months which is connected with lone parents. While the sort of improvements which I have mentioned in relation to both family credit and earnings disregard can undoubtedly make a useful contribution to easing some of the difficulties, it is common ground—although the hon. Gentleman did not say a great deal about this—that we all wish significantly more to be done to collect maintenance from absent parents when it should be paid.
  At present, for only a quarter of lone parent families on income support does the absent parent pay any maintenance. That is fairly widely regarded as unfair to the taxpayer. Just as important, it is clearly unfair to the children in the family and, not least, to the lone parent because maintenance income provides a good foundation on which to build for a lone parent seeking to move from claiming benefit to work. As the House knows, we are

  197
  working towards bringing forward later this year proposals related to this matter, taking into account recent overseas experience, for example, in Australia, the United States and New Zealand, where there have been significant improvements in the way in which maintenance is both assessed and collected.
  The House will not expect me to predict now what those proposals will be but will wish me to confirm that to help us in carrying that work forward my Department, together with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the Lord Advocate's Department, has commissioned a survey from a sizeable sample of courts and local DSS offices. That will give us better information on the sums of maintenance which are awarded and collected by the courts and local offices and about the amounts of maintenance paid to those on benefit. It will also give us more information about the means of absent parents and, thus, assist us in determining what maintenance payments we can reasonably expect from a different system.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the Prime Minister's statement and what he has said today, during the past 10 years the number of people involved in collecting money from absent parents has declined dramatically? Unless those people are replaced, the chances of getting money from absent parents will be nil.
  Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend leads me to my concluding point. He may have slightly misunderstood what I sought to say. At present, there is a set of rules within the DSS for seeking to get maintenance for those on income support—which I am about to mention. They have not been as effectively used as they should have been during the past 10 years. I agree with my hon. Friend about that.
  The issue which I raised a moment or two ago, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised a week or two ago and which led me to refer to experience in other countries including Australia, New Zealand and the United States, runs wider and is not simply concerned with DSS matters. That was why our work involves the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and others.
  I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that there is clearly scope in the existing systems operated by the Department of Social Security for improving the way in which maintenance is collected. Steps have already been taken by my predecessor, as he made clear to the House a year or more ago, to improve things. Whereas in 1988–89 we recovered about £155 million from liable relatives, we are aiming in 1989–90 to increase that to £180 million, and it looks as though that aim will be achieved.
  Next year we are changing our procedures in ways which we expect to take that figure to more than £200 million, including strengthening the basis on which an absent parent's ability to pay maintenance is assessed by our local officers. The present assessment rests on leaving a margin of 25 per cent. of net earnings over and above the appropriate income support level plus full housing costs. We propose to reduce that figure to 15 per cent., although, as always in our present system, any failure to reach a reasonable agreement would mean that a final decision would depend not on the DSS but on the courts.
  The action that we are taking in that area, together with the help that I described earlier for pensioners, disabled
  198
  people and low income families with children, and our record of increased expenditure on social security which underlies what we have been able to do, show the Opposition's motion to be the nonsense that it is and which the House will judge it to be when it votes.
  6 pm
  Sir David Steel: No objective person would seek to deny the Secretary of State's description of the growing prosperity and rising living standards in Britain over the past decade, but amidst those rising standards there is, unhappily, also a rising and perhaps largely ignored level of poverty, to which public opinion and the Government should be awakened. We must at least assume that in a democracy public opinion will have some influence on Government, even though their conduct of the ambulance drivers' dispute does not give us much hope.
  Because this is an important issue, I am glad to have associated myself with a campaign which was launched just before Christmas by an interdenominational group of churches called Church Action on Poverty. In its publication it quotes the figures issued by the Government in 1985 which clearly show that some 9 million of our fellow citizens are living at or below the official supplementary benefit levels—a 50 per cent. increase since 1979.
  To a large extent, the explanation for that is the dramatic rise in unemployment that we saw in the middle of the decade, and that is also part of the explanation for the greatly increased Government expenditure on social security, a figure that the Secretary of State gave us. But those are explanations rather than excuses, and it should be a matter of concern to what is basically a prosperous country that we have that substantial level of poverty in our midst.
  Some of it is the result of direct policy changes by the Government. For example, the result of changes in the tax and benefit systems combined is that the bottom 60 per cent. of earners have had their incomes cut by £6·6 billion since 1979, while the top 10 per cent. have had an overall increase of £5·6 billion. There has been a deliberate shift in the redistribution of weekly and monthly wealth in Britain.
  Similarly, the impact of the poll tax has yet to be understood by those who represent constituencies where the poll tax has not yet come into operation. Most hon. Members I see present have not yet had experience of this, but I speak as a Scottish Member. Research undertaken by the local government information unit demonstrates that the poll tax will add to the trend that I have already described, resulting from the changes in tax and benefit policies. Of the poorest tenth, some 83 per cent. will lose out by the introduction of the poll tax compared with the old rating system, while 71 per cent. of the richest tenth will gain. That is an additional factor that is yet to have an impact on most of the United Kingdom's economy in the current year.
  There is a new level of poverty on which no one has touched and on which I do not propose to dwell—I am not sure that poverty is precisely the right word—created as a result of the Government's policy, which my party fully supported, to sell council houses. The impact of huge interest rates and mortgage increases means that many people are now struggling to pay their mortgages. The latest figure that I have shows that, in the middle of last

  199
  year, some 45,000 home buyers in Britain were more than six months in arrears with their mortgage payments. That has caused great stress to many of our fellow citizens.
  The existence of poverty on that substantial scale in Britain cannot be explained away by a mixture of bad luck and personal weakness. It is caused by the economic and political processes which direct our society. It is caused largely by Government policy and we must be concerned that a country that is capable of generating so much wealth is also capable of generating so much division between rich and poor in our society.
  About 18 months ago in Canada, I listened with interest and amusement to a lecture by the American Liberal economist, J. K. Galbraith. His description of the experience in the United States applies to Britain. He said:
  "We have had, in these last years, large reductions in the effective rates of the income tax on the very rich. And also a powerful crusade against the welfare services to the poor. The rich, it is held, need incentive to greater economic effort; the poor need release from the debilitating effect of welfare … The rich have not been working because they have too little money; the poor have not been working because they have too much."
  A great deal of that philosophy has been around in economic and political circles over the past decade. But the underclass that has been created and isolated from the rest of society by its poverty is, in the main, composed of people who do not work. A few, admittedly, may be workshy, but most cannot work because they live in the wrong areas, have no usable skills, are too old or have children or relatives for whom they have to care.
  In some of the big cities that I have visited during the past decade, which other hon. Members represent—parts of Liverpool and Birmingham—most notably the cities that have suffered major industrial decline, there are communities of mass poverty of those who do not work. There is one difference between them and the poverty that afflicted the Victorian generation: they have before them night after night the vision of the other society on their television screens. That is one reason why there is a direct correlation between the areas of deprivation and the rising crime rate, particularly the rising rate of crime against property. The contrast is obvious between their life experience and the picture that they see presented to them not only in television programmes but in the acquisitive, attractive nature of television commercials.
  Poverty is not limited to the much publicised inner cities. I congratulate the Opposition on choosing this subject for debate. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) gave one or two examples from newspaper cuttings, still valid for all that, but which enabled the Secretary of State to say that the Ministry should be sent names, details and facts. I want to give the House five snapshots of actual cases that I have dealt with in my constituency over the past two years. The first is related to the poll tax.
  A young man aged under 25, whose needs under the Government's new policy are assessed as less than those of other human beings, came to see me. He was doing something of which the Government approve—he was on a Government training scheme. His income was £44 a week and he had received a poll tax demand for £17 a month. The first thing that I did was to check with the local authority that his rebate had been properly calculated, and it had. I wrote to the Secretary of State—this is my
  200
  response to his concluding remark—asking how he expected a man on £44 a week to pay £17 a month poll tax. His reply was that the rebate was a matter for the local authority to determine. That is the truth, but it is not the whole truth. The local authority can only determine the rebate on the scales laid down by the Secretary of State's Department. I repeat the question: how can one expect a person on an income of £44 per week to pay poll tax of £17 a month?
  My second snapshot is of an elderly widow in Lauderdale on an income of £44 per week combined pension and income supplement. Because of changes to the rate rebate system the year before the introduction of poll tax, she received a rates demand for £75 on the house that she rents from her late husband's employer. She asked me how she was expected to pay that bill on her income. Again I checked that the amount being demanded of her was correct, and it was.
  The lady also showed me her bank book, with details of her life savings, saying, "You must understand that if I pay that £75 now out of those savings, and something the same next year, and then poll tax the year after that, soon I shall have nothing left to see me decently into my box". That is the reality of life for many people—not just in the inner-city areas but in small towns and villages throughout the country.
  My third snapshot concerns a single man living in Galashiels, who had been unemployed for two years. His income of £33·40 was subject to a deduction of £5 as repayment for a social fund loan. He asked me how he was expected, from an income of £28 a week, to feed and clothe himself, and to keep warm. I replied that I could not answer his question.
  My fourth snapshot is of a couple from Innerleithen, with a weekly pension of £80, who, despite both being ill and requiring medicine, were refused free prescriptions. Again, I checked that that refusal was correct. The husband wrote to me that he was informing his doctor that, when the present round of prescriptions came to an end, he was taking no more medicine because he could not afford it, and that he and his wife had the greater priority of keeping themselves warm.
  The Government's attitude to prescription, dental and eye test charges is fundamentally wrong. In response to a survey published a week or two ago showing that the number of people submitting themselves for eye tests has fallen by 36 per cent. in the nine months since charges were first introduced, the Secretary of State for Health was reported in The Daily Telegraph as saying:
  "Clearly, the market has not had time to settle, but I am sure that most people are not going to be deterred from visiting their optician because of the requirement to pay a relatively modest charge."
  That attitude is all right for a Cabinet Minister on a salary of £50,000 per year or more, because of course a charge of £10 or £12 is relatively modest to him. But it is not a modest charge to the kind of people I have been describing and who visit my constituency clinic; nor is it a modest charge if one is an ambulance driver. When the Government bandy about phrases such as "a relatively modest charge", they are being very insensitive.
  My last snapshot is of a widow in Selkirk who wrote that, because of the prospective pension increase in April, she would lose £1 of income support, which I also checked. She wrote to me that she was worried sick. I shall read a brief extract from her letter:

  201
  "I wrote to Mrs. Thatcher about two years ago about the cost of the television licence for the elderly, as there are a lot who find it very difficult. I myself have gone back to black and white. Her answer was that we could afford it quite well. I would like her to live for one year completely and utterly on the pension and have rent, poll tax, heating, etc. to pay from it. She would give up long before the year was out."
  That backs up what the hon. Member for Oldham, West said about a former Member of Parliament who attempted the same thing.
  I conclude with two suggestions. The first is a technical one. The Government ought to look at the proposal from the working party under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Baroness Seear for the integration of the tax and benefits system and for the introduction of a low-income benefit that would guarantee a minimum income regardless of the individual's circumstances, including whether or not he was in work. That solution should be carefully and immediately examined.
  My second suggestion is for a change of attitude by the Government. I have not forgotten the Prime Minister's remark:
  "No one would have remembered the good samaritan if he had only good intentions—he had money as well."
  She ignores the fact that the good samaritan had concern for the misfortune of someone from a completely different background. This country has the money, but we lack the will to change. Young people of 24 are able to leave university and immediately obtain jobs in the City at a salary of £25,000 a year. Good luck to them—but do we not have a common conscience about the less well-off? The present system has created a submerged population—an underclass living in poverty and despair. It is the responsibility of the whole of the community, and especially of this Parliament and of the present Government.
  6.15 pm
  Sir George Young: The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir. D. Steel) will forgive me if I do not pursue the moving stories that he told the House. I shall not do so, because the debate began at three minutes to 5 o'clock and must end at 7 o'clock. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sat down at 6 o'clock, with more than half the time available for the debate having been occupied by the speeches of the two Front Bench spokesmen. Allowing one quarter of an hour for wind-up speeches, seven Back Benchers are left competing for the remaining 40 minutes.
  The specific point I want to make concerns the capital cut-off for benefit eligibility, which is currently £8,000. The most difficult question for any Conservative Member to answer is why people who were prudent during their working lives and who put aside money for their retirement are effectively penalised by the social security system—whereas others who were not so prudent and enjoyed a higher standard of living during their working lives are entitled to income support, housing benefit, and other rebates.
  We try to answer that question the best way that we can, but the truth is that there is some disincentive to save and some incentive to reduce capital. That aspect was mentioned also by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) in an intervention. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the capital cut-off limit, because if it is raised it will blunt the cutting
  202
  edge of the criticisms of the system that are made repeatedly and are deeply felt by those who were prudent enough to put money aside.
  My first general point is that the nature of poverty has changed, so the way that we tackle it must change as well. In the old days, the poor were born poor, grew up poor, and died poor—and their children were poor as well.
  Ms. Short: Which days were those?
  Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Lady will remain silent.
  The general approach in those days was to raise incomes. Today, poverty is more closely related to changes in life style, retirement, widowhood, disablement, lone parenthood, AIDS, and young people leaving home. The Finer report on single-parent families and the poverty that confronts them makes it clear that poverty is simply a phase. If it is the case that poverty is linked to changes in one's life style or life cycle, it follows that one must focus measures to tackle it on the general circumstances that I have described. The benefits system must examine those life cycle changes of retirement and bereavement, and of the husband leaving the family, and try to focus help on those specific changes, rather than raise universal benefits all round—although that was the right approach to poverty when the situation was very different from that of today.
  The Government are adopting that approach by focusing extra help on the very elderly and on very poor pensioners, and by taking a more rational approach to the disabled and to lone parents. That approach, which I warmly welcome, must be pursued further when looking at the young who have left home. I hope that the Departments of Social Security and of the Environment will take a fresh look at the young homeless, who are the most blatant example of today's poor.
  My second general point is that one can plot the income changes of the typical married couple. They often start life together with two incomes, but that falls to one income when they start a family. Subsequently, when the family has grown up, it reverts to one and a half or sometimes two incomes. One can thereby plot the changes in income.
  One can also plot the changes in commitments—typically, a mortgage and the cost of bringing up children. If one plots the income flow of a family against its commitments, one finds that its income is at its lowest at the point when its commitments are at their highest. With only one wage earner, the mortgage takes a disproportionate portion of income, and there is the responsibility of child rearing.
  We should put some work into seeing whether we can rearrange the flow of income available to families in a way that more rationally matches their commitments, so that they do not find at the age of 45 or 50, when the responsibility of child rearing is over and the mortgage is paid off, that they have surplus cash which they desperately needed when they were younger. I leave that thought with the Minister in the hope that we shall find a way round that mismatch of resources against commitments.
  Related to that is the resource that many people have when they retire—a house that is worth a substantial sum—whereas those living in it may be on low incomes. Having encouraged people to turn income into capital throughout their lives by encouraging them to purchase

  203
  homes, we should do more to encourage them to change the capital back into income when they retire, when they need the income and when it is often a waste of resources for them to pass the capital on to their children, who are often enjoying higher living standards than they are.
  We need only look at the increase in expenditure on benefits—20 per cent. more in real terms since the Conservatives came to power—the increase in the value of benefits and the number of new benefits to see that the case for resisting the Opposition's charge and supporting the Government amendment is extremely strong.
  6.21 pm
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: It is absolutely unbelievable that we should be told that poverty is the result of changed life styles or circumstances, and that it could be alleviated by helping those who have nothing to manage nothing more sensibly so that they can get out of the poverty trap.
  To suggest that that can be done demonstrates how the Government seek to put a human face on the scandal of their actions against poor and low-paid members of the community. The Guardian was right last month to say that the social fund must be regarded as the most shocking and cynical piece of so-called welfare machinery ever to have been put in place.
  The strategy of the Government is to try to make the poor vanish. The Secretary of State should be called to account for presiding over his Department at a time of moral dereliction in what is happening to our people and over what the Government claim their intentions to be. The reality of what is going on in vast numbers of people's lives is positively surreal.
  It is surreal to tell women on benefit, pensioners and single parents who are struggling to make their meagre incomes pay increased charges, such as the poll tax and rent increases, that the answer to their problem is to manage their incomes more sensibly.
  It is surreal to tell unemployed women who enter training schemes in an effort to return to the paid labour market that the money they receive by way of grant must be directly deducted from their income support. It means them struggling to make ends meet at the same time as they are trying to be trained.
  It is surreal for the Government to claim that it is right to freeze child benefit, and then to say that they are interested in the fate of women as they try to return to the paid labour market. Even those women in Avon who manage to return to work earn only 64 per cent. of the pay given to men in the same labour market.
  I will give a few examples of case work, of which there are many hundreds, because they are the sort of cases about which I frequently write to the Minister. These examples show not only how people are unable to escape poverty but how they are being drawn positively into the poverty trap by the Government's meanness.
  I cite the case of a couple who found themselves homeless and had to enter bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That cost them £112 a week. Their total income, including housing benefit, was £111. In other words, they did not have enough to pay for their bed-and-breakfast accommodation, let alone live. That is how surreal are the intentions of the Government.
  204
  Tell young people trapped in board-and-lodging accommodation how to manage on the £5 to £17 a week that they have left after they have paid their lodgings. Can the Government persuade them that their policies are designed to get them out of the poverty trap? The Government are confining them to the poverty trap.
  Imagine the plight of people who are anxious to return to work but who need clothes or equipment to enable them to enter the paid labour market. Such people are now denied grant with which to buy specialist clothing or equipment. The Government do not understand what the poverty trap is about.
  I invite the Government to explain their policies to a constituent of mine whose wife is suffering from Huntington's chorea. He gave up work to look after her some years ago. Her condition has deteriorated to such an extent that she has had to be admitted to a specialist private nursing home. No other nursing home would accept her. The cost of that nursing is £320 a week. The total amount that that family can claim from the Government is £275 a week, so there is a difference of £45 which that unemployed family must find each week. That husband and his 13-year-old daughter are trapped in a vicious poverty cycle. Would the Government tell them that they are being extravagant in their budgeting?
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: I have drawn the attention of the Minister to the plight of a constituent of mine, although I understand that there has been a change in the circumstances of the case since I raised the matter with him.
  My constituent removed from institutional care his severely handicapped adult brother, having decided to look after him personally. I accept that he had no legal responsibility to do that. He did it out of love and family loyalty, thereby saving the state a great deal of money. He is given by the grateful state an income of £34·90. The severely handicapped brother is dependent entirely on benefit. Between them they have an income of about £100 a week.
  Would the Minister care for a severely mentally handicapped brother, if he had one, for £34·90 a week? Would he be grateful if he was then told by the Governmeent, "There will be another premium of £10 a week. You are lucky to be living under a Tory Government"? I intervene to tell that story because it is the sort of case to which my hon. Friend is referring so eloquently.
  Ms. Primarolo: I entirely agree. That is yet another illustration of the fact that the Government's rhetoric is completely divorced from any understanding of what is happening in people's lives.
  A constituent has written to me complaining about the Government's strategy to help disabled people to retrain or return to full-time education. If someone is given a place on a full-time course, he is no longer regarded as ill, and therefore cannot qualify for any form of benefit. Education and training attract various kinds of maintenance funding, but that funding does not take account of the special living costs of the chronically ill and their families.
  The Government's famous report on the disabled, which has just been published, admits that the majority of disabled adults live in family units containing low earners trapped in poverty. If they have jobs, those jobs are poorly

  205
  paid. The study carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys does not make it clear whether low pay follows from disability or whether those in low-paid occupations are more likely to become disabled. The truth is probably a combination of the two: class inequality and the oppression of the poor combine to produce patterns of inequality and disadvantage. The Government are reinforcing those patterns, not challenging them, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I shall be as brief as I can, but I must say at the outset that it is entirely unfair for Opposition Members to speak for so long and to allow such long interventions from other Opposition Members who have no intention of speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get a move on."] The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) also took far too long to open the debate.
  Yesterday a report was published by the Church of England attacking what it called the "injustice of urban poverty". The report observed:
  "It is the corporate responsibility of the community to reflect the justice of God and it is the responsibility of the Church to remind the body politic of its obligation to do so, not simply in a carping, critical sense, but also in positive recognition".
  Introducing the report, Bishop Butler of Willesden said that
  "he did not believe the situation to be as grave as four years ago, when the Faith in the Cities report was published, because the problems were now high on the Government's agenda."
  That is in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph.
  I came to the House in June 1987. On 12 September 1987, the Prime Minister visited my constituency to launch the inner-city programme from Teesside: £160 million was to be invested in Teesside, and in each of the other five second-generation urban development corporations. Since then, there has been a third generation, and a crop of mini-urban development corporations has ensued.
  Most of the poverty about which Opposition Members profess to be so upset is to be found in our inner-city areas. The purpose of the inner-cities initiative was to invest in those deprived areas—such as the northern and eastern corners of my constituency, which are now covered by the Teesside development corporation. At the same time, the Government introduced major reforms in the social security system—changes in the employment benefits and regulations—and began to invest huge sums in inner-city housing.
  In today's edition of The Daily Telegraph, next to the report of the Church of England's new initiative, is an article headed "£190 million extra to rescue decaying estates". The result of those endeavours has been a significant reduction in unemployment throughout the land. In my constituency, it is down from 7,109 to 4,956, a fall of 44 per cent. Across the country, there was a fall of 25 per cent. in the inner cities last year. Government spending of £3·5 billion on the inner cities has been matched by spending of £55·6 billion on the social security budget as a whole, a real-terms increase of 36 per cent. since 1979.
  Earlier in the debate, we heard some talk from the Liberal party—the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) is not here now—about the measurement of poverty. I think that all hon. Members would find that task difficult. Certainly a
  206
  number of people—even in my constituency, in the inner part of Teesside—are, by any standards, living in poverty, and many are still living on benefits or low incomes. About one third of the population either receive income support, or have incomes only 40 per cent. above the income support rate. The problem is, however—as I would have said to the right hon. Member if he were here—that:, if that is taken as the poverty line, every time benefits are increased to combat poverty the number of people below the line increases.
  According to the Labour party, however, the measurement of poverty must be relative rather than absolute. In 1976, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), then Minister of State for Social Services, said:
  "Poverty is a relative matter, and the Government do not accept that a simple poverty line can be drawn."—[Official Report, 26 October 1976; Vol. 918, c. 255.]
  New Society also condemned the concept of absolute poverty in 1986.
  Taking the relative view of poverty, Labour politicians now claim that the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer; yet if we examine income levels, we find that in real terms they have grown at all levels. Nevertheless, let me say a word of caution to the Government. Between 1979 and 1985, the incomes of the poorest tenth of households rose by approximately 6 per cent. in real terms, and the average increase for the whole population was 9 per cent. In terms of living standards, however, the picture may be somewhat different—and here I sound a note of caution to Opposition Members before they condemn us for that earlier statistic.
  Between 1981 and 1985, the poorest 10 per cent. improved their living standards by 8·3 per cent., while the figure for the whole population was only 6·4 per cent. In the north of England, where I come from, massive strides have been made. Although income levels are generally lower than in the south-east, living standards are generally higher: 10 years ago, hardly any households possessed videos, microwave ovens or home computers, whereas today one household in five has a home computer, one in three has a microwave and half have videos. Share ownership in the region has reached 13 per cent.
  That picture of rising living standards across the board has passed a few people by. The Labour party need not crow as I acknowledge that, for I am every bit as concerned as other hon. Members to remedy the problem. People on half average earnings have experienced a significant increase in their take-home pay under the Conservative Government; under Labour, it was actually cut.
  Perhaps the solution is to integrate jobcentres with unemployment offices and to place them as near to their client population as possible; that is the solution that I propose for Thornaby, in my constituency. Certainly we can have nothing but praise for the inner-cities initiative, which is transforming our region and the rougher parts of other regions and cities.
  In my region, two issues concern me particularly: the plight of the elderly and the condition of the housing stock. As I said in an earlier intervention, I hear a good deal from pensioners about how little they have on which to live, and I have considerable sympathy for some. On average, however, pensioners' total net income grew by 23 per cent. above inflation between 1979 and 1986—twice as fast as

  207
  the growth in the incomes of the mass of the population, and by as much each year as in all five years of the last Labour Government.
  Pensioners tell me that they cannot keep up with price rises, and that I cannot tell them how well off they are. I would not pretend for a moment that they are wealthy; next April, however, the single person's pension will increase to £46·90, and the couple's pension to £75·10. Moreover, 70 per cent. of those who are now retiring have some form of occupational pension. In October, the Government announced a package of measures costing £200 million a year to give additional help to pensioners on income support and housing benefit.
  During the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, we debated very briefly the position in Europe. He conceded that his point about the better-off pensioners of Europe was not quite as well-founded as he had thought. Let me quote for his benefit the words of Dorothy Rhodes, the president of Pensioners' Voice:
  "We have talked about the percentages of pensions in Europe, and I have been one who has spoken loudly in support of parity with Europe, but during the past year I have been to Pensioners Congresses in Italy and Greece and, having spoken at length to those who actually receive the Euro pensions … and discovered that in many cases the actual cash received in relation to the cost of living is often lower than in the UK, I am revising my opinion; for in no way can our Federation ask for an equality that would disadvantage our own people."
  Of particular note is the extra carers' allowance for those looking after people who are ill and the earnings limit for those on invalid care allowance, which will be increased by 66 per cent. This, I believe, will go some way to offset the impact of what has been called the granny tax—the provision whereby no reduction in community charge is available for elderly relatives living at home. In my view, that point also needs some further attention from the Government.
  I was going to say something about housing stock in the north of England, but I shall leave that for a housing debate. What I can say is that the Opposition have sought to mislead the House, and I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.
  6.41 pm
  Ms. Clare Short: In the limited time available, it will be difficult to answer some of the grossly misleading statements that have been made by the Secretary of State and by other hon. Members speaking in support of the Government. I know that the Secretary of State is a very intelligent man, so I assume that what he did was absolutely deliberate. That makes it less honourable than the course taken by some of his hon. Friends, who read Central Office handouts and believe all the fabricated statistics that are fed out. Indeed, I have a copy of such a handout, so I recognise large parts of the speech that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has just made.
  The Secretary of State claimed that we have had unusually high economic growth under this Government. That is absolutely false. I have here a table showing economic growth since 1948—year by year, cumulatively, and in graph form. The table shows that under this Government the average economic growth has been 2·2 per cent—less than the growth under many previous
  208
  Governments. What the Government say about there having been an economic miracle is just not true. It is false, deceitful, and dishonest. These statistics from the House of Commons Library, which we all accept, show it to be so. I do not know why, in a debate on poverty, the Secretary of State should claim to have had such enormous economic growth. If he lives in our society, he must know that many people are now really struggling. Indeed, if we had had the economic miracle that the Secretary of State claims we have had, it would be even more shameful that that should be so.
  The Secretary of State went on to claim that all is well, and that the Government have been deeply generous and caring. It is not so. Our country is more deeply divided and more unequal than it has been at any time since the second world war, and the people who live in the country understand that. In response to every poll and every survey of British social attitudes, they say that Britain is now too deeply divided, that they are against that, and that they want to see the division and the inequality reversed.
  We have too many pensioners struggling to make their money last week by week. I meet many of them at my advice bureaux and as I go around Birmingham. People come up to me on the street and say, "I have managed all these years, but I am finding it really difficult now." Do the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends live in the society that we live in? Do they talk to people who have to live on state benefits? They say that twice the Labour Government failed to pay the Christmas bonus, yet they have deliberately changed the uprating of pensions so that a single pensioner gets £13 less every week, and a couple £20-odd less. Are they not ashamed to play those games? The Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself.
  This is not a game about Christmas bonuses of long ago, before people like me were elected to this House. If bonuses were cancelled, that is regrettable, but a reduction of £13 or £20 a week for people who are finding life difficult—people, indeed, who cannot manage—is an absolute outrage. But the Government did this deliberately. The funds were available, but money has been taken away from the worst-off pensioners in order to give tax cuts to the richest people. And the Secretary of State belongs to a Government who have done that deliberately.
  We have a record number of people on low pay. The Government have introduced a whole series of measures deliberately to encourage people to do low-paid work. They have even given employers subsidies conditional on wages being low. If there were more time, I could go through the list of measures. Indeed, the Government have deliberately incited low-paid work. They have pushed many citizens who want the pride and dignity of work into living in poverty and having to claim benefits. People do not like it, and it is economically inefficient. It means that we, the taxpayers—and increasingly the bulk of tax is paid by lower paid workers—are subsidising the most inefficient employers—employers who pay low wages, who do not train, who do not invest, and who have a high rate of labour turnover. It is unjust, it is unequal, it deprives people of the dignity of going to work, and it is economically inefficient. It is not the way to build a modern, high-pay, high-skill economy. It is a disaster for the lives of people, and it is a disaster for the British economy.
  We are told that, suddenly, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are concerned about lone parents. That is difficult to believe. Big poverty traps have been built for

  209
  lone parents by the cumulative effect of this Government's benefit changes. We have a higher proportion of lone parents relying on benefits than ever before. The Government have deliberately brought that about. They are eroding the value of child benefit—the one non-means-tested benefit that helps people such as lone parents to climb off benefits and into work. They are forced to rely on means-tested benefit.
  What other change have the Government made? It used to be possible for a lone parent working part time to claim benefit to top up income and to have the cost of child care taken into account—a step out of one parenthood into part-time work, hopefully enabling the parent, as the children get older, to move into full-time work and independence, and not to have to rely on benefit. But the Government have abolished that. They have made that impossible. They have created poverty traps, forcing lone parents into reliance on benefits. So I fear that all this talk of encouraging fathers to maintain their children—and, of course, I agree completely with that principle—is not about caring for those children or those families; it is about saving even more money on the benefit bill. It is as cynical as that. That is the Government's intention.
  These problems of inequality and poverty are not an accident; they are the deliberate result of Government policy. One of the major objectives of Government policy was to increase incentives. They said so very clearly. This meant that the rich could keep more of their income, and those less well off—always a contradiction that we pointed out—had to be squeezed harder, had to be given an incentive to work harder in order to become better off. The Government set about systematically changing the benefit and taxation system in order to move money from those with less to those with more. The figures are absolutely clear. I have quoted them before, but it is important to the House and to the country to base debates such as this on the truth rather than on fabricated statistics that seek deliberately to mislead. Let me quote from Hills—and I invite any hon. Member to crawl over these statistics in detail. Since 1979
  "the cuts in direct taxes have been entirely paid for by cuts in the generosity of benefits…Overall, the bottom 60 per cent. of the income distribution has lost, while the top 30 per cent.—especially the top 10 per cent.—has gained…The losses for the bottom 50 per cent. average out at nearly £8·50 per family…while the top 10 per cent. have gained nearly £40 per family. Overall, the bottom half of the population has lost £6·6 billion"—
  £6·6 billion has been deliberately taken away from them, producing the kind of poverty problems about which we have been talking.—
  "of which £5·6 billion has gone to the top 10 per cent.; indeed, £4·8 billion has gone to the top 5 per cent."
  As the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said, the poll tax will make the position much worse. The statistics will become even more gross.
  Let us not pretend that any Conservative Member thinks that any of the poverty in this country is regrettable. Britain is the 15th richest country in the world. If we want to be fair, we have the capacity to ensure that all our people are cared for and can live a decent life in a fair society. The Government have deliberately made things more unequal, taken money away from pensioners and encouraged low pay; then they have pretended that that is not so. I have no respect for that attitude.
  210
  The Government stood for monetarism, or Thatcherism, which meant increased inequality which they claimed would increase incentives, plus the mumbo-jumbo, which has been proved false, about M0, M3 and the medium-term financial strategy, which now happily has been forgotten with the resignation of the former Chancellor. The Secretary of State should be honest and speak the truth. He is part of a Government who have deliberately made many of our people much poorer and who have increased poverty to give enormous tax handouts to some of the richest people. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for that policy. The British people do not like it, and we do not like it, which is why we are increasingly confident that we will soon have a Labour Government. We will implement the policies in our policy review, creating fairness and pathways out of poverty. That will mean a better Britain and a fairer future.
  Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Tonight, 11,000 people will sleep on the streets of London in cardboard boxes around the National theatre. Is it in order for the House to confine a debate on the crisis of poverty and homelessness to rather less than two hours in order to spend three hours discussing football? I am sure that you agree, Sir, that the House should find ways to spend more time discussing the crisis of poverty rather than the issue of football which, although significant, has no importance compared with the poverty of the people of Britain.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is a matter for the House, not the Chair. I am aware that the hon. Member is one of a number of Members who hoped to speak but so far have been disappointed.
  6.52 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The subjects for debate and the time allocated to them on Opposition days are matters for the Opposition Front Bench. If the Opposition shared the view of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), they could have spent a whole day on this subject, and we would have welcomed it.
  Mr. Tony Favell: If Labour Members are so concerned, why are there only 11 Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber?
  Mr. Scott: The Labour party must answer that. Labour has ordered the priorities; we are simply responding to them.
  On Second Reading of the Social Security Bill, I said that, as society changes, social security systems must change to reflect those changes. It is no secret that we believe that, in the immediate past, today and in the future, the overall aim should be increasingly to target—I prefer the word "focus"—extra resources on those who really need the most help. To do that, we undertake a range of monitoring exercises to establish the facts, rather than listen to the type of rhetoric that we have heard from the Opposition today.
  We have monitored the system carefully and have made adjustments, as anyone who looks at it in a fair-minded way would have to recognise. We conduct research, collect statistics, analyse the cases of Members of Parliament and look at an endless flow of articles, books, programmes and

  211
  so on—and, not least, we listen to the House on this issue. [Interruption.] We fine-tune the system. We try to establish those parts of the social security system where the shoe pinches unduly and make adjustments to it. We have helped families on low incomes, whether in or out of work. We have adjusted the system to concentrate extra help on the poorest elderly and disabled pensioners. We have changed the capital limit on housing benefit. We have done a number of things because we have listened to debates in the House and evidence from outside and have been prepared to fine-tune the system.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Scott: I have had to endure an intervention on a point of order from the hon. Member for Islington, North, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Field: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Everyone is pleased at the small changes that the Government have made. The Opposition repeatedly make the case that the basic benefits are inadequate. Will the Government act on that matter?
  Mr. Scott: In real terms, benefits have been improved—perhaps just a little—under the Government. [Interruption.] All right, but benefits are certainly better than they were under the Labour Government. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, coverage has increased massively, which means that those on benefit as a whole have had a substantial increase in resources under this Government.
  We have listened carefully to the more dispassionate and constructive contributions to the debate. We will obviously weigh all the evidence and the contributions in the balance when we decide priorities. The further that those on the Opposition Front Bench get from having experienced the responsibilities of government, the more they come to fall under the magic wand syndrome—the idea that, somehow, when Labour Members return to office, they will be able to find resources to make improvements across a range of issues. Now that Labour Members are perhaps approaching the halfway mark in their period of opposition, they are even further away from reality than normal. There are no magic wands in government. Government is about priorities and hard choices. We have made those choices, and will continue to do so, based on real priorities which we have established.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asked about the publication of official statistics on living standards over the past five years and asked when we expected to publish the next edition. We will publish them in the near future, but the Social Services Select Committee has asked us to study the possibilities of considering at the same time publishing comparative data on earlier years, and we are looking into those possibilities. We certainly have no intention of delaying publication of the series on average household incomes.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West made comparisons between EC countries which were highly misleading. There are significant differences in the structures of pensions throughout the European Community, as he well knows. In theory, it may appear that other states' retirement pensions are higher than ours,
  212
  but in practice few people may qualify and many may be paid well below the standard, let alone the maximum, rates.
  A point was made in an intervention about unemployment. I rebut the idea that our performance has fallen below European standards. At 5·8 per cent. United Kingdom unemployment is well below the EC average—below the rates in France, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy—and over the past two years the unemployment rate has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other major industrial country. The largest falls in unemployment have been in the north, Wales and Scotland.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Scott: I will not give way.
  No one denies that poverty exists. It has existed under Labour and Conservative Governments. The important point is that we seek to see that poverty is alleviated to the maximum possible degree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) said, people at all income levels are far better off. By definition, there was more poverty under the last Labour Government than under the present Conservative Government. The Labour Government had a chronic inability to run a successful economy, so they were unable to fulfil their laudable objectives. The Labour party is good on rhetoric, but pretty poor on achievement. Like the late lain Macleod, I believe that a successful competitive economy is the engine of a compassionate society. More people have benefited because of our economic success.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 287.

  Divison No. 56]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cartwright, John

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Alton, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clay, Bob

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashton, Joe

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cryer, Bob

  Beggs, Roy

  Cummings, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bell, Stuart

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dalyell, Tarn

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

  Darling, Alistair

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blair, Tony

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

  Blunkett, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Boateng, Paul

  Dixon, Don

  Boyes, Roland

  Dobson, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Doran, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Douglas, Dick

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Buchan, Norman

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Caborn, Richard

  Eadie, Alexander

  Callaghan, Jim

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fearn, Ronald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  213

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

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fisher, Mark

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Flannery, Martin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flynn, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morley, Elliot

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foster, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foulkes, George

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Fraser, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Fyfe, Maria

  Murphy, Paul

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Nellist, Dave

  George, Bruce

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  O'Brien, William

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gordon, Mildred

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Graham, Thomas

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Patchett, Terry

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Prescott, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Henderson, Doug

  Randall, Stuart

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Richardson, Jo

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Home Robertson, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Howells, Geraint

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hoyle, Doug

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Illsley, Eric

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Ingram, Adam

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Janner, Greville

  Short, Clare

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Sillars, Jim

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kennedy, Charles

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

  Kilfedder, James

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

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lamond, James

  Snape, Peter

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Soley, Clive

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Litherland, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Strang, Gavin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Straw, Jack

  Loyden, Eddie

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McAllion, John

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

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McCartney, Ian

  Turner, Dennis

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Vaz, Keith

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Wallace, James

  McLeish, Henry

  Walley, Joan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  McWilliam, John

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Madden, Max

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Marek, Dr John

  Wilson, Brian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Winnick, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Worthington, Tony

  Maxton, John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Meacher, Michael

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Meale, Alan

  Michael, Alun

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeiey)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Mr. John McFall.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Ashby, David

  Amess, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Amos, Alan

  Atkins, Robert

  Arbuthnot, James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  214

  Baldry, Tony

  Freeman, Roger

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  French, Douglas

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fry, Peter

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gale, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gardiner, George

  Bendall, Vivian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gill, Christopher

  Benyon, W.

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Blackburn, Dr John Q.

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gorst, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gow, Ian

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gregory, Conal

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grist, Ian

  Bowis, John

  Ground, Patrick

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Grylls, Michael

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hannam, John

  Buck, Sir Antony

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

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Harris, David

  Burns, Simon

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Butcher, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butler, Chris

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Butterfill, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

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

  Churchill, Mr

  Howarth, G. (Cannock )B'wd)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Irvine, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jack, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jackson, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Janman, Tim

  Cran, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Critchley, Julian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Curry, David

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Key, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  King, Roger (8'ham N'thfield)

  Devlin, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dicks, Terry

  Knapman, Roger

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knox, David

  Durant, Tony

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Eggar, Tim

  Lang, Ian

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Evennett, David

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Favell, Tony

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lightbown, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lilley, Peter

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Franks, Cecil

  Maclean, David

  215

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Madel, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb)

  Mans, Keith

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Maples, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Marland, Paul

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Marlow, Tony

  Shersby, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sims, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mates, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Squire, Robin

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Mellor, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mills, lain

  Summerson, Hugo

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Thorne, Neil

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tredinnick, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Trippier, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Norris, Steve

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Walden, George

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Page, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Pawsey, James

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wilshire, David

  Portillo, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Price, Sir David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wood, Timothy

  Redwood, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Riddick, Graham

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rost, Peter

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  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. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes with approval the Government's plans to increase substantially spending on social security in the coming financial year bringing the total to an unprecedented £55·6 billion reflecting further growth on top of the 36 per cent. real terms increase which has taken place since 1978–79; and commends it for introducing a reformed structure of benefits enabling these massive resources to be targeted more effectively on those in need thereby ensuring that, from April this year some 1·5 million families with three million children will again have their income-related benefits increased in real terms bringing the amount of extra help
  216
  provided for them to over £350 million in real terms since April 1988, for improving work incentives by virtually eliminating marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent., thus ensuring that working families keep more of the money they earn, and for providing an improved, more accurate and speedier service to the public.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to raise a point of order on the five-page written answer which was given by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces today to the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall). This answer is establishing an inquiry, under Mr. Calcutt, into the reasons for the termination of the employment of Mr. Colin Wallace. In particular, the answer admits that Ministers caused inaccurate statements to be made to the House; that is to say, they misled the House.
  But the appeal is to be limited to the handling of an inquiry. Why is Mr. Colin Wallace, who is apparently now being believed on this issue, not going to be allowed to have his views expressed on other matters? We believe that this is of such importance that a five-page written answer is not satisfactory as far as the House is concerned. We therefore ask, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Leader of the House take the appropriate steps tomorrow to ensure that a statement is made, not by the Minister of State, but by the Secretary of State for Defence, about this very pressing matter, which requires the attention and scrutiny of the House as a whole.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have listened carefully to the point made by the hon. Gentleman and understand why he has raised it in this way. If I may, I will arrange for the matter to be considered through the usual channels in the light of the request that he has made; the House will be informed tomorrow in one way or another what our response is.
  Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I first welcome the positive response of the Leader of the House? To suggest that this matter be discussed through the usual channels is fine, but I want to press him a little more to say that he will ensure in one way or another that there is a full oral statement to the House of Commons about this very important matter at the earliest possible opportunity.
  Mr. Cecil Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I gave you notice earlier. It concerns a report on Independent Television News at 5·40 this afternoon concerning the debate in the House on the ten-minute Bill. Independent Television News reported the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and I have no criticism of that. It then moved to show a panned view of the House from the cameras opposite showing the Government Front Bench, with the following newscaster's comment over the view:
  "The Government did not bother to reply."
  It is the convention of the House, known to every hon. Member and equally well known to every member of the press lobby, that the Government do not speak during a ten-minute Bill.
  I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a private Member—I know that other private Members feel exactly as I do—on how I and other private Members may deal with this point. I refer you to "Erskine May", page 121, "Constructive Contempts", and will quote the relevant parts:

  217
  "Reflections on either House"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. If, as I think, he is now talking about a possible contempt of the House, or a matter of privilege, he must raise that in writing with Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Franks: Can I see your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and ask you to consider the matter? Can you advise me at this stage whether this is a fit and proper matter for private Members of the House to refer to the Select Committee on broadcasting? To my mind, and to the minds of many other Members of the House, this is a gross distortion of procedure.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has now answered his own point. If he feels that there has been a breach of the conventions, he is absolutely right to refer it to the appropriate Select Committee.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can I ask the Leader of the House to ensure not only that a statement is made but that consideration is given overnight by the Government to ensuring that the terms of reference of any inquiry are adequate to deal with what is arguably one of the most serious constitutional crises we have had in recent years? It is something that affects not just one or two individuals but a former Government, and casts a great deal of unfavourable light on an entire Government Department. For that reason, and for the sake of the standing of the House, can the Leader of the House ensure that a full and adequate statement is made explaining precisely what is intended?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the House will feel that this matter has been ventilated now and, furthermore, that the Leader of the House has given an assurance on the matter. I hope, therefore, that the House will feel that, as we are cutting into an important debate in Opposition time, we should let the matter rest there and get on with that debate.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the television broadcast at 5.40 pm, is it not the case that the Independent Broadcasting Authority has a duty to ensure that ITN has a balanced view of what happens in the House? The fact is that neither the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) nor the Division figures were given in the report. The implication was that there was no opposition to the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that that is not a matter for the Chair. If he feels that there has been a breach, it is open to him to refer the matter to the Select Committee on broadcasting.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could the letter of 30 January that I received from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on the subject of Colin Wallace be considered? Could one other matter be considered—namely, what we, as Members of Parliament on either side of the House, have to do to get things
  218
  examined properly? At unconscionable length and far too often for the patience of many of my colleagues, some of us have gone back and back and back to the issue of Colin Wallace. Now we find that a statement is made:
  "I greatly regret that the fact that relevant records were not brought to Ministers' attention has in recent years caused inaccurate statements to be made to the House and in both ministerial and official correspondence."
  After all that has been said, what about the treatment of the House of Commons?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman must use his well-known ingenuity to raise the matter.
  Mr. Tony Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to detain the House, but the issues raised go beyond a disciplinary question in the Ministry of Defence. What Colin Wallace said he did, and what he did, was to publish disinformation about Members of the House. I have in my possession leaflets published by his organisation involving certainly my right hon. Friends the Members for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), and myself. Therefore, this cannot just be a question of a Ministry of Defence disciplinary inquiry.
  If false information was authorised by the Ministry of Defence, designed to damage the reputations of people who were Members of Parliament—the fact that they were Ministers at the time is almost secondary—then, overnight, Mr. Speaker should consider the implications for the House as a whole before the statement is made, so that the interest of the House in the matter can be taken into account. The House is concerned quite as much as the Ministry of Defence, which did this man a grave injustice.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the Leader of the House, when a statement is being made, consider setting up a Select Committee on Northern Ireland so that there may be proper scrutiny in the House of the affairs of Northern Ireland? You, Sir, and hon. Members will realise now some of the difficulties that we have in scrutinising business.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope the House will feel that the matter has been ventilated. The Leader of the House has already responded. I understood the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), to accept the assurance.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: When I have called the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that we can get on with the next debate.
  Mr. Rees: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House has responded, and I hope that there will be a statement tomorrow. As I think the written answer reveals, I was consulted because I was a Minister at the time. I have no complaint about that. Certainly, as will be revealed, these things were not given ministerial approval. There are various documents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has one. I have a document from an American thanking me for donations to the Provisional IRA.
  There was a dirty tricks set-up outside what is in the parliamentary answer. I have raised this because I want the Leader of the House to know that we do not want to

  219
  consider just the Ministry of Defence aspect, which is important. There is more to the matter than that. I hope that by tomorrow afternoon he will have considered it so that we can raise all these issues and not just the narrow point.

  Football Grounds (Safety)
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
  That this House welcomes the thorough and thoughtful report made by Lord Justice Taylor into the causes of the Hillsborough disaster and regards its proposals as the basis for major improvements in the organisation of Association Football; endorses his outright rejection of the football identity card scheme and regrets the time and money which has been wasted on a scheme generally accepted as likely to increase rather than reduce the risk of disorder and injury at football grounds; and calls upon the Government to introduce the changes in the criminal law which the report recommends, to initiate discussions with football clubs and football supporters about the cost and advisability of all-seat grounds for every league club and to reduce the pools betting duty to its pre-1982 level, thereby releasing money which would be available for many of the improvements in safety and facilities in football grounds recommended by Lord Justice Taylor.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall not spend much time on the unlamented football identity card scheme. The debate is about improving safety at football grounds and the conditions in which football is watched. As Lord Justice Taylor makes clear, the identity card scheme, far from assisting to achieve those objectives, would have made football grounds more dangerous and more disorderly.
  There are only two things that need to be said by way of requiem about the identity card proposal. First, it was a diversion which delayed real progress towards improvement over two years. Second, by advocating the scheme, the Government, as well as showing how little they understood about football, demonstrated their scant concern for the people who live and work in the immediate vicinity of football grounds. We know that identity card schemes, had they even reduced hooliganism inside football grounds, which in itself is debatable, as Lord Justice Taylor said, would have made hooliganism a feature immediately outside football grounds. To compound that mistake, the Home Secretary, in a long statement yesterday, had absolutely nothing to say about safety and civil order outside and around football grounds. Yet the safety and well-being of the shops and houses in those areas should be an essential part of any new deal for football.
  Mr. John Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about shops and houses near football grounds. He seems to forget that a successful membership scheme in my constituency has resulted in peace around the football ground on Saturday afternoons. It has been welcomed by residents, shopkeepers and pub landlords in the town and has had a contrary effect to the effect about which the right hon. Gentleman is trying to mislead the House.
  Mr. Hattersley: I have heard the hon. Gentleman make that point often; but does he not know the nature of the Luton scheme, or does he choose to misinterpret it? The Luton scheme is intended to, and does, keep supporters out of the ground altogether. That was never the intention of anything that even the Government suggested. The hon.

  221
  Gentleman cannot compare the Luton scheme with any scheme which might apply to the whole Football League. He does his case no service by attempting to do so.
  Our support for the changes in the criminal law which Lord Justice Taylor recommends is based on our desire to see improvements in the conduct inside football grounds and our determination to ensure that people with shops and houses in the areas around football grounds should be able to live in peace on Saturday afternoons and Wednesday evenings. Were the Home Secretary to introduce the changes in the law which the Taylor report proposes, we would support them. We would support a more vigorous use of exclusion orders to ensure that hooligans were kept away from the game. We urge the Home Secretary to remind magistrates, who have not made use of that power as extensively as they might, that it is available to them.
  We support the extension of attendance orders, which could prevent convicted hooligans from even approaching a football ground on a Saturday afternoon, by requiring them to perform community service on match days. We urge the Home Secretary to make available sufficient attendance centres to give real force to such punishment. We support the proposal that racial and obscene chanting should become a criminal offence. We understand perfectly well, as the report makes clear, that in some circumstances such behaviour is already a prosecutable offence, but Lord Justice Taylor is right to say that making it a specific offence in and around football grounds will concentrate the minds of those who might indulge in such behavious and the minds of those who want to arrest and prosecute them.
  I hope that, when the Home Secretary has completed his passages of ritual abuse, he will make it clear whether the Government are as positive as the Opposition in their support for those Taylor proposals.
  Yesterday the right hon. and learned Gentleman was equivocal about the need for the new powers and evasive about the Government's attitude to them so I asked him directly, "Will he, or will he not, implement those parts of the report which not only take direct action against hooliganism inside grounds, but provide protection to families who live near football clubs?" I repeat and emphasise that were the right hon. and learned Gentleman to introduce such legislation he would certainly have our wholehearted support.
  As well as omitting any reference to the problems outside grounds, the Home Secretary had nothing to say yesterday about those aspects of crowd control, encouraged over the years by the Government, which, as Lord Justice Taylor said, are a stimulus, rather than a deterrent, to brutal behaviour. Opposition Members warned the Government about the problems of high and spiked perimeter fences. I now ask the Home Secretary whether he supports Lord Taylor's call for their removal. Opposition Members warned against supporters being treated like prisoners and locked into grounds until it was thought convenient for them to leave. Will the Home Secretary endorse our view that to treat supporters like savages is to encourage them to behave like savages? For that matter, we asked for legislation against ticket touts; Lord Justice Taylor makes the same demand. Will the Home Secretary now act on that proposal? Until now, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been prepared fully to endorse only one item in the Taylor report.
  222
  Everybody agrees that there is a desperate need for an improvement in the organisation of association football and the standards and conditions of the grounds at which it is played. Today we must decide whether the Government wish to assist in making that progress or whether they wish simply to strike another tough posture to cover their embarrassment over the identity card fiasco. Yesterday, to the surprise, I think, of some Conservative Back Benchers as well to Opposition Members' surprise, he made a statement that was wholly at odds with the established philosophy of the Government and the new Tory party. A Government who normally condemn intervention in any form and who regard regulation as always damaging and usually distasteful announced that they proposed to intervene to regulate and control our national game as the game is not controlled or regulated in any other western country. I hope that the Home Secretary—I know him to be a philosopher—will describe the principles behind that sudden change of heart and his new enthusiasm for regulation and intervention.
  Of course we all agree that the Government are right and that the Government have a right—indeed, they have a duty—to intervene to ensure the safety of football grounds. It is also the Government's right—indeed, the Government's duty—to regulate to ensure that football matches are conducted in a way that is acceptable to the population in general. I want to make absolutely clear my position on the way in which the Government should discharge that duty. For my part, enthusiast for the game though I am, I should be prepared to watch football clubs go bankrupt and the game change out of all recognition if that was the only way of protecting life, avoiding injury and preventing hooliganism. Over the years, the debate has been too much concerned with the problems internal to football and not sufficiently concerned with football's place in society.
  I do not believe, however, that those proper objectives, which I hope the Home Secretary seeks—the protection of life, the avoidance of injury and the prevention of hooliganism—will be best achieved by the Government's simply announcing that all football grounds must replace their terraces with seats in 10 years' time and that first and second division clubs must do so by 1994. The problem is far more complex than that; there is much more to be done than that; and much greater understanding is needed than that implies.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will my hon. Friend accept it from me that one of the problems to be dealt with is that third and fourth division clubs can certainly not afford the move to all-seater stadiums, even over nine years? The only way of solving the problem is for local authorities to be given a share of the pools funds levies to build multi-purpose stadiums for soccer, hockey, summer athletics and a wide range of other sports, as is done in every other civilised country.
  Mr. Hattersley: I want to deal in a moment with the financing of all the improvements that we all want to be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) says that some third and fourth division clubs may go out of business if they are not given proper financial assistance in introducing all-seater stadiums. I disagree with him in one particular: I fear that some second, and perhaps even first, division clubs will go out of business. I know that the Minister for Sport has a tenuous

  223
  relationship with Millwall football club in his constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Charlton."] All right, just outside his constituency. I know that he has a relationship with that club. Millwall told me that he had written asking whether he might visit the club in the following season, and that it had replied that the fixture list for the following season had not yet been published and it was not sure which division it would be in anyway. Perhaps the Minister for Sport would care to ask Millwall how it will fare in the conversion to all-seater stadiums. There are clubs in the first division—Wimbledon may be one and Millwall may be another—that may find themselves in mortal difficulty by 1994 unless some specific assistance is given in providing them with the facilities that they need.
  I repeat what I said yesterday: I am in favour of replacing the terraces by seats. The argument concerns the way in which that should be done. The Government delude themselves if they think that, by simply announcing that it is a statutory obligation that must be observed by an arbitrary date, they will have solved all the problems of football. Let me give an example, which the Home Secretary found it difficult to comprehend yesterday in the brief time that was available to me to explain to him the realities of the situation. Whether the Home Secretary likes it or not, and whether I like it or not—and, heaven knows, I have no wish to stand on the terraces any more; I want to watch football from the comfort of a seat—
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): Bourgeois deviation.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: Nothing is too good for the working class lad.
  Mr. Hattersley: Absolutely.
  I am passionately enthusiastic about seats being available for everyone who wants them. But whether the Home Secretary likes it or not, whether he finds it deviant or not, and whether it is to my liking or not, a substantial number of law-abiding supporters prefer to stand and, whether the Home Secretary understands that or not, that will cause him great problems in 1994 unless he is prepared to accommodate them. Queen's Park Rangers replaced part of its terraces with seats and then had to replace the seats with terraces because the supporters chose not to sit down but to stand in aisles and gangways, and that is a much more dangerous business than standing on terraces.
  Mr. Denis Howell: So did Coventry.
  Mr. Hattersley: As my right hon. Friend reminds me, so did Coventry.
  I hope that I shall not be breaching any confidence if I tell the House that, as we left the Chamber yesterday, I asked the Home Secretary, "Is it really right that football supporters can stand up as long as they stand up in front of a seat?" The Home Secretary, with his usual charm, said, "Don't be stupid. Of course it is."
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): I am sure that I did not say anything of the sort, but if I had said it, it would have been entirely accurate. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the proposal made by Taylor is that the licensing authority will, by stages, eventually prevent clubs from
  224
  inviting people into areas where there are no seats. It has absolutely nothing to do with the obligations of those who are admitted to those areas, and the right hon. Gentleman must face up to that. Yesterday he made the nonsensical proposition that what Taylor proposed would involve making it a criminal offence for anyone to stand up in the stand. I have never heard such arrant nonsense in all my life.
  Mr. Hattersley: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Home Secretary and I are not in collusion as a two-man comedy act. I had no idea that he would answer in that way.
  However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has confirmed my point. Nobody is suggesting that Taylor would make it a criminal offence to stand up—[Interruption.] Well, I am suggesting that Taylor will not make it a criminal offence to stand up. However, unless the Home Secretary behaves sensibly, in some grounds people will stand up in front of the seats in large numbers. If the Home Secretary would be so good as to consult the various police organisations, he would discover that the police regard standing in seated areas as a far greater threat to safety, to order and to the good conduct of the game than standing on the terraces. It is no good the Home Secretary brushing these facts of life aside, because if he turns round he will see that those of his hon. Friends who have some acquaintance with football are confirming that these are real problems. I draw them to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention only because I want them solved.
  If the Home Secretary hopes to overcome those real problems, which until today it appears that he did not know existed, he will have to take the game with him rather than attempt to impose his and the Government's will on the game.
  Mr. Alistair Burt: The problems to which the right hon. Gentleman refers go right to the heart of the issue. He is seeking to defend the right of people to stand on the terraces. If he has read the opening chapters of the Taylor report, I cannot believe that he does not realise that, as Taylor states, this is the ninth report on crowd safety and that it is adherence to the culture that he is talking about that has eventually caused the disasters that we have seen. Taking all the factors that he has described into account, I cannot believe that he regards what he has said as the right answer. How can the right hon. Gentleman disagree with the weight of evidence after so many disasters and so many other reports?
  Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading what I have said in Hansard when he gets it tomorrow, he will find that all I have done up to now is to draw the Home Secretary's attention to a problem that he will face if he proceeds in this way—
  Mr. David Blunkett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I intervene only because of the intervention that has just been made by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and the hon. Gentleman's erroneous suggestion. The disaster at Hillsborough on 15 April was not caused because sufficient seats were not available in the stadium or because the club had not invested in proper facilities. As everyone knows, and as Taylor has confirmed, it was caused because of the total inadequacies of the planning and organisation at that

  225
  game, the lack of co-ordination, the inadequacy of the access, and the penning and the fencing at the Leppings lane end. I do not want any hon. Member ever to repeat again in the House that the disaster had anything to do with whether there were or were not seats.
  Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that correction. He has enabled me to move on to my next point and to tell the House that, as I have already spoken for almost a quarter of an hour—thanks to interventions—I must now make progress so that other hon. Members can speak in this short debate.
  I said a moment ago, and I repeat, that if progress is to be made towards all-seater stadiums—as we have now come to call them, although it is a new term that is not usually applied to football—the Government will have to take the game with them rather than attempt to impose their will upon it.
  The Taylor report, concentrating as it did on the way in which supporters have been treated over the years, could be the basis for real co-operation between supporters, the clubs and the Government. What concerns me and my hon. Friends is not so much the Government obtaining the acquiescence of directors, who will come up smiling whatever happens, but that the Government should work in a way that the supporters know is intended to help to preserve their interests, their clubs and their ability to work with the clubs for better football.
  It is important that the opportunity that Taylor provides is not missed by arbitrary and authoritarian action. That requires the Government to draw a distinction between the majority of law-abiding supporters, who want to do no more than watch the game in comfort and peace, and the minority of hooligans who must be rooted out. That distinction is not drawn by the Home Secretary telling the football authorities that he knows how the game should he organised and that he intends to impose his will upon them.
  I want to try to illustrate the difference between us by telling the Home Secretary about a question that was put to me on Sunday. I shall give my answer, and I hope that the Home Secretary will give his. Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who is wholly consistent in his belief in regulation and intervention, supported the Home Secretary in his insistence on compulsory seating. My hon. Friend no doubt welcomes the recent convert to central planning who is now sitting on the Treasury Bench. My hon. Friend said that his view on seating was shared by his two local clubs, Liverpool and Everton. I fear that my hon. Friend was wrong in both particulars and, indeed, the clubs have informed me of that today.
  As I said, I want to pass on to the Home Secretary the question that I was asked by the chairman of Everton on Sunday afternoon to which I shall give my answer and I hope that the Home Secretary will give his. The chairman of Everton said that his ground was notably peaceful and that there had never been a suggestion that his spectators' safety was at risk. He said that his facilities were good, at least by the modest standards of British football. He went on to ask why, in my opinion, he should be required to reduce the number of standing places and to increase the number of seats at the ground when his supporters did not wish him to do so. I not only want the Home Secretary to provide his answer to that question; I hope—indeed, I
  226
  warn him—that he had better reply without his usual rudeness because the chairman of Everton is also the chairman of the Merseyside Conservative Association.
  I now offer my answer to the chairman's question. I believe that the successful conversion of football grounds into 100 per cent. seating is, in the long run, right and irresistible. I believe that we should encourage a speeding up of that process, but I also believe that nothing but harm can come from arbitrary and authoritarian edicts that will simply offend supporters and destroy a vital part of the game.
  I hope that the Home Secretary understands that many law-abiding football supporters feel that the whole game is being condemned out of hand. We should be on their side in the campaign to improve facilities, yet they feel that fashionable opinion is against them. I take my example from the Taylor report itself. In dealing with the occasional practice of running on to pitches, Lord Justice Taylor said that it was important to distinguish between "malicious intent" and "exuberance". It was Lord Justice Taylor, not I, who used the term "joie de vivre", a phrase that is rarely heard at Hillsborough football ground. One newspaper commentator asked me this morning how I expected the police to distinguish between "joie de vivre" and malicious pitch invasion. Fortunately, in paragraph 301 Lord Justice Taylor provides his own distinction, suggesting that in association football running on to the pitch is malicious invasion, whereas at rugby union football it is "joie de vivre".
  I want to tell the Home Secretary what I wish he knew—that the issue of seats cannot be separated from the question of football finance, not least if grounds are to install the facilities that Lord Justice Taylor rightly says are civilising influences on supporters. Much nonsense is still talked about sources of possible revenue. The Home Secretary compounded that yesterday by talking about the "football industry" and "commercial concerns". Dozens of clubs run at a trading loss and are kept in business only by supporters' raffles and contributions from directors. They are not commercial concerns, at least in one definition of the term. For them, the sources of revenue that the Government so glibly describe are simply not available. Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur, Arsenal, Liverpool and Everton can negotiate lucrative sponsorship deals but such deals are not available to third and fourth division clubs, many of whom have warned the Government during the past 24 hours that, unless an agreement is negotiated, what the Government intend to impose on them will force them into bankruptcy and closure.
  Football clubs are often focal points for desirable community activity. During the past five years, we have all said that we want football clubs to do more for the community in which they exist. The hon. Members for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) and for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) must decide whether they are prepared to risk their clubs going bankrupt and ceasing to make a contribution to the life of their communities. It is no good the Government claiming that the vast sums of money now spent on transfer fees could or should be made available for other purposes.
  Mr. Eric S. Heller: I am interested in what my right hon. Friend says. He said earlier that he was not against the idea of all-seater stadiums, to use the Government's terminology, but that such provision would

  227
  have to be made over a period of time and with Government assistance. Why do we not concentrate on that instead of arguing about whether the principle is right or wrong? If Mr. Carter believes that Everton should not have an all-seater stadium—that is not what the directors have told me—that is fair enough. That is his view, but he is as wrong in it as he is in supporting the Conservative party. I wish to make it clear that I believe that the idea of all-seater football grounds is important and right. It will take time. Let us concentrate on persuading the Government to provide the money for it.
  Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend will recall that John Stuart Mill said that if the practice is wrong, the principle is no good. If that is good enough for John Stuart Mill, it should be good enough for my hon. Friend and me. I am trying to examine whether it is possible to apply the principle that the Government suggest in the timescale that they recommend. In my view, the amount of money available makes that difficult and doubtful. I repeat that the transfer market does not provide money. It is a complicated system of barter in which, most often, players, rather than money, change hands. Clubs cannot go to Wimpey, Laing or Bovis and say, "Build us an all-seater stadium and we shall pay the bill with a striker, a central defender and a reserve goalkeeper." The few clubs that make money out of transfers are mainly third and fourth division clubs which are struggling for survival. They find young players and sell them to the first division to clear their debts. A levy on them would simply make their survival even more unlikely.
  For the wealthy clubs, the problem is different. It is best illustrated by a statement made by Arsenal yesterday afternoon. The club said that installing seats would involve considerable capital costs and the maximum gate would be severely reduced. As a result, the minimum entrance price would go up from £5 to £12. For the past five years, the argument about football has centred on the need once again to make it a family game—a husband and wife taking their two children to the game for an afternoon's entertainment. If unfunded, unsubsidised compulsory seating is enforced, it will cost a family of four almost £50 to go to a football match.
  Mr. John Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No. I must go on because I have taken so much time.
  It is worth noting that if the proposed price increases were made, precious few ambulance workers could take their families to football this coming Saturday. Football in Britain, like American football in the United States of America, would be beyond the means of a large part of the population.
  Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No; I must press on.
  The Government must help with the cost of introducing 100 per cent. seating. I know that that proposal horrifies the Home Secretary. Will he tell us the principle on which the Government justify subsidising the Royal Opera house in Covent Garden, which amounts to £50 per seat per performance, while rejecting assistance for football?
  228
  Knowing the Home Secretary's propensity for misrepresentation, I inform him that I am strongly in favour of assistance to the arts.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the Conservative party conference is held at Blackpool, the cost of policing to prevent hooliganism or terrorism is paid by Lancashire county council? It costs £2·7 million for the week. The council has protested strongly that the Government should pay. Why does the Conservative party not pay for the policing of its conference in the same way as it demands that football should do?
  Mr. Hattersley: We can take it a stage further. Last week the Derbyshire constabulary told Derby County that it could not provide policing for a match last Wednesday evening. Derby was told that, if it insisted on playing that night, the police would allow the game to go ahead only if it provided the entire cost of policing inside and outside the ground.
  Mr. Lee rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: My information is that Derby County paid the entire cost of policing the match. I hope that the Lancashire constabulary will follow that excellent precedent and do exactly the same when the Conservative party conference is next held in Blackpool.
  I am strongly in favour of assistance to the arts. I should like them to receive more assistance than at present. To believe in that principle requires in logic the acceptance that other activities also deserve Government aid. During the lifetime of the Government, the tax burden on football has increased. Pools profits are now taxed, not at 40 per cent. but at 42·5 per cent. Were we to return to the 1979 level of taxation, pools promoters' net income would increase by £18 million. Yesterday, they told me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) that if the old rate were renewed, every penny that they received would be passed on to the game. Tonight we call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept that offer.
  If the Government are serious in their wish to see football grounds improved, we call upon them to increase tax allowances for investment in stands and other facilities to make our football grounds more civilised. We ask the Home Secretary to approach the problem in a spirit of co-operation and possible compromise. I do not doubt that the best headlines could be obtained by denouncing football in the terms that he employed yesterday. I accept that, as the identity card scheme has been abandoned, a show of force is necessary to ensure that the retreat does not look like the rout that it is. However, there is still time for him to do his best for football. He must call all the parties together and decide on the basis of the Taylor report how real improvements can be made and financed. It is above all for that initiative that we shall vote tonight.
  7.57 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): Yesterday I made a statement about the Taylor report, and I had the opportunity then to express my sympathy for the relatives and friends of those who died and for those who suffered injury at Hillsborough. To voice that sympathy again is not out of place, but I am sure that the bereaved would agree with me

  229
  that the best service that we can now perform for the dead is to bend all our efforts towards preventing a similar tragedy in the future.
  What happened at Hillsborough on 15 April last year must not finish as just another entry in the list of major tragedies which have afflicted football over the years. It must mark a new beginning for football in this country. The tragedy would never have occurred had the lessons from the past been learned and properly applied. This time they must be learned, and if they are, the loss of life will not have been entirely in vain.
  Yesterday I had the chance to thank Lord Justice Taylor for his report. I would also like to thank his assessors, Mr. Brian Johnson, the chief constable of Lancashire, and Professor Leonard Maunder, who is professor of mechanical engineering at the university of Newcastle upon Tyne. Their special knowledge and experience were obviously invaluable.
  I stated plainly yesterday the Government's response to the report, our determination to see a great change in the way in which the game is managed and a vast improvement in the way in which clubs treat their customers. I shall return to those matters shortly, but I have to say now that the Opposition's response to the challenge of Taylor has been nothing short of pathetic. [Interruption.] Opposition Members should listen carefully.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) does not, of course, think that there is any such thing as football hooliganism.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for returning to this matter. Yesterday, when he made his grotesque misrepresentation of my position, I had not had the chance to consult Hansard. I have now done so, however, and I said that there was no such thing as football hooliganism, but that there was criminality in society of which it was a part. That the Home Secretary misquoted me, of all people, on football hooliganism proves that he is in a blue funk because of the rout that Taylor has imposed upon him.
  Mr. Waddington: I have a great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he has misquoted himself, as he has not got it right even now. He wil have to live with the words he used. Let me remind the House of what they were:
  "I do not believe there is any such thing as football hooliganism. There is criminality in society and there is violence"
  Those were the right hon. Gentleman's words.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Stop twisting them round.
  Mr. Waddington: If the right hon. Gentleman does not know the meaning of the English language and if he cannot read the words recorded in Hansard, it is a poor thing.
  The right hon. Member for Small Heath does not seem to think that there is much of a problem with British football as, on the same occasion, he voiced his pride in the fact that the Labour party had not supported measures to curb drinking in grounds. Let me quote the exact words as they appear in Hansard and we shall see whether he likes them:
  "The Opposition have never supported the proposal that drinks should not be sold inside grounds"—[Official Report, 27 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 861, 916.]
  230
  He might like to compare that with what Lord Justice Taylor says in his report. As the right hon. Gentleman does not think there is anything wrong—
  Mr. Brian Wilson rose—
  Mr. Waddington: First I shall deal with the right hon. Member for Small Heath, then his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and then the hon. Gentleman can intervene.
  Because the right hon. Member for Small Heath does not think there is anything wrong, it is scarcely surprising that he has not been exactly fertile with new ideas as to how to put things right.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I am again obliged to the Home Secretary for giving way. I must draw his attention to the fact that what we believe is that it makes much more sense to close the pubs outside grounds and to stop the sale of drink in supermarkets than to do so inside grounds. where it is impossible to get drink anyway. That is the nature of the problem. The Government have not dealt with alcoholism and drunkenness outside football grounds.
  Mr. Waddington: That is all lovely blustering stuff, but the trouble is that it does not equate with a single word of Lord Justice Taylor's report.
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Waddington: I shall give way in a little while, but the hon. Gentleman should not get too involved with matters that are not his direct concern.
  Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to intervene, but I had hoped that tonight's debate would be a serious one about the issues involved. I had also hoped that we would not necessarily become involved in great party conflict. Ninety-five people died—that is what I am thinking about—some of whom I knew. Can we not get back to a proper discussion as to the best way in which to deal with this matter rather than continuing this unfortunate conflict, which is doing us no good?
  Mr. Waddington: It is of the utmost importance that we should examine with the utmost seriousness what the Opposition are now saying about Lord Justice Taylor's report.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, unlike his right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, knows that there is a lot wrong with the football industry. Yesterday, despite that knowledge, he announced that he did not agree with the central proposals in Lord Justice Taylor's report. He said that he disagreed with the first proposal of that report and today he has reinforced that rejection. He has entirely ignored what was said in that report about the attitude of FIFA and the fact that Lord Justice Taylor points out that the football authorities have always said that they would think it right to follow resolutions carried by FIFA.
  The right hon. Gentleman has also ignored paragraph 61 of the report, which states:
  "There is no panacea which will achieve total safety arid cure all problems of behaviour and crowd control. But I am satisfied that seating does more to achieve those objectives than any other single measure."
  He has also entirely ignored Lord Justice Taylor's conclusions and the recommendation in paragraph 90:

  231
  "I therefore conclude and recommend that designated grounds under the 1975 Act should be required in due course to be converted to all-seating. I do so for the compelling reasons of safety and control already set out; also, so far as association football is concerned, because the present trend at home and abroad and the rules of the world and European football authorities make the move to all-seating irresistible."
  Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I might have an interesting semantic argument about this. I described the move to all-seater stadiums as inevitable, as distinct from irresistible. I urged the Government to do all it could to speed up that process, but by the agreement of the clubs. [Interruption.] That is exactly what I said a few moments ago. It is not my fault if the Home Secretary wrote his speech before he heard mine. Given that the Home Secretary has dealt extensively with one of the Taylor proposals, will he answer my question as to whether the Government propose to implement the others? We have said that we would, but will the Government give the lead?
  Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman should not be so swift to intervene without recalling the allegation I made against him and the recommendation made by Lord Justice Taylor. That recommendation is not that a move to all-seater stadiums should be brought about by agreement; the recommendation is that that move should be required. That is what the right hon. Gentleman will not face up to. Yesterday, he was cross because I was short in my reply to him. He was cross because I pointed to the absurdity and triviality of the point that he took up yesterday and again today—that somehow or other, people who stood up in a seated area would be guilty of a criminal offence.
  Mr. Hattersley: No, no.
  Mr. Waddington: Yesterday he squirmed; now he shouts, "No, no." I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what he said yesterday, as he obviously has a short memory. He said:
  "If he persists"—
  he was referring to me—
  "in making football grounds all-seater stadiums by law, is it his intention to make it illegal for a spectator to stand…?"—[Official Report, 29 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 23.]
  Well, really—if the nonsensical response to Lord Justice Taylor's proposal is not that criminal offences should be imposed on spectators, but that clubs should be subject to safety certificates which do not allow them to offer standing accommodation, one despairs.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is the authentic voice of the Labour party, the world can see it as a party for which no problem is so grave that it cannot be dodged, no challenge so demanding that it cannot be shirked, no obligation so solemn that it cannot be ducked. To it, a membership scheme is poison, better stadiums a curse, vociferous inactivity sublime. The nation has heard Labour's response to the challenge of Hillsborough.
  Having rejected the fundamental proposal in the report, the Opposition have the sheer effrontery to table a motion welcoming the report. Having been completely supine and negative during the past years—when we have been struggling with the problem of football hooliganism—the Opposition have the brazenness to criticise us for trying to do something.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: In view of the trivia which we are hearing from the Front Bench spokesmen, can I be assured that none of this will apply to Scotland, and that we will get a separate statement? I have some misgivings about the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland because he is not present, but I want an assurance that none of these trivia will apply to Scotland. Although football is a national—and, I accept, a United Kingdom—game, none of this absolute irrelevance should be allowed to continue and if it does so will you, Mr. Speaker, show the Home Secretary the red card?
  Mr. Waddington: I am proud of the fact that, when others were not prepared to do a thing, we rose to the challenge. Our actions have not been in vain: part I of the Football Spectators Act 1989, as the House knows, will play a vital part in implementing the Taylor recommendations.
  Mr. David Alton: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) put it to the Home Secretary that there were other recommendations in the Taylor report. I wish to draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the matter of spiked fences and cages. He will recall that, in the immediate aftermath of Hillsborough, one of the most distressing factors was the photographs of fans cruelly crushed against the fences and cages. I know that there will be some disagreement in the House about what Lord Justice Taylor has said about this matter. Will the Home Secretary give an indication of the Government's intentions on this issue?
  Mr. Waddington: I can give the hon. Gentleman more than just an indication. I said without any reservation that those recommendations were acceptable the Government; the hon. Gentleman will find that set out in the schedule which, as I said, was put in the Vote Office yesterday.
  The Opposition motion asks us to introduce the changes in the criminal law recommended by Lord Justice Taylor. I have already said that we will consider the matter urgently, but before a final decision is made some consideration must be given to the possible difficulties of enforcement of the proposed new offences and the extent to which the mischief at which they would be aimed is covered by existing offences in, for instance, the Public Order Act 1986.
  The Opposition ask us to initiate discussions with the football authorities and clubs about the cost and advisability of all-seat grounds. Advisability? Lord Justice Taylor makes the advisability crystal clear. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is merely issuing an invitation to clubs to argue the toss about whether they even now need take any action—an invitation to them either to shirk their responsibilities entirely or to hold out the begging bowl to the taxpayer, asking him to foot the bill for the decent facilities which the clubs should have provided years ago. This, I am sure that the House will agree, is not the time for talk—it is the time for action.
  Mr. Wilson: I am genuinely anxious to try to clarify what has become a ludicrous debating point between the Front Bench spokesmen about all-seater stadiums. As I understand it, the Front Bench spokesmen from both sides seem to agree that we should move towards this. However, the idea that there is nothing in that worth talking to clubs

  233
  about is ludicrous. Will the Home Secretary contemplate the example of Ibrox stadium in Glasgow, which is recognised in the Taylor report as one of the finest grounds in the country. It was turned into such a ground largely because of a previous disaster and report. Inside that excellent stadium there is a well-defined area in which it is possible to stand. Would the Home Secretary accept that that is not to the detriment of the ground's safety, does not in any way diminish the excellence of the facilities and should be compatible with what emerges from the Taylor report?
  Mr. Waddington: We simply cannot get away from the fact that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has rejected Taylor—there is no doubt about that. He said quite firmly that he disagreed with the central recommendation of the Taylor report that grounds should be required by law to be all seater. He has completely rejected that and hon. Members will be able to read what he said in Hansard tomorrow and can read today what he said in a question to me yesterday.
  The Opposition also call for a reduction on pools betting duty. I am not suggesting that there may not be a case for more money to go into the game from the pools promoters. However, a change in the tax which would undoubtedly benefit the promoters would not necessarily benefit football. Instead, the Opposition should consider how much better use could be made of £18 million from television, £8 million from the pools promoters each year and £75 million promised by the Football Trust over the next 10 years. If we add up just those sources of income, we arrive at a grand total of £309 million available to the industry between now and 1999. That is twice as much as the highest estimate that I have seen of the cost of providing all-seated accommodation.
  What I think is so wrong about the Opposition's attitude is that in the motion they send the football authorities precisely the wrong message. Instead of telling them that if they are going to invite people into their grounds it is their duty to see that their grounds are safe, they coo words of comfort. They say, "You need not bother too much about your responsibilities. If we get back, we will make the taxpayer cough up."
  Mr. Harry Barnes: It cannot just be the distinction between seats and standing that determines the quality of a ground and its safety. A disaster took place in a stadium in Bradford. Safety depends on the quality and arrangement of the seats and the quality of the standing provisions. Can we get into a debate of the Taylor report in which we start to say what the quality and provisions of a ground should be?
  Mr. Waddington: I can only repeat that Lord Justice Taylor says that all-seated accommodation is not just a bright idea which has come into his head, but FIFA has accepted that that is a desirable standard at which to aim. Therefore, it is not surprising that Lord Justice Taylor came to the conclusion that, as the football authorities said that they thought it right to observe the resolutions passed by FIFA, the authorities have accepted that they should move towards all-seater stadiums.
  Mr. Ashton rose—
  Mr. Waddington: I shall give way for the last time.
  Mr. Ashton: Is the Home Secretary aware that Wembley will soon be an all-seater stadium? If he talks to them he will find that what scares the authorities at Wembley is the thought of the IRA planting a bomb. If the bomb went off and started a panic, an all-seater stadium would take longer to evacuate. That could make it 10 times worse than if people were to run on to the pitch from the terraces.
  Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have his chance to speak. We cannot get away from the fact that Lord Justice Taylor made a careful examination of the matter and came to a very different conclusion from that being voiced by the hon. Gentleman and had an entirely different view from that of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
  I shall not repeat today Lord Justice Taylor's indictment of the way in which the industry has been run. But, in fairness, I should say that, unlike the Opposition, many in the industry are now acknowledging that something must be done and that they must move to all-seat stadiums. We proposed that course immediately after Hillsborough, and we shall now press ahead.
  It has been said that the move towards all-seated accommodation will force clubs to turn away spectators. I can only invite those who are worried about that to read the report. Many clubs already have more seated accommodation than the total number of spectators who usually attend their grounds, and a gradual reduction in standing capacity each year will not affect them for a time, if at all.
  Some say that an end to the terraces will change the atmosphere of the game, but Lord Justice Taylor obviously thinks, and I agree, that it will be a change for the better. He points to experience in Scotland and says that he is satisfied that in England and Wales, as in Scotland and abroad, spectators will soon become accustomed to sitting, and like it.
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred to Ibrox park. Paragraph 76 says:
  "At Ibrox Park…the seated areas are the most popular and tickets for them sell in preference to those for standing. Significantly, trouble from misbehaviour and physical injuries have been reduced since most of the crowd became seated. Such trouble and accidental injuries as still occur are primarily in the remaining standing areas. It is planned to convert them to seating in the near future."
  Therefore, even Ibrox park will become an all-seal stadium. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that all the arguments advanced and accepted by Lord Justice Taylor are arguments for the proposition that all-seat stadiums will not only help to civilise the game and get rid of hooliganism, but will contribute more to safety than any other step that could be taken.
  Mr. Barry Porterrose—
  Mr. Waddington: I shall give way for the last time. I must get on.
  Mr. Porter: There is little disagreement as to whether all-seat stadiums will be desirable, irresistible, or whatever the other word was. The argument is about who will pay for them. I like football as much as anybody else, but if my right hon. and learned Friend is willing to listen to the Opposition's strictures on the spending of taxpayers' money, he should remember that there is rugby union and

  235
  the national stadium at Twickenham, there is rugby league all over the place and it is growing, and there might even be a tiddlywink stadium in Barnsley. I know not where it will end. Surely we should be concentrating on where the money will come from to do that which is desirable and fair.
  Mr. Waddington: One cannot get away from the fact that, under our law, those who invite people on to their premises for reward must make their premises safe. It would be wrong for us to send out any sort of message from this place that the duty to make those premises safe rests on anyone other than the football clubs.
  Let me deal now with Lord Justice Taylor's detailed recommendations about safety. The House knows that we accept them, and hon. Members have now had the opportunity to read the schedule that I have placed in the Vote Office. The licensing authority which will bring about all-seat stadiums in the way that I have described will be there to review and to keep under scrutiny the way in which local authorities carry out their safety functions.
  There are a number of specific recommendations for the amendment of the green guide. That, as hon. Members will know, is a document published by the Home Office and the Scottish Office that owes its origins to the technical working party set up by Lord Wheatley in the course of preparing his report on crowd safety at sports grounds, which was published in 1972.
  That document will now be revised in the light of the Taylor recommendations, but I should say, in justice to those who have been responsible for it over the years, that it has stood the test of time remarkably well, and it is difficult not to conclude that, if its guidance had been properly followed and applied at Hillsborough, and more recently at Middlesbrough, neither accident would have happened.
  I should say a word about the role of the police in ensuring safety and effective crowd control. A key issue here is the liaison between the clubs and the police. There must be no opportunity for each to stand aside thinking that the other is in charge, and Lord Justice Taylor's recommendation that there should be a written statement of the respective functions of club and police for crowd safety and control is one that I can readily endorse.
  I also welcome Lord Justice Taylor's recommendation that clubs should recruit and train sufficient fit, active and robust stewards, not least because the more capable the stewards, the less clubs will need to call for special police services, thus releasing police officers for duties outside the ground not necessarily connected with football—a benefit to the public generally.
  For those reasons, and because it is right in principle, I support the report's recommendation that police authorities should ensure that charges made to clubs for policing inside grounds are realistic.
  Lord Justice Taylor has much to say about hooliganism. Like many before him, he has concluded that no single measure will defeat football hooliganism, and even a package of measures will take time to have effect.
  In recent years, the Government have been attacking the problem on many fronts. We have taken action against alcohol abuse in the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 and we have introduced in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 a new offence of disorderly
  236
  behaviour. The police have developed their tactics by making effective use of closed circuit television at grounds and by increasing the gathering and use of intelligence on hard-core hooligans. At the end of 1989, we established the national football intelligence unit, which has already made a good start in compiling and collating centrally intelligence on the most serious and persistent football hooligans.
  As the House knows, part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989 gives the court powers to impose restriction orders on those convicted of football-related offences. Those subject to restriction orders will be prevented from travelling to key matches abroad. Its provisions will have a salutary effect on those hooligans whose disgraceful behaviour abroad has so blackened the reputation of football. We plan to implement part II as soon as practical arrangements can be made and the remaining parliamentary procedures have been completed.
  I said yesterday that, following bilateral agreements with other countries, our courts will be able to impose restriction orders on offenders convicted abroad of corresponding football-related offences. We are giving priority to concluding an agreement with the Italian authorities. We aim to have those arrangements in place before the World cup. I expect the provisions of part II to have a useful deterrent effect on the behaviour of football spectators abroad.
  I made it clear yesterday that the fact that we are not establishing a football membership authority does not mean that there will be any let-up in the fight against hooliganism. I have outlined the action that we are to take.
  The vast majority of people who go to watch football matches, even in the appallingly squalid conditions that exist at some major grounds, are decent, well-behaved people, neither drunken louts nor hooligans. It is high time that more consideration was given to their interests, to their safety, to their enjoyment of their sport. If, by the measures proposed, we can enhance both their enjoyment and the reputation of the game, our efforts will have been well worth while.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: All who love our national game owe a great deal to Lord Justice Taylor for making such a comprehensive, reasonable and thought-provoking report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) acknowledged that in his constructive and reasonable speech. By contrast, the Home Secretary missed an important opportunity to set the agenda for a sensible debate on football's future. I hope to follow my right hon. Friend's example.
  Lord Justice Taylor's report should be studied closely by those connected with football at every level, whether they be directors of illustrous clubs, administrators and officials, or supporters. We shall do Lord Justice Taylor a great disservice if we throw away the opportunity that his report presents for conducting a fundamental, far-reaching and frank reappraisal of all aspects of the game. If Taylor teaches us anything it is the folly of hasty or half-hearted measures. As Lord Justice Taylor points out,
  "Patchy and piecemeal approaches are themselves a great threat to safety."
  A lengthy and honest debate on the issues that Taylor raises is urgently needed. The issues are not simply a matter of right or wrong, black or white, them and us.

  237
  They are complex and require detailed discussion. The report should be seen primarily as a catalyst for debate, not a tablet of stone.
  In that debate, we must all recognise that we have something to learn from each other. It is foolish and churlish of the Government not to recognise the dangerous inadequacies of their proposal for a football identity card scheme that the report highlights. Rather than stubbornly closing their minds to arguments that they find unpalatable, the Government would do better to recognise the serious misgivings that Lord Justice Taylor expresses which led him to conclude that it would
  "Actually increase trouble outside grounds."
  Equally, those responsible for running our national game must take the opportunity to examine frankly and honestly the state of British football as it enters the 1990s. The report contains many criticisms of football as experienced by genuine and regular supporters, and it is time for those criticisms to be addressed. The Government should scrap completely the Football Spectators Act 1989 and present instead a Green Paper as the basis for informed and detailed discussion of every aspect of the national game. It should deal with the problems of hooliganism, safety and standards. The Government should commit themselves to a genuine debate and not a blind, prejudiced debate, and then introduce legislation that would command the support of the House. That debate should involve right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, football authorities, and football supporters.
  We must all acknowledge that there is no simple answer, no single transferable solution that can be applied to all football clubs, regardless of their status or position. We should applaud Taylor for recognising that and for his insight. We must accept that clubs need time and breathing space to assess the valuable work that went into the report and to consider the best way forward for football. I suggest that the proposals to phase out completely standing accommodation on football terraces for spectators who prefer to stand should be reconsidered.
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: The Home Secretary stated that no positive contribution was made to the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who is chairman of the all-party football group, spoke of the phasing in or phasing out of certain facilities. As an officer of the all-party rugby league group, I echo the concern that has been expressed about the imposition, virtually by law, of the all-seater stadium. It is not that we dispute the principle, but I have a list of all rugby league grounds showing that the average attendance figure is 3,500 to 4,000 per week. League grounds are now classified in the same way as football grounds. Would my hon. Friend accept a three-tier system—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Interventions must be brief.
  Mr. Pendry: My hon. Friend has made his point. My point was that Lord Justice Taylor himself recognises the desirability of retaining
  "the traditional culture derived from the close contact of the terraces".
  238
  I remember the experience, as a young boy at St. James's park, Newcastle, of being passed down over the heads of the crowd. That unique atmosphere and comradely spirit still exist today.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook responded to yesterday's statement, he pointed out that a direct link between the abolition of standing areas and improved safety has yet to be established. The 1986 Popplewell inquiry into the Bradford disaster acknowledged the difficulty confronting spectators in evacuating seated accommodation even in the most favourable circumstances. Taylor states that the extension of seating to all parts of the ground would almost certainly lead to an increase in admission charges to those accustomed to watching their favourite game from the terraces.
  Increased cost is not only a problem for the individual fan, because almost all those connected with the game who have considered the expense of converting stadiums to all-seater accommodation have concluded that in most cases the cost will be prohibitive and may lead to closure in some instances. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), who knows something about football, yesterday, on television, described that plan as totally non-viable.
  The report estimates that the cost of conversion will be about £130 million and admits that money from the Pools Promoters Association and any tax concessions given by the Government would be woefully inadequate to meet that expense. The report concludes that, in the absence of Government recognition of football as a communal activity and not simply as a commercial venture,
  "the bulk of the finances for ground improvement must be raised by the clubs themselves."
  Where is that money to come from? Now that the spurious arguments about the so-called apparent wealth of clubs on the basis of the total circulation of money in the transfer market have been exposed—though I do not think that that point has got through to the Home Secretary yet—vie are faced with the sober reality that, for all the good work that has gone into producing the report, many of its recommendations will remain pie in the sky unless the Government recognise the need for an urgent injection of cash into the game in the interests of the whole community.
  The impression currently given by the Government that they want to abrogate their responsibility to the national game is both disheartening and regrettable. The House can contrast their approach with that of the Italian Government, who recently invested £260 million in improving the standard of grounds. That is a somewhat smaller figure than that which the Government take from the game in taxing football pools.
  A fundamental rethink is required of football funding in this country. If I am critical of Taylor, it is only because he did not do justice to the range of possible options for funding. In particular, he seems not to appreciate the considerable benefits that might accrue from the creation of a football levy board accountable to a Minister. The Minister would have responsibility for appointing the board's chairman, and its representatives would be drawn from the Football League, Football Association, Professional Footballers Association and Football Trust, who have done so much in making a valuable contribution to solving many of the problems that confront the game.

  239
  When such a proposal was made in a private Member's Bill that I tabled in 1986, it received all-party support. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), and the hon. Members for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) all supported that Bill. Such a board would have powers to influence not only the injection of cash into the game but the possible acquisition of land for development by the football authorities. It would be the ideal vehicle for equipping football for the 21st century.
  Although the current attitude of the Football Association and Football League is somewhat negative, as is reflected in the report, that has not always been the case. I have the minutes of a meeting in 1982 at which representatives of the Football Association and Football League all expressed their enthusiasm for the establishment of a football levy board. Given the obvious benefits that it would offer, it is not hard to imagine a revival of the football authorities' full support for it in the future. Such a board would be preferable to the current status quo maintained by certain vested interests.
  The Taylor report may have come just in time. It highlights the problems faced by football, of outdated structures, grounds and complacent inertia at all levels, the problems that many of us who truly care about soccer have previously been attempting to highlight and combat.
  Hopefully, the report will now stimulate the imagination and inspire the will to succeed. That will is present in football and, if it is given sincere and adequate support by the Government, it will ensure that the great majority of law-abiding supporters will once again enjoy the game they love in comfort and safety.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have before me the names of 17 right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. Less than an hour remains. I hope that we shall have very short speeches.
  8.41 pm
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall take your guidance on brevity, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I welcome the fact that the idea of football identity cards has been dropped. It means that I can support the Government tonight, because the Home Secretary made a firm statement of action that must be taken. He was absolutely right, so, like a black sheep, I can come home, and the Whip will be pleased to hear that I shall vote for the Government.
  A point that concerns me links with the whole question of the Taylor report. Football hooliganism is specific to football, but it is at the same time an outgrowth of a breakdown of law and order in society. We could see it in the permissiveness of the 1960s—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—often supported by Opposition Members; I should make that clear before they agree with me too cheerfully—when a decline in law and order was visible.
  That concerns me now, because I see a trend in our schools which will create problems for us in the coming 10 or 20 years. There was a time in our schools—I am thinking in particular of the north, in the real soccer
  240
  country around Blackburn and in particular near Blackburn Rovers ground—when schoolmasters went out every Saturday morning with their pupils and played soccer against other teams. They learned to play to the whistle, as we called it; the referee was in charge and one appreciated good play on both sides. The good spirit of British soccer grew out of that.
  I began to recognise at Highbury Grove—it is more than 16 years since I left there—a decline in school soccer. On the one hand, it was a question of the wife wanting the husband to help with the shopping on Saturday mornings, a growing factor about which one could do little. On the other hand, it happened because of the pressures to earn money elsewhere, plus the problem of travelling greater distances.
  Also, we had from the colleges of education at that time people who were not trained to take part in team sports. People came to us with abilities in individual sports. It was said that team sports were competitive, and these schoolmasters said that was wrong. Indeed, those who argued that way had mental levitation rather than physical ability. I recall one such person saying to me that under no circumstances would he have anything to do with team sports. So the idea of playing with, and behaving like, a team—either as a crowd supporter or a member of a team—began to decline.
  Since then, we have taken two actions which the Government may regret in the long run. First, we have placed teachers on a 1,265-hour contract covering a year. Instead of it being a profession, we have proletarianised it. Whereas people in other work had the rule book bought out, teachers were given the rule book. In other words, after 1,265 hours they go home. Does Saturday morning football count as part of that number of hours?
  That means that in many schools in London—I cannot speak for Lancashire and other areas: other hon. Members can—school soccer has gone. Cricket has gone as well. There are no cricket matches on Saturday mornings at the vast majority of schools in London, and soccer is already disappearing. Towards the end of my time at Highbury Grove, it became clear that we would have to cut down from the 12 teams that we had on Saturday mornings to eight, four or even two.
  I believe that a discussion document will be published this summer about bringing outsiders into schools to help on the sports side. That will not do. The masters inside schools must appreciate the game, and we shall have to re-examine a contract that is based on time. After all, people tend to say, "When a certain time arrives, that's it."
  We shall also have to review the tightness of the school curriculum. At present, it is too tight. Unless we have a million schoolboys playing soccer every week, with their masters and parents taking a keen interest, so that the real culture of soccer is built up again, we shall simply be indulging in repressive legislation. I agree that such legislation is necessary, but the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and the Department of Education and Science must come together to revive school soccer and cricket. Otherwise, there will be a dearth of those team games in this country.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: Because many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, I shall be very brief indeed. I am glad to have the opportunity to

  241
  comment, particularly after the speech of the Home Secretary, which was damaging to his cause and that of the Government in dealing with the whole question. I plead with him to alter the way in which he approaches the matter and, on the next occasion, to come forward in a very different mood indeed.
  One would have thought. in view of the defeat that the Government suffered on a major matter connected with this issue, that they would have been slightly chastened in approaching it. They got into some difficulty because they refused to listen to the House of Commons. Time and again, not only my right hon. and hon. Friends but some Conservative Members, such as the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), pleaded with the Government to listen to those who knew something about football, who had spent all their lives going to football matches, who understood what the situation was and were aware of some of the perils and dangers.
  All that was brushed aside, and the responsibility must rest chiefly with the Minister for Sport. But others also have responsibility. The Prime Minister's edict was primarily responsible for the failure of Ministers to listen to the House of Commons. I plead with the Government, even at this late stage, to listen to us on this subject, because they will find that there is more wisdom on the Opposition Benches than on most of their own, although I accept that some Conservative Members contribute to that wisdom.
  In particular, I plead with the Home Secretary to listen to what we are saying. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spelled out clearly and eloquently what the issues are. The Government must listen to our comments about the threat to the range of clubs if the whole programme is pushed forward without consideration of the financial implications.
  If the whole programme is pushed through in that way, it is likely that some second and third division clubs will be driven out of existence. Indeed, we have been told how, even more seriously, some first division clubs could be threatened. The figures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook quoted of the charges to football represent serious issues that must be properly considered.
  What does the Home Secretary think will happen to criminality and hooliganism if the Government drive out of existence, in many towns throughout Britain, football teams that have had the allegiance of those who live in their areas for years and generations? What will happen to the youngsters in those places? What will happen if sport is injured in many of the nation's towns and cities?
  The Government do not seem to have a glimmer of knowledge about that whole issue. Indeed, the Home Secretary said, in effect, when asked that question, "It has nothing to do with me. If people have a business venture, they are responsible for the conditions in which they ask people to come and participate." I think I see the Home Secretary nodding in assent as I say that. He seems to think that that is the whole story, when it is not.
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeds on his present basis, he will be rejecting the advice—as well as that of the few among his Back Benchers who know something about this matter—of the whole range of Opposition Members who know what they are talking about and who are pleading with him to use this
  242
  opportunity for something other than a madcap scheme thought up by the Prime Minister as one might think something up to catch the headlines.
  Mr. Waddington: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not a madcap scheme thought up by the Prime Minister. It is the proposal in Lord Justice Taylor's report.
  Mr. Foot: I am talking about the madcap scheme that was thought up by the Prime Minister and has been rejected by Lord Justice Taylor. If he had been listening to me, even the Home Secretary should have understood the point I was making. He would have understood had he not been so hasty to intervene. I was talking about the madcap scheme, imposed on the House by the Prime Minister, that has now been rejected.
  The Home Secretary should now take the opportunity to try to ensure that the fresh proposals that have come from Lord Taylor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook put in their correct context the other proposals that have also come forward—and all the other proposals are considered in a different way.
  Before that catastrophe, fiasco or however hon. Members wish to describe the Government's previous policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and others had made them art offer time after time in the House. They had said, "We do not believe that any great political advantage is to be gained one way or the other; let us talk, and see whether we can find a common approach to the problem." That offer has been continually rejected. My right hon. Friend extended it again following the Taylor recommendations, and today the Home Secretary has rejected it again.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a great error. It is not as though the Government can boast of great triumphs in this regard; it is not as though they have displayed superior wisdom, and had all their proposals confirmed in an elaborate report conducted by a great judge. Months of the House's time have been wasted by a proposal that the Government should have known was ridiculous from the start.
  Lord Justice Taylor has written of the unique position in which he has been placed: for almost the first time in history, a judge has been asked to pass judgment on what the House of Commons is supposed to have decided so solemnly. Before proceeding in such a manner and with such a tone, the Home Secretary should read Lord Justice Taylor's introduction again, and should understand that he had better listen to the views of others before proceeding along the same lines.
  Can we not have the system of consultation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath has proposed? The Home Secretary talks as though "consultation" were a dirty word, but the football authorities will have to implement many of the Bill's provisions in any case. The Home Secretary talks as though this were a weak and shameful proposal. What he is afraid of is having to face the Prime Minister and telling her that he has agreed to some form of consultation. As we all know, the Prime Minister wants to run the House of Commons as Luton football club runs its matches: Luton does not allow the opposition in at all. That is an ideal system. Perhaps that is why the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was so successful in selling his ridiculous scheme to the Prime Minister: perhaps she would like to apply here and now.

  243
  The Government will not get away with it. The next Government will have a chance to enact much wiser proposals, and it would be far better for the Home Secretary—even on the lowest ground, that of his own party's interest and his own reputation—to respond positively to the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook this evening and a few weeks ago.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Michael Irvine: I was one of the Conservative Members who voted against the Football Spectators Bill, because I opposed the national membership scheme. I am glad that Lord Justice Taylor has rejected that scheme. I voted against it because I considered it to be fundamentally unworkable and, although inspired by the best of motives, not targeted in the right direction. I believe that it would have damaged the finances of football clubs by seriously deterring casual spectators, and that it would have caused safety risks over and above those that already exist.
  My opposition to the Bill was not based on the view that everything in football's garden was lovely; I believe that action is needed, and that Lord Justice Taylor's admirable report points the way. He singles out the squalid conditions that prevail in so many football grounds today, and I consider the point fair and relevant. Not only do squalid conditions and poor facilities drive many spectators away, but—as Lord Justice Taylor points out —they tend to brutalise the behaviour of some spectators and degrade that of others. As we know, the vast majority of football spectators are law-abiding people who detest violence and hooliganism, but squalid football grounds tend to worsen the bad behaviour to which the minority already tend. Improving facilities is, in my view, an important way of improving crowd behaviour.
  Let me put in a word for my constituency football club, Ipswich Town. As I am going to say some rather nice things about the club, I suppose that I should declare my interest: I am allowed two tickets for the directors' box each season. There is no political element in that; my predecessor, who sat on the Opposition Benches, received the same facility. I readily accept it, and obtain considerable pleasure from it.
  Over the past 25 years, Ipswich Town has effectively rebuilt its stadium. What is more, in recent years it has built two large all-seater stands, and it now has one of the best grounds in the country. That is a tribute to the club's foresight, and not unconnected with its excellent reputation in regard to crowd behaviour.
  As a long-standing football supporter, I have some reservations—perhaps largely emotional—about the proposal for all-seater stadiums: I have stood on the terraces in my time, and there is no doubt that there is a great atmosphere there. Sadly, that atmosphere is all too often seen by the public as hooligan and over-agressive, but in fact it frequently represents the spirit of comradeship, togetherness and the will for one's team to win, and that spirit is valuable.
  I understand the fears of many football supporters who prefer to stand on the terraces and who wish to continue to do so, but we must recognise that safety comes first. If Hillsborough had had an all-seater stadium, I believe that
  244
  the disaster last spring would not have happened. Lord Justice Taylor's careful arguments in favour of such stadiums must be weighed against emotional considerations: I have certain feelings in my heart against all-seater stadiums but my head may lead me to support the Taylor recommendations.
  In proceeding with Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations, the Government must do their utmost to take football with them. By "football" I mean not just the directors of clubs, not just those responsible for administration, but the ordinary football fans. One of the fundamental weaknesses of the membership scheme was that it alienated the law-abiding majority of football fans. Last year I received a vast number of letters about the scheme—more than on any other topic, apart from the National Health Service. I had hundreds of them, and every one was against the scheme. Ex-service men wrote to me saying that it was a gross interference with their liberties.
  The scheme lost the support of the ordinary law-abiding football fan. It is most important that the Government regain the support of those people. I am sure that, by their praiseworthy immediate acceptance of Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations against the scheme, they have already gone a long way towards doing so. I hope that they will now work closely with the football authorities. I acknowledge that there must be an element of compulsion, but it is most important that the Government take the football authorities and the footballing public along with them.
  Although I am against pouring vast sums of public money into a game that makes a great deal of money, I ask the Government to look at the recommendation—suggestion, perhaps—in paragraph 115 of the report, where Lord Justice Taylor makes the point that at present the payments that result in such profits on the transfer market are allowable revenue expenditure, but that investment in improvements to grounds is not. The Prime Minister made the point that too many clubs are spending too much money on the transfer market, at the expense of investment in the improvement of facilities at their grounds. Implementing the recommendations in the Taylor report will impose financial strains on the clubs. The next few years will be difficult. If the Government were to provide some tax concessions of the kind that I suggested, they would be welcome and would take undue financial pressure off the clubs. But I believe strongly that the movement towards spending money on grounds—improving facilities and increasing the number of seats—will in the long run do the game enormous good. It will attract back to the football grounds many of those fans who have lost touch with the game.
  Therefore, I give a broad welcome to the thrust of the report. It will certainly have my support.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Now that Lord Justice Taylor's admirable and trenchant report has been universally accepted, the issue for this debate must be how it is properly to be implemented.
  I have noticed with some interest the references to two developments in Scotland—one at Ibrox stadium, the home of Glasgow Rangers; the other at the ground of St. Johnstone in Perth. The implementation of the improvements in those two grounds bears careful

  245
  examination. The amount of money spent at Ibrox Park was substantial. Such expenditure was possible only because Rangers football club was associated with a financial company with many interests—indeed, worldwide interests. As a consequence, the finance necessary for improvement was readily available. In the case of St. Johnstone, the change was possible only because one of the major retailers in the United Kingdom identified an opportunity for retail development that involved taking over the existing, sub-standard ground, developing it for retail purposes, and paying for the construction of a new stadium on ground that had been donated. Those are special circumstances, and it is perhaps because of them that both those examples are available to illustrate what can be done. When we look at the problem of the 92 league clubs in England and Wales we may very well find that there are not 92 similar opportunities.
  Lord Justice Taylor talks about sponsorship. What has to be remembered about sponsorship is that, these days, companies do not sponsor sport or sporting clubs out of any overwhelming philanthropic desire; they do so because they want a commercial return. If one were to take Lord Justice Taylor's report to a company that could not be assured of regular television coverage and were to say, "Here is the prospectus upon which you are expected to spend large amounts of your money", I suspect that one might get quite a lot of dusty answers.
  Reference has been made to transfer fees. Of course, they are grotesque, but no one has attempted to calculate precisely how much money would be available in real terms if, say, 10 per cent. of the real value of transfer fees were to be allocated for ground improvement. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) referred effectively to the possibility of fiscal concessions for ground improvements. Why not? We are dealing with something that will make a contribution not to the commercial viability of the clubs, but to public safety. Is it not reasonable in such circumstances to accept that there is a special case for fiscal concessions for that purpose? No doubt the Football Trust and the Football Ground Improvements Trust will make their contribution. The problem is substantial. If capacity must be cut, the ability to generate revenue is necessarily affected, so clubs will be inhibited from taking out large loans because they cannot generate the revenue to service them.
  Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that point is even more true in respect of the proposal that standing attendances at grounds should be cut by 20 per cent. a year in the interim? If there is to be the stick of telling clubs that they must make their grounds all-seater, the need for the carrot of encouraging them to do that by this reduction disappears—if 20 per cent. of the revenue of many clubs is knocked off over the next five years, they will not have the money to invest in all-seater stadiums that they are told that they must invest.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman's intervention reinforces the principle that I was endeavouring to explain. My only qualification is that safety must be paramount. If we have learnt anything from Hillsborough, it is surely that.
  The conclusion that must be drawn from the Taylor report's financial implications is that there is grave doubt about how much money can be raised and whether sufficient resources can be generated to allow third and
  246
  fourth division clubs—even by the year 2000—to effect the necessary improvements. If that happens, inevitably some of the 92 clubs in the league will close. The structure of the game will be irreversibly changed and the structure that emerges will be directly related to the way in which money is raised for those improvements and to the amount raised.
  I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members wish to contribute, so I shall pass briefly over the issue of ticket touting and say simply that I am delighted that Lord Justice Taylor has seen fit to isolate that as a potential cause of disturbance and danger. I have twice attempted to introduce private Member's Bills to deal with ticket touting but, so far, they have not commended themselves to the Home Secretary or his predecessor. Ticket touting puts at risk the maintenance of safety and prevention of disorder at football matches. I hope that, for that limited reason at least, the Government will proceed to introduce legislation speedily.
  The Taylor recommendations must be implemented. It would do less than justice to the report's comprehensive nature if we did not implement them. It would he an ill-fitting memorial to those who died at Hillsborough and would be little comfort for those who suffered severe injury there. I hope that the Government will feel compelled to proceed in tandem with the football authorities. To legislate from the touch line would be far too easy, and it would undoubtedly ensure that the incorrect result was achieved. A measure of co-operation between the Government and the football authorities to implement these recommendations will bring about the best solution. It is the Government's duty to bring that about and that is why they should enter into dialogue with the football authorities.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: The House will be aware that I and other members of the all-party football committee gave evidence to Lord Justice Taylor. At the end of that meeting, I had what was described as a "spat" with his Lordship about his attitude towards the football membership scheme. Regrettably, from my point of view and that of some of my hon. Friends, Lord Justice Taylor was against the scheme and came out against it in his admirable report. That is now water under the bridge, although I believe that the scheme will have to come back again.
  It was regrettable that Lord Justice Taylor's conclusion on the membership scheme seemed to be based exclusively on the invitation to tender from the consultants to the Football League and not, as I should have hoped, on the reports in Hansard, and on the deliberations on the Floor of the House and in Committee. As the invitation to tender document had not even been agreed with the Department of the Environment, it was less than fortunate that he based much of his evidence about the membership scheme on that particular aspect.
  There was an omission from the report which, unfortunately, did not comfort those who live near football grounds, and about which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was rightly concerned. It is a serious omission that the report dealt exclusively with football. Perhaps Lord Justice Taylor would say that his remit was to deal with Hillsborough and its effects, and with safety at grounds.

  247
  However, we must all understand that, although about 500,000 go to watch the game on a Saturday afternoon, there are many millions outside the grounds who find the spectacle of people going to games under heavy police escort, often with dogs and horses, and being marched like armies from railway and bus stations to the grounds unedifying, as do those who shop or visit relatives near football grounds. Apart from the obvious importance of safety, our duty is to ensure that scenes such as we all have seen over the past few years—some of us at first hand—around and inside grounds do not occur again.
  The Opposition's negative attitude today and yesterday is disappointing. They have for ever taken the view that there is not too much wrong and that matters are improving. It is, of course, a fact that the incidence of hooliganism around football—I prefer to put it that way rather than to talk about "football hooliganism"—has declined, but the reason for that, as even the Opposition would admit, is heavier policing and the decisions being made by various chief constables. That has led to the number of arrests decreasing and a decreasing incidence of trouble.
  We applaud that, but we must ask ourselves whether the massive cost of £30 million a year to the tax and rate payers is worth while for what is only a game. It may be the national game, but it is supported by a minority of people. Other sports, such as fishing, attract far wider interest than football does.
  The Opposition's continual line seems to be that football is some sort of charity and, as such, taxpayers' money must be thrown at it. However, I am not unsympathetic to some of the points of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and others, which were taken up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
  There may be means by which certain amounts—I emphasise that they must be small—could be directed towards the improvement of grounds, in the same way that money comes from the spot-the-ball competition at present. However, it is not the duty of the House to see a problem and to pour vast sums into it. The Opposition, who are in the pockets of the Football League and the Football Association, seem always to take that attitude. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I do not mean that they are in their pockets financially, but that for the Opposition, the Football League and the Football Association can do almost no wrong, although the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), who is regrettably not in the Chamber, has other ideas, as can be seen from the early-day motion that he tabled today.
  The implication of the Taylor report, which football must face, is that, if all-seater stadiums are to come about, whether by legislation or otherwise, they will cost the clubs an enormous amount—and I admit that. Clubs must ask themselves, as the House must, whether it is worth while at the majority of grounds. That is true of the old Victorian grounds—which are badly sited for modern conditions, which often have terrible access, which are a terrible nuisance to those around and which have aged and crumbling facilities—and even more true of those in the lower divisions. Will it be worth their while to continue in existence on the basis of having all-seater stadiums? Many of them must be asking tonight, as they did when the report was published, whether their very existence is now
  248
  threatened, as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) suggested, and has been endorsed by hon. Members.
  There is an answer, which Lord Justice Taylor and others before him have put forward and of which I would like to remind the House. It is in paragraph 126, on page 21 of the report, where Lord Justice Taylor talks about ground sharing. The House, and football clubs must understand that this, regrettably for the sentimentalists—there are several in the House, especially among the Opposition—is the only way that many clubs can survive and retain their identity.
  It is somewhat ironic that, about a week ago, Mr. Jimmy Hill of the Fulham football club came to the all-party committee and told us in heavily sentimental tones that he wished to see Fulham football club survive, and that it had the support of the local council. Yet, within a matter of days, if not hours, it was announced that the sale was to go ahead and Craven Cottage was to close. That is obviously a cause for great regret, but it is a sign of realism. There is no way that such clubs can afford to put in the necessary number of seats, and it would be impractical for them to do so in current conditions. Ground sharing is inevitable.
  It is interesting to see from Lord Justice Taylor's report that Mr. Peter Robinson of the Luton football club, who is well known to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), said that, if his club and Everton were offered a new super-stadium on Merseyside, although the fans would not like it, he for one would be happy to go to that stadium. I suggest to the House that that must be the way; that in cities such as Sheffield, Nottingham, Bristol—and, indeed, London—if clubs are to survive and retain their identity, they will have to consider a communal facility for one, two or possibly three clubs. [Interruption.]
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) asks where Luton will go. We have Watford down the road and Northampton just north of us. We have to encourage the football clubs to take decisions that will certainly be sentimentally unpalatable to them but, realistically, are the only way in which they can survive.
  Mr. Ashton rose—
  Mr. Carlisle: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman; he knows the time structure.
  The other factor that must be remembered has been mooted on the Floor of the House before. It is that we must look towards super-stadiums. For this, we must have the co-operation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and those Labour, Conservative and Liberal councillors throughout the country who consistently reject the idea of super-stadiums, and, indeed, of out-of-town stadiums.
  Mr. Ashton: Not true.
  Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member says, "Not true," but I have an instance in my own constituency. There is a 365-acre old chalk pit and a new super-stadium was proposed, but every man and woman on the county council rejected it and every villager was up in arms about it on the basis that they did not want it in their back yard.
  Mr. Ashton: The world student games are to come to Sheffield in 1991. A municipal stadium has been built for 40,000 people, all sitting down, and the clubs have been asked if they would consider sharing and playing there.

  249
  The rent they are asking is £2 million a year, because the new stadium has cost £20 million or thereabouts to build, and the public auditor, whom they have to satisfy, says that a fair rent as a return on capital is £2 million a year. The clubs says they cannot afford it. These are the finances that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
  Mr. Carlisle: I know, and I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman about that instance, but he is faced with the alternative of clubs going out of business, there being only one club in Sheffield and only one in Bristol. He must face the fact that those clubs will go out it they are forced by law to build the suggested number of seats. Also, of course, the clubs have to improve their facilities; they probably have to go for artificial surfaces, which I know are anathema to many people. If they are to become community facilities which I believe they will become, we shall see far fewer grounds—the same number of clubs, I hope, but far fewer grounds. That is the part of Lord Justice Taylor's report which I believe will have to be implemented if the 92 clubs in the Football League are to survive under the conditions he sets.
  This is a last chance for football. That has been said in the House so many times, but everyone is screaming again today. Everyone is trying to assist, but we have to be realistic, and so has football. If it is realistic, it has a future. If it is governed by sentiment as it has been in the past, it has no future and it does not deserve one.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: It is ironic and sad that it took the deaths of 95 football supporters to bring it home to the Government and to society in general that something had to be done about the game of football.
  One weakness of the structure of the football industry—we must remember that, besides being a sport, football is an industry—is that those who go week after week to watch local teams play have had little say in how the game should be organised. Those are the people who pay their money at the turnstiles every week. As a football supporter who has been following one of the best teams in the country for more than 50 years, I agree wholeheartedly that the conditions in many stadiums have led to the problem in many football grounds.
  It may not be the only problem, but the treatment of football spectators by clubs is an important element. In many football clubs, a spectator has to be a bully if he wants to go to the toilet: the facilities are so inadequate that people have to push and shove their way in. The same applies to catering arrangements. To get a cup of tea, a meat pie or whatever they fancy at half-time, spectators have to fight their way to the front of the queue. When people are treated in that way, they respond accordingly. That atmosphere must be removed from football if we are to solve the problem.
  I do not want football to be sanitised to the extent that all the things that attract the working class to the game are removed. I accept that changes have to take place but I want a greater input by those who go to football matches season after season to support their clubs. Many supporters' clubs are like sweetheart organisations and do not adopt a positive attitude to the well-being of the people they allegedly represent. I am not saying that there are not good supporters' clubs; there are, but many are so
  250
  involved in their adoration of the management of the clubs that they do not act in the interests of the spectators who attend football matches.
  Football has been our national game. Many stadiums were built in the last 100 years. Many are in the wrong places. In Liverpool there are two football grounds, one on either side of a park. If they were being built today, they would not be in the same positions.
  The report suggests that there has been far too much neglect by Government and by the football industry. We had had the Bradford disaster and many others, so there was no question of being taken by surprise. Many warnings have been flashed out to the industry and the Government, but no positive steps have been taken to remedy the problems.
  I repeat that the football industry must realise that those who pay money to watch football matches have a right to have their voices heard and their views considered more positively than in the past. That will bring about a change in football supporters' behaviour. At the moment, most of the trouble takes place outside grounds and it is for their activities outside grounds that football supporters get a bad name. We must find a solution to that problem.
  I attended that match at Hillsborough, and lost a relative there. The events that day, in all their drama, showed beyond a doubt that there is something terribly wrong with what is happening in football. 1 hope that the Taylor report will show us the way forward and that the acceptable changes will be implemented as soon as possible to the benefit of the game.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Denis Howell: Any reply to a debate such as this must start with an expression to Lord Justice Taylor of our great appreciation for the excellent job that he has done on behalf of football.
  I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not yet here, because there is only one word to describe his speech. It was a diatribe unworthy of any senior Minister in this or any other Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman completely misrepresented the report for purely party political ends and to camouflage the disaster that the Government face. That is extremely regrettable.
  The problems of football are the problems of society. That is why Lord Justice Taylor was right to call football to account for its stewardship. It is the duty of the Football Association and Football League to provide a leadership that accepts its responsibilities not only for the state of the game but for the role of football in society. All too often., the bodies are seen as warring factions instead of administrators united in a common purpose. Even within the league, we have the spectacle of a conflict between big clubs and small clubs.
  All that must change. We must develop a cohesive strategy, such as that called for by hon. Members on both sides of the House, uniting the national leadership of the Football Association and the Football League, involving all the clubs in the county associations and embracing supporters' associations and players' associations, all of which represent the game and represent public opinion.
  Miss Kate Hoey: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say something about the way in which the Professional Footballers Association has tried to do something about the behaviour of players? It was

  251
  therefore unfortunate that, because the report was deemed to be purely about safety, that association did not give evidence.
  Mr. Howell: Yes, and I am glad to say that Lord Justice Taylor makes the point that what happens on the field is often reflected in what goes on off the field. I pay tribute to Mr. Gordon Taylor, and Mr. Garth Crooks and to the officers of the Professional Footballers Association for their contribution to cleaning up the game, and I wish them further success.
  I was on the subject of the responsibilities of the governing bodies. In the United States, those responsibilities are exercised through the establishment of commissioners for each sport. They are independent of sectional interest. Football must move in the same direction—and move fast. I hope that it will do so of its own accord; otherwise, such a solution may have to be imposed upon it. Football must seek the help of all those people of good will in responding to the Taylor report.
  That approach is in contrast to the Government's response to the report, which I can only describe as excessively partisan. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, the Government have scorned the offer of a collective approach that I have made across the Dispatch Box at least four times. Both yesterday and today, the Home Secretary misrepresented Opposition Members, and especially myself, in the most disgraceful manner. We have had an exchange about it—
  Mr. Waddington: I was quoting the right hon. Gentleman, not misrepresenting him.
  Mr. Howell: No, the Home Secretary was not quoting me. Is the Home Secretary saying that football hooliganism is not a criminal matter, because that is the only logic of the position that he adopted? My approach was much more effective and stern than anything that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and it is backed up by what Lord Justice Taylor and Mr. Justice Popplewell have said.
  After describing how such people cause havoc in society, paragraph 47 of the Taylor report states:
  "They plan their violence as a recreation in itself to which the football is secondary".
  That is exactly what I have been saying. It is what both Taylor and Popplewell have said. It is what everybody has said, except the Home Secretary.
  I hope that, in future, the Government will proceed along the path of consultation and conciliation and not pursue the confrontation that we have seen so far. Their confrontational approach, which we could describe as "ministerial hooliganism", dominated the Committee stage of the Football Spectators Act 1989. Those of us who served on the Committee know that in the 120 hours that we spent on that legislation, the Minister for Sport did not accept a single amendment from any hon. Member, be it tabled by one of his hon. Friends or an Opposition Member. Those 120 hours were an exercise in pure political prejudice, as the Government attempted to rush through the House a measure dominated by the thoughts of the Prime Minister.
  Lord Justice Taylor's report has demolished that arrogance. That is why we have seen this disgraceful
  252
  performance from the Home Secretary and his colleagues, who are trying to bluster their way through and to camouflage the disaster that they have suffered. As I have said, the Minister for Sport rejected every amendment that was tabled in our 120 hours in Committee and has now had his attitude totally repudiated by Taylor. The only honourable thing for the Minister to do at the end of the debate is to resign his position at once.
  We have had another exchange about all-seat stadiums and about what the Home Secretary thought we were saying about people who insisted on standing in seated areas. I remind the Home Secretary that I drew attention to that problem both in Committee and in the House. Indeed, I have given my eye-witness account of the 10,000 Leeds United supporters who were provided with seated areas, but who refused to sit down. What does the Home Secretary say about that? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was asked yesterday what he would do about that, he said:
  "when people go into a seater stand, it will be up to them to decide whether they stand or sit"—[Official Report, 29 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 36.]
  That is the Waddington recipe for future disaster. The Home Secretary is saying that people can stand in seated areas, even though we know that it will cause mayhem and friction among the fans behind them.
  I should like some answers from the Government. Do they intend to make standing in seated areas a criminal offence, and, if not, how do they intend to deal with the phenomenon that has afflicted Coventry City and Queen's Park Rangers and which some of us have witnessed ourselves? We want an answer to the question, but it is clear that we shall not get one.
  I refer now to the problems surrounding the World cup, which is to be held in June. Again, the Government have not referred to that. All that the Home Secretary said yesterday was that the problems of English hooliganism that may emerge in Italy in June will be the responsibility of the Italian Government. The Government expect a foreign Government—[HoN. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] The Home Secretary did say that. He outlined the message to the Italian Government, which was that they could do the dirty work.
  The Minister for Sport has been completely unable to take preventive action about the World cup in June, because he has no names of people to disbar. The number of people against whom he could obtain orders to prevent them from attending could not be more minuscule. He has the names of only 15 people who were on the boat, which was in such a state of riot that the skipper had to return to the British port and call for the help of Kent police.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Member fitted with a swivel head? He constantly addresses the Back-Bench Members behind him and not the Chair.
  Mr. Speaker: It is not unusual for hon. Members on both sides of the House to turn both to the right and to the left. However, it would be much easier for the House to hear the right hon. Member if he directed his remarks in front of him so that they are picked up by the microphones.
  Mr. Howell: I am obliged for that advice. You will understand my difficulty, Mr. Speaker. Naturally, I address those parts of the House where intelligence is to be found.
  I wish to make it perfectly clear that we believe in all-seater stadiums. I believe in them. I said so yesterday, when I said that they are inevitable and desirable.
  Cost concerns us all. First, I must declare an interest. I am a director of Wembley stadium. We have gone all-seater. We have removed 20,000 standing places and replaced them with 10,000 seats. I am putting into practice the advice of the Taylor report. Wembley has spent £25 million on that exercise of refurbishment and creating seated areas. That is a colossal amount but the cost of a seat at Wembley is the same as the cost of a seat in a fourth division club. That is the point at which we must start when we consider the financial problems.
  I can tell the House the cost for each division of the football league to go all-seater. For the first division, it is £8·4 million, or £420,000 per club. For the second division, it is £9·5 million, or £400,000 per club. For the third division, it is £6·8 million, or £283,000 per club. For the fourth division, it is £4·8 million, or £200,000 per club.
  Lord Justice Taylor rightly said that clubs cannot simply provide seats. They will have to put a roof over them, especially for a bad winter. That will cost at least £1 million per club. When a club puts a roof on a seated terrace, it must provide creature comforts such as toilets, a refreshment area and supporters' club rooms. That costs £250,000 per club. The minimum cost of implementing Taylor, which I want to happen, in every fourth division club will be at least £1·5 million.
  The Home Secretary charges the Opposition that we have no policies. Not only do we have a policy: we have a splendid record in government.
  Mr. David Wilshire: The Opposition have two policies.
  Mr. Howell: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he will learn that not only do we have a good policy, we have a magnificent record in government. In 1966, when we wished to host the World cup, we took it as a duty to provide at least 50 per cent. and in some cases 90 per cent. of the cost of all the capital work needed on grounds where it was to be played.
  In 1970, we encouraged Scotland to stage the Commonwealth games and, in contrast to the Government, we provided substantial funds so that Scotland and Edinburgh could acquit themselves with credit.
  Mr. Robert Hayward rose—
  Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman must listen to the catalogue of events; then I shall give way.
  In 1975, we not only passed the Safety of Sports Grounds Act, but negotiated with the football pools authorities to create the Football Trust. With the agreement of the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), we agreed that no taxation would be imposed on the spot-the-ball competition. In return for that agreement, 8 per cent. of the take went to the Football Trust for the ground improvements on which we were insisting. This year, my right hon. Friend the Member for
  Sparkbrook and I negotiated a new deal with the pools promoters which we
  254
  offered to the Government. I hope that they will accept it, as it will produce £18 million a year for the football improvements—£180 million in the 10 years in question.
  Mr. Hayward: If I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he spoke about when "we"—the Labour Government—took the decision to host the 1966 World cup. What year was the decision taken to host the World cup in this country?
  Mr. Howell: When I came to office, I was told by Denis Follows that he had approached the previous Conservative Government. He had been told that they would give every help and that they would provide motor cycle policemen to go round the country. I had to go to the Treasury to get some money myself. If hon. Members want to know the story, my autobiography comes out shortly and it is all there. It costs £14·95 and it is well worth a read. I am sorry to say that one of the people who comes out best is the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. I hope that he will reform from his practice of misrepresenting me in view of the justice I do to him in my book.
  The levy of 42·5 per cent. on the pools is a disgrace. It is disgraceful that men and women who fill out their football pools are called upon to pay 42·5 per cent. in tax, when the tax on bingo, horse racing and everything else is 8 per cent. only. I hope that the Government will consider that problem.
  It is important to consider the effects that the Taylor report will have on rugby union, rugby league and on cricket. All those sports will be required to provide all-seater grounds; it is a major problem for all sports, not just football. I hope that the Government will consider it.
  I endorse what the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said about planning and local authorities. Taylor rightly calls upon local authorities to understand the need to improve and replace stadiums and to be sympathetic to planning applications. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for the Environment is present and I hope that he will recognise that, time and time again, local authorities turn down such applications. If they continue to do so, they will sabotage the Taylor report—none of us wants to see it sabotaged on those grounds. I would be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy in that regard.
  We must consult the supporters' clubs more often. They have a wealth of wisdom and knowledge and I am sorry that much of the football industry does not take it on board. I believe that every football club should have a genuine, independent, but sympathetic and realistic supporters' club, which should work in co—operation with its club. The supporters' clubs should be represented on the new Football Licensing Authority, which we have not discussed, and the sport itself should also be represented now that the Football Membership Authority has gone.
  It is important that friction does not develop in the future, because the licensing authority—acting with great powers—has no representative from football or football supporters. I hope, in a constructive spirit, that when he makes his appointments, the Minister will consider that matter seriously.
  Yesterday, the Home Secretary's response to the Taylor proposal about the need to deal with new laws to prevent pitch invasions, racial and obscene chanting and the throwing of missiles was disappointing—as was his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for

  255
  Sparkbrook's call for the need to provide more attendance centres. However, I was heartened that the Home Secretary said that he would look at the matter again urgently rather than merely rely on the Public Order Act 1986. I welcome that, and hope that he will do so. Lord Justice Taylor must have looked at the Public Order Act and concluded that it was inadequate. We know that it is, because the number of prosecutions for racial chanting, obscene calls or such matters is minuscule.
  I endorse Lord Justice Taylor's report. I cannot do any better than to quote his fine summing up under his chapter headed, "A better future for football":
  "I hope in these two chapters I have made it clear that the years of patching up grounds, of having periodic disasters and narrowly avoiding many others by muddling through on a wing and a prayer must he over. A totally new approach across the whole field of football requires higher standards both in bricks and mortar and in human relationships."
  Those words have the full support of Her Majesty's Opposition. We trust that the Government will provide the resources which will turn fine words into reality.
  9.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Those of us who have been here throughout the debate will have heard with interest the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), for two reasons. First, he addressed three comments to me. He said that I was a supporter of Millwall, that it was in my constituency, and that I wanted a fixture list for next season. I am a supporter not of Millwall, but of Charlton. Neither club is in my constituency. I do not need a fixture list for next season; we are hardly through this season.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook should address at the Dispatch Box now an issue which is fundamentally important. Those who were present for his speech will have noticed that during his early remarks he said that supporters who wanted to stand should be allowed to do so. That led to an intervention by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), who could not accept that premise. He clearly and cogently put the argument for all—seater stadiums which is at the centre of Lord Justice Taylor's report. Later on, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook's position was echoed by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who also argued against Lord Justice Taylor and said that those supporters who wanted to stand should be allowed to do so.
  It is absolutely essential to the House, and as a message to people outside the House, for the Opposition to make their position absolutely clear. Do they support all-seater stadiums along the lines proposed by Lord Justice Taylor or do they not? I shall happily give way to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. [HoN. MEMBERs:"Answer."] It does not surprise me that the right hon. Gentleman does not rise to his feet because Hansard and coverage of this debate will show clearly that the Opposition have rejected the main tenet of Lord Justice Taylor's report. They went further than that on a whole range of different issues and challenged his arguments on other matters. They even questioned whether the new penalties and criminal offences which Lord Justice Taylor has urged the Government to consider carefully and enact should be so enacted. It is disgraceful that the right hon. Member for
  256
  Sparkbrook has not backed Lord Justice Taylor's report or all-seater stadiums along the lines outlined in that report.
  The message from my hon. Friends is far clearer. Urgent solutions must and can be found to the problems that beset football. An ailing game must be treated and brought from the inward-looking boardrooms of Victorian England into the 1990s. That will not be done overnight, nor will this report alone provide the cure. We need a complete change in attitude, a new realism and, above all, courage from those who run the game and those who support it.
  I recognise, as my hon. Friends have made clear, that football can creak and lumber on as it has been doing for years, bedevilled by trouble and shabby venues. Of course, change can remain a dirty word at most football clubs. Yesterday, in the intervention of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr Ashton), we saw symptons of such an attitude when he was unwilling to accept that football is an industry, a part of the leisure industry, which has to compete for spectators.
  There is simply no excuse for the raw deal that most supporters get from their clubs nowadays. Clubs must move closer to their supporters. I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) that the views of supporters need to be taken fully into account by clubs.
  But the reality is that too often in football local shopkeepers are too terrified to open and supporters have to be herded into grounds and protected every match day for their own safety by 5,000 or more police. The police are on duty to contain the problem, not to cure it. What other industry has the nerve to presume to ask the police to marshal its paying customers in and out of its premises? The police would be far better deployed in the local community and towns upholding law and order.
  The football authorities should be leading the way. Like every form of activity for the paying spectator, be it cinemas, tennis or fitness clubs, football clubs must pay for the safety improvements themselves.
  If every ground converted to all-seater and all those seats were covered, the Football Trust estimates that the cost would be £130 million. The calculation made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was even less than that. Many clubs, particularly in the lower divisions, have attendances well below capacity and many currently uncovered standing areas will no doubt simply not be used, thus substantially lowering the cost.
  Meanwhile, the Football Trust has offered £75 million towards ground improvements, and even if only half the income that the Football Association and the Football League derive from television—currently about £18 million a year—was spent on ground safety over the next 10 years, the costs would be covered in full. That is without considering the sponsorship and commercial arrangements, gate money and transfer fees, all of which provide important sources of revenue.
  Mr. John Fraser: If the Minister is so keen on sponsorship, why does the chairman of the Tory party have a subsidy as a Cabinet Minister? Why does not he get some sponsorship and run round with "Rupert Murdoch" across his chest, or something like that?
  Mr. Moynihan: As usual, the hon. Gentleman talks nonsense. He should concentrate on what I have just said,

  257
  which is that television income alone over the next 10 years, or half that plus the money that the Football Trust has said that it will make available, would allow all the division clubs in 1999 to provide covered seating, which would meet the fundamental tenet of Lord Justice Taylor's report, with which every Conservative Member agrees even if the Opposition are divided on the merits of that proposal.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Why have we not heard one word about the identity card scheme? Lord Justice Taylor condemned every stand that the Minister took on that.
  Mr. Moynihan: If the right hon. Gentleman continues to intervene, he will not hear me deal with that, which I shall be only too happy to do.
  Mr. Gary Waller: Let me stress the predicament of rugby league clubs, particularly those in the nether regions of the second division, which count their crowds in hundreds, have no access to the Football Trust and find it difficult to obtain sponsorship, but which may nevertheless find themselves, as designated clubs under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, faced with considerable costs.
  Mr. Moynihan: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has clearly stated to the House, the application of the Taylor report to other sports will be given detailed consideration—not least in taking into account the point that my hon. Friend makes.
  I return to the question of finance. The Opposition urged the Government to make more taxpayers' money available. It cost just under £1 million to police Chelsea football club, for example, last season, of which £140,000, net of value added tax, was recovered from the clubs—and £860,000 is a high price for the ratepayers of Hammersmith and Fulham to pay for the disruption caused outside the club and in the neighbourhood, particularly since the club estimates that only 2 per cent. of its gate comes from the local population.
  It is wholly reasonable for the ratepayers of Hammersmith and Fulham to ask the Opposition why, when they face such large bills today, they should agree with a Labour party that seeks to increase taxation to pay for safety improvements at Stamford Bridge tomorrow.
  There are three key reasons why we should reject Opposition calls to repeal the Football Spectators Act 1989. First, the Act provides the framework for the measures that Lord Justice Taylor discusses and recommends. Forty of Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations that impact directly on safety can be implemented by a football licensing authority, which is at the heart of part I of the Act.
  Secondly, part I enables us to act swiftly in replacing stands by seated accommodation. If we did not have the legislative vehicle in place, we would not be in a position to give clubs as much time as possible to meet the timetable outlined in the report.
  Thirdly, Lord Justice Taylor comments positively on part II of the Act, which will be a crucial measure later this year. Those three measures should have the unanimous support of the House, and it is sad to see Labour opposing them this evening. Those measures have the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends and of the British public. Only the Opposition parties appear divided between outright
  258
  calls for repealing the Act and internal division as to how they should respond to the key safety measures that the report recommends.
  Lord Justice Taylor was quite right to address himself to the invitation to tender issued by the management consultants employed by the football authorities.
  Mr. Denis Howell: What about the identity card scheme?
  Mr. Moynihan: The right hon. Gentleman asks about the ID card scheme. If he had read the report, he would know that the only reference to the invitation to tender is right at the heart of Lord Justice Taylor's assessment of the national membership scheme. I shall be more than delighted to outline it in more detail to the hon. Gentleman after the debate.
  On the basis of Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations, we have decided not to proceed with the scheme's implementation. As I have always told the House, we were insistent that we would not move to the establishment of the FMA until we had given full consideration to Lord Justice Taylor's report. That we have done. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear yesterday, the provisions in part I of the Football Spectators Act 1989 will remain in force, and the proposals for a national membership scheme will be put on the back burner. Work will continue to establish how Lord Justice Taylor's anxieties about the scheme can be met.
  The problem of hooliganism has not gone away and it would be grossly irresponsible of the Government and the House not to give Lord Justice Taylor's package every support and to implement it. But be aware that we have a national membership scheme which, should we need it—[Interruption.] We can return to the House in due course to tackle the problem of hooliganism. As I have said many times, I believe in the national game. I want to see it fit that description—
  Mr. Derek Foster: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 277.

  Division No. 57]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott,Ms Diane

  Boyes, Roland

  Adams,Allen (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Keith

  Allen,Graham

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Alton,David

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Archer,Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Armstrong,Hilary

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Ashley,Rt Hon Jack

  Buchan, Norman

  Ashton,Joe

  Caborn, Richard

  Barnes,Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Barnes,Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

  Barron,Kevin

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Battle,John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Beckett,Margaret

  Canavan, Dennis

  Beith,A. J.

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Bell,Stuart

  Cartwright, John

  Benn,Rt Hon Tony

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bermingham,Gerald

  Clay, Bob

  Bidwell,Sydney

  Clelland, David

  Blair,Tony

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Blunkett,David

  Cohen, Harry

  Boateng, Paul

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Durant, Tony

  Alexander, Richard

  Eggar, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Amos, Alan

  Evennett, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Favell, Tony

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Ashby, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Atkins, Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baldry, Tony

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forth, Eric

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Beggs, Roy

  Franks, Cecil

  Bellingham, Henry

  Freeman, Roger

  Bendel!, Vivian

  French, Douglas

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gale, Roger

  Benyon, W.

  Gardiner, George

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gorst, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gow, Ian

  Boswell, Tim

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gregory, Conal

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr SirRhodes

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Grist, Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Ground, Patrick

  Bright, Graham

  Grylls, Michael

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & CITs)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hannam, John

  Burns, Simon

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

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butcher, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butler, Chris

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

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

  Conway, Derek

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Gran, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Curry, David

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Janman, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Kilfedder, James

  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

  Corbett, Robin

  McAllion, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cousins, Jim

  McCartney, Ian

  Crowther, Stan

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Cryer, Bob

  McFall, John

  Cummings, John

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McLeish, Henry

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  McNamara, Kevin

  Darling, Alistair

  McWilliam, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Madden, Max

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Marek, Dr John

  Dewar, Donald

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dixon, Don

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dobson, Frank

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Doran, Frank

  Martlew, Eric

  Douglas, Dick

  Maxton, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Meacher, Michael

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Meale, Alan

  Eadie, Alexander

  Michael, Alun

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fisher, Mark

  Morley, Elliot

  Flannery, Martin

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Flynn, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foster, Derek

  Mullin, Chris

  Foulkes, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Fraser, John

  Nellist, Dave

  Fyfe, Maria

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Galloway, George

  O'Brien, William

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  O'Neill, Martin

  George, Bruce

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Patchett, Terry

  Gordon, Mildred

  Pendry, Tom

  Gould, Bryan

  Pike, Peter L.

  Graham, Thomas

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Prescott, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Randall, Stuart

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Haynes, Frank

  Richardson, Jo

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Henderson, Doug

  Rogers, Allan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld &Kilsyth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Home Robertson, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Howells, Geraint

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hoyle, Doug

  Short, Clare

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

  Illsley, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  Ingram, Adam

  Soley, Clive

  Janner, Greville

  Stott, Roger

  Jones, Barry (Alyn &Deeside)

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Straw, Jack

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Kennedy, Charles

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lamond, James

  Turner, Dennis

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Vaz, Keith

  Leighton, Ron

  Wallace, James

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Walley, Joan

  Litherland, Robert

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Livingstone, Ken

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Wilson, Brian

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Winnick, David

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Knapman, Roger

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Knox, David

  Mudd, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Neale, Gerrard

  Lang, Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Latham, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Norris, Steve

  Lilley, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Page, Richard

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Paice, James

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Patnick, Irvine

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Maclean, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Pawsey, James

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Made!, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Portillo, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Maples, John

  Price, Sir David

  Marland, Paul

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Marlow, Tony

  Redwood, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Mates, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Rost, Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Mellor, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Mills, Iain

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Moate, Roger

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Shersby, Michael

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walden, George

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Waller, Gary

  Stern, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Watts, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wilshire, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thorne, Neil

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Tredinnick, David

  Trippier, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  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.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the thorough and thoughtful report made by Lord Justice Taylor into the causes of the Hillsborough disaster and regards its proposals as the basis for major improvements in the organisation of Association Football; welcomes the lead given by the Government in pressing for all-seater stadia, a proposal since endorsed in Lord Justice Taylor's report; welcomes the Government's acceptance of the majority of Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations; and urges the football authorities and the clubs to implement swiftly those recommendations which require action of them.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the Order Paper there is a note to the effect that the Select Committee's consideration of the statutory instruments with which the House is about to deal has not yet been completed. There is a correction. The Committee met this afternoon and completed its consideration of the instruments. In an extract from its third report, the Select Committee
  "draws the special attention of the House to the above instrument"—
  the Private Medical Insurance (Disentitlement to Tax
  Relief and Approved Benefits) Regulations 1989—
  "on the ground that it requires elucidation".
  That elucidation is provided in a memorandum attached to the report. I thought that it would be of benefit to hon. Members to have that knowledge.
  Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. Is the report available in the Vote Office?
  Mr. Cryer: It is, Mr. Speaker.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Private Medical Insurance (Disentitlement to Tax Relief and Approved Benefits) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 2389) dated 19th December 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be annulled.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following motion:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Private Medical Insurance (Tax Relief) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 2387), dated 18th December 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be annulled.
  Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for raising that helpful point of order. Some of his concerns will be raised by me and other Opposition Members.
  It is ironic that, on the day when Britain's ambulance workers employed by the National Health Service have come to the House of Commons to present their case, the House has before it two statutory instruments that set in place tax handouts to private medical insurance schemes costing, on the Government's calculation, some four times the cost of settling the ambulance workers' claim. Set alongside each other in this way, the two issues provide a telling and disgusting insight into the Government's priorities.
  On Second Reading of the Finance Bill last year, the then Chief Secretary, later Foreign Secretary and now Chancellor of the Exchequer, told the House that these proposals would ease the burden on the National Health Service. He did not go on to say how that would happen, and surely it is a fair question to ask: how does it relieve the burden on the NHS to give a tax handout to those who already have private medical insurance? The Government's figures show that some 90 per cent. of the cost of the proposals in the coming year are dead-weight costs. This expenditure is a subsidy to existing schemes, so I again ask: how does that help relieve the burden on the NHS? Surely the correct way to do that is to give the NHS the money direct.
  264
  The Government's first-year costings do not tell the whole story—they were never intended to do that. The understatement of the first-year costs is deliberately designed. As the Chancellor told us on Second Reading, it
  "needs to be seen in perspective".
  He went on to boast about the money that the Government were giving the NHS. Again, the tabling of these regulations just before the House rose for the Christmas recess was hardly designed to ensure the maximum publicity for the proposals, yet what is set out could have far-reaching significance for the NHS.
  These arrangements for claiming tax rebates under the scheme do not speak of a modest proposal, operating at the margins—a proposal that
  "needs to be seen in perspective".
  The arrangements that have been put in hand for basic rate taxpayers and, indeed, non-taxpayers are similar to those currently in place for claiming mortgage tax relief. It is a private medical insurance MIRAS scheme. Just as there is no real point in introducing tax relief to reward people for doing what they would have done anyway without the relief, so there is no real point in putting those arrangements for claiming into place for a scheme that is intended to be modest.
  On the basis of the evidence so far, it seems reasonable to suspect that something more far-reaching is intended. When dealing with the Conservative party, it is important to watch carefully what it is doing rather than just listen to what it says. There can surely be no doubt that the arrangements could be a stepping stone for the introduction of more general tax reliefs for private medical insurance. It is pretty easy to predict the way in which the debate inside the private medical insurance industry will go—indeed, it has begun already. The industry mentions the costs of the administrative arrangements that accompany tax relief in this form—costs that fall on the industry and therefore, eventually, on the consumer.
  The industry makes the point that encouraging special private medical insurance for pensioners distorts existing cross-subsidy arrangements between older—and therefore more vulnerable—and younger consumers of its product, to the industry's disadvantage. Arguing from that point of view, the logical next step is to make the existing reliefs more generally available. No doubt, the Chancellor will argue that such a step would relieve the burden on the Health Service even more. If that is not the Government's true intention, now is the time for them to say so. If the Minister can give the House a firm assurance that those reliefs will be extended before the next general election, I shall happily give way and afford him an opportunity to do so. The hon. Gentleman may refer to it in his speech, as he does not seem to want to do so in mine.
  Mr. Tim Smith rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am prepared to take assurances from wherever I can get them. I suspect that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has slightly more sympathy with my points than most Conservative Members. If the hon. Gentleman felt that in some future Conservative Government an assurance from him would be binding, I should willingly give way to him. It is disappointing that he obviously does not think that.
  There can be no doubt that the regulations reduce the tax base in an unfair and socially divisive way. The true subsidy is, of course, open ended and it is not limited to the Government's estimate of £40 million.

  265
  In a pretence of fair play, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Second Reading:
  "Even non-taxpayers will benefit because they, too, will pay their premiums net of tax relief."—[Official Report, 25 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 818.]
  There are three broad categories of non-taxpayers, but for the sake of my argument we shall leave royalty out of this, which leaves two broad categories. The first consists of those who are rich, but who are non-taxpayers because they are advised by professional tax avoiders. Under the regulations, even the most unscrupulous tax avoider will receive the relief, whether he pays tax or not. The second category includes 75 per cent. of Britain's pensioners who do not pay income tax because they are too poor and who are too poor to pay private medical insurance premiums.
  Why should older people have to pay into private medical schemes? They have been frightened into it by a pretty realistic assessment of what the Government intend to do to the NHS and frightened into believing that, even on a restricted budget, private medical insurance must be a priority and a matter of life and death. Why should Britain's pensioners be bullied into paying private medical insurance premiums? Have not they, of all people, already paid towards the NHS? Now that they are more likely, because of their age, to need to use the NHS, the Government say, "Pay again, go private and we shall give you tax relief." How typical it is of the Government's business dealings, exemplified by the privatisation programme, that they are trying to sell again to Britain's pensioners the health care provision that they thought that the NHS already gave.
  Needless to say, the statutory instruments fly in the face of the Government's stated tax policy. The Government's case used to be that they were reviewing and, where possible, eliminating allowances with a view to reducing overall rates of direct taxation. Tax allowances were a form of public expenditure, which were listed in the White Paper. The Conservative party's case used to be that it sought to reduce the burden on ordinary taxpayers, but here the Conservative Government are doing the exact opposite. The taxpayer has to pay for handouts to pensioners with private medical insurance, 90 per cent. of whom were in such schemes anyway, even without the inducement of the relief.
  I want to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to several matters of detail which arise from the two statutory instruments, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South referred in a point of order at the start of the debate. Regulation 4 of the Private Medical Insurance (Tax Relief) Regulations 1989 sets out the information that has to be provided by an individual to claim relief at source. Part of the information required is a certificate specifying that the contract satisfies the requirements of section 54(2) of the Finance Act 1989. That provision requires that the person who is insured by the contract is resident in the United Kingdom. I believe that the regulations should also require the individual to notify the Inland Revenue if the position changes at any time during the period that is covered by the insurance. Why do the regulations not require that? Why should it be possible to take the relief and then to move overseas?
  On a similar point, why does regulation 10 not require non-United Kingdom insurers to make the information that regulation 10 requires available in the United Kingdom? Under regulation 12, which relates to qualifying insurers, a declaration has to be made to the
  266
  effect either that the person is carrying on a business in the United Kingdom or, if not, that he is a national of a member state of the EC. Should not the insurer certify that the contract will be brought in, in its entirety, as part of the business carried on in a member state and that it will not be reinsured offshore? Does not the wording provide a loophole to permit offshore reinsurance?
  When we discussed these matters in July 1989, the then Financial Secretary—now the Chief Secretary—announced in a written answer a broad outline of the areas that would be eligible for tax relief. That was with a background of the industry lobbying against what it felt might be an unduly restrictive framework of regulations. Hence the then Financial Secretary opened his July answer with a robust:
  "Our intention is that a comprehensive range of treatments will be permitted under private medical insurance contracts which attract tax relief."—[Official Report, 19 July 1989; Vol. 157, c. 181.]
  The Medical Insurance (Disentitlement to Tax Relief and Approved Benefits) Regulations set out the detail. It is pretty comprehensive. The regulations provide that services must be associated with the treatment or consequent upon it. That is pretty broad. I know that it was the then Financial Secretary's intention to exclude alternative medicines, but I am by no means certain that that is what the regulations do. Will the Minister assure the House that it will not be possible for, say, a wealthy, eccentric pensioner to undergo therapeutic treatment by standing in a bath of water and having small electric shocks passed through it and to claim tax relief at the top rate on the whole bizarre arrangement? Let me put it like this. She could, in any event, claim under the regulations for the private ambulance to take her there and back. The regulations provide for generous tax relief for the use of private ambulances, when the Government are willing to see the industrial dispute in the ambulance service that the rest of us use drag on and on. There can be no morality in that.
  On the subject of morality, are not the regulations open to abuse in another way? It would not be the first time that the Conservative party had got itself into trouble with society osteopaths, but in Harold Macmillan's day nobody, so far as I am aware, suggested that the arrangements should qualify for tax relief.
  A provision limiting accommodation, as a service, to not more than 14 days is surely easily evaded by regular return trips to hospital. Anyway, who will enforce the provision of accommodation for the patient's family or friends? In fact, there is very little in the regulations that allows for supervision of the arrangement, nor is there much history of the supervision of private medical insurance. The Government, who proclaim themselves to be keen on investor protection, provide no special protection for consumers of private medical insurance. There is no body to adjudicate on disputes. There is just the individual, probably ill, confronted with the might of an insurance company that will not pay up.
  These rotten and unenforceable regulations do nothing to improve this already contemptible provision in the taxation system. The proposals are designed to spearhead development of a two-tier Health Service, with top rate tax relief and a queue-jumping inside track for those who can afford it, and an under-resourced and neglected Health Service for the rest of us. Private medical insurance is a risky business. Preconditions are not covered and the

  267
  policy may not cover the specific illness with which the insured ends up. And of course one cannot rely on the tax relief either, because an incoming Labour Government will abolish it in its entirety and put the money safely back into the National Health Service where it belongs.
  10.27 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I apologise to the House if my voice is at all slurred. It is not because I have dined well but because I have been to the dentist—an NHS dentist, I hasten to add.
  I am grateful for the opportunity the Opposition have given us to debate these instruments, but I am slightly surprised that we are being asked to debate them and that they are being prayed against. After all, the most important of the two statutory instruments is named "Disentitlement to Tax Relief and Approved Benefits". It is a limiting and restrictive measure. It restricts the availability of these reliefs, to which I understand the Opposition object.
  The rationale was debated and the debate was resoundingly won in the Committee on the Finance Bill and on the Floor of the House last year. As it has been reopened, it is worth recalling why the measure was introduced. The number of people covered by private medicine doubled in the 1980s.
  Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): Not by individual choice.
  Mr. Lilley: From a sedentary position, the hon. Member points out that a number of trade union members were collectively covered by private medical insurance and contributed to the 10 per cent. of the population who are so covered. But only 5 per cent. of over-60s continue with private medicine, obviously because on retirement people who have had insurance cover, often provided by their employers, find that the premiums rise as their income falls. The relief is introduced to help people in precisely those circumstances to continue their private medical insurance, if they so wish.
  The regulations have a second purpose—to relieve pressure on the National Health Service, especially for elective surgery, and thereby enable the NHS to provide a better service for those who choose or cannot afford to do other than remain on the NHS.
  It might be possible to mount a critique—for a moment I thought that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), in his lucid and witty speech, was going to follow this line of argument—that the relief will not be sufficiently attractive to encourage many more people into private medical insurance, and therefore will not provide much relief for the National Health Service. But he rapidly abandoned that line of argument and went in the other direction, as did every Opposition Member in Committee on the Finance Act 1989. The hon. Gentleman was worried that the relief would prove too attractive, that it would attract a great deal more private medical insurance among those over 60, and that as a result the relief would cost more than the initial £40 million which we expect in the first year.
  The hon. Gentleman asked how the regulations could provide relief. It is fairly obvious that every extra person attracted into private medical insurance provides relief for
  268
  the NHS. It means that potentially fewer patients need treatment on the NHS. So long as the cost of the tax relief on operations carried out privately is less than the cost of providing similar extra operations on the NHS, tax relief must be a more cost-effective way than extra spending. This will be the case so long as the cost of the operation in the private sector is less than two and a half times what it would be in the public sector. Of course, it is four times where basic rate tax relief is concerned, when we are talking about 25 per cent. of the cost of private operations being borne by tax relief as against 100 per cent. if they were carried out in the public sector.
  If Opposition Members are seriously suggesting that private medical operations are carried out at such a multiple of the cost of operations in the NHS, they must also be saying that pay beds in the NHS must be enormously profitable, because they can sell at the private medical price operations provided at NHS cost. Therefore, they would be raking in a great profit. It is extremely odd that they sought to close down and eliminate pay beds from the National Health Service, despite the fact that it is generally recognised that pay beds provide a certain profit, but not on anything like the level that would follow from the costs that Opposition Members suppose.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Surely the Minister is making the wrong comparison between the cost of the operation in the public sector and the cost of the tax relief on the premiums, including the premiums of those who do not have operations on the National Health Service because they are not ill, and the premiums of those who are not able to to avail themselves of private insurance arrangements because they do not cover the circumstances which arise. He should be comparing the cost of the hospital operation with the cost of the tax relief on the premiums.
  Mr. Lilley: That is what I am implicitly doing. The premiums reflect the cost of treatment, which, by and large, the non-profit-making private medical insurance organisations have to pay for. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that those organisations are surreptitiously making profits and creaming them off, he ought to report that more publicly. But the whole principle of insurance is that those who do not require treatment—or make losses or suffer damage—are paying for those those who do. Matters are evened out through the cost of the premiums.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East asked a number of questions about the contents of the regulations. He said that the regulations would allow all sorts of strange treatments—the nature of which caused some amusement—to be available on the NHS. I do not know why anyone should wish to claim that. If he reads the regulations closely—
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The NHS?
  Mr. Lilley: I am sorry. I meant available on private and medical insurance and therefore eligible for relief.
  If the hon. Gentleman reads the regulations closely, he will find that they restrict relief to those operations and treatments that are more frequently carried out on the National Health Service than in the private sector. That is a simple way of excluding, for example, inessential plastic surgery. Essential plastic surgery operations are carried

  269
  out on the NHS, but not purely cosmetic plastic surgery operations, which would therefore be excluded under the definition.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: We all know 80-year-olds who want to have their faces lifted.
  Mr. Lilley: Exactly.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East asked me to predict whether any extension of the tax relief was envisaged. I have made it clear that the relief deals with a specific problem—that is to say, people dropping out of medical insurance schemes on retirement. That is its purpose and that, I think, is a justification which separates it from any wider relief.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: We seemed to be so close there. Can the Minister give the clear and specific undertaking that the reliefs will not be extended at all before the next general election?
  Mr. Lilley: I thought that I was very clear and specific.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether regulation 12 would prevent offshore reassurance. The answer to that is that there is no need. The important point is that the insurer must be in the European Community. If it reinsures the risk, that makes no difference to the tax relief due.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: Wrong piece of paper.
  Mr. Lilley: I am moving on from the issue that fascinated the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East so much.
  Although the hon. Gentleman did not emphasise it tonight, he has tried to pretend on previous occasions that the relief that we are offering for medical insurance for the over-60s would merely divert resources away from the NHS and not provide any relief to it. Underlying that is what, by analogy with the famous lump of labour fallacy, one might call the "lump of health care" fallacy. Clearly it is a fallacy to suggest that the supply of health care cannot be expanded to cope with the demand generated by £40 million-worth of tax relief. How else could there be enough extra supply of health care available to meet the £2½ billion of extra money which we have pumped into the National Health Service this year—for about the second year running? If we expect that the supply of health care can be increased if extra money is made available on the substantial scale on which the Government have made it available to the Health Service, and that that there will be a response to it, it is reasonable to suppose that on the comparatively small scale that the insurance relief represents resources will also become available in the private sector to meet the extra demand so created.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: How does the Minister account for the 90 per cent. Dead-weight cost in the Government's first-year costings for the project? Surely the overwhelming bulk of the relief that they are to give is to people who already have private medical insurance, so it will make no difference at all.
  Mr. Lilley: Simply because it is the first year and it will take time for the medical insurance companies to market the relief and to expand it. As has been said from a
  270
  sedentary position, that will lead to a greater relief, but, as I said earlier, it will lead to a greater relief of the burden on the NHS. That is both likely and welcome.
  Only those who oppose private medical insurance and treatment per se are against the relief, which is basically the attitude of the Opposition. They resent people making provision for their own health care. We believe that in a free country it is perfectly right for people to have the opportunity to do so and that it is reasonable to provide encouragement for those who are over 60 to continue with their private health care. This modest relief enables them to do so while reducing the pressures on the Health Service. I commend that and the regulations to the House.
  10.40 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: It is absolute nonsense for the Minister to claim that it is necessary to be opposed to all private health care and all private health insurance in order to be opposed to the tax relief that the regulations embody. The Minister must be in favour of all sorts of things on which he does not give tax relief. I presume that he is in favour of child care being more widely available, but he is stalwartly opposed to giving any tax reliefs for child care and he advances all sorts of arguments about why it should not be done. I am sure that, among other things, the Minister is in favour of all sorts of environmental measures on which he is currently resisting tax reliefs in discussions with other Ministers.
  It is simply nonsense to claim that anything that is good must have a tax relief attached to it. There are people who are in favour of private medical insurance or who certainly think that it is a proper legal and legitimate activity, whether or not they wish to encourage it, who do not feel that this tax relief is necessary. That part of the Minister's argument is therefore plainly absurd.
  Equally, there are strong reasons to believe that the signals that are given out by the regulations are extremely damaging to the National Health Service and that they are intended to be so. They give many people the signal that they may not be able to rely on the National Health Service if the Government stay in office for much longer and that they would therefore be well advised to make alternative provision. The Government are saying, "What's more, in order to underline that, we'll offer you a tax relief if you are retired to encourage you to take out that provision." That is a bad and demoralising signal for everybody who works in the National Health Service.
  The Minister must have argued on numerous occasions that any tax relief is a subsidy and a deliberate distortion of what would otherwise be a market choice or a market decision. Some tax reliefs are defensible and have a purpose, so presumably this one has a purpose. The purpose is to encourage people to believe that they need private health insurance instead of relying on the National Health Service. Presumably that is the only basis on which the Minister is willing to agree that such a subsidy should be offered—unless, of course, it is simply the consequence of the Prime Minister insisting, as she has done over other things, such as football identity cards, "Never mind the logic, I want it, so the Government are going to have it." Perhaps that is what has turned the Treasury's traditional arguments against tax reliefs on their heads. The regulations provide tax relief in an area and in such a way

  271
  as to lead people to believe that the National Health Service is far from safe in the hands of the present Government.
  The Minister advanced the argument that it is a tax relief of limited purpose. It is intended to encourage those people who have had occupational schemes of private health insurance, partly provided by their employers, to continue those schemes at the point where they become most vulnerable, when they retire. If that was so, the tax relief would be confined to people who were already members of such schemes, and it is not so confined. The Minister made it clear that it will be open to people—indeed, they will be encouraged—to take out such schemes anew, even if they have had no part in any previous employers' scheme. That limited purpose cannot, therefore, be the regulations' purpose.
  If the Minister has any hopes of reducing the massive dead-weight costs of the scheme, he must be hoping that it will attract a great deal of new business, some of which will not come from people who are simply continuing with their existing health insurance that might otherwise become too expensive for them when the retire.
  I said that all tax relief is a subsidy. Equally, all tax relief is a diversion of funds. There may be a justification for choosing to divert money from some other purpose to relieve the premium costs of people who pay for particular insurance policies. However, no justification has been advanced for this measure which is not intrinsically harmful to the whole concept of the National Health Service.
  Many people need no encouragement from tax relief to sustain the private health insurance industry. The diversion of funds seems even more pointless when all that it does is to put money into the pockets of people who already, without tax relief, have decided that they wish freely to spend their money on private health insurance. They are fully entitled to do so, but they needed no tax relief to make them do so and they do not need it to enable them to continue to do so.
  I am strongly opposed to the regulations. If I had not known the Government better, I might have imagined that the phrase "disentitlement to tax relief"; meant that the Government had seen the error of their ways. We know that they have not and that they are still deeply committed to the scheme.
  I find myself in agreement with almost everything that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said in his opening remarks. However, although I was amused by him, I began to part company with him when he spoke about alternative medicine. There is no logic in discriminating heavily against alternative medicine in operating the scheme.
  Some of the people who are most keen—keen is the wrong word; perhaps I should say compelled—to make use of health provision outside the National Health Service are those who want to use forms of alternative medicine that are not readily available within the Health Service. Once the door is opened to tax relief for insurance schemes, it would not be right to have some general presumption against legitimate and well-established aspects of alternative medicine in the scheme. I hope that the Minister will not take the satire of the hon. Member for
  272
  Newcastle upon Tyne, East as a signal that there is general approval for the idea that alternative medicine should be pushed out.
  I suppose that it is in the nature of things that alternative medicine has an uncomfortable relationship with the National Health Service. Some operates within it and some operates without it. The pattern is not even across the country. The relationship of alternative medicine with the private sector is such that I hope that the Minister will not discriminate against alternative medicine in the operation of the scheme.
  We cannot be much impressed by the mess that the statutory instrument is in. I know that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, seeks to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will say more about it in detail. I shall confine myself to the passage in the memorandum supplied to the Committee by the Inland Revenue. Referring to one of the oversights, it says:
  "Whilst this oversight is most regrettable, it does not affect the meaning of the regulations. The references to the repealed provisions are simply ineffective and have to be construed as if they were not there."
  Why on earth do the Government bring before the House regulations which are the law which have to be construed as if they were not there? What are we coming to? Only last week the House was presented with a statutory instrument on which it had to vote without knowing the outcome of the considerations of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments or the Committee which considered the merits of the instrument. Week after week, we see delegated legislation pour through the House in more and more of a mess. The Government should be thoroughly ashamed of bringing before the House statutory instruments which are not fit to be on the statute book.
  10.48 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: My hon. Friend the Minister probably knows that I am less than enthusiastic about this new tax relief, as I explained when we debated the matter in the Committee which considered the Finance Bill last summer. Having listened carefully to his arguments this evening, I am no more persuaded now than I was then.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) asked about the possibility of the relief being extended so that everyone could obtain tax relief. That would not be an expensive exercise. Millions of people already have such relief. It is provided by their employer and is tax-deductible for the purposes of corporation tax. They have to pay tax on it as a benefit in kind. The taxability of the benefit would have to be withdrawn. I should be completely opposed to that.
  Treasury Ministers have never seemed to me enthusiastic about the new relief, so I am sure that they do not want to extend it any further than necessary. I hope that they have got Inland Revenue officials to crawl over the regulations, even if they are defective, to ensure that the relief is restricted as far as possible. For that reason, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) who said that it should be extended to alternative medicine. Since I was against the relief in the first place, I should like to see it restricted as far as possible and the cost to other taxpayers kept to the minimum.
  My hon. Friend the Minister said that the first object of the exercise was to help people on retirement who went

  273
  from a situation where their employers paid for such private health care to paying for it themselves. There are many other things provided for by employers for which people must pay on retirement—for example, a company motor car or other benefits in kind. I do not think that anyone would suggest that there should be tax relief on such items. On retirement, people simply have to cope on a lower income with some costs that were previously met on their behalf by their employer. I understand the argument, but I do not think that it is a powerful one.
  My hon. Friend also said that the tax relief would help the National Health Service, as it would encourage people to make private health care provision and to have certain operations carried out at private hospitals. However, one of the greatest burdens on the NHS is our old people. That is no criticism of them: it is a fact of life that, as one gets older, one is more prone to illness. The growing geriatric population is a great burden on the NHS, and many of the ailments and illnesses from which the old suffer are uninsurable.
  In the long run, the NHS always picks up the tab. I do not believe that the relief will provide the help to the NHS for which a case has been made. I agree with other hon. Members that there will be a substantial dead-weight cost—the Treasury also accepts that. On any objective cost-benefit analysis, the relief is not worth pursuing.
  I am against eroding the tax base, and I look extremely critically at all proposed new tax reliefs. Soon after the relief was announced—in February, I believe—it did not come as a surprise to me that people wrote to me to ask whether we could have tax relief on private school fees. Others might argue that tax relief should be given to commuters to meet their fares. Except in exceptional and well-justified circumstances, I do not see why one group of taxpayers should be required to subsidise other taxpayers. I should like to see as broad a tax base as possible and tax rates as low as possible.
  I hope that the Inland Revenue has looked closely at the regulations. I am certain that it has as it will want to restrict the relief as much as possible. A better way in which to spend the £40 million would have been to give some relief to all tax-paying pensioners by increasing the age allowance. Those tax-paying pensioners who do not take advantage of the relief available as a result of the regulations will be subsidising those who do. No case has been made in favour of that.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to deal with the position of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which does not concern itself with the merits of instruments. I shall conclude by expressing my views about the merits of the instrument. The Committee, however, would not want to impose an attitude about the merits of the instrument, as the function of our Committee is to deal purely with its technicalities.
  As I mentioned on a point of order, we reported the instrument, as the Committee thinks that it needs elucidation. The Committee can report an instrument to the House if it believes that the drafting is unclear. The Committee asked for a memorandum from the Inland Revenue on why regulation 6(1) of the Private Medical Insurance (Disentitlement to Tax Relief and Approved Benefits) Regulations 1989 specified that drugs used in the
  274
  course of surgical procedures were covered, but did not similarly refer to drugs used in the course of medical procedures.
  We felt that by specifying "drugs and dressings" in regulation 6(1)(c) in an attempt to clarify the position, the Department had created yet more confusion. We suggested that the confusion was made worse by the reference to drugs and dressings, which suggests that things used in providing care after an operation—for example, changing bandages—are excluded from cover. It also leaves in doubt the question whether drugs and dressings used in the provision of relevant services, such as the fitting of prosthetics, are also covered.
  The Committee takes the view that legislation which goes from this place should be as clear as we can possibly make it. If this case is argued, it will be argued in the courts—an expensive and lengthy procedure which, in the Committee's and certainly my view, should be unnecessary.
  It is worth considering why the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments is having to report so many of the instruments to the House. The Government determine the House of Commons' timetable. They were determined to put down the prayer—albeit tabled by the Opposition—for debate today. The Select Committee did not have adequate time to carry out its function.
  Its proper function should have enabled the report to be in the Vote Office in advance of this debate so that all hon. Members could see from the Order Paper that the statutory instrument had been reported to the House. The Committee is obliged to do that under the Standing Order by which it was established so that Members can get hold of reports and see for themselves whether they want to take part in the debate. They can then make a judgment about the information. That is our function.
  However, the Government are rushing through too many pieces of subordinated legislation, too many statutory instruments, for the procedure to be properly followed. The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments takes a fortnight to carry out its business. We meet every Tuesday at 4.15 pm. We consider an instrument on the first Tuesday and, if we find a flaw—an abuse of power, unusual use of powers or, as in this case, lack of elucidation in the drafting, making it ambiguous—we are obliged to ask the Department for a memorandum.
  We generally consider the memorandum the following Tuesday—one week later. Today, we considered the instrument, produced the report and put it in the Vote Office. However, we simply could not do that if there were half a dozen instruments which needed reporting on the same day. Normally, we would have reported this instrument for next Tuesday, in plenty of time to get it in the Vote Office and for Members to consider it.
  One difficulty is that the rubric on the Order Paper says that we have not completed our consideration. Some hon. Members may have seen that during the day, when it was perfectly true, who are not here now because they are waiting until next week when they think that the Committee's report will be completed.
  The Government, far from making good their claim in 1979 that they would take government off the backs of the people, are in reality imposing more and more legislative burdens every week. If we take as a standard the number of statutory instruments which were produced by the last Labour Government—a basis of comparison that the Government are fond of making—we find that the

  275
  Government produce more statutory instruments each year than the last Labour Government did. They now produce them at the rate of 2,500 a year.
  Such is the Government's predilection for subordinate legislation that, during the past 18 months, they have produced 23 subordinate instruments containing Henry VIII clauses, which empower a Minister to change private legislation. In some of those cases, there was no further reference to the House because they did not have to be debated under the affirmative procedure; nor were they subject to the negative procedure and a prayer, unlike the one that we are dealing with tonight.
  The result of all that is that the House does not have adequate time to deal with statutory instruments. Today, we have been rushed; I have had to distribute copies of the memorandum and the instrument to those of my hon. Friends who were interested. That is not good enough. The Select Committee is not being allowed to carry out its functions.
  Last week, there was no copy in the Vote Office of the report of the debate upstairs on another statutory instrument—a substitute for a debate on the Floor of the House, due to lack of time. On that occasion, we were debating a statutory instrument which the Committee reported on the same day and which was placed in the Vote Office in the same hasty way as happened today. Such achievements are possible only because of the Committee Clerks' great devotion to duty, making that extra effort for the benefit of the House. Nevertheless, the procedure is still unsatisfactory.
  Moreover, we did not have the verbatim report of the Committee's proceedings from Hansard, because Hansard itself is over-burdened with the Government's legislation. The way in which the Government machinery is spewing out Bills of one sort or another and a massive number of statutory instruments is becoming quite oppressive.
  Let me comment briefly on the merits of the instruments. I do so not as Chairman of the Committee, because the Committee does not deal with the merits of an instrument—only with its technicalities—but I am sure that the Committee would share my concern about the pressure on it to deal with instruments and to carry out our duties to Parliament. If the Government reduced the number of statutory instruments that they are producing and honoured their pledge of 1979 to reduce the legislative burden, they would be doing us all a favour.
  The Government are producing this legislation hastily, to mount a partial attack on the NHS. No matter how much the Government proclaim their devotion to the NHS, the privatisation of services, the opting-out scheme for NHS hospitals, the indicative drug budgets being imposed on doctors, and these statutory instruments giving tax concessions to people who are already benefiting from the private sector are all part of a general erosion of the NHS. The Government show a strong mistrust of the medical profession, which is not shared by the population at large.
  The Government are not prepared to confront the NHS, because they know that it is far too popular. People see it as part of their freedom—a freedom from fear. That was the title of a book writen by Aneurin Bevan, following his experiences. A person's life is enriched if he has no fear
  276
  of doctors or hospital bills. The Government know that the NHS is deeply etched into the lives of the British people, who are determined to defend it.
  In 1948, the consultants threatened strike action against the development of the NHS, but now the consultants, doctors, nurses, porters and the people at large are organising to defend the NHS. That is what the ambulance men and women are doing. They are defending the service by seeking to maintain their standards of payment and training.
  The statutory instruments are part of that general attack on the NHS. Even a Conservative Member has criticised this tax relief. This is a politically willed tax relief and has nothing to do with equity, justice or fairness. It is simply part of the Government's attempt to erode the NHS but, like all the other attacks on the NHS, it will fail.
  11.4 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Often, there is a kind of logic behind the Treasury's gifts to a reluctant nation. It is not that the Treasury wants to give presents that bear a strong resemblance to Miss Haversham's wedding cake—more a case of the political objectives that they can help to achieve.
  The Treasury knows very well that the tax concession before the House will make no difference to the elderly people using the National Health Service. However, it knows too that an increasing number of people who have paid premiums for private health care, or who had those premiums paid for them, discover as they grow elderly and start to suffer from routine conditions that if they can continue to receive cover at all, it will be at a much increased premium.
  That is the case not only in respect of private scheme members suffering from perfectly straightforward conditions, but in relation to exclusions. We all know of people who contributed to private health care schemes all their working lives. When they retire or, even worse, contract a chronic illness, they may discover that they are no longer welcomed by private insurers—who regard their schemes as offering protection only for as long as the benefit is on their side.
  Because the Treasury understood the political import of that situation, it had to do something to encourage the public at least to maintain their existing payments to private health care schemes. I know of many people who paid into schemes almost from the first day they started work, only to discover that when they began to develop the early symptoms of a major carcinoma, for example, their insurers started making it clear that they would not continue to receive payment for treatment. As that becomes public knowledge, increasing numbers of the elderly, on reaching a point in their lives when they must consider a reduced standard of living in managing on a pension, will decide that one thing that will not benefit them is private health care.
  Politically, that situation is extremely damaging for the Government, because even after squeezing the Health Service quite brutally, as they have done over the past 10 years, they still need large numbers of people to contribute to private health schemes, if only because they are part of the political ethos that the Government want to promote. People who suddenly cease to pay premiums when they reach 60 are a political embarrassment—particularly as they are mainly those who have always supported the

  277
  Conservative party and who will express their views on the difficulties that they have encountered in no uncertain terms.
  The Treasury has come along with a scheme that is not intended to help the NHS. That is its last purpose. Nor is it intended to provide better cover for those who have contributed to private schemes and who are now elderly—because many schemes automatically exclude such members if they develop a major illness. Instead, the regulation is designed to make a political point—to keep up the numbers of those paying for private health care.
  That is being done not because the private sector offers the best way of delivering health care, because we know that it is one of the worst and most expensive. It is being done because the Conservative Government want to make a political point, which they will be unable to make if the public cease to contribute to private health care. The Minister can hardly believe that it is in anyone's interest to make such tax relief available unless it is meant as a useful political gesture. It may be exactly that, but that is all that it is.
  The average voter will not he taken in. Not even the average Conservative voter who has contributed to private health care for many years will be taken in. Certainly the scheme will do nothing to shift the burden of expense, because the elderly require more health care, and they need it delivered to them by the most direct and efficient route possible. The scheme is designed to maintain the miasma, the impression, the image that somehow, if one contributes to private health care schemes, one will get better treatment in the long run. That is not a fact.
  If this is meant to be a tiny thin edge of a devastating wedge, the Minister has made a mistake, as has the Conservative party, for it is largely Conservative voters who have always had the firm belief that contributing to private medicine produces better care. That is manifestly not the case, and in many instances it contributes to worse care.
  We have not yet reached the point where, for example, in Marseilles, private doctors are killing one another to take control of private clinics. Who knows, such an ethos may develop here if people get into the cut-throat business of providing private care solely on the basis of profit. We have not yet reached that stage, but what the Government are proposing is designed to convince people that private care is better than the NHS. Frankly, I do not think that the electorate are that stupid.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. Lilley: Opposition Members have made a number of attacks, some detailed and some general, against the regulations. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, reasonably, that it was possible to oppose tax reliefs of this kind without being opposed to private medicine. I agree, and I was simply saying that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, rather than the Liberal party—or the SLD—were opposed to it on that ground.
  I recognise that the fiscal purists believe in the absence of all reliefs and therefore oppose the relief that we are discussing. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed falls into that category. He favours some tax reliefs for certain things of which he approves but. not for other things, of which he thinks we approve more. That is why I gather he is against this relief.
  278
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) is, and can proudly claim to be, a fiscal purist. His position is consistent and reasonable. I have always been more inclined to believe that, though one should do away with reliefs wherever they are unnecessary and very expensive, there is scope for closely targeted reliefs, and the one before us falls into that category, which is why we accepted it. It also brings the benefits on the public expenditure side that I spelt out.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also said that these instruments sent out the wrong signals, would somehow demoralise people and would lead them to believe that at some unspecified date at the end of this century or the beginning of the next something terrible would happen to the NHS. That is so much rubbish and bunkum. No such message is drawn from other tax reliefs that exist in the system, and he knows as well as I do I hat the vast majority of people, including all Conservative Members, are wholly committed to improving the N HS, the national well-being and the national health generally.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the logic of the system implied that we should limit the relief to those with existing schemes. We are keen and anxious that more people should, if they so desire, take out private medical insurance and thereby relieve the pressure on waiting lists, as I spelt out.
  The hon. Gentleman asked, paradoxically, why we excluded alternative medicine from the scheme. He is against the scheme, but he wants to extend it more widely than the facilities available on the NHS. If the NHS does not think that a particular type of treatment is appropriate to be financed from the public purse, it would seem odd that it should be encouraged by this tax relief. It certainly would not, by definition, if we extended the relief in that way, have the effect of relieving any pressure on the NHS as the NHS does not carry out such operations.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the misprints at the bottom of the principal note in the schedule, for which I apologise unreservedly. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said that he hoped that the Inland Revenue had "crawled over" the measure to ensure that it was as tightly drawn as possible, and I assure him that it was while doing just that that the Revenue discovered the mistakes. Although it is regrettable that they appeared in the first place, I am glad that they were discovered and that their existence was made known to the House.
  Mr. Cryer: The Department has said that it will introduce changes at the earliest opportunity and issue a schedule identifying the errors. Will that be issued to recipients of the instrument free of charge?
  Mr. Lilley: I will find out and let the hon. Gentleman know, but I do not think that this is the most expensive piece of paper available—or, indeed, that it is likely to go to people who are unable to afford a second copy.
  I hope that it will not embarrass the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) if, for the second time in recent debates, I pay tribute to him and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments for their work in general and for their work in this regard particularly. He has sought elucidation, and, if it is appropriate, I shall make it available directly to him or to the Committee. He asked whether the correction to the misprints would be issued free. A correction slip will be issued free. I hope that that satisfies him.

  279
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the prayer was being debated too soon. I understand that his Committee's timetable is involved, but the statutory instruments came into force three weeks ago, and it was appropriate to debate them as soon as possible. This was the first opportunity that was compatible with an early debate and with the Committee's being able to go through them.
  The hon. Gentleman went on—in his private, or political, rather than his Committee capacity—to suggest that the measure represented an attack on the National Health Service, foreshadowing the remarks of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). There is a degree of paranoia among Opposition Members about private medicine and the National Health Service, but it is perfectly possible for the two to exist side by side to the benefit of each. That is the aim of all the measures that the Government have introduced: there will be no conflict.
  We are often invited to compare this country—to its disadvantage—with countries such as Germany and France, which allegedly spend a higher proportion of their gross domestic product on health. The main difference, however, is the much greater percentage of GDP that those countries spend on private medical care. In the eyes of the Opposition, that apparently does not undermine the national health services of those countries; nor need a thriving private medical sector undermine this country's
  National Health Service.
  Sir Alan Glyn: Surely co-operation between private medicine and the National Health Service is necessary to provide patients with better facilities.
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite right.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South suggested that the NHS hospital trusts that are proposed as part of our Health Service reforms would in some way undermine the service—that they would be opting out. He knows that that is bunkum. The fact that he has to resort to such allegations suggests that he is trying to feed people's fears rather than that he believes what he is saying.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that the private medical insurance schemes ceased to provide effective cover for patients beyond a certain point, and that this measure was meant to redeem that weakness. In fact, she is almost certainly wrong, at least in many cases. I offer no broad defence of all medical insurance schemes. In one respect she is certainly wrong. I cannot see how, as she suggested, this particular tax relief would resolve the problem that she alleges to exist. On that ground her attempt to find some obscure reason for the introduction of this scheme falls.
  Mr. Boateng: It is as plain as a pikestaff.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman thinks that it is as plain as a pikestaff. Certainly it is not clear to me how the difficulty alluded to by the hon. Lady is overcome by this tax relief.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: When people who have been contributing to private health schemes become elderly many of them suddenly realise that they are not covered for the diseases from which they are suffering. They then cease to contribute because, even if they stayed in the
  280
  schemes, their premiums would go up and their cover down. On the whole, they are not silly enough to continue that arrangement. This tax relief will result in many people continuing to pay into schemes in the belief that, somehow or other, they will get a tiny amount of cover. But the question of real health care will not be taken care of.
  Mr. Lilley: Obviously contracts specify what is covered and what is not. In another place the noble Lord Wigoder, who has some knowledge of BUPA, said in relation to that body:
  "There are no additional exclusions of any kind applied to elderly subscribers …Overall somewhere between 96 to 97 per cent. of the hospital and surgical claims that we receive are paid in full."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 1990; Vol. 514, c. 695.]
  I quote those words without endorsement. If the hon. Lady wishes to disagree with the noble Lord and show him that he is wrong, she is entitled to take up the matter in correspondence with him.
  I conclude by reiterating—[Interruption.]—to the obvious support and enthusiasm of my hon. Friends, that these two instruments will implement the measure introduced in the last Finance Act, which had the overwhelming support of this House. It will do so in a sensible way, which will limit that relief to the provision of treatments available on the National Health Service, and, in so doing, make life easier for those who are retiring and wish to continue their private medical insurance, and will relieve pressure on the National Health Service.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 168.

  Division No. 58]

  [11.23pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Doran, Frank

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Barron, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beith, A. J.

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

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

  Fisher, Mark

  Blair, Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  Blunkett, David

  Foster, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Foulkes, George

  Boyes, Roland

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bradley, Keith

  Galloway, George

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Graham, Thomas

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Haynes, Frank

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Henderson, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howells, Geraint

  Clay, Bob

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ingram, Adam

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cryer, Bob

  Lamond, James

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Darling, Alistair

  Loyden, Eddie

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

  McAllion, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dixon, Don

  McCartney, Ian

  Dobson, Frank

  McFall, John

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Amess, David

  Couchman, James

  Amos, Alan

  Gran, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Ashby, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Day, Stephen

  Atkins, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Batiste, Spencer

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dover, Den

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Durant, Tony

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bottomley, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Favell, Tony

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bright, Graham

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg &Crt's)

  Forth, Eric

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Franks, Cecil

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Freeman, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Fry, Peter

  Butcher, John

  Gale, Roger

  Butler, Chris

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Chope, Christopher

  Gregory, Conal

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Grist, Ian

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Rowlands, Ted

  McLeish, Henry

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Short, Clare

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, David (Shettlesfon)

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Maxton, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Turner, Dennis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Vaz, Keith

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wallace, James

  Morley, Elliot

  Walley, Joan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Mullin, Chris

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  O'Brien, William

  Winnick, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Patchett, Terry

  Worthington, Tony

  Pendry, Tom

  Wray, Jimmy

  Prescott, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Mr. John Battle and

  Rogers, Allan

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Neubert, Michael

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Hayward, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Paice, James

  Hind, Kenneth

  Patnick, Irvine

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

  Pawsey, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Portillo, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Irvine, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Jackson, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Janman, Tim

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Shersby, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset N)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Stern, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Stevens, Lewis

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir Jahn

  Knox, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lilley, Peter

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Walden, George

  Maclean, David

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Warren, Kenneth

  Matins, Humfrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Mans, Keith

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Maples, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Wilshire, David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Wood, Timothy

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Yeo, Tim

  Mills, lain

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Mr.Sydney Chapman and

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Mr.John M. Taylor.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  PARLIAMENTRY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINSTRATION
  Ordered,
  that Mr. David Ashby and Mr. Jack aspinwall be discharged from the select Committee on the Parliamentery commission for administration and Mr. William Hague and Mr. Michael Loard be added to the committee.—[Mr.Dorrell.]

PETITIONS

  Ambulance Dispute
  11.35 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: On this day of action in support of our ambulance drivers and crews throughout the country—action which has focused on Westminster as well—it is with very great pleasure indeed that I present a petition signed by 40,000 people from all parts of the country in support of the case which the ambulance men are putting forward and urging the need for a speedy resolution of the dispute. They say:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Health to use the good offices of ACAS and agree to arbitration in order to end this unnecessary dispute; and urge the Secretary of State to provide a pay formula for the Ambulance Service similar to that for the other emergency services.
  It is my very great pleasure, on behalf of the 40,000 who signed this petition, to present it formally to the House.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Mobile Home Residents
  11.37 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 515 residents of mobile homes in the Glanford and Scunthorpe constituency. This petition was organised by Mr. J. E. Epps of 40 Main avenue with the help of a Mr. East.
  The petition draws the Government's attention to the injustice that mobile home dwellers face with the imposition of the poll tax. Under the old system, the rates took into account the fact that those people who lived in mobile homes paid a site rent which covered such things as the installation of street lamps and the maintenance of the roads on the site. This, of course, is no longer taken into account in the poll tax. People on low incomes, many elderly people who have sold up to retire to mobile homes, many young families who cannot get a council house to rent and cannot afford to buy a home, live on these mobile sites, and this unfair and regressive tax falls very heavily upon them.
  I give my wholehearted support to the petition.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that you Honourable House will reconsider the effects and application of this unfair tax.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Allergies
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  11.38 pm
  Sir Jim Spicer: I claim no special knowledge of the problems which can be, and indeed are, caused by our environment to many people in this country. Allergy symptoms are just one small part of a whole range of modern diseases, such as certain cancers, heart disease, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease, but there can be little doubt that environmental pollutants such as aluminium, pesticide residues, hydrocarbons and so on are factors in all these diseases.
  My interest in allergy and other areas related to it stems entirely from my work within my constituency. I should like to give two specific examples from within that constituency.
  The first relates to a young man called William Rudd, who was the son of very good friends of ours and who went to school with my daughters at a very early age. He grew up to be a great sportsman, a good athlete and a good all-rounder and scholar. In his late teens he developed major allergy problems which grew worse as he advanced into his 20s. The only effective treatment that could be provided for him—when I say "effective treatment", I do not mean treatment leading to a cure but treatment to contain the problem—was provided by Dr. Jean Monro.
  However, the treatment was private and rather expensive. For many years, William's parents, who were farmers, struggled to raise the money to pay for it. I did my best to help. I am delighted that the local health authority eventually began to contribute to the cost of the treatment. Without the treatment, William's life would have been unbearable. Even with it, the outcome was that in his early 30s, having suffered from myalgic encephalomyelitis and total allergy for more than nine years, he took his own life. He had lived in a sterile environment, virtually on his own, throughout the nine years, and I think the strain and the stress became unbearable.
  I turn to a happier history, again of a constituent, Miss Cathy Bailey. Until September 1987, she was teaching full time in Dorchester. Then she became ill. After nine months of visits to doctors and specialists, during which time she deteriorated in every way, she saw Dr. Jean Monro, who diagnosed ME, with multi-food and chemical sensitivities as well.
  I first met Cathy in October 1988. By then, she was a truly pitiful sight. She weighed just under five stone, was incapable of working and was in total decline. Once again, I am delighted that West Dorset health authority turned up trumps and helped with the funding of her treatment. Without that help, she would not have been able to continue the treatment.
  Cathy came to see me just two weeks ago. I have never seen such a startling transformation. Her weight is up to eight stone and she is back at work, although only part time. Without the support and understanding of West Dorset health authority, of our director of community medicine, who saw Cathy and understood what the problem was and how it should be treated, of Dorset education authority, which gave her full support, and of her own headmaster and her school, who carried her willingly and happily during the period of illness, and

  285
  above all, without the treatment that she was given, I am convinced that by now she would have been a total invalid or dead.
  I will let my hon. Friend the Minister have a note of Cathy's history because it relates clearly and concisely, with dates, not only the tremendous help and support which she was given by some people in the medical profession, but also the scepticism that she encountered from others in the profession, who said, "There's nothing wrong with you; go away have a long walk, take more exercise and you'll be fine," or "Go to a psychiatrist who will sort you out, because it's all in your mind."
  The difference in the attitude of the medical profession in Cathy's case is mirrored throughout the country. We all know that a large number within the medical profession will not accept that ME or allergy is an illness which requires careful and specialised treatment.
  I am delighted that, in west Dorset, there are many dedicated people. As a result of their experience of this new and largely unknown problem, a chair in environmental medicine has been established at the Robens Institute at the University of Surrey. Professor William Rae has been appointed to the chair, and he plans to undertake a wide range of investigations into this field. A former colleague of ours in the House, the Earl of Ancram, is the president of the Environmental Medicine Foundation, and a constituent of mine, Lady Colfox, is its chairman.
  In a few short minutes, it is not possible to do more than to touch upon the many and varied problems that arise from these conditions, but I know that almost every hon. Member has constituency experience of those problems. Early-day motion 288, tabled by my hon. Friends and me, bears witness to that fact: within two or three weeks it had been signed by 184 hon. Members.
  I ask my hon. Friend and her Department to undertake to have a long hard look at this subject and in particular to study, and, it is to be hoped, give support—both physical and financial—to the work of the Environmental Medicine Foundation, which is being so ably led by Professor Rae.
  11.46 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) for raising this important subject. It is clear from the examples that he gave and from his history of involvement in the Environmental Medicine Foundation that my hon. Friend has taken responsibility for championing the cause of those suffering from such conditions and for drawing their problems to the attention of the House.
  In recent years many people have become interested in allergies. Such concerns are increasingly shared by doctors as well as by those people who suffer from allergies of various kinds. We all live in an increasingly complex environment in which there are many substances that may affect us as we go about our everyday life.
  Many people—the precise number is unknown, but it may be 10 per cent. of the population—suffer from some kind of allergy. Of course, one problem is that the label "allergy" is now attached to a number of apparently unrelated symptoms and problems of varying degrees of seriousness. Some of those with a so-called allergy may he reacting to a period of stress or some kind of emotional problem. Such people may be difficult to treat or manage.
  286
  Others are demonstrably allergic to a variety of substances. A variety of treatments can be offered, including avoidance of exposure to that substance or substances and treatment aimed at producing symptomatic relief.
  It is a measure of the increasing importance that the medical profession gives to allergy that clinical immunology and allergy has now been accepted as a separate speciality. My hon. Friend referred to the difficulty of getting sufficient medical recognition for the subject, but I hope that he will agree that there has been progress. The Royal College of Physicians recommended that the speciality should be recognised in 1987 and subsequently the joint committee on higher medical training gave its approval. Before that time it was incorporated under the heading of general medicine, and lost in a variety of other subjects. Of course, this did not mean that there was no NHS treatment for allergy. Then, as now, there were a number of hospital consultants who took a special interest in the subject.
  Treatment for allergies is widely available under the NHS. Less serious cases, which are perhaps in the majority—for example, people with one of the milder allergic reactions to a particular kind of food such as shellfish or who suffer from hay fever—are treated satisfactorily by their general practitioners or even by over-the-counter remedies. Where symptoms are more serious or more prolonged, a GP may refer the patient to a hospital consultant if that is considered to be necessary.
  I am happy to say that there are about 45 specialist NHS clinics located in various places around the country. Such clinics are not the only ones equipped to investigate the cause of allergic reaction in individual cases, and recommend treatments. Many other specialists outside these clinics take an interest in various kinds of treatment for allergies, and provide it under the NHS. These will include chest specialists. Allergy is so important for their work that training in allergy is a mandatory part of their postgraduate training. The postgraduate training of dermatologists, paediatricians, ear, nose and throat surgeons and gastro-enterologists also includes a component of study of allergy and they can and do provide treatment.
  I recognise the points made by my hon. Friend and that there are times when patients feel that they have not been given the consideration and respect that their circumstances require. However, we are continuing to see further progress in the significance and priority that is given to allergy.
  Following the recognition of allergy as a specialty, the position has continued to improve. The joint planning advisory committee, which advises the Department of Health on medical manpower, last looked at the position of senior registrars in 1988. At that time it recommended that the number of senior registrars in clinical immunology and allergy should double, from five to 10. It is due to review the position again in 1991. I know that my hon. Friend will regard that with close interest.
  Only yesterday the Department issued an executive letter on rehabilitation and clinical immunology and allergy informing health authorities that the specialties of rehabilitation and clinical immunology and allergy will be recognised as separate clinical specialties for manpower purposes. Employing health authorities will therefore need to change the designation on the contracts of those doctors currently in post practising in those specialties. It also

  287
  reminded health authorities that in 1987 the Royal College of Physicians recommended that each district should have a physician in immunology and allergy either in a system-based specialty such as thoracic medicines or, for example, a general physician with a special interest.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden): Will my hon. Friend state clearly whether those provisions will lead to increased funding for the additional posts? She mentioned funding a moment ago.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will be well aware that there has been a substantial increase in resources for the Health Service in recent years. The specific allocation of resources is, of course, a matter for the district health authorities in conjunction and discussion with the regional health authorities. The requirement from the Department that manpower is more explicitly defined and the greater recognition of the specialty will mean that those planning service provisions will inevitably have the subject drawn to their attention more effectively.
  Under our new proposals, it is for the district health authorities to plan to meet the health needs of those resident in their population and it may well be that individuals will wish to take up with their district health authority the question of what arrangements it has made and what contracts it has placed for the special treatment of patients with allergic problems. From 30 September 1990 health authorities will need to have amended the contracts of doctors in post practising in clinical immunology and allergy and to record them separately which will mean that there is greater clarity about the availability of those with the skills to undertake this work.
  There are some National Health Service clinics with long waiting times before a first appointment is given. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West is well aware of the problem. Sometimes the general practitioner may consider that the treatment available does not meet a particular patient's needs. In such cases, it is always possible for the GP to refer to another consultant elsewhere. If a hospital consultant takes the view that in his clinical opinion the facilities available are not suitable for a patient, it is always open to him to ask the responsible health authority if it will agree to finance treatment for an NHS patient in a suitable private facility. This is the case in my hon. Friend's example. The health authority's response to such a request will depend on its assessment of priorities within the available resources. Where the treatments are given in a private facility there is often the clear requirement that they should have been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation.
  In today's modern world, there is a wide variety of allergy. Hay fever is an allergic reaction to pollen grasses and to trees such as the silver birch. Many people have been worried that oil seed rape—noticeable because of its bright yellow colouring—has increased the severity of their hay fever. Studies are currently being undertaken to see whether that is the case. Others are worried that they are allergic to various kinds of food or to the additives used in the preparation of food. Some people are convinced, for example, that children's behaviour and hyperactivity may be associated with additives and other dietary factors. People who think that they or their
  288
  children are affected may wish to purchase foods which are additive free or do not contain additives which create a problem.
  To enable those who wish or need to avoid certain additives to do so, all additives, with the exception of flavourings, must be specifically identified by name or serial number on the ingredients list of pre-packaged foods. The E prefix used with the serial number means that it is one of those permitted for use throughout the EEC.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West drew attention to environmental medicine and Professor Rea at the University of Surrey at Guildford. As a Member of Parliament with a neighbouring constituency to Guildford, I am well aware of the work of the Robens Institute. On many occasions it has identified particular areas of concern and has pioneered work on the subjects on which it has focused attention. The work of the Robens Institute covers several important areas and the new initiative, to which my hon. Friend drew attention, is arousing interest.
  The advance of medical science in this country depends on the traditions of publication and scrutiny by the scientific community. I look forward to seeing the publication of the works of Professor Rea and others working with him. The Department of Health would naturally be prepared to consider the implications of any new ideas of confirmed effectiveness and validity for the development of patient care in the NHS, as it would the results of any other relevant work.
  My hon. Friend will be aware that the Medical Research Council is the main agency for the disbursement of public funds on medical research. I was previously a member of the Medical Research Council and I cannot speak too highly of its ability to scrutinise and allocate resources. It will be up to the EMF to apply to the MRC for support of its work.
  In August we wrote to the chairman of the EMF concerning the specialist chemical analyses required for the work of the EMF. We explained that facilities for the analysis of blood for very low concentrations of chemicals, including pesticides, are available in the United Kingdom at the UK Atomic Energy Authority establishment at Harwell at commercial rates. I hope that it will be possible to follow that up.
  Many people, on the basis of their experience or that of a friend or relative, believe strongly that environmental medicine, in the sense used by the foundation, can help in the treatment of various conditions. The two examples that my hon. Friend gave from his constituency experience make it clear how poignant some cases are and how desperate the sufferers and their families are for help.
  It is important that treatments are subject to careful scientific scrutiny and analysis. If fresh insights from any form of practice are to show their potential, they must be submitted to the highest possible standards of assessment and verification. It is scientific, not political or managerial, judgment which is at issue. The key to progress on this initiative must be the reaction of the medical and scientific community to careful evaluation of the work of the EMF. The development of medicine and science in this country has depended on this process. Those with new ideas have to subject them to the rigorous scientific scrutiny of their peers, followed by independent confirmation, before they are put forward for wider acceptance. I am sure that that continues to be the right way forward.

  289
  I pay tribute again to my hon. Friend. He has raised a subject of great importance to the House. I should also like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who are also present. They have made clear their interest in the subject and in the progress in the work that has been undertaken. I know that individual constituency cases have been brought to my hon. Friend's attention for which assistance and relief have been provided.
  290
  Allergies can be enormously distressing to the patients suffering from them and to their families. We must carefully monitor developments in medical science which move us towards the successful treatment of those distressing conditions. I shall certainly continue to watch carefully the work undertaken, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West and I will have further discussions on this subject.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether there are any changes to his Department's cash limits or running cost limits for 1989–90.

  Mr. Ridley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates:

  There will be a token increase of £1,000 on class V, vote 1 (regional and selective assistance, support for aerospace, shipbuilding, steel and vehicle manufacture) to introduce a new subhead to meet expenditure on a special payment of £31,790,000 to the International Tin Council. Extra provision of £23,123,000 is also being made for assistance to the shipbuilding industry. The special payment to the International Tin Council and the additional provision for assistance to the shipbuilding industry are offset by a higher than expected receipts and reduced demand for expenditure on regional development grants, regional selective assistance, selective assistance to industry, and support for the aerospace and steel industries.

  The cash limit for class V, vote 3 (administration, regulation of domestic trade and industry and consumer protection) will be increased by £155,642,000 from £248,181,000 to £403,823,000. The increase covers provision of £156,000,000 for ex gratia payments to investors in Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Ltd. and Barlow Clowes International Ltd., and associated expenses: the decision to make these payments was announced in the House on 19 December 1989.

  Substantial recoveries are expected in future years and these will be credited to the Consolidated Fund. The increase is partially offset by transfers of £322,000 to the Central Statistical Office (class XIX, vote 18) in respect of staff and services recently transferred to the CSO; £24,000 to the Cabinet Office (class XX, vote 2) in respect of the transfer to that Department of the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and £12,000 to the Department of the Environment (class X, vote 5) in respect of the transfer to that Department of responsibility for the Government's city action teams. Included in these transfers are provisions for running costs which result in the running cost limit for the Department being reduced by £221,000 from £305,098,000 to £304,877,000.

  In addition to these changes, the cash limit for class V, vote 2 (support for industry) will be reduced by £72,500,000 from £570,837,000 to £498,337,000. This reflects reductions in requirements of £18·7 million for innovation, of £19·8 million for regional enterprise grants, and of £4 million for assistance for exceptional projects, in each case as a result of lower than expected demand, together with a reduction of £17 million for the consultancy initiatives as a result of lower costs per case and a slower than expected rate of completion of projects
  88
  than originally anticipated, a reduction of £6 million for education and training as a result of lower than expected levels of activity, and a reduction of £7 million in grant in aid provision for the English Industrial Estates Corporation in the light of greater than expected receipts.

  The net effect of these changes will be charged to the reserve.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any proposals for requiring accountancy firms to split audit practices for tax advice and consultancy work.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the bicycle manufacturing industry concerning recent EEC directives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Representation has been made by the cycle industry about European standard EN 71 (in the United Kingdom BS 5665) and the implications for certain children's cycles of the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1989 which implement the toy safety directive. There is concern that the tests specified in the standard may not meet the essential safety requirements of the regulations in respect of a range of children's cycles. We are considering this as a matter of urgency. If any harmonised standard does not meet the essential safety requirements the Government can refer the matter to the standing committee set up under directive 83/189 for reconsideration. However, the industry has been advised that when a harmonised standard is not appropriate to a particular product, it is open to the manufacturers to submit a model of the product to an approved body for an EC type examination. The test body is concerned to establish that the model submitted for approval meets the essential safety requirements and in so doing may, if the harmonised standard is inappropriate, have regard to other appropriate tests.

  Unsolicited Mail
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what safeguards he will introduce to protect the general public against potential abuses deriving from the use of unsolicited mail shots of health care professions not subject to any forms of statutory registration.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no plans to introduce any new legislation in this area. As well as the general consumer protection law, there is the British code of advertising practice which applies to direct mail advertisements in the same way that it applies to advertisements published in newspapers and magazines. The Advertising Standards Authority will investigate any complaints about breaches of the code and will take any action it considers appropriate.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the
  89
  convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 29 January]: At present, smoking is prohibited in most common areas including reception areas, waiting rooms, restaurants, libraries and conference rooms. Smoking is banned in any office where a majority of staff vote for such a ban.

  Beds (Flammability)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to publish BS 7177.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 29 January]: The Department of Trade and Industry does not publish British standards.

  The British Standards Institution published BS 7177:1989 "Resistance to ignition of mattresses, divans and bed-bases" on 29 September 1989.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to enable manufacturers to continue production of goods which are to be subject to BS 7177, and will be for retail sale after the date for compliance with BS 7177.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 29 January]: Agreement has now been reached on the British standard specification BS 7177, which I intend to approve for the purposes of the general safety requirement of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 in respect of the cigarette and match resistance of domestic mattresses with effect from 1 September 1990.

  Eastbourne Water Company
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has yet completed his inquiries into the Eastbourne Water Company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 26 January]: We are considering the matter, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on which date Barlow Clowes investors will begin to receive the detailed offer referred to in his statement of 19 December 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  Messrs. Cork Gully and Ernst and Young, who are making the payments as the Department's agents, have informed me that all investors have now been sent a letter setting out their entitlement under the scheme of payments. Anyone who believes that he is entitled to claim but who has not yet received a letter should write to the Department's agents at Queensway house, London road, South Poynton, Cheshire SK12 1NJ. Investors have been asked to return their forms by 19 February, although claims made after that date may be accepted if good reason is shown for the delay. In the interests of prompt payment of claims investors should make sure that the deeds of assignment they have been asked to sign are properly completed and dated: some 30 per cent. of those returned so far have not been dated, and this will inevitably delay payment in these cases.
  90
  The payment to investors includes a sum representing interest up to 31 December 1989, as referred to in paragraph 8.19 of the Parliamentary Commissioner's report and in the letters sent to investors. I regret that due to a clerical error annex B to the Government's observations on the Parliamentary Commissioner's report contained the words "the date of payment" instead of "31 December 1989".

WALES

  Free Milk
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children are receiving free milk(a) under the age of five years, (b) at ages five to seven years and (c) at ages seven to 11 years.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  At September 1988 there were 10,444 children in maintained schools (including special) in Wales in receipt of free milk. Information is not available by age or for children who do not attend school.

  Schools (Staff Budgets)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate of the numbers and percentages of maintained primary and secondary schools in Wales whose school staff salary costs per teacher in post in 1993 will be(a) 15 per cent., (b) 10 per cent. and (c) 5 per cent. or more above average, (d) at or near the average and (e) 5 per cent., (f) 10 per cent. and (g) 15 per cent. below the average.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No estimates have been made.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he proposes to undertake before setting the formula for calculating school staff budgets under local financial management for maintained schools.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  None. As I told the hon. Gentleman on 25 January at column 851, it is the responsibility of each LEA to determine the formula for allocating budgets to the schools covered by its LMS scheme.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate of the numbers and percentages of maintained primary and secondary schools in Wales whose school staff salary costs, relative to average school staff salary costs per teacher in post are(i) 15 per cent., (ii) 10 per cent., (iii) 5 per cent. or more above average, (iv) at or near the average and (v) 5 per cent., (vi) 10 per cent., and (vii) 15 per cent. below average.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is not readily available.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each county the standard spending assessments in the categories and sub-categories for(a) education as a whole, (b) under-fives, (c) primary schools, (d) secondary schools, (e) 16 to 19-year-olds, (f) further and higher and (g) adult and community.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh revenue support grant formulae do .not form a basis for calculating notional allocations of standard spending assessment for individual expenditure categories.

  Hospital Spending
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report, hospital expenditure per head for each of the regional health authorities in Wales for each of the last five years.

  Revenue expenditure

  £ per capita

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Clwyd

  149·70

  180·77

  156·95

  191·74

  168·53

  207·25

  178·77

  228·13

  196·76

  253·77

  East Dyfed

  165·65

  203·60

  170·96

  211·42

  184·33

  230·48

  187·49

  247·91

  207·31

  271·74

  Gwent

  165·65

  203·05

  173·81

  212·56

  183·94

  226·62

  198·15

  246·27

  217·35

  273·02

  Gwynedd

  146·56

  189·96

  158·94

  203·40

  170·07

  219·05

  183·20

  238·93

  199·16

  262·45

  Mid Glamorgan

  162·61

  194·84

  173·37

  206·92

  186·29

  223·41

  202·57

  247·22

  220·38

  268·44

  Pembrokeshire

  107·88

  139·49

  114·26

  148·46

  120·59

  158·82

  130·39

  179·60

  151·58

  208·97

  Powys

  138·50

  186·49

  139·92

  191·10

  150·12

  205·98

  158·76

  231·83

  174·06

  251·29

  South Glamorgan

  255·80

  302·52

  273·05

  322·70

  287·53

  340·77

  312·44

  374·86

  341·22

  413·92

  West Glamorgan

  154·97

  188·34

  173·07

  208·79

  188·79

  228·65

  205·08

  253·81

  225·02

  281·74

  Wales

  169·21

  207·82

  108·06

  220·99

  192·40

  237·75

  206·86

  261·62

  226·77

  289·47

  Note:

  The population figures used are based on mid-year estimates of resident population of district health authorities. However, it should be noted that district health authorities are currently funded to serve catchment populations rather than resident population.

  Sources: Health Authorities Annual Accounts, Welsh Office, OPCS.

  Capital expenditure

  £ per capita

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Clwyd

  10·67

  11·29

  15·80

  18·48

  12·03

  14·93

  11·59

  15·05

  13·80

  16·24

  East Dyfed

  8·93

  9·74

  6·81

  8·02

  8·72

  11·21

  6·60

  8·54

  9·90

  11·27

  Gwent

  7·24

  9·33

  7·91

  9·15

  14·58

  15·78

  14·67

  15·59

  14·58

  16·16

  Gwynedd

  10·85

  12·08

  2·99

  4·01

  3·80

  5·32

  9·39

  14·63

  5·54

  8·65

  Mid Glamorgan

  5·07

  5·64

  14·36

  14·90

  8·27

  9·72

  9·73

  10·73

  8·60

  11·70

  Pembrokeshire

  10·85

  11·60

  14·91

  15·86

  20·43

  21·59

  21·81

  23·95

  22·85

  24·00

  Powys

  6·60

  8·58

  4·81

  11·28

  5·76

  10·55

  6·43

  8·57

  6·50

  9·02

  South Glamorgan

  12·72

  15·83

  7·75

  9·16

  14·76

  16·28

  10·72

  11·56

  8·77

  12·79

  West Glamorgan

  12·82

  14·42

  21·12

  22·93

  28·25

  29·82

  28·58

  30·91

  30·31

  34·87

  Wales

  15·77

  18·41

  16·00

  19·27

  17·28

  21·52

  16·95

  21·36

  16·40

  22·05

  Note:

  The population figures used are based on mid-year estimates of resident population of district health authorities. However, it should be noted that district health authorities are currently funded to serve catchment populations rather than resident populations.

  Sources: Health Authorities Annual Accounts, Welsh Office, OPCS.

  Total expenditure

  £ per capita

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Hospital services expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Clwyd

  160·37

  192·06

  172·75

  210·22

  180·56

  222·18

  190·36

  243·18

  210·56

  270·01

  East Dyfed

  174·58

  213·34

  177·77

  219·44

  193·05

  241·69

  194·09

  256·45

  217·21

  283·01

  Gwent

  172·89

  212·38

  181·72

  221·71

  198·52

  242·40

  212·82

  261·86

  231·93

  289·18

  Gwynedd

  157·41

  202·04

  161·93

  207·41

  173·87

  224·37

  192·59

  253·56

  204·70

  271·10

  Mid Glamorgan

  167·68

  200·48

  187·73

  221·82

  194·56

  233·13

  212·30

  257·95

  228·98

  280·14

  Pembrokeshire

  118·73

  151·09

  129·17

  164·32

  141·02

  180·41

  152·20

  203·55

  174·43

  232·97

  Powys

  145·10

  195·07

  144·73

  202·38

  155·88

  216·53

  165·19

  240·40

  180·56

  260·31

  South Glamorgan

  268·52

  318·35

  280·80

  331·86

  302·29

  357·05

  323·16

  386·42

  349·99

  426·71

  West Glamorgan

  167·79

  202·76

  194·19

  231·72

  217·04

  258·47

  233·66

  284·72

  255·33

  316·61

  Wales

  184·93

  226·23

  124·06

  240·26

  209·68

  259·27

  223·81

  282·98

  243·17

  311·52

  Note:

  The population figures used are based on mid-year estimates of resident population of district health authorities. However, it should be noted that district health authorities are currently funded to serve catchment populations rather than resident population.

  Sources: Health Authorities Annual Accounts, Welsh Office, OPCS.
  92
  Mr. Grist
  There are no regional health authorities, in Wales. Welsh district health authorities' revenue, capital and total expenditures per head for the last five years are shown in the following tables:

  Firing Range, Cardiff
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps have been taken to refurbish the range backstops at the national sports centre, Cardiff; when he expects work to be completed; and at what cost.

  Mr. Grist
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Sports Council for Wales, which operates the national sports centre.

  Leisure Facilities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has made of the cost of staff time that will be involved in the legal, financial and administrative work necessary to put the operation of leisure facilities out to tender in respect of(a) each district council in Wales and (b) each county council in Wales;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of staff hours that will be involved in the legal, financial and administrative work necessary to put the operation of leisure and sports facilities out to tender in respect of (a) each district council in Wales and (b) each county council in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  None. We are confident that the savings that will result will outweigh any initial costs incurred by authorities in preparing for competition.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain for his Departmental library a copy of the report, "New Technology, the NPT and the International Atomic Agency Authority Safeguards System" by D. Fakley and Adolf Von Baeckmann, published by the Programme for Promoting Nuclear Non-Proliferation.

  Mr. Maude
  The report, "New Technology, the NPT and International Atomic Agency Authority Safeguards System" by D. Fakley and Adolf Von Baeckmann, published by the Programme for Promoting Nuclear Non-Proliferation, is an occasional paper issued by the Centre for International Policy Studies at the university of Southampton. A copy will be added to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office library in due course.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the European Council Ministers meeting in Dublin on 20 January discussed(a) European Community initiatives to export nuclear technology to eastern European states and (b) ways of using articles III and IV of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to assist eastern Europe with nuclear technology.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. At the informal meeting of EC Foreign Ministers hosted by the Irish presidency on 20 January, there was no discussion of these matters.

  Nepal
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he will take concerning violations of human rights in the Nakkhu prison, Nepal.
  94
  Mr. Maude
  We will continue to make known to the Nepalese Government, as and when necessary, our concerns about respect for human rights.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Nepal concerning that country's non-party assembly system and the banning of the opposition.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had seeking his intervention with the Indian Government concerning recent civil disturbances in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  None. We have no sympathy with those who espouse violence to achieve political ends. We hope it will prove possible to find a peaceful solution to the current problems in Kashmir.

  Visas
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to bring about the mutual abolition of visas for travel between the United Kingdom and Hungary.

  Mr. Maude
  There are no plans at present to abolish visas for Hungarians travelling to the United Kingdom. However, we recognise that the situation in eastern Europe is changing rapidly. Although the final direction of these changes is far from clear, we welcome the moves towards greater democracy and freer movement of people. We shall continue to watch the situation closely and will adjust our policies in the light of developments, keeping in touch with our European Community partners.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will represent his Department at the Council of Ministers meetings; and what will be the agenda, on(a) general affairs: 5 and 6 February, 4 to 6 March, 2 and 3 April, 7 and 8 May, 18 and 19 June, 28 and 29 April and (b) development: 29 May.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I normally attend Foreign Affairs Council meetings. Depending on the weight of trade items on the agenda, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may also attend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attends informal Foreign Ministers' meetings, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development attends Development Council meetings.

  Subjects expected to be discussed by the next and subsequent Foreign Affairs Councils include relations with eastern Europe, economic and monetary union, the Uruguay round, and trade relations with Third countries.

  Kurds
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees concerning the problems of Kurdish people.

  Mr. Maude
  We are in regular touch with UNHCR on the problem of Kurdish refugees. We are currently studying an international appeal launched by the UNHCR on 20 December for assistance to Iraqi Kurdish refugees in Turkey.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Government of Iraq concerning the treatment of Kurdish people.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Gentleman on 25 October last year at column 490.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by the staff of Her Majesty's embassy in Turkey to visit the refugee camps of Kurdish asylum seekers from Iraq.

  Mr. Maude
  Staff from Her Majesty's embassy, Ankara, last visited the Iraqi Kurdish refugee camps in Turkey in July 1989. A request to the Turkish Government for a further visit in December was refused. We have repeatedly urged the Turkish Government to reconsider their position.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received on the progress of the investigations into the killing of six Jesuits in El Salvador.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I understand that a colonel, two lieutenants, one sub-lieutenant, two sergeants, one corporal and two soldiers of the Salvadorean armed forces have now been detained in connection with the killing of the six Jesuits, their cook and her daughter.

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

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]: Spending on export services is not identified separately in statistics on resources devoted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to commercial work overseas. Generally, about 90 per cent. of commercial work is in support of British exports. Since 1984–85, the following amounts, excluding London overheads, have been devoted to commercial work overseas (at 1984–85 constant prices):

  £ million

  1984–85

  56·9

  1985–86

  54·8

  1986–87

  54·8

  1987–88

  52·8

  1988–89

  49·0

  96
  No comparable figures are available for the years before 1984–85.

  The decline in spending in real terms during this period paralleled a similar decline in the FCO's overall overseas spending, but higher productivity in both responsive and initiative work led to increased output from fewer staff. For example, between 1983 and 1989, posts overseas reported a 14 per cent. increase in export intelligence notifications and a 60 per cent. increase in the number of market inquiries.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name each of the research projects on the(a) medicinal and (b) nutritional plants and trees of the rain forest funded by (i) Her Majesty's Government and (ii) the European Community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The research projects in nutritional plants and trees of tropical forests funded by the Overseas Development Administration are as follows:African acacias: study and acquisition of genetic resources.
  Evaluation of central American multipurpose hardwood tree species for dry zones.
  Exploration and collection of calliandra calothyrsus.
  Intensive study of leucaena genetic resources in central America and Mexico.
  Evaluation of genetic variation in gliricidia sepium.
  Acacia karoo: evaluation and acquisition of genetic resources.

  There are currently no Overseas Development Organisation-funded projects on medicinal research, but we are ready to consider requests from developing countries for assistance in this area.

  The European Community currently has a number of research projects under consideration. Details are not yet available.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Stephen and Christopher Fellows
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of the case of Stephen and Christopher Fellows heard at Stafford crown court.

  The Attorney-General
  This case was tried in the Crown court at the election of the defendants, who there entered guilty pleas. The cost of 20 minutes' court time was about £300. The cost to the legal aid fund of solicitor and counsel will be about £280 to £380. Prosecution costs were £270, although these costs should be offset by the effects of an order made against the defendants to pay £120 each towards the costs of the prosecution.

  European Community Reports (Disclosure)
  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Attorney-General how many reports he has received of the unauthorised disclosure of internal EEC reports and documents since the passing of the Official Secrets Act; and what action he has taken at consequence.

  The Attorney-General
  I have received no such reports.

  Abortions
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General what criteria are taken into account in considering prosecutions in cases where medical personnel fit intra-uterine devices with the intention of aborting pregnancies in their early hours without obtaining the certification appropriate under the Abortion Act 1967.

  The Attorney-General
  The criteria set out in the code for Crown prosecutors, issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, are applied in all prosecutions considered by the Crown prosecution service. The criteria require that there is sufficient evidence to afford a realistic prospect of a conviction and that the public interest requires a prosecution in the circumstances.

  EC (Internal Market Document)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he proposes to take under the Official Secrets Act in relation to the publication in the British press of the internal Community document relating to the impact of the internal market on regions; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the value today of the ceiling for mortgage interest tax relief if it had been indexed in line with inflation and if it had been indexed in line with average house prices.

  Mr. Lilley
  The ceiling for mortgage interest relief was set at £30,000 in 1983–84. It would be £41,000 in 1989–90 if it had increased in line with the movement in retail prices, and £64,000 if it had increased in line with the movement in average house prices.

  Department of Health and Social Services

  Newspapers and number of applicants

  Grades Advertised

  Auditor/Senior Auditor

  Chief Inspector (SSI)

  Chief Nursing Medical Officer

  Director of Estate Services

  Medical Officer

  Medical Officer

  PPTO Mech and Elect Engineer

  Prison Medical Officer

  Security Guard Londonderry

  Superintending Architect

  Tracer Technical Grade 2

  1987 Totals

  Independent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Social Services Insight

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Social Work Today

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Health Ser Journal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast Telegraph

  11

  3

  2

  13

  8

  9

  9

  2

  —

  1

  18

  76

  Irish News

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  0

  News Letter

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  1

  —

  1

  0

  7

  Guardian

  —

  0

  0

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  The Times Sunday Times

  —

  0

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  The Observer

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Nursing Times

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Architects Journal

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Building

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  2

  Engineering News

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  British Med. Journal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  4

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Chartered Mech. Eng.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Hospital Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  The Lancet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Londonderry Journal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  173

  —

  —

  173

  Londonderry Sentinel

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  193

  —

  —

  193

  Building Design

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  0

  Community Care

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  12

  3

  4

  22

  9

  13

  11

  8

  366

  3

  18

  469

  Earned Income (Taxation of Benefits)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will increase in line with inflation the current level of earned income above which all benefits are taxable.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the current level of earned income above which all benefits are taxable if the existing level had risen in line with the retail price index since the time it was fixed at £8,500.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: The earnings threshold—also known as the PIID limit—above which employees' benefits are taxed would be £18,100 in 1989–90 if it had risen in line with the retail price index since it was fixed at £8,500 in 1979–80. All directors are liable to tax on their benefits regardless of the level of their earnings.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Recruitment Advertising
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the posts advertised for the last three years by(a) health and social services boards, (b) the Department of Health and Social Services, (c) education and library boards and (d) the Department of Education for Northern Ireland showing which publications each post was advertised in and the number of applicants who replied to each.

  Mr. Cope
  Statistics relating to general service grades are not available by Department as all posts in this category are advertised by the Civil Service Commission to fill vacancies on a Northern Ireland Civil Service-wide basis.

  The information requested at parts (a) and (c) is set out in the tables below:

  99

  Newspapers and number of applicants

  Grades Advertised

  Inspector (SSI)

  Medical Officer

  Tracer Technical Grade 2

  1988 Totals

  Chief Executive H & PSS

  Chief Insp.(SSI)

  Inspector (SSI)

  Medical Officer

  Medical Officer

  PTO—Electronic (Electro Medical Tech Engineers)

  1989 Totals

  Independent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Social Services Insight

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Social Work Today

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Health Ser Journal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Belfast Telegraph

  10

  28

  0

  38

  1

  3

  7

  7

  12

  74

  104

  Irish News

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  News Letter

  1

  4

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  5

  Guardian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  The Times Sunday Times

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  The Observer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  ——

  0

  Nursing Times

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Architects Journal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Building

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Engineering News

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Med. Journal

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  10

  —

  13

  Chartered Mech. Eng.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hospital Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  The Lancet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Londonderry Journal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Londonderry Sentinel

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Building Design

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Care

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Totals

  13

  33

  0

  46

  8

  5

  7

  11

  22

  81

  134

  Newspapers

  Overall total

  Independent

  0

  Social Services Insight

  1

  Social Work Today

  1

  Health Ser Journal

  3

  Belfast Telegraph

  218

  Irish News

  3

  News Letter

  17

  Guardian

  3

  The Times Sunday Times

  5

  The Observer

  0

  Nursing Times

  2

  Architects Journal

  4

  Table II

  Department of Education—Newspapers and number of applicants

  Grades advertised

  Belfast Telegraph

  News Letter

  Irish News

  Times Educational Supplement

  Total

  Inspector of Schools (Commerce and Business Education)

  18

  2

  1

  2

  23

  Inspector of Schools (Construction)

  16

  1

  0

  2

  19

  Inspector of Schools (Engineering)

  14

  2

  0

  1

  17

  1987 Totals

  48

  5

  1

  5

  59

  Inspector of Schools (Construction)

  20

  1

  0

  0

  21

  Inspector of Schools (Mathematics)

  12

  1

  0

  2

  15

  1988 Totals

  32

  2

  0

  2

  36

  Inspector of Schools (Commerce and Business Committee)

  20

  4

  4

  3

  31

  Inspector of Schools (Construction)

  26

  1

  2

  0

  29

  Inspector of Schools (11-16 Support Inspector)

  15

  0

  2

  4

  21

  Inspector of Schools (Biology)

  23

  2

  1

  7

  33

  Inspector of Schools (Catering/Home Economics)

  10

  2

  0

  3

  15

  Inspector of Schools (Electrical Engineering)

  20

  0

  0

  1

  21

  Inspector of Schools (Geography)

  23

  8

  2

  2

  35

  Inspector of Schools (Mathematics)

  12

  0

  0

  3

  15

  Inspector of Schools (Science)

  22

  0

  2

  7

  31

  1989 Totals

  171

  17

  13

  30

  231

  Overall Total

  251

  24

  14

  37

  326

  100

  Newspapers

  Overall total

  Building

  2

  Engineering News

  0

  British Med. Journal

  2

  Chartered Mech. Eng.

  0

  Hospital Engineering

  0

  The Lancet

  0

  Londonderry Journal

  173

  Londonderry Sentinel

  193

  Building Design

  0

  Community Care

  1

  Totals

  649

  Cerebral Palsy
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what research he has commissioned to investigate the causes of cerebral palsy;

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to monitor trends in cerebral palsy.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]: None. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom is the Medical Research Council. However, I understand the Department of Health is funding some research into the causes of cerebral palsy.

  Construction Materials
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what effects on steel reinforcing have been reported to him as a result of alkali silica reaction or alkali aggregate reaction in the concrete used for the construction of any public building, bridge, sewage works, or water impoundment dam in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: None.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any alkali silica reaction or alkali aggregate reaction has been reported in any concrete used in the construction of any building or other publicly or Government-funded construction now in public ownership in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: I am aware of only one concrete structure in public ownership in Northern Ireland with a problem which may have been caused by alkali aggregate reaction. The problem is not considered serious, but further investigations are being carried out.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what definition his Department uses of a replica firearm.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: Article 2 of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 defines imitation firearm as
  "anything which has the appearance of being a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile".

  Additionally, under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 any imitation firearm which is readily convertible with a firearm is treated as if it were a firearm.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to investigate with the British Standards Institute the specifications for a standard for(a) firearms and (b) ammunition enclosure for use in domestic premises in Northern Ireland for sporting firearms and ammunition.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: None directly, but the Royal Ulster Constabulary has contributed to the Home Office study with the British Standards Institute on the subject.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Royal Ulster Constabulary issues a receipt for each firearm taken into the possession of the police when a firearm certificate is not renewed.
  102
  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has informed me that an official receipt is given in such circumstances.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Royal Ulster Constabulary issues reminders to the holders of firearms certificates before the expiry of the certificates(a) before the renewal of the certificate and (b) before the normal period taken to process such a renewal application.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has informed me that a reminder is sent to the firearm certificate holder one month prior to the month in which his certificate is due for renewal. A final reminder is sent one month after the end of the month in which the certificate was due for renewal. Local police may also contact the firearm certificate holder if they consider it justified.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, within the last three years, any firearm in Northern Ireland was taken into the possession of the police because the owner's firearm certificate had not been processed and returned before the expiry date, in cases where the certificate had been sent, or given to the police for renewal before the expiry date.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has informed me that the information is not available in the form requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific case in mind, I will make inquiries.

  Harland and Wolff
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement concerning the disposal of Harland and Wolff and that shipyard's present and future work load.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]: The sale of the Harland and Wolff business to a new company set up by the management and employees backed by Fred Olsen was completed on 8 September 1989. As the company is no longer in public ownership, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on its work load.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Fair Employment Commission was requested to register in accordance with the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 prior to the nominated date of 15 January 1990; and how many persons are presently employed by the Fair Employment Commission.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]: The Fair Employment Commission is specified as a public authority in the Fair Employment (Specification of Public Authorities) Order (Northern Ireland) 1989 and is therefore automatically treated as registered under the Act. At 19 January 1990, the commission employed 34 staff.

EMPLOYMENT

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the increase in average earnings each year for manuals and non-manuals in the private sector less manufacturing, based on the weighted average difference between the figures given in his letter of 11 January and those for the public sector as a whole.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The calculation requested would not be meaningful, for the reasons stated in my letter to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1989,Official Report, column 235, whether he will publish in the Official Report the information supplied in his letter of 11 January, together with his best estimate of the numbers currently employed in (a) each of the specified categories, (b) manufacturing in the public sector and (c) private sector other than manufacturing.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 18 January 1990 at columns 396–98. The remaining earnings information requested is provided in the table.

  Estimates of the numbers in employment for the categories requested are not available except for non-manual male employees in manufacturing, of which there were 917,300 employees in September 1989, the latest available estimate.

  Percentage increase in weekly and hourly earnings of full·time adult male employees (a)

  Manual Not in public sector

  April of each year

  Weekly earnings per cent.

  Hourly earnings per cent.

  1980(b)

  18·6

  20·4

  1981(b)

  8·1

  11·2

  1982(b)

  10·1

  9·9

  1983(c)

  7·5

  7·7

  1984

  8·9

  7·7

  1985

  8·1

  7·7

  1986

  6·3

  6·6

  1987

  7·0

  6·7

  1988

  8·1

  6·8

  1989

  9·5

  8·8

  Notes:

  (a) average gross weekly and hourly earnings, not affected by absence, for those on adult rates; manufacturing as defined in the 1980 SIC (but see notes (b) and (c)).

  (b) males aged 21 and over on all rates; 1968 SIC definition of manufacturing.

  (c) males aged 21 and over on all rates; 1980 SIC definition of manufacturing.

  Home Workers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to provide equal employment rights for home workers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Home workers who are employees already have the same employment rights as other employees.

  Employment Training
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will identify the relevant costs per head for employment training trainees participating in the programme through training managers who operate nationally and locally in the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on the cost per trainee in employment training for training managers which are voluntary organisations is not available.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what are the statistics for Great Britain and each Training Agency region, for each month since October 1989 showing the results of new client adviser interviews with people who want to register as unemployed, broken down in the same categories as in his answer of 30 October 1989,Official Report, columns 1–2.

  Mr. Eggar
  As the information requested is contained in a number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member, and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Tourism
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest national estimate of the numbers of(a) white on brown tourism signs and (b) tourist information centres.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A figure for the total number of white on brown tourist signs is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  There are currently 581 tourist information centres in England.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many individuals are currently circulated with the following minutes of Health and Safety Commission meetings (i) commission minutes, (ii) management board minutes, (iii) chief inspectors management meeting minutes and (iv) executive minutes; if he has knowledge of any proposals to extend the current circulation; and if he will place copies of these in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The circulation of these minutes is an internal matter for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions have been undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive under section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; and how many of these were successful.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: From 1975–1980, HSE's factory inspectorate laid 130 informations under section 6, of which 110 resulted in convictions, while five informations were withdrawn. In the period 1981 to the end of the financial year 1987–88 (the latest year for which figures are currently available), the factory and agricultural inspectorate laid 224 informations, of which 184 were successful and 17 withdrawn. Data on section 6 prosecutions taken by other inspectorates within HSE cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Building Safety Regulations
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he proposes to introduce new building safety regulations to accommodate contemporary requirements in the glass and ceramic industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: I am informed by the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission that there are no current plans for new regulations concerning glazed structures under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is proposing to issue a consultative paper including proposals for requirements relating to safety glazing under the Building Regulations 1985.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who will represent his Department at the social affairs meetings of the Council of Ministers on 1 and 2 March, and 26 and 27 April; and what the agenda will be for both meetings.

  Mr. Eggar
  I expect to attend the informal meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council on 1 and 2 March. The agenda is expected to include discussions on long-term unemployment, training in eastern Europe and the social dialogue.

  It is likely that a Social Security Minister will attend the informal Social Security Ministers Council on 26 and 27 April. This will depend on the agenda, which is not yet known.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will give details of the research project into repetitive strain injury being planned by the Health and Safety Executive; when it started; when it is expected to finish; what are the objectives; and what will be the total cost;

  (2) if he will place in the Library the two studies on repetitive strain injury which have just been completed for the Health and Safety Executive by the universities of Birmingham and Edinburgh.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The report of the study carried out by the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh is found in the Library, Deposited Paper No. 5131. The Health and Safety Executive is still awaiting the report from the university of Birmingham. The executive is currently supporting a small study at the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh, which follows on from the earlier project. The current study aims to produce an ergonomic guide or assessment aid which will enable non-experts to identify work activities which may lead to upper limb disorders. It started on 1 October 1989, finishes on 31 March 1990 and will cost £17,783. Negotiations are currently taking place between the Health and Safety Executive and the institute on possible support for research into upper limb disorders occurring in keyboard operators.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Health and Safety Executive plans to publish guidelines aimed at preventing repetitive strain injury; and what plans he has to publicise these guidelines.
  106
  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive plans to publish guidance entitled "Work Related Upper Limb Disorders: A Guide to Prevention" in spring this year. The guidance will be publicised by means of a press notice. The executive's inspectors and employment medical advisers will bring it to the attention of employers in the course of their duties. The HSE is also producing clinically oriented guidance for occupational health professionals and a check list and risk assessment guide aimed at employers.

  "Action for Jobs"
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much of the expenditure on printed material for "Action for Jobs" in 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 was spent through the Central Office of Information.

  Mr. Eggar
  All the expenditure on producing and distributing printed material for "Action for Jobs" during the periods 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 was spent through the Central Office of Information.

  Training Agency
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements the Training Agency is making to monitor the quality of the corporate plans presented by prospective training executive councils; and when he expects to place copies of these plans in the Library.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 January 1990]: Corporate plans submitted by training and enterprise councils will be assessed by the national training task force under the chairmanship of Brian Wolfson. The task force's recommendation will be forwarded to me for approval.

  The contract between my Department and the TEC will require that a full copy of the plan must be made available to the public at the registered office of the TEC. The contract will also provide that the TEC publishes a summary of the plan within three months of the start of the plan. I shall arrange for these summaries to be placed in the Library as they become available.

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

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

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

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answers 29 January 1990]: It is not possible separately to identify fatal and major injuries in British Coal and licensed coal mines before 1985–86 without incurring disproportionate costs. The following tables give the information that is valuable to Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines.

  Major injuries at all coal mines

  Fatal injuries at all coal mines

  1978

  494

  63

  1979

  473

  46

  1980

  512

  42

  107

  Major injuries at all coal mines

  Fatal injuries at all coal mines

  11981

  815

  35

  1982

  865

  38

  1983

  824

  30

  21984–85

  378

  22

  1 The introduction of NADO Regulations 1980 on 1 January 1981 widened the coverage of the serious injury category. Figures from 1981 are therefore not directly comparable with those for earlier years.

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

  Major injuries at licensed coal mines

  Major injuries at British coal mines

  Fatal injuries at British coal mines

  11985–86

  17

  715

  28

  1986–87

  30

  952

  15

  1987–88

  27

  729

  9

  1 The introduction of the RIDDOR Regulations 1985 on 1 April 1986 further widened the major injury category.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the mines inspectorate received copies of the annual reports of the National Coal Board and the British Coal Corporation in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: The Health and Safety Executive's mines inspectorate has received copies of these annual reports.

DEFENCE

  Firearms Range, Cardiff
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's report into the condition and maintenance of the national sports centre, Cardiff indoor firearms range completed between July and December 1989 following the incident which led to the temporary closure of the range last summer.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The report on the condition of the indoor range at the national sports centre, Cardiff was provided by the Army in its capacity as safety advisor to the Sports Council of Wales. Decisions about the publication of the report and the future of the range are matters for the Sports Council of Wales.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that, henceforth, information will be gathered to establish the amount of low-flying activity over Northumberland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do
  SO.

  Captain Fred Holroyd
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Royal Military Police interviewed Captain Fred Holroyd, retired, concerning the Kincora boys' home as referred to in his reply to the Adjournment debate on 29 November 1989,Official Report, column 819.
  108
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: Captain Holroyd was initially interviewed by the Royal Military Police about Kincora on 22 May 1982.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the allegations of Mr. Colin Wallace concerning the activities of the Army and of the security service in Northern Ireland during the 1970s and about Mr. Wallace's appeal against his dismissal from the Civil Service for disclosing a classified document to an unauthorised person on 4 February 1975.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the course of recent work in dealing with parliamentary inquiries about the case of Mr. Colin Wallace, records have been found which have brought to light new information relating to matters which arose under earlier Administrations. Ministers have not, of course, been told what advice was given to former Labour Ministers, nor what views they expressed, with the exception of decisions by the then Attorney-General. I think it right to report this new information to the House. My noble Friends Lord Carrington and Lord Whitelaw, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds South (Mr. Rees) have been consulted about the terms of this statement.

  As the House knows, Mr. Wallace accepted on 15 March 1968 an appointment as an assistant information officer at the Army's Northern Ireland command headquarters (HQNI). He became an established information officer from 14 December 1971 and a senior information officer with effect from 27 September 1974, having first held this latter post on temporary promotion.

  Mr. Wallace left HQNI for the Army's north-west district headquarters on 4 February 1975, having handed over his duties at HQNI on 31 January 1975. On 4 February 1975 Mr. Wallace delivered a restricted document at the home of a journalist, without any authority to do so. On 25 June 1975, Mr. Wallace was informed that he would be dismissed from the Civil Service for this action.

  He appealed to the Civil Service Appeal Board, which heard his case on 17 October 1975. The CSAB concluded that there was justification for the Department's decision that Mr. Wallace's services could not be retained: but that, having regard to his previous good record of service, if Mr. Wallace wished to offer his resignation, the Department should accept this as an alternative to dismissal. Mr. Wallace resigned with effect from 31 December 1975.

  Mr. Wallace claimed in his appeal that his action in passing the document to the journalist was done with the intention of safeguarding the interests of the Department, and that it was in accordance with his terms of reference and the nature of his duties. He said that those duties included unattributable briefing of journalists, which sometimes included the revelation of privileged and sensitive information; and that he often had to exercise his judgment as to how much information he could reveal.

  In its statement to the CSAB, the Ministry of Defence accepted that the duties of the post, as described in the job specification set out in the relevant trawl notice, came in practice to include some kinds of unattributable briefing. Mr. Wallace claimed that the job specification given in the

  109
  trawl notice dealt only with his straightforward public relations duties and that there was also a further job specification classified secret.

  MOD did not contest the evidence on Mr. Wallace's behalf, but it did not acknowledge the existence of a supplementary job specification; nor did it make a copy available, as Mr. Wallace had requested. More recently, the existence of any supplementary job specification has been denied; and indeed no evidence has been found in the documentation still available that Mr. Wallace was given any formal supplementary directive or job specification.

  However, the papers which have now come to light indicate that, when the case was made to establish Mr. Wallace's post, it was proposed that its duties should include responsibilities for providing unattributable covert briefings to the press; and it was stated that the incumbent would be required to make on-the-spot decisions on matters of national security during such interviews.

  It seems that, in the event, the arguments for including these responsibilities in Mr. Wallace's job description were made orally rather than in writing to those who approved the establishment of the SIO post. But presumably Mr. Wallace was told what duties he was expected to carry out; and indeed it would appear that he had already been undertaking unattributable briefing activities of this kind, which may have included disinformation. It has not since the mid 1970s been the policy to disseminate disinformation in Northern Ireland in ways designed to denigrate individuals and/or organisations or for propaganda purposes. That remains the case.

  The fact remains that the disciplinary offence with which Mr. Wallace was charged was committed after he had relinquished his post at HQNI; that he sought no authority for the disclosure from his successors or from his former superiors; that he did not even report what he had done; and that if he had sought permission for his proposed action he would certainly not have received it. Whilst he attempted to argue that he had not completed the handover of his duties at HQNI at the time that he made the disclosure, it seems clear that the CSAB did not accept that argument.

  Nevertheless, in the light of this re-examination of the papers it would be right to consider again the handling of Mr. Wallace's appeal to the CSAB.

  Accordingly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has invited Mr. David Calcutt QC, the Master of Magdalene College Cambridge, to make an investigation of the papers on these matters. Mr. Calcutt has agreed to do so. His terms of reference will be as follows:
  "To consider, and to advise the Secretary of State for Defence, whether an injustice was done to Mr. Colin Wallace as a result of the manner in which his case was presented to the Civil Service Appeal Board when on 17 October 1975 it considered the decision of the Ministry of Defence to terminate his employment on disciplinary grounds; and, if so, to recommend whether compensation should be paid to him."
  Procedures will be discussed with Mr. Calcutt to ensure that he sees all relevant papers in circumstances that protect their confidentiality. Mr. Wallace will, of course, be able to make representations to him. My Department is writing to Mr. Wallace to advise him how he should do so. Mr. Calcutt's conclusions and recommendations will be made public; but classified matters and material will not, of course, be published.

  For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that the re-examination of departmental papers has revealed no
  110
  evidence at all that the decision to terminate Mr. Wallace's employment was taken for reasons other than his serious lack of judgment in disclosing classified information to the media without having proper authority to do so.

  I should also like to take this opportunity to correct a number of errors in previous statements which have now come to notice as a result of the re-examination of departmental papers.

  Some of Mr. Wallace's allegations relate to a project with the title "Clockwork Orange". Two documents have been found dating from 1975 which contain brief references to a proposed project with that title: the second of these documents was clearly based on the first. It appears that this title was given to a project contemplating the dissemination of an account of the organisation and activities of PIRA. The documents show that Mr. Wallace was involved in the project. The documents also state that the project was not cleared.

  No evidence has been found that, before work on the "Clockwork Orange" project was stopped, it had been extended to cover Protestant organisations and individuals or to include Northern Irish and British politicians, as Mr. Wallace has alleged. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 6 May 1987 at column 723–732, allegations that the Security Service was engaged, during the mid and late 1970s, in a plot to destabilise Lord Wilson's Government were thoroughly investigated by the then director general, who gave her his personal assurance that these stories were false.

  I should also make it clear that the new information which has come to light does not substantiate Mr. Wallace's allegations of a cover-up relating to the Kincora boys' hostel in Belfast. If, nevertheless, Mr. Wallace has allegations that he wishes to press about criminal activity or other wrongdoing in Northern Ireland, then the best way for him to deal with this is to give any information in his possession to the RUC in the first instance: if this information is classified, he should first consult the Director of Army Security.

  I am writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and to the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) about some further points of detail which require correction or classification. I will place copies of my letters in the Library of the House.

  I greatly regret that the fact that relevant records were not brought to Ministers' attention has in recent years caused inaccurate statements to be made to the House and in both ministerial and official correspondence. I have thought it right to correct these inaccuracies forthwith; and to settle once and for all the allegations of injustice to Mr. Wallace over his appeal to the CSAB by arranging the investigation by Mr. Calcutt.

ENERGY

  Scottish Electricity
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in the work to expand the capacity of the interconnector allowing the purchase by English distribution companies of electricity generated in Scotland.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that the SSEB and the National Grid Company are preparing the necessary
  111
  environmental assessments and applications for consent which will be required if the interconnection capacity is to be increased. The decision to increase capacity of the interconnector will depend on successful conclusion of contracts for increased energy exchanges over the existing link.

  Offshore Health and Safety
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further proposals he has to improve the health and safety of workers on offshore oil and gas installations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) on Monday 13 November 1989 at columns 99–100.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many tonnes of coal were imported into Britain 10 years, five years ago and for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Baldry
  Coal imports into the United Kingdom in these years, and for the most recent period in 1989 for which information is available, have been as follows:

  Calendar year

  Million tonnes

  1980

  7·3

  1985

  12·7

  1988

  12·0

  11989

  11·2

  1 January to November.

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  British Coal
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Baldry
  I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further proposals he has for promoting greater energy efficiency in electricity generation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Competition between generating companies will provide them with a major incentive to make the most efficient use of fuel in their power stations.

  Severn Barrage
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest estimate of the cost of building the Severn barrage.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Severn tidal power group, in its report on the latest phase of studies, estimates the cost of building the Severn barrage at £8·5 billion.

  The report was published last year in the Energy Paper series and copies placed in the Library of the House.

  Independent Generators
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his assessment of the prospects for the establishment of independent generators after the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  The encouragement of competition in generation has always been one of the fundamental aims of our privatisation proposals. My Department is aware of around 20 major private generation projects in prospect, totalling some 7GW of capacity. The first of the new independent generating companies to take advantage of the opportunities offered as a result of our proposals is Lakeland Power, which last October signed a contract with the North Western electricity board.

  Coal Burn
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has for promoting the burning of coal in more energy-efficient ways.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Government have supported British Coal's research on new technologies such as pressurised fluid bed combustion and integrated coal gasification combined cycle plant. Further support has been given for British Coal's topping cycle concept.

  My Department also encourages the more energy efficient use of coal through its promotion of combined heat and power technology and through its participation in the domestic solid fuel appliance approval scheme.

  Heating Bills
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further proposals he has to assist low-income households with their heating bills.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Social Security Bill, which received its second reading on 22 January, provides powers for my right hon. Friend to make grants towards the cost of measures to improve energy efficiency in low- income households. My Department will be issuing a consultation document on the proposed grant scheme shortly.

  French Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will seek to obtain from the Government of France full details of recent safety assessments of nuclear reactors within 100 miles of the British coast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 25 January at column 814.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on progress in the development of economic renewable energy resources.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Government continue to support a major research and development programme aimed at developing commercially viable and environmentally acceptable renewable energy technologies to contribute to future energy supply.

  Nuclear Energy
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department will be represented at the conference on the nuclear fuel cycle 1990 to be held in Nashville, United States of America between 25 and 28 March.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are at present no plans for my Department to be represented at this conference.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department will be represented at the seminar on decommissioning of nuclear plants to be held in London on 19 and 20 March.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Falkland Islands
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 18 December, column 46, he will make it his policy to request (a) United Kingdom NIREX Ltd. and (b) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to conduct feasibility studies to assess the suitability of the Falkland Islands geology for nuclear waste disposal.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Gas Exploration (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list by location, any sites in south Yorkshire due for exploratory drilling for gas.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  There are 12 current petroleum licences (nine exploration and three production) in south Yorkshire. All proposals to drill are subject to specific approval. No such proposals have been received from current licensees although it is possible that they will wish to drill before licences expire.

  Nuclear Powers (Thesis)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what use was made by his departmental library of the thesis, "Nuclear Powers—An Assessment of Nuclear Decision Making, 1932–1979, with Special Reference to the Anglo-American Atomic Relationship", to which he made reference in his reply of 13 February 1989,Official Report, column 41.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The librarian of my Department borrowed a copy of the thesis to assess whether a copy should be purchased should sufficient demand arise. No request has been received for this thesis to date.

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what advice his Department has given to the electricity supply industry as to the method of flue gas desulphurisation;

  (2) what consideration his Department has given to the comparative environmental costs of (a) the regenerative method and (b) the limestone-gypsum method of flue gas desulphurisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  The choice of FGD process is a matter for the industry.
  114
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received as to the method of flue gas desulphurisation that will be fitted to power stations.

  Mr. Baldry
  A few representations were received some time ago favouring the regenerative FGD process, but none has been received recently. The choice of FGD process is a matter for the industry.

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list by location, where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department does not provide creche facilities for working mothers.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy who will represent his Department at the EC Council of Energy Ministers meeting on 21 May; and what the agenda will be.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The United Kingdom representative at the Energy Council will be decided on nearer the time. The agenda for the Council will not be published until shortly before the Council; but we expect discussion to cover the Commission's four internal energy market proposals and other issues, including possibly energy and the environment.

  Nuclear Power
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department will be represented at the seminar on nuclear power, Planning for Emergencies, to be held in Manchester on 6 March.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply. It is not proposed that representatives from either my Department of the Home Office will attend this seminar.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquests have been held during the course of the ambulance dispute into deaths which may have been accelerated by reason of delay in the response of the ambulance service or by the attendance of ambulances not carrying adequate resuscitation or other necessary equipment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No information is collected centrally from which any such cases could be identified.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department will take steps to remind doctors and members of the public of their lawful duty to report cases to the appropriate coroner for his investigation when they have reason to believe that the
  115
  death of any person has been aggravated or accelerated by reason of delayed response from the ambulance service or the attendance of an ambulance not carrying adequate equipment for the resuscitation or emergency treatment of patients.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is an obligation at common law to report to the coroner any violent or unnatural death or sudden death, the cause of which is unknown. There is at present no difference between the legal duty of doctors and that of other members of the public. Since we have no evidence that the obligation is being neglected, we see no need for special steps to be taken to remind members of the public about it.

  Kurds
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of Kurdish asylum seekers from Turkey who have(a) arrived in the United Kingdom since January 1989, been (b) granted political asylum, (c) returned to Turkey, (d) given exceptional leave to remain and (e) held in detention; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards Kurdish asylum seekers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Immigration statistics do not record ethnic origins of asylum seekers. Since January 1989, some 3,900 Turkish nationals have applied for asylum on arrival: 164 have been granted asylum; 44 have been removed to Turkey; 249 have left the United Kingdom of their own accord before their examination was completed; 611 have been given exceptional leave to enter. On 29 January, there were three Turkish asylum seekers in detention.

  The Government are committed to their obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. All asylum applications are considered on their individual merits and where the applicant is found to have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, he or she will be granted refugee status.

  Prevention of Terrorism Act
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of people(a) stopped and questioned under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for each month since January 1989, (b) the number held under an order issued by him, (c) the number who subsequently received exclusion orders and (d) the number charged with other offences.

  Mr. Waddington
  Information on the operation of the prevention of terrorism legislation is compiled quarterly and published in Home Office statistical bulletins. Issue 36/89 contains information up to the third quarter of 1989. The next bulletin, covering the whole of 1989, will be published shortly. Home Office statistical bulletins are held in the Library.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since their release from prison in October 1989, Paul Hill and Gerard Conlon have been questioned under the Prevention of Terrorism Act; and for what length of time they were held.

  Mr. Waddington
  No central record is kept of examinations under the Prevention of Terrorism 116
  (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 which last one hour or less. Neither Mr. Hill nor Mr. Conlon has been examined for more than one hour or detained under the 1989 Act.

  Guildford Four
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report from Sir John May into the conviction of the Guildford Four.

  Mr. John Patten
  Sir John May has not yet indicated when he expects to be able to produce his report.

  Obscene Publications
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of prosecutions which have taken place under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 for each of the past five years; and how many resulted in convictions.

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

  Defendants proceeded against and found guilty of offences under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 England and Wales

  Year

  Total proceeded against

  Total found guilty

  1984

  583

  429

  1985

  275

  226

  1986

  129

  126

  1987

  121

  93

  1988

  158

  130

  Magistrates Courts Scrutiny
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet reached any conclusions on the recommendations in the magistrates courts scrutiny relating to services provided by the police for these courts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  The scrutiny report recommended that the police should not be regarded as responsible for maintaining order or general security duties in magistrates courts on a routine basis. In the light of the consultations which have taken place with interested bodies on this matter, I accept this conclusion. I am issuing guidelines intended to assist local discussion between the police and the magistrates courts about the appropriate level of police presence in individual cases.

  The guidelines (a copy of which is being placed in the Library) make it clear that, while the police have a responsibility, as part of their general duties, to protect magistrates and courts staff where the police consider that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they may be at risk, the courts should reduce these risks so far as possible and should consider the provision of appropriate physical security measures to that end. I am considering the case for clarifying the legal powers available to magistrates courts and their staff to ensure the uninterrupted administration of justice.

  The scrutiny report also recommended that steps should be taken to improve the management of services now routinely provided by the police for the courts, including the service of summonses, the execution of

  117
  warrants and the custody of prisoners at court. As to the first two services, I am asking magistrates courts committees, in consultation with their paying authorities and the relevant police authorities, to undertake an assessment of the practical consequences of transferring responsibility for routine work from the police to the courts service. We have already made provision in public expenditure for the appointment of a substantial additional number of court fine enforcement staff and have asked magistrates courts to consider the greater use of bailiffs to enforce fines.

  In the light of legal advice about charges to magistrates courts committees for the execution of warrants by the police, I propose, with effect from 1 April, to disregard any such charges for the purpose of paying specific grant to local authorities. I shall be consulting the relevant local authority associations about the effect of this decision. I also propose to disregard any such charges for the service of summonses by the Metropolitan police with effect from the same date and with effect from 1 April 1991 in the case of other police forces in England and Wales, subject to consultation with the local authority associations.

  I am still considering the question of responsibility for the gaolering services.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his consideration of the book entitled "Who Framed Colin Wallace" by Paul Foot; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have carefully examined the arguments put forward by Mr. Foot in his book and am satisfied that there is no new evidence or other consideration of substance which casts doubt on the safety of Mr. Colin Wallace's conviction for manslaughter. Before coming to a final decision on this case, I examined carefully the matters referred to in a statement today by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), and I am satisfied that they are unconnected with the case and in no way cast doubt upon the safety of the conviction. I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses a memorandum which sets out in greater detail the reasons why I have reached this conclusion.

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by location where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mr. Waddington
  In addition to its support for Cabinet Office initiatives towards the provision of child care in the Civil Service and to the secondment of an officer to the Midland bank nursery project, the Home Office is planning to provide, for payment, creche facilities for its employees in Croydon and Bootle shortly, and is considering the possibility of making similar provision in London.

  Inquests
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average lapse of time between the occurrence of a sudden death and the date of the inquest.
  118
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information is not collected centrally. I understand that coroners endeavour to hold inquests as soon as practicable following the death, but sometimes delays are experienced—for example, because of the need to wait for witnesses or other evidence.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the procedure for determining the date of an inquest.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This is a matter for the coroner to decide.

  Greyhound Race Courses
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many greyhound race courses are owned by companies involved in the business of off-course bookmaking; and which of these greyhound race courses supply betting services to the off-course betting shops in the same ownership.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Companies have no obligation to inform the Home Office of their ownership of greyhound tracks. Certain information of the character of that requested is, however, recorded in "Grand Metropolitan plc and William Hill Organisation Ltd. A report on the merger situation" (Cm. 776), by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which was published in August last year and a copy of which is in the Library.

  That information relates to the supply of daytime greyhound racing meetings by greyhound track promoters under annual contract to Bookmaker Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd. (BAGS). I understand that, following the subsequent acquisition of William Hill by Brent Walker plc of the 10 greyhound tracks which at present have contracts with BAGS, five are owned and operated by companies which own off-course bookmaking companies. Coverage of meetings at all 10 tracks is available, via Satellite Information Services, to licensed betting offices in general.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what percentage(a) the basic retirement pension and (b) prices increased between April 1979 and 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information shows that, between April 1979 and April 1989, the basic retirement pension rose by 123·6 per cent., whilst prices rose by 110·5 per cent. This represents an increase of 6·2 per cent. in the real value of the retirement pension over the period.

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of evidence submitted to his Department on the cost of providing care in voluntary and private nursing homes and the level of income support payable to residents in residential and nursing homes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The amount of income support payable to people in residential care and nursing homes is
  119
  subject to national limits and is reviewed every year. We take account of a variety of evidence, including detailed and differing representations from interested organisations and individuals. The evidence is considered along with our own information.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the costs of keeping an aged person in(a) a nursing home and (b) in residential care for a year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the figures are not available in the form requested. The information available for May 1989 shows that the estimated total number of people in nursing homes in receipt of income support was 56,000 at an annual cost of £446 million. This gives an estimated average annual expenditure figure on income support of £8,000 per claimant. The estimated total number of people in residential care homes in receipt of income support was 119,000 at an annual cost of £658 million. This gives an estimated average annual expenditure figure on income support of £5,500 per claimant.

  These figures do not include payment of other benefits such as retirement pension and attendance allowance which are paid depending on the individual's circumstances in addition to income support.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to extend the categories of repetitive strain injuries which are recognised by his Department as prescribed workplace injuries.

  Mr. Scott
  Once both of the studies on repetitive strain injury commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive from the universities of Edinburgh and of Birmingham are available, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council will consider whether the research evidence might justify further detailed consideration of occupational repetitive strain injuries.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice he has received on the types of industrial tasks which are most likely to result in workers suffering from repetitive strain injury; and in which industries there are likely to be significant numbers of sufferers.

  Mr. Scott
  A position paper adopted by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in September 1986 identified repetitive strain injury as being complained of by word processor operators, assembly line workers and workers in the print, textile and furniture industries.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what information he has on the incidence of repetitive strain injury in the pottery industry;

  (2) what proportion of the known sufferers from repetitive strain injury are women.
  120
  Mr. Scott
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the trend of repetitive strain injury as measured by the number of claims for compensation.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on the number of prescribed diseases A4 and A8 diagnosed in connection with claims for industrial injuries benefits in 1985, 1986 and 1987 is provided on page 22 of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council periodic report—January 1990 (copies are available in the Library). For reasons of sample size, this information is unlikely to provide a reliable indication of trends.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which forms of repetitive strain injury are recognised by his Department as prescribed workplace injuries.

  Mr. Scott
  Two repetitive strain injuries are listed in the schedule of prescribed industrial diseases:Prescribed Disease A4: Cramp of the hand or forearm due to repetitive movements.
  Prescribed Disease A8: Traumatic inflammation of the tendons of the hand or forearm or of the associated tendon sheaths. Benefit can also be paid for carpal syndrome if it occurs as a result of prescribed disease A8.

  Invalidity Pension
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people will be affected by the abolition of earnings-related additions to invalidity pension;

  (2) how much money will be saved in the first year by the abolition of earnings-related additions to invalidity pension.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 19 January at columns 484–85.

  Industrial Benefit
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people will be affected by the abolition of reduced earnings allowances in the industrial benefit scheme;

  (2) how much money will be saved in the first year by the abolition of reduced earnings allowances in the industrial benefit scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  An estimated 14,400 new claimants a year will be affected by the abolition of reduced earnings allowance, which will result in a reduction in expenditure of about £1 million in 1990–91.

  Board-and-lodging Allowance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what regulations govern the administration and use of the pocket money element in the board-and-lodging allowance;

  (2) what steps his Department has taken to ensure the pocket money allowance in the board-and-lodging allowance is not used to top up fees paid to private residential establishments.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Applicable amounts payable for persons in independent residential care and nursing homes are prescribed by the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, as amended. They include an amount in respect of personal expenses which is at present £10·05 each week. The regulations do not prescribe how that allowance is to be used, as this is a matter for the claimant.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there have been any changes to the cash limit or running costs limit of his Department for 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  The cash limit for class XV, vote 7 will be reduced by £426,000 from £1,595,118,000 to £1,594,692,000, and the running costs limit for the Department by £170,000 from £1,736,531,000 to £1,736,361,000. These reductions reflect the following changes.

  The transfer of £25,000 from the Cabinet Office: Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XX, vote 1) is in respect of the challenge funding scheme for senior management development training, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office. This increase in running costs is offset by the transfer of £195,000 to the Department of Health and Social Security (Northern Ireland) for the running costs of the Belfast social security centre. There will be a corresponding increase on Department of Health and Social Security (Northern Ireland) vote 3, administration and miscellaneous services.

  An increase of £244,000 in the agency payment to Department of Employment to meet an increase in the costs of administering the unemployment benefit service. A corresponding amount will be appropriated in aid of class VII, vote 2. This increase in current expenditure will be offset by the transfer of £500,000 to the Department of Health and Social Security (Northern Ireland), in respect of capital improvements to the store for paid orders at Lisahally. There will be a corresponding increase on Department of Health and Social Security (Northern Ireland) vote 3, administration and miscellaneous services.

  Consultants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many studies or reports have been commissioned from commercial consultants since June 1987; what has been the cost; what proportion of the studies or reports has been put out to tender; what is the value of those tendered; what proportion of the studies or reports has been commissioned from Arthur Andersen; and what is the value of those commissioned from Arthur Andersen.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]The number of studies or reports commissioned 122
  from commercial consultants by the Department since June 1987 is 90, at a total cost of £3,529,844. The proportion of the studies put out to tender was 33 per cent. and their value was £1,066,482. The proportion of the studies or reports commissioned from Arthur Andersen was 8·9 per cent., and their value was £976,316.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which local authorities have received and processed the most applications for transitional payments as a percentage of housing benefit payments they make.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 14 December 1989]Applications for housing benefit transitional payments were received and processed at the transitional payments unit in Glasgow. The 20 local authority areas from which the largest number of applications were received expressed as a percentage of estimated housing benefit caseload is as follows:

  Per cent.

  Monklands

  41

  Hamilton

  35

  East Kilbride

  33

  Motherwell

  32

  Glasgow

  32

  Waltham Forest

  31

  Inverclyde

  30

  South Tyneside

  30

  East Lothian

  28

  Ipswich

  28

  East Staffordshire

  28

  Bromsgrove

  25

  City of London

  25

  Cumbernauld

  25

  Irvine (DC)

  25

  Daventry

  25

  Cumnock and Doon

  24

  Wychavon

  23

  Warrington

  23

  Newham

  22

  Source:

  1. Estimate of housing benefit caseload using local authorities management information system returns for 1988–89.

  2. Transitional payments unit statistical data.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Queen's Consent
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council which Minister is responsible for reviewing the operation of the system of signifying or withholding Queen's Consent in relation to particular Bills and of advice relating to the use of the Royal Prerogative.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Requests to Her Majesty for the grant of her consent to either House debating a Public Bill affecting her interest or prerogative are put forward by the Minister responsible for the subject to which the Bill relates. Amendment of the present arrangements would require a decision of Parliament. There is, of course, at present no question of a review of the need for consent. If the question arose, the matter of which Minister would be responsible for promoting such a proposal would be one for the Government of the day to decide.

  Disabled People (Parking)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether permission was given by the Services Committee to British Telecom engineers on 15 January, for their equipment to be placed in the parking area reserved for disabled drivers at Norman Shaw North building; and if he will take steps to ensure that there is no recurrence of this in the future.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  British Telecom's London network organisation should not have placed this equipment in the parking area reserved for disabled drivers in the area of the Norman Shaw buildings earlier this month. Steps have been taken to ensure that the correct procedures are adhered to in future.

  Copying Machines
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Lord President of the Council why all but one of the copying machines in Norman Shaw North are switched off at night while the House is sitting and hon. Members are still working; and if he will seek to rectify this position.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The copying machine on the ground floor of Norman Shaw North is left on until the rising of the House, on sitting Mondays to Thursdays. All the remainder are switched off at 9 pm, in accordance with the guidance for the use of these machines issued by the Services Committee which takes account of fire regulations and supervision requirements. If the hon. Member wishes to suggest changes to the hours of operation of copying machines, he should in the first instance raise the matter with the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

PRIME MINISTER

  Middle East
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she has taken to help free British hostages in the middle east; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The plight of the British hostages in Lebanon is high among our concerns. We have raised the matter with a wide range of Governments and organisations who might have influence on the hostage holders. Her Majesty's ambassador in Beirut, in a difficult and dangerous environment, follows up every lead. We will continue to make every possible effort on behalf of the hostages.

  Jobs
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the report commissioned by the EEC on the impact of the 1992 proposals on jobs in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I am always interested in any developments which affect jobs in the United Kingdom and will not hesitate to discuss them at the European Council, if this is appropriate.

  The single European market is a major opportunity for the United Kingdom. The impact on employment in the United Kingdom depends crucially on the responses of United Kingdom firms to this opportunity.

  Engagements
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

  Sir Maurice Oldfield
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what authorisations have been sought from Her Majesty's Government by potential authors of a biography of the late Sir Maurice Oldfield; and what Her Majesty's Government's response has been.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]No such authorisation has been sought.

HEALTH

  Product Licences
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been paid to the Medicines Control Agency in fees for product licences in 1987, 1988 and 1989; and how many applications for which fees have been paid remain outstanding.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Product licence application fees collected for fees years were

  £

  1986–87

  354,143

  1987–88

  252,495

  1988–89

  738,425

  The total number of outstanding product licence applications as at 31 December 1989 was as follows:

  Number

  Product Licences

  1,867

  Product Licences (Parallel Imports)

  991

  No information is available on the numbers of applications outstanding for which fees have been paid but the application fee becomes due at the time the application is made.

  Abortions
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Bourn hall, Bourn, Cambridge has a licence to perform abortions under the Abortion Act 1967.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance he has issued on the
  125
  application of the Abortion Act 1967 in those circumstances in which medical personnel fit intra-uterine devices with the intention of causing pregnancies to abort during their early hours; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The handbook on contraceptive practice, a copy of which is available in the Library, last published in 1984 and shortly to be reissued, describes the mode of action of post-coital contraceptives, including intra-uterine devices. The Department's policy on these matters is based on advice given to the Department about the legal position under the Abortion Act 1967; the interpretation of the law in any particular case is, of course, a matter for the courts.

  Assessment Procedures
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will consult with voluntary organisations in drawing up his code of guidance to local authorities on the proposed assessment procedures outlined in "Caring for People";

  (2) if, in his code of guidance to local authorities on the proposed assessment procedures outlined in "Caring for People" he will direct local authorities to consult local voluntary organisations and representatives of disabled people and carers when determining their own assessment procedures.

  (3) if, in his code of guidance to local authorities on the proposed assessment procedures outlined in "Caring for People" he will advise that carers should have a right to ask for an assessment of their needs;

  (4) whether he will involve voluntary organisations experienced in the field in his discussions on the training needs of those involved in the proposed assessment procedures outlined in "Caring for People".

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has in hand a programme to develop guidance for local authorities. Voluntary and professional organisations will be consulted during the preparation of this guidance. In the course of preparing the guidance we shall be considering what advice to give authorities on local consultation and the training needs of those carrying out assessments. Under our community care proposals, carers will be able to ask that their own care needs should be considered as well as those of the person they are caring for.

  Insurance
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue advice to local authorities on the insurance implications for voluntary organisations and bodies providing services involving lifting and bathing in poorly equipped homes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Problems involving insurance in such situations have not been brought to our attention. Consequently, we have no plans at present to issue guidance to local authorities on this subject.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the private hospitals in England and Wales and the amount of financial assistance they receive from public funds.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities have power to award grants or loans to voluntary and charitable organisations,126
  but the extent to which they do so is for local decision and information is not collected centrally. Information for Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority what health education is offered to schools explaining the call/recall system of cervical cytology screening.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information by regional health authority is not held centrally. I understand that a health education task group under the auspices of the National Curriculum Council is considering the content of health education in schools.

  AIDS
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on guidance issued by the United States Food and Drugs Administration to doctors on the recommended dosage of the anti-AIDS drug Retrovir (AZT); and whether he has any plans to issue guidance to doctors in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are aware of reports indicating that the United States Food and Drug Administration has recently announced labelling changes for Retrovir involving a lowering of the recommended daily dose approved for administration in that country. Any changes to the licensed indication of drugs marketed in the United Kingdom must be approved by the licensing authority on grounds of safety, quality and efficacy seeking, where necessary, the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Doctors already have extensive information on the currently licensed product from a wide variety of sources, and we have no plans at present to issue further guidance.

  Carers
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he is putting forward in respect of the control and monitoring by his Department of private sector providers of care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Local authorities will provide an arms length inspection and monitoring unit for a variety of provision, whether in the public or private sector. Social service departments will also through their contracts with providers, specify monitoring mechanisms. The Department will examine community care plans and monitor progress towards meeting service objectives. Health authorities will continue to have responsibility for registration and inspection of private nursing home care.

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by location, where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mr. Freeman
  No nursery facilities are at present provided for parents employed in the Department. We are undertaking a feasibility study into the provision of such
  127
  facilities, and we are contributing to a study into interdepartmental provision being co-ordinated by the office of the Minister for the Civil Service. In addition we run holiday play schemes financed by parental and departmental contributions for children aged between five and 11 years.

  NHS Travel Cost Scheme
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of the National Health Service travel cost scheme in each of the last three years; and what steps he will take to increase public knowledge and take-up.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Summarised accounts of health authorities in England show the following expenditure, for the last three years, in respect of fares paid to patients travelling to and from hospital for NHS treatment:

  Year

  £ million

  1986–87

  3·037

  1987–88

  3·263

  1988–89

  3·265

  These figures do not indicate NHS administration costs. We are currently considering measures to increase public awareness of the hospital travel costs scheme.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will represent his Department at the EC's Council of Health Ministers meeting on 19 April; and what the agenda will be.

  Mr. Freeman
  No firm date has yet been fixed for the EC Council of Health Ministers meeting. It is likely that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lady Hooper, who has responsibility for international health matters, will attend.

  The agenda for the meeting will be decided by the Irish presidency in cooperation with the European Commission. Details of the items to be raised have not yet been notified to us.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department intends to ask family practitioner committees to review the prescribing performances of those doctors who consistently under-prescribe medicines for their patients, compared to the average, in the same way as doctors who are deemed to be over-prescribing will be subject to peer review.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is our intention that family practitioner committees, which will have medically qualified advisers on prescribing, should consider the possibility of under-prescribing which would be injurious to patients and raise any such cases with the practice concerned.

  Drugs
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department is proposing to publish a further working paper on the implementation of indicative drug budgets.
  128
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We propose to issue a further working paper on the implementation of indicative drug budgets within the next few weeks.

  Slimming Aids
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has concerning the link between slimming aids and anorexia and bulimia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department knows of no research which directly links slimming aids to anorexia or bulimia.

  Haemophiliacs
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why the haemophiliac sufferers contaminated with the HIV virus have not yet received the capital sum promised them via the Macfarlane Trust; and when he expects the payments to be made.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her reply, 26 January 1990, c. 921]The arrangements for paying the ex-gratia sums have now been completed. In co-operation with the trustees of the Macfarlane Trust, a new discretionary trust called the Macfarlane (Special Payments) Trust has been set up to administer the payments. It is expected that payments will begin tomorrow.

  Dennis and Cole Families
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will institute an inquiry into the arbitrary removal of the Dennis family from a doctor's list in the Old Swan health centre and the Cole family from a doctor's list in the Edge Hill health centre, both in Broadgreen, Liverpool; if he will ascertain the reasons for these removals; what redress is available to the families; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]The administration of the contract of service of general medical practitioners is a matter for the local family practitioner committee, in this case the Liverpool FPC, Refuge Assurance house, Lord street, Liverpool L2 1 UT. It is, however, permissible for a practitioner to remove patients from his or her list and reasons do not have to be given. Similarly, patients may leave the list of a practitioner without giving reasons.

  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made clear on 23 January at columns 728–29, we should view with concern any evidence that doctors were acting unreasonably or under a mistaken interpretation of the terms of the new contract.

  If any family are unable to find a doctor of their choice, they should ask the FPC (which has a duty so to do) to allocate them to a doctor's list.

TRANSPORT

  Air Accidents
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the criteria used by the chief inspector of air accidents in determining whether or not an investigation into an incident or accident shall be carried out.
  129
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The air accidents investigation branch's main task is to investigate reportable accidents, which are those involving serious injury or significant aircraft damage. Each reportable accident is inquired into by means of a formal investigation, a field investigation, or a form to the pilot or operator with follow up inquiries as appropriate.

  Incidents, including air misses, are reportable to the Civil Aviation Authority and dealt with by it. However, the chief inspector of air accidents has the power to investigate incidents and does investigate serious incidents to public transport aircraft from time to time. A serious incident is defined as one which good fortune narrowly prevented from being a major accident.

  Occurrence Report
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the contents of the mandatory occurrence report filed with the Civil Aviation Authority by the captain of a British Midland Airways aircraft en route from London to Belfast on Saturday 11 November 1989.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The pilot reported that at 2028 GMT and whilst descending on airway blue 3 into Belfast following a scheduled flight from Heathrow, as the aircraft passed through 11,200 feet at a position three nautical miles east of Kirkistown, the crew witnessed a ball of light pass overhead the aircraft heading due west. It descended to a position on the port beam where it appeared to burst into a cascade of white and blue magnesium lights. At the time, the aircraft was between two layers of stratus cloud less than 3,000 feet apart. Another aircraft in the vicinity witnessed the light, and it was reported to Belfast air traffic control.

  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 18 December 1989 to his earlier question on this matter at column 3.

  Rescue Operations (Liverpool Airport)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the arrangements that exist at Liverpool airport for conducting rescue operations in the event of an aircraft ditching in the Mersey at high tide.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority, which has the statutory responsibility for the licensing of Liverpool airport.

  I have drawn the hon. Member's question to the attention of the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and will ask him to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any information on the number of accidents involving a newly qualified driver supervising a learner driver.

  Mr. Atkins
  The police records of accidents, on which national statistics are based, do not include information on the qualifications of supervising drivers. However, I have received a number of letters about accidents which have occurred in these circumstances.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he has received any representations from the motoring organisations regarding the supervision of learner drivers by recently qualified drivers; and if he will make a statement;
  130
  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans to introduce a minimum experience qualification for newly qualified drivers who wish to supervise learner drivers.

  Mr. Atkins
  Our consultation paper issued on 20 December last year at column 278 invited comments by 28 February. One motoring organisation is among those who have so far written. I shall develop the proposals in the light of all the comments received.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) by date, (b) by type of aircraft and (c) by reason all civil aircraft that have had to divert to Royal Air Force Finningley during the last 10 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  RAF Finningley, being a military airfield, is not nominated as a diversion airfield for civil commercial air traffic required to nominate such a diversion airfield in the flight plan. Records are not available prior to 1985 but since that date only one aircraft has made a diversion and emergency landing at RAF Finningley. This occurred on Sunday, 27 November 1988, when an American-registered private microlight aircraft, call sign N85BZ, experienced an engine malfunction. Rather than continue with the flight, the pilot elected to land at Finningley, which was the nearest airfield available.

  Near Musses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his reply of 16 January to the hon. Member for Don Valley,Official Report, column 153, if he will list the locations where the three air misses occurred.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The incident on 2 November 1986 involving a civilian glider and a civilian Cessna 172 occurred at a height of 1,500 ft, 10 miles south-south-west of Doncaster. The incident involving an RAF Buccaneer and a civilian Cessna 152 on 1 July 1987 occurred at a height of 2,000 ft, four miles east of Mansfield.

  The incident on 27 January 1988 involving an RAF Tornado and a civilian Cessna 152 occurred at a height of 800 ft, close to Netherthorpe aerodrome.

  British Rail
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amounts were deducted from his payments to the British Railways Board in the previous year 1988–89 in respect of retrospective charges made by him against payments to it in earlier years; on what basis the deductions were made; and in what manner he publicised them.

  Mr. Portillo
  A recovery of £64·5 million was made from PSO grant in 1988–89 for overpayments made in 1986–87 and in 1987–88. In both years grant was paid subject to a final adjustment once a review by my Department and British Rail of cost allocation between railway sectors was completed. British Rail made a number of accounting changes in 1988–89 and the Department recovered grant overpaid in 1986–87 and 1987–88 in accordance with the conditions of the grant settlements for those years. British Rail's annual report
  131
  and accounts for 1988–89, published on 5 July 1989, reported the outcome. Copies were placed in the Library of the House.

  Mersey Travel
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will be in a position to reply to Mersey Travel's case for Government assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The case is being given consideration. A decision will be made as soon as possible.

  Mark Woodward
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the messages received by Milford Haven coastguard and passed on to Swansea coastguard relating to the 999 call by Mr. Kevin Richards reporting an incident relating to Mark Woodward who was drowned on 16 August 1989 in Rappanee cove, Ilfracombe.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The call received by Milford Haven coastguard, relating to this incident, and the action taken by it, was listed in my reply of 27 November 1989, at column 82, final paragraph.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a transcript of the coastguard tape relating to the drowning on 16 August 1989 of Mark Woodward.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The tapes referred to are not an official record, but extracts taken from the multi-track tapes for ease of use at the coroner's inquest. The tapes were heard by the Woodward family on Friday 26 January, following which they were made public, and available to anyone who wishes to hear them. It should be emphasised that the tapes are only extracts, do not contain associated conversations and cannot be linked to time. However a copy will be placed in the Library as soon as a transcription has been made.

  Nuclear Convoys (Accidents)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been made of the problems of evacuating civilians in the event of a nuclear convoy accident in-transit through south Yorkshire.

  Mr. Atkins
  The preparation of evacuation plans is the responsibility of local authorities.

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the merchant ships flying foreign flags and carrying British personnel which have been lost in the past five years; and if he will report on the progress of inquiries into the causes of loss by the authorities of the countries in which the vessels were, in each case, registered.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Merchant ships flying foreign flags are the responsibility of the flag state. No records are available in the United Kingdom showing which foreign ships carry British personnel.

  A57, Warrington
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding speed limits on the A57 Liverpool road/Sankey way in Warrington; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Cheshire county council is the highway authority for the A57 in Warrington but would need ray right hon. Friend's consent to a speed limit. The north-west regional office advised the council in November that a 50 mph limit for Liverpool road/Sankey way would not be justified by our nationally applied criteria and practice.

  Greater Manchester Relief Road
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport with which organisations his Department has had consultations regarding(a) section 2 M56 to M62, and (b) section 3 M62 to M66 of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road.

  Mr. Atkins
  No consultations have yet been carried out.

  South Wales-Shrewsbury Line
  Sir John Stradling Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the provision of services on the south Wales-Shrewsbury line.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government set quality of service objectives for provincial sector services in July 1989. We shall monitor them closely and discuss any problems with the board.

  Lighthouses
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many lighthouses there are around the United Kingdom, detailing the number with resident keepers and the number electronically controlled from land bases; and when he expects all lighthouses to be radio-controlled from land bases.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The general lighthouse authorities operate 289 lighthouses around the United Kingdom. Of these, 58 are manned; 73 are monitored from other bases; and 158 are neither manned nor monitored from other bases. The automation of the remaining manned lighthouses, except those designed as area control stations, is planned to be complete by 1998; but a substantial number will remain neither manned nor monitored from other bases. I have no information on lighthouses operated by local lighthouse authorities.

  Helicopter Crash, Eastwood
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking following the helicopter crash at Eastwood Toll; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The accident is the subject of an investigation by the Department of Transport's air accidents investigation branch. A team of specialists in both engineering and operations arrived at the site a few hours after the accident and began work immediately. The wreckage has subsequently been removed to the AAIB's base at Farnborough, where work is continuing.

  M66 (Tree Pruning)
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to undertake the pruning of the trees on the M66 at Ramsbottom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The planned work was completed on 10 October.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who will represent his Department at the EC Council of Transport Ministers meetings on 29 March and 14 to 16 June; and what will be the agenda for both meetings.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to attend the Transport Councils in March and June.

  Subjects likely to be discussed include the international carriage of goods by road, air transport liberalisation, cabotage, transport infrastructure, and maritime relations with Third countries.

  HGVs (Advertising)
  Mr. Oakes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are his plans for new regulations regarding the use of reflective material for advertising on the rear of heavy goods vehicles;

  (2) which colours he intends to permit for advertising in reflective material on the rear of heavy goods vehicles; and which he intends to prohibit.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have no plans to change the general regulations governing the colour of reflective material fitted to vehicles.

  Generally, the only colour of reflective material which may be fitted to the rear of a vehicle is red.

  There is no regulation to prohibit the use of red reflective material fitted to the rear of a heavy goods vehicle for advertising purposes.

  East London Assessment Studies
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the details of the alignment of the new roads and widened roads envisaged in the east London assessment studies.

  Mr. Atkins
  More detailed alignments will be produced only if decisions are taken to proceed further with any scheme following consideration of the comments received on the consultants' suggested options.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the time allowed for consultation under stage 2 of the east London assessment studies.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have received a number of representations. Opinions are divided between those who request more time and those who wish decisions to be reached as soon as possible.

  Traffic Commissioner
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to appoint the traffic commissioner outlined in his announcement on "Traffic in London," on 14 December 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  A decision on the appointment of a London traffic director will be taken in the light of consultation on the "Traffic in London" discussion document. Comments on the initiatives in the document have been requested by 28 February 1990.

  Contracts
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all those contracts let by his Department from 1 November 1989 to date and these contracts which his Department hopes to let by the end of March.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following contracts worth more than £1 million have been awarded since 1 November 1989:

  £ million

  Scheme and successful tenderer

  Contract price

  A1/M1 link contract 1, Catthorpe interchange, Leicestershire Tarmac Construction Limited

  3·1

  A1/M1 link contract 5s, Northamptonshire Balfour Beatty

  30·7

  A1/M1 link contract 4, Rothwell to Kettering, Northamptonshire May Gurney and Co. Limited

  4·4

  A16 Louth bypass, Lincolnshire Clugston Construction Limited

  4·9

  A47 Eye bypass, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire Redland Aggregates

  5·1

  Tenders have been invited for the following schemes and it is expected that the contracts will be awarded before the end of March:

  A1 Improvements at Brampton Hut, Cambridgeshire

  A1 Improvements at Girtford, Sandy, Cambridgeshire

  A6 Quorn and Mountsorrel bypass, Leicestershire

  A12 Grade separated junction at Capel St. Mary, Suffolk

  A16 Boston Algakirk diversion, Lincolnshire

  A23 Warninglid to Brighton (Sayers Common to Muddleswood)

  A30 Plusha to Bolventor, Cornwall

  A42 Castle Donnington North, contract 2, Leicestershire

  A43 Blisworth bypass, Northamptonshire

  A47 Castor and Ailsworth bypass, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire

  A47 Improvement at East Norton, Lincolnshire

  A140 Dickleburgh bypass, Norfolk

  A523 Macclesfield bypass, Cheshire

  A650 Drighlington bypass, West Yorkshire

  A1079 Market Weighton bypass, Humberside

  M3 (Widening)
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy with regard to widening the M3 to four lanes each way between Bar End and Compton at Winchester.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 18 December 1989 at column 5.

  Manchester Metrolink
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport from what Public Expenditure White Paper budget headings for 1990–91 and 1991–92 and from which subsection of which vote on account for 1990–91, the sums referred to for Manchester Metrolink in his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 491, are drawn; how much in total there is, or is expected to be, under each budget heading and vote subsection, respectively for 1990–91 and 1991–91; and how much remains unallocated under each heading.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]: The sums for Manchester Metrolink given in my answer of 22 January at column 491 were composed of credit approvals for borrowing by the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority and public transport facilities grant to be paid at the rate of 50 per cent. of eligible costs. Discussions on costs eligible for grant are not yet complete but the PTA has been allocated £20·945 million credit approvals provisionally on the basis of expected Metrolink expenditure in 1990–91.

  The national provision for public transport facilities grant and credit approvals planned for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are given in table 7.1 of chapter 7 of the Government's expenditure plans 1990–91 to 1992–93 (Cm. 1007), published today.

  The provision and amounts as yet unallocated are:

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Credit approvals (all local authority transport)

  Public transport facilities grant

  Credit approvals (all local authority transport)

  Public transport facilities grant

  Provision

  486

  29

  570

  20

  of which now unallocated

  25

  not settled

  570

  20

  Total sales from 1 April 1979 to 30 September 1989 as a percentage of stock in district council areas where Scottish Homes are operating rents to mortgage scheme

  District Council

  Total sales from 1 April 1979 to 30 September 1989

  Stock as at 30 September 1978

  Percentage of stock sold since 1 April 1979

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  638

  2,864

  22·28

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1,133

  4,940

  22·94

  Roxburgh 1

  1,158

  6,269

  18·47

  Tweeddale

  346

  1,626

  21·28

  Central

  Clackmannan

  1,586

  9,547

  16·61

  Falkirk

  5,705

  33,368

  17·10

  Stirling

  2,226

  13,117

  16·97

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,194

  4,825

  24·75

  Nithsdale

  1,998

  8,373

  23·86

  Stewartry

  726

  2,496

  29·09

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  5,104

  23,109

  22·09

  Kirkcaldy

  5,566

  26,418

  21·07

  North East Fife

  2,547

  7,851

  32·44

  Grampian

  Aberdeen 1

  4,536

  37,687

  12·04

  Banff and Buchan 2

  2,599

  12,393

  20·97

  Gordon

  1,407

  6,024

  23·36

SCOTLAND

  Rents into Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to use local estate agents to promote sales of properties through the rents into mortgages scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the administration and promotion of the rents to mortgages scheme lies with Scottish Homes and it is for that body to consider the most appropriate methods of encouraging sales under the scheme.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the techniques Scottish Homes is using to promote the rents into mortgages scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As a follow-up to the wide press coverage of the formal launch of the rents to mortgages scheme, Scottish Homes has made supplies of its explanatory leaflet available at each of its local offices and at the offices of the new town development corporations. It has also undertaken a mail drop of the leaflet to each of its tenants who are eligible to purchase under the scheme.

  In addition to this general coverage, Scottish Homes has commissioned market research to enable it to target more concentrated sales campaigns in identified areas.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proportion of council homes sold in the district council areas of Scotland where Scottish Homes is carrying out his Department's policy of allowing rents to be converted into mortgages; and what impact he expects this policy will have on the overall level of home ownership in those districts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The pilot rents to mortgages scheme operates only in areas containing public sector housing rented from Scottish Homes or new town development corporations. The information requested for these areas is contained in the table.

  While this is a pilot scheme available only to a specified range of tenants, I expect it to play a significant part in extending owner-occupation in its areas of operation.
  137

  District Council

  Total sales from 1 April 1979 to 30 September 1989

  Stock as at 30 September 1978

  Percentage of stock sold since 1 April 1979

  Kincardine and Deeside

  723

  3,565

  20·29

  Moray

  2,576

  10,543

  24·43

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  3,504

  16,210

  21·62

  Edinburgh

  11,048

  56,664

  19·50

  Midlothian

  2,899

  13,031

  22·25

  West Lothian

  2,859

  22,517

  12·70

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  1,115

  8,105

  13·76

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  425

  1,817

  23·39

  Clydebank

  1,465

  11,746

  12·47

  Clydesdale

  1,099

  9,590

  11·46

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  681

  4,350

  15·66

  Cumnock and Doon Valley 3

  1,096

  10,296

  10·64

  Cunninghame

  3,475

  23,531

  14·77

  Dumbarton

  1,244

  13,107

  9·49

  Eastwood

  506

  2,023

  25·01

  Glasgow

  14,948

  175,204

  8·53

  Hamilton

  3,032

  22,803

  13·30

  Inverclyde

  2,085

  20,014

  10·42

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  2,317

  18,254

  12·69

  Kyle and Carrick 1

  3,830

  18,290

  20·94

  Monklands 3

  2,285

  28,545

  8·00

  Motherwell

  3,067

  39,751

  7·72

  Renfrew

  5,702

  39,430

  14·46

  Strathkelvin 1

  2,152

  10,639

  20·23

  Tayside

  Angus

  2,743

  14,568

  18·83

  Dundee

  3,870

  39,845

  9·71

  Perth and Kinross

  3,465

  16,302

  21·26

  Shetland Islands

  363

  2,266

  16·02

  Western Isles

  523

  2,213

  23·63

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the first sale to be completed of a Scottish Homes property bought under his Department's rents into mortgages scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I expect the first sale of a Scottish Homes property under the rents to mortgages scheme to be completed in March of this year.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has set a target for the number of homes to be sold through the rents into mortgages scheme by the end of the three-year experimental period.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At the launch of the rents to mortgages scheme on 30 October last year, my right hon. and learned Friend announced that he expected up to 5,000 applications under the scheme during the three-year period.

  Pre-School Playgroups
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what support his Department gives to the Scottish Pre-School Play Association; and whether he has any plans to increase that support.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Pre-School Play Association in the current year has received grants totalling £78,000 under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Grants for 1990–91 have yet to be determined, in the light of applications and commitments.

  Bus Routes
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make the number of Road Traffic Act convictions a necessary declaration for those companies bidding for bus routes.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No. Companies wishing to operate a local bus service, whether commercial or under contract to local authorities must hold a PSV operator's licence. In deciding whether or not to grant an operator's licence, the traffic commissioner takes into account relevant convictions of the operator or his employees. Licence holders are required to make known to the traffic commissioner details of convictions during the currency of the licence.

  Playground Supervision
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of consultations about school playground supervision.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on 6 December 1989.

  Crown Office (Press Statement)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the press statement made by the Crown Office on Friday 19 January concerning matters arising from the resignation of a judge at the Court of Session.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The press statement issued on behalf of Crown Office on 19 January was related to allegations of misconduct by Court of Session judges and was in the following terms:
  139
  "Commenting on allegations of misconduct by Court of Session Judges, a Crown Office spokesman said today:
  'The Lord Advocate is responsible for investigation and prosecution of crime made known to him. No information or complaint has been provided to him which would allow him to instruct any police force or Procurator Fiscal to carry out a criminal investigation. Any rumour which has been conveyed to him has contained no sufficient specification for such instruction but what checks could be made have been made. They have revealed no basis on which to instruct further investigation.
  If at any time the Lord Advocate were to be made aware of sufficiently specific allegations to instruct inquiry, the appropriate steps would of course be taken.
  Allegations of non-criminal conduct by Judges are not matters for investigation by the Lord Advocate.'"

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by location, where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department does not directly provide creche facilities. The central Edinburgh holiday play-scheme (for school-age children of civil servants), which is largely self-financing, is, however, used by Scottish Office staff.

  Judges
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the public utterances of the Lord Advocate concerning the appointment and resignation of judges since 1 January; and if he will place copies and transcripts where available in the Library.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Lord Advocate has made no such public statement.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he or any official of his tendered advice to the Lord President of the Court of Session in either December 1989 or January 1990; and on what subjects.

  Mr. Rifkind
  It is not the practice to make known the substance of discussions which Ministers or their officials have with the Lord President of the Court of Session.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the dates in November and December when officials of the Crown Office held lunchtime meetings with the Lord President of the Court of Session.

  Mr. Rifkind
  A Crown Office official, together with an official from the Scottish Courts Administration, attended upon the Lord President of the Court of Session at lunchtime on 20 December 1989.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer,Official Report, 22 January, column 547, on what date since 1 November 1989 his meeting with the Lord President of the Court of Session took place; and whether, within the range of matters discussed was the question of an impending vacancy at the Court of Session.

  Mr. Rifkind
  On 22 December 1989.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report,
  140
  column 548. if he will list the dates in November and December 1989, and January 1990 when he met judges of the Court of Session; and if he will name the judges he met.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Secretary of State does not keep a record of all the occasions on which he meets judges of the Court of Session.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 548, if he will list the dates in November and December 1989, and January 1990, when the Lord Advocate met judges of the Court of Session; and if he will name the judges.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Lord Advocate does not keep a record of all the occasions on which he meet judges of the Court of Session.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan, 22 January,Official Report, column 548, if he will place in the Library the information made available to the Lord President of the Court of Session by officials of the Lord Advocate since 1 January.

  Mr. Rifkind
  It is not the practice to make known such information.

  Passenger Ferries
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is in a position to estimate the number of orders for new passenger ferry vessels for Caledonian MacBrayne which are likely to be placed with United Kingdom shipyards over the next five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: Caledonian MacBrayne estimates that it will replace up to four major passenger ferry vessels and four minor passenger ferry vessels over the next five years.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the current passenger ferry fleet owned by Caledonian MacBrayne in terms of type, gross registered tonnage and age.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: The current passenger fleet of Caledonian MacBrayne is as follows:

  GRT (gross registered tonnage)

  Age (years)

  Major vehicle ferries

  MV Iona

  1,324

  20

  MV Jupiter

  849

  16

  MV Pioneer

  1,071

  16

  MV Suilven

  1,908

  16

  MV Juno

  854

  16

  MV Saturn

  851

  12

  MV Claymore

  1,631

  12

  MV Isle of Arran

  3,296

  6

  MV Hebridean Isles

  3,040

  5

  MV Isle of Mull

  4,719

  2

  MV Lord of the Isles

  3,504

  1

  Small vehicle ferries

  MV Kyleakin

  225

  20

  MV Lochalsh

  225

  19

  MV Kilbrannan

  64

  18

  MV Morvern

  64

  17

  141

  GRT (gross registered tonnage)

  Age (years)

  MV Bruernish

  69

  17

  MV Rhum

  69

  17

  MV Coll

  69

  16

  MV Eigg

  69

  15

  MV Canna

  69

  15

  MV Raasay

  69

  14

  MV Isle of Cumbrae

  201

  13

  MV Loch Striven

  206

  4

  MV Loch Linnhe

  206

  4

  MV Loch Riddon

  206

  4

  MV Loch Ranza

  206

  3

  Passenger ships

  MV Keppel

  214

  30

  MV Lochmor

  189

  11

  Salmon
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the annual tonnage of salmon caught in Scotland in each of the last 10 years(a) by anglers and (b) by commercial fishermen.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: Details of reported catches of Scottish salmon and sea trout by salmon fishery statistical district and by method of catch (rod-and-line, net and coble, and fixed engine) are given for the years 1982–88 in annual statistical bulletins and for previous years in "Scottish salmon catch statistics 1952–1981". Copies of these publications by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland are available in the Library.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish figures on the level of salmon stocks in the principal Scottish rivers in recent years.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: Information on the size of the salmon stocks on each river in Scotland is not available. An electronic fish counter has been operated on the river North Esk by the freshwater fisheries laboratory of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland for some years. The numbers of adult salmon passing upstream past that counter are as follows:

  Year

  Numbers of adult salman

  1985

  9,912

  1986

  6,987

  1987

  7,132

  1988

  11,243

  DAFS scientists are also making a widespread survey of juvenile stocks of salmon in Scottish rivers.

  Planning (Neighbour Notification)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in revising the neighbour notification procedure in planning applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr.
  142
  Stewart) on 25 July (Official Report, column 649). The revision of the neighbour notification procedure is being undertaken by the Scottish Development Department as part of a wider review of the general development order and a consultation paper on the revised provisions of the general development order will be issued in due course.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in consequence of entries for domestic property on the valuation roll no longer being updated, he will accept notification on the occupant for the purpose of neighbour notification in planning applications.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood on 25 July (Official Report, column 649).

  Private Education
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by name all the private educational establishments in Scotland stating the amount of public assistance, financial or otherwise, which each receives.

  Mr. Lang
  A list of registered independent schools in Scotland has been placed in the Library. Details of private educational establishments in receipt of public funding in respect of their educational activities are set out in the table:

  Establishment

  Amount of public funding4 in 1988–89

  £

  Corseford School, Renfrew1

  549,246

  Craigerne School, Peebles1

  266,128

  Donaldsons School for the Deaf, Edinburgh1

  381,173

  East Park School, Glasgow1

  868,105

  Harmeny School, Balerno1

  269,184

  Jordanhill School, Glasgow1

  1,624,500

  Queen Victoria School, Dunblane2

  3,388,000

  Royal Blind School, Edinburgh1

  780,630

  Scoraig Secondary School, Ross-shire3

  8,000

  Stanmore School, Lanark1

  689,921

  Thorntoun Manor, Kilmarnock1

  300,741

  Newbattle Abbey College1

  322,271

  1 Grant-aided schools in receipt of central Government funding.

  2 Maintained by the Ministry of Defence.

  3 In receipt of funding from Highland Regional Council.

  4 Includes funding in respect of capital and recurrent expenditure.

  5 Government funding was withdrawn on 30 September 1989; with the exception of grant for redundancy and premature retirement compensation.

  Crofters (Grants and Loans)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage increases are required to adjust the levels of grant and loan available under the crofters building grants and loan scheme in line with inflation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On the basis of building costs and building materials indices and of the costs of new crofter housing an increase of nearly 30 per cent. would now be required.

  Deprived Area Supplements
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the basis on which deprived area supplements to basic practice allowance for Scottish general medical practitioners will be paid when the new contract comes into force on 1 April.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  These payments will be made on the basis of an index devised by Professor Brian Jarman. Professor Jarman has recently revised his index to take account of the most up-to-date Scottish information available. The payments will be made at three levels: the lowest for index scores of 30–39, the next for 40–49 and the highest for scores of over 50. A total of 11·4 per cent. of the Scottish population live in postcode sectors with index scores of over 30. I am setting up a committee drawn from various interests to monitor the implementation of these payments.

  Marine Fish Farmers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was paid to the Crown Estate Commissioners by marine fish farmers in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]: I understand from the Crown Estate Commission that in the last five financial years the Crown Estate has received the following gross rental income from marine fish farming:

  £

  1984–85

  17,000

  1985–86

  18,200

  1986–87

  18,800

  1987–88

  340,000

  1988–89

  485,000

  1 Approximate.

  The commission explains that the figures represent gross income and that no account has been taken of management costs and reinvestment in research and training, which the commission states will amount to £450,000 in the current year.

  Prison Population
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the prison population in each of the past 10 years; what are his estimates for the prison population for the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]: Information for the past 10 years is set out in the table:

  Population in Scottish penal establishments 1980 to 1989

  Number

  1980

  4,860

  1981

  4,518

  1982

  4,891

  1983

  5,052

  1984

  4,753

  1985

  5,273

  1986

  5,588

  1987

  5,446

  1988

  5,229

  19891

  4,985

  1 Provisional

  144
  1 Provisional.

  My latest projection is for an average population of 5,100 prisoners in each of the next five years. This projection, which was prepared some months ago for planning purposes, takes account of demographic trends.

  I welcome the fact that, since the peak in 1986, the average prison population has fallen steadily, to the point where we are now projecting that the number of places in Scottish prisons will be adequate to meet needs for the foreseeable future. Such an improvement can only contribute to better conditions for prisoners and staff alike.

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the closure of hospitals or wards; and if he has received any notification of the possibility of such closures by Lothian health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]: My right hon. and learned Friend will consider any hospital closure or withdrawal of a specialty within a hospital on its own merits and after the relevant health board has consulted all local bodies with a valid interest. I am not aware of any such public consultations being undertaken by Lothian health board at present.

  I am, however, aware of speculation in the media about hospital closures in Lothian and the board has stated that it has no plans for "crisis closures".

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farm Animals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received concerning the ill-treatment of farm animals.

  Mr. Maclean
  I receive many representations on all aspects of farm animal welfare.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce legislation to improve the treatment of farm animals.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government plan to introduce orders on the welfare of farm livestock and horses at markets and an amendment of the transport legislation in respect of unfit animals. We are also planning new regulations on the protection of livestock on farms and at the point of slaughter. Proposed Community controls will also require implementing legislation in due course.

  Sheep
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the reason for the change of colour coding of sheep infected by the aftermath of Chernobyl.

  Mr. Maclean
  This enables groups of sheep which have been out of the restricted area for a minimum period of time to be identified, subject to appropriate checks, as candidates for block release. The "mark and release" arrangements for sheep leaving the post-Chernobyl restricted areas are described in full in my Department's evidence to the Agriculture Committee's inquiry, "Chernobyl: The Government's Response", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department is conducting any research into genetic predisposition of sheep to scrapie.

  Mr. Gummer
  Research into the genetic predisposition of sheep to scrapie is being undertaken by the AFRC at the neuropathogenesis unit. The scrapie resistant flock at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Redesdale experimental husbandry farm is being used in this work.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who will represent the Ministry at the EC Council of Ministers meetings; and what will be on the agenda on(a) Agriculture: 22 and 23 January, 12 and 13 February, 4 to 6 March, 26 and 27 March, 23 and 24 April, 21 and 22 May, 11 and 12 June, 18 and 19 June, and (b) Fisheries: 18 January and 27 June.

  Mr. Curry
  The Council of Ministers' meeting on 18 January was cancelled. For the meeting on 22 and 23 January I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on 24 January,Official Report, column 768. Agendas for future Councils will be decided nearer the time, as will the question of representation. However, I expect the Councils of 12 and 13 February, 5 and 6 March, and 26 and 27 March to concentrate on the Commission's proposals for 1990 farm prices and that my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I will represent the United Kingdom at these meetings.

  Bull Fights
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will invite the EEC Commission, at the next meeting of the Agricultural Council, to produce measures on animal welfare with particular regard to the banning of bull fights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Commission has already produced measures on animal welfare and is preparing others. The EEC treaty contains no legal basis for justifying Community intervention on bull-fighting.

  live Horses (Exports)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposals by the European Economic Community Commission on the transportation of animals within the EEC; and if they will permit the United Kingdom to maintain its restrictions on the export of live ponies and horses.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government intend to negotiate the highest possible welfare standards during forthcoming discussions in Brussels. We shall press strongly to retain controls designed to prevent horses and ponies being exported for slaughter; the Commission's proposals do not provide for our existing restrictions to continue.

  Bovine (Brain Removal)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the implications for contamination from the practice of splitting bovine cranium with band-saws for the purpose of brain removal.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to my previous replies and have nothing further to add.

  Common Agriculture Policy
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the proportion, by value, of United Kingdom agricultural products which are covered by the common agriculture policy regime.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Commission estimates that 90 per cent. of final agricultural production in the United Kingdom in 1987 was subject to market regimes under the common agricultural policy.

  Source: The Agricultural Situation in the Community 1988 Report EC Commission.

  Intervention Butter
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what conditions intervention butter is sold or given to the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Intervention butter was available to non-profit-making organisations, including the National Health Service, at subsidised prices until July 1988 when the relevant Community regulation was suspended. The NHS continues, however, to make use of supplies of subsidised butter from the open market under EC rules which allow for a subsidy of £1,065/tonne (compared to the current market price of around £2,000/tonne).

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to commission outside bodies to carry out his pesticide reviews; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I wish to make rapid progress with the review of older pesticides. All ways of achieving this are currently being evaluated.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Foreign Language Teaching
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he plans any fresh approaches to foreign language tuition among those at primary schools or earlier.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the extent to which modern foreign languages will be taught in primary schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The national curriculum includes a modern foreign language as a foundation subject at
  147
  secondary level only. Individual local education authorities and primary schools are free to provide foreign language teaching to their pupils outside the national curriculum, if they have the necessary staffing and other resources to do so.

  Scottish Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet the Scottish Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet the Scottish Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

  Mr. Jackson
  I believe that the hon. Members are referring to the executive committee of the Standing Conference of Scottish Universities. My right hon. Friend has seen a number of Scottish Vice-Chancellors and he plans to visit some Scottish universities in May.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the 1990–91 capital allocations announced in December.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the capital allocations for the schools building programme.

  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the school building programme capital allocations.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters and requests for meetings from hon. Members, LEAs and others about the annual capital guidelines which he announced on 20 December.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on capital allocation grants to voluntary-aided and special schools.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the capital allocation for schools in England for 1990–91.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 20 December 1989 at columns 254–58.

  Open University
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many Open university students have graduated since the university was founded; and what proportion of British university graduates are now produced by the Open university each year.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Open university has awarded 101,900 ordinary BA degrees, and 18,094 honours degress since it 148
  admitted its first students in 1971. In 1988 it produced 9·9 per cent. of United Kingdom university graduates. and 5·3 per cent. of all United Kingdom graduates.

  Parent Governors
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of parent representation on the boards of governors of schools in the maintained sector.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the new arrangements for parent governors are working satisfactorily.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A survey last year showed that new governing bodies, with a much larger number of parents, are already getting to grips with important educational issues. The most effective governing bodies are those where all members work as a team, in which parents have an important part to play.

  Computers
  Mr. Andrew Mackay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many computers are now in schools in the maintained sector.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  There is an average of three microcomputers per maintained primary school and 30 per maintained secondary school.

  Local Financial Management
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on progress on the introduction of local financial management in schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Eighty-four authorities have either received formal approval for their schemes or are being consulted on modifications prior to approval. We have indicated to five authorities that their schemes cannot be approved in their present form and that formal implementation will therefore be deferred until April 1991.

  Teacher Numbers
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current supply of teachers and on the position at this time in 1989.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department collects data on vacant posts from local education authorities each January. I hope that local authorities will submit their returns for January 1990 quickly. We shall publish the results as soon as they are available. Data for 1989 were shown in the reply my right hon. Friend gave on 21 December 1989 to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) at columns 353–55.

  Disabled Students Allowance
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the result of his review of the disabled students allowance.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to review the disabled students allowance.
  149
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the review of disabled students allowance to be completed.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will be announcing the result of his review of the disabled students allowance.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to make a statement on the level of the disabled students allowance.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 15 January at column 8.

  Teacher Shortages
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had in the last month from inner London boroughs with regard to teacher shortage.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend on 8 January received a letter from the Association of London Authorities on the subject of teacher recruitment and retention in inner London. He will reply shortly. My right hon. Friend is well aware of the difficulties relating to teacher supply in some parts of London. He recently announced grant of £4 million over two years to assist local authorities with teacher recruitment schemes. A substantial amount of this will go to the inner London authorities. Discussion of further measures is taking place at official level.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence he has on teacher shortages; and what action is being taken to encourage greater recruitment to the profession.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department's annual January survey of vacancies showed in 1989 a vacancy rate in secondary schools of 1·2 per cent—the same as in 1979. Wastage from the profession has remained broadly constant for many years.

  For the future we shall continue and reinforce the range of measures we are already pursuing to encourage greater recruitment to the profession. These include expanding the teaching as a career unit, providing bursaries to trainee teachers of shortage subjects, funding in-service training for retraining teachers in the shortage subjects, and encouraging mature entrants to the profession through a series of taster courses and through the licensed teacher scheme. In addition, from April 1990, education support grant of £4 million will be available to support the recruitment of married women returners and mature new entrants to teaching.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what new steps he proposes to take to tackle the problem of teacher shortages in London.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has asked the Interim Advisory Committee to advise on measures to improve teacher supply in areas where vacancy rates are highest, notably the inner London weighting area.

  In addition he has made available over £100,000 to support a London-wide recruitment campaign; and from April 1990 funding under education support grant will be
  150
  available to support the recruitment of married women returners and mature new entrants to teaching. This will be of particular benefit to London authorities.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the shortage of teachers(a) generally and (b) in mathematics, science and foreign languages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department's memorandum to the Education Science and Arts Committee in November 1988 describes the indicators that the Department uses to assess teacher supply and includes an assessment of shortages generally and by subject at that time. A more recent assessment was made in the Department's written evidence to the Interim Advisory Committee. Copies of both documents are in the Library. The Government recognise that there are difficulties in recruiting teachers in some parts of the country and in some subjects, in particular mathematics, physics, chemistry and modern languages.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is taking to attract people into the teaching profession.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), on 16 January 1990 at column 159.

  Higher Education
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to monitor quality in higher education provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to monitor quality in higher education provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The main responsibility for quality in higher education rests with the institutions themselves and their validating bodies. In addition, Her Majesty's inspectors continue to provide, through their published reports, an assessment of the quality of provision in the polytechnics and colleges sector. My right hon. Friend encourages the work in hand in both sectors of higher education to develop improved quality assurance measures and looks to the higher education funding councils and others to consider ways in which these could be used to secure the yet more effective use of the substantial public funds allocated to higher education.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of full-time students currently in higher education establishments; and what were the comparable figures for 1980.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information for academic year 1989–90 is not yet available centrally. Provisional figures for 1988–89 indicate that there were 628,000 full-time and sandwich students of higher education courses in Great Britain, compared with 521,000 in 1980–81.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about progress with the development of grant-maintained schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Twenty schools have been incorporated as grant-maintained schools since September 1989. They are now experiencing the benefits of greater financial and administrative autonomy. They are proving popular with parents and pupils. I share their confidence in the future and expect them to take full advantage of the opportunities which grant-maintained status offers.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many grant-maintained schools are currently in operation; how many new approvals have been given; and how many schools are in the process of consultations with a view to obtaining grant-maintained status.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  To date 86 schools have embarked on the process of applying for grant-maintained status and parents at 57 of them have so far voted in favour of proceeding with an application. My right hon. Friend has approved 32 of the 41 proposals which have so far reached him for decision. More secondary schools have now been approved for grant-maintained status than the number of secondary schools in half of English LEAs.

  A-levels
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had about the future of A-levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had about the future of A-levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had about the future of A-levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave on 28 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) at column 181. In addition my right hon. Friend has asked the School Examinations and Assessment Council to develop general principles to govern A and AS examinations. The sixth form curriculum and the future of post-16 education generally, frequently arises in discussions with representatives of teachers' associations and others.

  Global Climate (Research)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what programme he is supporting for systematic research into the impact of the terrestrial environment on the global climate comparable to the programmes on the atmosphere and the oceans; and whether he has any plans to increase the resources allocated to them.

  Mr. Jackson
  Through the research councils, the following programmes are being supported through the science budget:152
  NERC is carrying out a broad programme of research in terrestrial and freshwater sciences. This provides a firm scientific base for studies of the impact of global climate change on the terrestrial environment.
  Current research specifically on the interaction between the terrestrial environment and global climate is as follows:

  (i) changes in the floristic composition of habitats and the abundance and geographical range of animals.

  (ii) the effects on coastal ecosystems of sea level rise.

  (iii) the productivity of freshwater plankton and their population dynamics in response to changes to lake stratification.

  (iv) investigation of the change in rates of soil organic matter decomposition and the production of trace gases.

  (v) modelling changes in forest productivity.

  (vi) the effect of climate change on water resources.

  (vii) predictive modelling of the frequency of extreme events such as flooding and high winds.

  (viii) studies of the dynamics of Antarctic terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems projects carried out by higher education institutions supported by research grants, postgraduate studentships and fellowships.

  AFRC's current research in this area concerns:

  (i) the absorption or release of carbon dioxide by plants in photosynthesis and respiration and the effects of carbon dioxide on plant growth, production and development.

  (ii) the fate of nitrogen in plants and soil and the release of gases such as nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.

  Within the increased resources for each of the research councils announced on 10 January, NERC is planning to extend its work and has allocated resources to a programme of Arctic ecology; AFRC intends to increase its level of spend in the area mentioned above; and SERC will be devoting resources to a research initiative on clean processes and technology.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his Department's expenditure on research into the effects on the global climate of(a) the atmosphere, (b) the oceans and (c) the terrestrial environment.

  Mr. Jackson
  Expenditure by the research councils on these categories of research in 1989–90 is estimated to he as follows:

  £'000

  The atmosphere

  NERC

  1,555

  SERC

  c.4,000

  The oceans

  NERC

  11,487

  The terrestrial environment

  NERC

  1,325

  AFRC

  10,000

  In addition to the above, NERC spends £6,618,000 on research into paleoclimates and on land and sea glaciology.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will increase funding to the NERC for research into the effects of global warming.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on 10 January at columns 623–24.
  153
  In addition to the specific allocations referred to, it is for the councils to decide on how the resources allocated to them should be spent.

  Four-year-olds
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking in response to the Her Majesty's inspectorate's report on the quality of education of four-year-olds in primary classes.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking in response to Her Majesty's inspectorate's report on the quality of education of four-year-olds in primary classes.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking in response to the Her Majesty's inspectorate's report on the quality of education of four-year-olds in primary classes.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The findings of Her Majesty's inspectorate in "The Quality of Education for Four-Year-Olds in Primary Classes" published in December are chiefly for local education authorities and schools to consider. The Government have addressed one important need by designating in-service training for teachers with responsibility for these children a national priority area within the local education authority training grants scheme. The committee of inquiry which I am chairing is considering how three and four-year-olds may have improved educational experiences in various settings.

  Performance Indicators
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps his Department is taking to encourage schools to make greater use of performance indicators.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We regard the development of performance indicators as a key element in the effective management of schools. The Department has recently circulated to all local education authorities a list of indicators identified by schools in a pilot exercise as particularly valuable for this purpose. I shall send my hon. Friend a copy of the aide memoire, together with my speech on the occasion of its publication.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet teachers' union representatives to discuss pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend will be meeting the teacher unions in due course to discuss the report of the Interim Advisory Committee on school teachers' pay and conditions and the Government's proposals in response to the committee's recommendations.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to introduce greater regional flexibility in pay for teachers in England and Wales.
  154
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Interim Advisory Committee on school teachers' pay and conditions has been asked to advise on what modifications should be made to the system of selective payments to teachers. My right hon. Friend will be considering its recommendations carefully.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the real rate of increase in teachers' pay since 1979; and what was the corresponding figure for the 1974 to 1979 period.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Teachers' average salaries have risen by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The estimated increase in real terms between March 1974 and 1979 is approximately 6 per cent.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on teachers' pay.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend expects shortly to announce the Government's proposals in response to the recommendations of the Interim Advisory Committee.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in creating a joint negotiating body for teachers' pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in establishing a new negotiating body for teachers' pay and conditions.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend held a series of meetings with the teacher unions and the local authority employers in October and November last year. He is considering carefully the points made to him then. Further meetings will take place in due course.

  Standardised Testing
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implementation of standardised testing in schools.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to improve the arrangements so far made for assessment of pupils' progress following the introduction of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made on agreeing a system of assessment for the national curriculum in primary schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received further advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council about the arrangements for national curriculum assessment. He is considering that advice and will make a statement shortly.

  School Transport and Travel Expenses
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions he has had with representatives of local education authorities regarding school transport and travel expenses.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The costs of school transport are taken into account in the discussions which my right hon. Friend holds with representatives of local education authorities as part of the annual cycle for determining the local authority grant settlement. He has not had any discussions about the law regarding school transport and travel expenses, which I set out in the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 14 November at column 229.

  Deaf Children
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up an inquiry into the desirability of totally deaf and profoundly deaf children, for whom sign language is their first language, being taught by at least one deaf teacher using sign language.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This is a matter for local education authorities, as the employers, to decide for themselves in the light of local circumstances. It would not be appropriate to seek to limit the teaching options available to them.

  English Teaching
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made since 1979 in improving standards of English, written and spoken in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Examination results for the 16-plus age group indicate a small but steady rise throughout the decade in the standard of English attained by school leavers. Government initiatives such as the education support grant programmes for oracy and English language in the curriculum will continue this process. Above all the national curriculum will give pupils and teachers clear objectives for written and spoken English and the ways and means of reaching them.

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

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the implementation of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Taylor), for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) and for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 19 December 1989 at col.201.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much time he recommends teachers in primary schools should spend on assessment of the core curriculum.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much time he recommends teachers in primary schools should spend on assessment of the core curriculum.
  156
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much time he recommends teachers in primary schools should spend on assessment of the core curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Assessment should be an integral part of teaching. It is not possible, therefore, to say precisely how much time teachers should spend on it.

  Departmental Literature
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will take any measures to limit the use of jargon in the literature published by his Department and by other educational organisations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Yes.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average debt expected for a student studying a four-year arts degree at a Scottish university assuming the student loans scheme was in operation and the student was entering the first year of the course in autumn 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  A student beginning a four-year degree course in autumn 1990 would repay just under £2,000 over five years from April 1995. This assumes that the RPI increases by 3 per cent. a year on average over the next 10 years, and that there is no deferment of repayments. Repayments will not vary according to the subject of study, or the institution at which the course was undertaken.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on progress in establishing revised arrangements for the proposed scheme for studen loans, following his statement of 21 December,Official Report, column 617.

  Mr. Jackson
  Preparatory work on the student loans scheme is well in hand. As already announced to the House, the Student Loans Company Limited has selected a managing director and has secured premises in Glasgow.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he expects to make any changes to the present proposed scheme for the repayment of student top-up loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  None of significance. The withdrawal of the banks means that their branches will no longer be available to handle loan applications, or to counsel borrowers. It does not affect the principles of the scheme, or its administration, in other respects.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made towards implementing the student loans scheme.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made with the student loans scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made with the student loans scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Preparatory work on the student loans scheme is well in hand. As already announced to the House, the Student Loans Company Limited has selected a managing director and has secured premises in Glasgow.
  157
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research his Department has carried out into the potential impact of his student loans scheme on the numbers of undergraduate students.

  Mr. Jackson
  A study of different countries' student support systems, including the effect on participation in higher education, was published as Annex C to the White Paper. This concluded that"there is no direct correlation of either the quantity of support or its form with participation rates".

  The Department will be monitoring the effect of top-up loans on student participation.

  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what, if any, studies his Department has undertaken, or has had undertaken on its behalf, into the feasibility of students repaying their maintenance loans through the income tax system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  In drawing up proposals for top-up loans for students a wide range of repayment options was considered. I am confident that the Government's scheme represents the most effective means of providing additional resources for students and securing value for money to the taxpayer.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the special financial needs of the disabled in formulating his proposals for the introduction of the top-up loan for students.

  Mr. Jackson
  The top-up loans scheme is designed to provide an additional source of support for all students. The Department is examining the evidence submitted by organisations representing the interests of disabled students, relating to both top-up loans and the present system of student support.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the administration of the student loans scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the administration of the student loans scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran).

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what decision has been made on whether supplementary allowances for dependants will be frozen following introduction of student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  Supplementary allowances in respect of dependants will continue to be available to all eligible students under the mandatory awards system after the introduction of top-up loans. The rates for 1990–91 are currently being considered and will be announced shortly.

  The levels of these allowances for 1991–92 and subsequent years will be considered at the appropriate times in the light of all relevant circumstances, including available resources.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the decisions he 158
  has made to date on the administration of the student loans scheme, pursuant to the withdrawal of the banks from the administration of the scheme and his statement to the House of 21 December 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  It remains the Government's intention that, subject to the passage of the Education (Student Loans) Bill, the Student Loans Company Limited will administer the scheme. The Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Scotland have acquired the company and have appointed directors. The company has selected a managing director and acquired premises. Detailed information about the administration of the scheme will be made public as soon as possible. The principles, objectives and funding of the student loans scheme are not altered by the withdrawal of the banks.

  School Leaving Age
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last received representations to consider further the statutory school leaving age.

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

  Temporary Classrooms
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether any research into the disadvantages of education carried out in temporary classrooms separate from the main school building has been carried out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I am not aware of any recent research into the subject in question.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much has been spent on the running of the youth service in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures consist of direct expenditure by the Department to voluntary organisations, and local authority expenditure on the youth service as recorded by them in their annual returns, including that supported by specific grant. The figures include recurrent and capital expenditure on the youth service.

  Expenditure on the Youth Service—England

  £ million Cash

  1986–87

  156

  1987–88

  188

  1988–89

  175

  Teacher Training
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many people were recruited onto teacher training courses in England and Wales in 1989 and 1988.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A total of 21,757 students started initial teacher training courses in September 1989—an increase of 1,574 on the corresponding 1988 total of 20,183.

  Essex Education Committee
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the chairman of Essex county council education committee.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has not met the chairman of Essex county council education committee recently, but I met her on 23 November. I also met, on 22 January, the chairman of the county council, who is standing in for her while she is in hospital.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of the cost to public funds of implementing his policy on city technology colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Total planned Government expenditure from the announcement of the city technology colleges programme to the end of the financial year 1991–92 is £122·4 million. In addition to this, there are sponsors' contributions totalling over £43 million.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on progress on the development of city technology colleges in the midlands.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We are making rapid progress on the establishment of CTCs in the midlands. During the last two weeks my right hon. Friend has announced plans for CTCs in Corby and in Derby, and in addition sponsors have declared their wish to fund a CTC in Telford. These are in addition to the CTC already open in Kingshurst, Birmingham.

  PhD Students
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of university PhD students are now of British nationality.

  Mr. Jackson
  Sixty per cent. of university students registered for PhD qualifications in 1988 were of United Kingdom domicile.

  Teacher Supply
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what new proposals he has to improve the supply of teachers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We shall continue and reinforce the range of measures we are already pursuing to meet the staffing demand of schools in the 1990s. These include expanding the teaching as a career unit, providing bursaries to trainee teachers of shortage subjects, funding in-service training for retraining teachers in the shortage subjects, and encouraging mature entrants to the profession through a series of taster courses and through the licensed teacher scheme. In addition, from April 1990, education support grant of £4 million will be available to support the recruitment of married women returners and mature new entrants to teaching.

  Education Reform Act
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the work of teachers implementing the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Teachers are at the forefront of implementing our education reforms. The success of the reforms depends crucially on their contribution. I am encouraged by the evidence I have received of the enthusiasm and dedication with which the reforms are being implemented, and I pay tribute to the dedication, professionalism and hard work of teachers in this.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reductions in staff numbers employed in local education authority offices he anticipates as a result of local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 19 December 1989 at column 206.

  Interim Advisory Committee
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the chairman of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend meets Lord Chilver from time to time in the normal course of business.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress being made by the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend asked the Interim Advisory Committee to report by the end of January.

  Science Budget
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the allocation of the science budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on 10 January at columns 623–4.

  Classroom Closures
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teaching days have been lost to children in the current academic year due to their classroom's closure on structural grounds.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Surplus School Places
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he has considered to ensure that local education authorities reduce their number of surplus school places.
  161
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Local education authorities are aware of the high cost of under-used capacity at schools with a substantial proportion of surplus places. They recognise therefore that it is very much in their own financial interests to continue to come forward with proposals to rationalise their school provision where appropriate and continue to make proposals to that end.

  University Education
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications for university education have been received in 1990; and what were the comparable figures in each of the previous three years.

  Mr. Jackson
  By 15 December 1989, the Universities Central Council on Admissions had received 195,600 applications from home and overseas students for admission to university in 1990. Comparably incomplete figures for previous years are, for entry in 1989, 176,600; in 1988, 164,800; and in 1987, 156,600.

  Higher Education (Salaries)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average annual increase in real terms between 1979 and 1989 of national average earnings, average professors' salaries, senior lecturers' salaries, and PhD research student grants respectively.

  Mr. Jackson
  The average annual increases in real salary-grant over the 10-year period 1979 to 1989 were:

  Per cent.

  Average national earnings

  2·5

  Professors' average salaries

  1·9

  University senior lecturers' maximum salaries

  1·3

  Research council studentships (London)

  0·6

  Research council studentships (elsewhere)

  0·4

  Notes:

  1.The figure for average national earnings has been derived from the New Earnings Survey and is based on males and females on full time rates across all occupations, industries and services.

  2.Average salaries and earnings are based on the period 1 April to 31 March in each of the years. The figures for academic salaries do not include non-salary earnings.

  3.Studentships grants are based on the period 1 October to 30 September in each of the years. The figures do not include British Academy grants.

  4.All figures have been calculated by use of the Retail Price Index.

  Saturday Sports Facilities (Schools)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the level of provisions of Saturday sports facilities in schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Figures on Saturday use of sports facilities in schools are not available. The Government wish to encourage the wider use of school sports facilities by the local community and will shortly publish a practical guidance booklet on dual use.

  Standard Assessment Tests
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what decisions have been made about the publication of standard assessment tests at seven years; and if he will make a statement.
  162
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what decisions have been made about the publication of standard assessment tests at seven years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) earlier today.

  National Union of Teachers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the president of the National Union of Teachers; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend met the NUT president last week to discuss teacher supply and other matters.

  Ko Hsuan School, Chawleigh
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps Her Majesty's inspectorate has now taken to ensure that the Ko Hsuan school at Chawleigh in north Devon conforms with approved practice in terms of sleeping arrangements, religious instruction and supervision outside school hours; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave on 11 January 1990 at column 706.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to bring public education services for the under-fives into line with other European countries such as Denmark, Holland, France, Spain and Sweden.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  European countries vary in the nature and extent of their provision for the under-fives. The Government do not see conformity as a desirable end in itself; our intention is rather to build on the strengths of our existing services, including the important contribution made by the voluntary sector.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his latest figures for each local education authority for expenditure on the education of under-fives.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Local authority expenditure returns to the Department of the Environment do not identify separate figures for the education of under-fives. Expenditure is returned for all pupils in the nursery and primary sector taken together.

  Supply Teachers
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local education authorities about the number of supply teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) earlier today.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the factors which most influence whether schools and local authorities achieve good public examination results.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has undertaken numerous analyses and commissioned research in this field. HM Inspectorate also records and comments upon examination results in its reports on schools, local education authorities and aspects of the education system.

  In the light of the evidence, my right hon. Friend has concluded that the major influence on examination results is the quality of teaching and organisation of individual schools. The reforms now being instituted under the Education Reform Act, including in particular the introduction of the national curriculum, are intended to improve the quality of teaching and learning in all schools, and across all local education authorities.

  School Visits
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received over his Department's revised policy on charging for school visits.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Letters to the Department about the new law, which include requests for clarification as well as expressions of opinion, have reduced considerably in recent months. It is clear that many schools are managing well within the new arrangements, but we are continuing to monitor the situation.

  Interactive Video
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what support he is giving to the development and testing of interactive video teaching material on compact discs for use in the school science curriculum.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department is taking a number of steps to stimulate the production of interactive video materials. Currently we are funding the production of five discs in mathematics. The question of support for other curriculum areas will be considered in due course.

  Underspending
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the areas in which his Department is underspending.

  Mr. MacGregor
  DES public expenditure Votes in 1988–89 were underspent by 1·8 per cent. Three quarters of this arose on two programmes of specific grant where local authorities did not claim as high a proportion of grant within the financial year to which it related as had been projected. Action has been taken to ensure that in future outturn more closely matches Vote provision for these programmes.

  Infant and Junior Schools (Manchester)
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from head teachers of infant and junior schools in Manchester regarding present working conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend last year received via the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) a representation from the headteacher of Oldwood infant school in Manchester concerning staff facilities at the school.

  As part of a visit to Manchester last December my right hon. Friend visited Ravensbury county primary school where he saw working conditions at first hand.

  Decisions about the allocation of capital resources in county schools are a matter for Manchester education authority.

  Physical Education
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be able to announce the appointment of the working party on physical education and the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 23 January, 1990 at column 598.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on pupil-led funding and the system of local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Pupil-led funding is a key element of local management of schools. At least 75 per cent. of the resources to be allocated to schools by authorities' formula must be allocated on the basis of pupil numbers weighted for age. The remainder may be used to reflect variations in the circumstances of schools within each authority, including the size and condition of premises, the number of pupils with special needs and the need to provide a balanced curriculum in small schools.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has had from governing bodies about local management of schools.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had from governing bodies about local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from governing bodies. Very many of these have expressed support for the greater role that governing bodies will play in the running of schools under local management.

  Science Libraries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to make it possible for university science libraries to acquire more of the relevant periodicals in their disciplines.
  165
  Mr. Jackson
  It is for individual universities to decide their own priorities within the total resources at their disposal.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science who will represent his Department at the European Community Council of Ministers meeting on 31 May, education and 18 May, culture; and what the agenda will be for both meetings.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend represents the United Kingdom at the meetings of European Community Ministers of Education. It is too early to predict the final agenda for the meeting on 31 May. Early indications are that it may include discussions on education co-operation, European schools, equality of educational opportunity in initial and in-service training of teachers, education for enterprise and distance education. The Council will also receive from the Commission a number of progress reports on education programmes.

  Responsibility for cultural matters rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, who expects to be present at the 18 May meeting of European Community Ministers of Culture. Present indications are that the following items may be among those discussed: education and training in the cultural sector, free movement of cultural goods in the single European market, the MEDIA programme, library co-operation in the field of data banks, and the European City of Culture programme.

  Grant-Maintained Status
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library a copy of each proposal for acquisition of grant-maintained status required from the governing body of the school under section 62 of the Education Reform Act 1988 received by him to date.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Under section 62 of the Education Reform Act 1988 the governing body of a school applying for grant-maintained status must publish statutory proposals, a copy of which they are obliged to send to me. I shall put in train arrangements for the Library to receive a copy of the proposals for those schools on which I have reached decisions.

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by location, where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has not yet provided creche facilities but is participating in an interdepartmental study of the scope for providing creches centrally and in commuting areas.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 13 December 1989,Official Report, column 651, concerning the accountancy firms
  166
  employed by his Department; if he will give (a) the names of the four firms, (b) a list of the payments made to each in 1988 and 1989 and (c) details of the consultancy contracts given to each firm.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The four firms and the overall amounts paid during the 1988 and 1989 calendar years are as follows:

  1988 £

  1989 £

  Coopers and Lybrand

  205,674

  336,073

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells

  Ernst and Whinney (now Ernst and Young)

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  It is not possible to state the amount paid to each firm as this would break commercial confidentiality. The contracts awarded to each firm are listed below. The 1987 contracts are listed as some expenditure fell in 1988.

  1987

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Study of education and training databases.

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Financial delegation to schools.

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Resource Management.

  1988

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Management framework for the control of information system projects.

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells

  Financial management advice to the University Grants Committee.

  Ernst and Whinney

  Management system for HM Inspectors travel and subsistence.

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Study of requirements for an integrated Vote and Management accounting system.

  1989

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Review of MRC capital expenditure systems.

  Delloitte, Haskins and Sells

  Assistance with the implementation of the Department's accounting system and selection of the accounts payable system.

  Ernst and Young

  Specification and selection of a teachers superannuation payment system and reorganisation.

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Financial management survey of SERC.

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Study into student loans.

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Assistance with the implementation of the accounting system.

  School Building Regulations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the final date for compliance with the 1981 school building regulations; what is the extent of compliance to date in(a) Humberside, (b) West Sussex and (c) the Inner London education authority; what will be the cost of full compliance in each; what national funding is available for this work and what is his estimate of the impact on the community charge in each case necessary to comply if these costs fall on the local authority.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The operative date of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 is 1 August 1981
  167
  except for certain provisions which represent a marked change from the corresponding requirements of the 1972 regulations. In these cases the regulations provide that the operative date for existing buildings is 1 September 1991.

  Under section 10(2) of the 1944 Education Act, it is the duty of LEAs to secure that their schools conform to the standards prescribed in the regulations. The Department does not maintain records on the nature of the building stock in individual local education authorities which would enable the community charge implications of compliance to be estimated.

  Since 1981, capital expenditure on schools, including buildings, land, plant, machinery and equipment, has totalled £3,914 million (£4,775 million in 1989–90 terms). From April 1990, funding for capital expenditure at LEA schools will be available through local authority borrowing in respect of credit approvals announced by the Department of the Environment, from receipts from the disposal of capital assets, and from contributions from revenue expenditure. Capital grants are available for expenditure at voluntary-aided schools.

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by water authority the action that is being taken by the National Rivers Authority to monitor water contaminated by toxic chemicals discharged into the sewerage system and recycled into the drinking water system and the toxic chemicals discovered.

  Mr. Trippier
  The National Rivers Authority undertakes regular monitoring of consented substances discharged from sewage treatment works. Routine monitoring of the receiving waters includes analyses for a wide range of substances. This information is entered on the public register held by each region. Water undertakers are responsible for monitoring water supplies in accordance with the requirements of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to alter the permitted development regulations in relation to telecommunication masts.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend intends shortly to issue a consultation paper on possible changes to 168
  permitted development rights for a range of telecommunications development. Any proposals for amending those rights as they relate to masts can be considered in that context.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he collects statistics relating to the allocation of discretionary grants made by local authorities for full-time vocational training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Information about the allocation of such grants is not available.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment further to his reply of 14 December 1989,Official Report, column 751, if he will name the seven accountancy firms engaged by his Department; what payments were made to them in 1988 and 1989; and what factors are taken into account in assessing firms' suitability to provide advice.

  Mr. Patten
  The seven accounting firms engaged by my Department during 1989–90 were, Spicer and Oppenheim, Price Waterhouse, Coopers and Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Peat, Marwick, McLintock, Touche Ross and Paul Anthony. It is not our policy to comment on aspects of individual contracts. As far as the suitability of these firms to provide advice, I can do no better than refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 14 December 1989.

  Contaminated Land
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will be represented at the conference on policy regulation and technology applications for contaminated land to be held at the Royal Lancaster hotel, London on 22 and 23 February.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes, officials from the Department will be attending for each of the two days.

  Lindane
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects the Advisory Committee on Pesticides to report on the matter of lindane; and whether it is considering this issue as a matter of urgency.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is currently reviewing a number of pesticides. It is essential that this work is done thoroughly, and to the highest scientific standards. This necessarily takes time. I understand that the review of lindane will be completed by late 1990 or early 1991.

  Water
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what form Her Majesty's Government have responded to the requirements of the Commission of the European Economic Community consequent on the adoption of Council Directive 80/770 concerning the
  169
  quality of water supplied for human consumption; and what information is available to Her Majesty's Government concerning comparable information supplied by Governments of other member states.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government are whole-heartedly committed to complying with the requirements of the EC drinking water directive as quickly as possible taking account of practicalities and have always co-operated fully with the European Commission. In particular, we have sent them details of the programmes which water undertakers in England and Wales will be carrying out at a cost of f 1·8 billion over the next five years in order to remedy current situations of non-compliance with the drinking water directive.

  The Commission does not reveal what information other member states have supplied.

  Child Care
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the authorities whose social services spending allocations for 1990–91 is(a) greater and (b) less than the grant-related expenditure allocation for 1988–90; what are the gains and losses in percentage and cost terms; if he will list the child care gainers and losers on the same basis and what are the average net cash allocations for both.

  Mr. Chope
  I have today placed in the Library a table covering both children's and total social services, which shows 1989–90 GRE's, 1990–91 SSA's and the difference between the two in cash and percentage terms for each social services authority in England.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the reasons for gains and losses in(a) social services spending allocation 1990 and (b) child care allocation between different local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The new social services standard spending assessments are largely based on independent research evidence and were the subject of lengthy discussions with local authority representatives. The consequent changes in the method of calculating standard spending assessments (formerly grant-related expenditure assessments) between 1989–90 and 1990–91, and the complexity of the previous formula, make it impossible to identify in detail the reasons for differences in either total social services or children's services allocations between different authorities.

  Social Services, Humberside
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the figures for (i) child abuse, (ii) domestic violence, (iii) proportion of lone parents, (iv) children at risk index and (v) the number of children in care for(a) Humberside and (b) the use national average as in his grant-related expenditure assessment and standard spending assessment for calculating social services expenditure.

  Mr. Chope
  Neither the grant-related expenditure nor the standard spending assessment formulae include information on child abuse, domestic violence or the number of children in care. The "children at risk index" is 170
  part of the SSA formula, no comparable indicator was calculated for the GRE. The proportion of children living in lone-parent households is an indicator in both the GRE and SSA formulae. It is calculated using information from the 1981 census and is therefore the same for each assessment. The national average and the Humberside values for the "children at risk" and lone-parent indicators are as follows:

  (i) 'Children at risk'

  National average per authority

  4,516

  Humberside

  9,930

  (ii) Proportion of children living in lone-parent house holds

  National average

  0·1300

  Humberside

  0·1355

  Limestone Quarrying
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has as to the environmental impact of quarrying limestone for the limestone-gypsum flue gas desulphurisation process.

  Mr. Trippier
  No national assessment has been made of the environmental impact of quarrying limestone for the limestone-gypsum flue gas desulphurisation process. My Department has commissioned a research project into high purity limestone resources and the demand for non-aggregate uses. The report will also discuss environmental and planning issues and will be published later this year.

  The CEGB has indicated that the complete 12GW retrofit programme would account for less than 2 million tonnes of limestone per year (less than 2 per cent. of current production).

  The board also announced in August 1987 that it would not take limestone from quarries in national parks for the power stations selected for retrofitting with the flue gas desulphurisation process. The board went on to state that it hoped to follow a similar policy when obtaining limestone for new stations. That assessment was made in the knowledge of the Government's policy on mineral working in national parks set out in the statement by my then hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) on 9 April 1987 (HC 393/394). I understand that the board's policy towards limestone supply has not changed since its August 1987 announcement.

  Prefabricated Housing
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by local authority(a) the number and type of immediate post-war prefabricated housing which still forms part of the housing stock, (b) the amount of grant aid for structural improvement allocated for such housing each year since 1979, (c) clarify those types of such housing which qualify for grant aid, and the reasons and (d) indicate whether he has any plans to extend the list of types that so qualify.

  Mr. Chope
  Information on the numbers and location of such housing, and the extent to which it has been the subject of grant aid, is not available. From next April any privately owned housing over 10 years old could be eligible for renovation grant aid: we have no plans for further changes.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers his Department have vested in the National Rivers Authority to monitor and control nitrate run-off from farmland into rivers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Under section 112 and schedule 11 of the Water Act 1989, the National Rivers Authority has the power to propose that certain areas of land be designated as nitrate sensitive areas (NSAs) where it considers that the entry of nitrate into controlled waters as a result of the use of land for agricultural purposes should be prevented or controlled. In addition, section 106 of the Water Act 1989 also provides a general power for the National Rivers Authority to monitor pollution in controlled waters.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will represent his Department at the EC Council of Environment Ministers meetings on 22 March and 7 June; and what the agenda will be for both meetings.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Subject to parliamentary commitments, I shall represent the United Kingdom at the next two Environment Councils. The Irish Presidency has not yet confirmed the agenda for the meetings on 22 March and 7 June.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has gathered regarding the percentage of homeless people who(a) have no home or family to go back to, (b) were forced to leave home by an adult member of the family, (c) left home after being abused by another member of the family and (d) could go safely back to their families; and what use he makes of this information in shaping his policies.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities in England report the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act in a summary quarterly return. They provide a breakdown of these by immediate reasons for homelessness. The categories covered include "Parents, relatives or friends no longer able or willing to accommodate"; more detailed information is not available centrally. My Department has commissioned a programme of research on homelessness and the findings were considered carefully, together with the regular statistics, as part of the recently completed review of homelessness legislation.

  For information about Wales and Scotland, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland.

  Tyneside Enterprise Zone
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present termination date of the Tyneside enterprise zone.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Tyneside enterprise zone was designated on 25 August 1981 to last for 10 years from that date.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to his consultation document on cost recovery charging for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's implementation of integrated pollution control; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I received responses from 53 organisations and individuals. A list of these has been placed in the Library of the House. Copies of individual responses are available through the Library.

  Respondents generally agreed the suggested basic structure of an initial charge for each application for an IPC authorisation and an annual charge thereafter. Respondents underlined that the system should be as simple and practicable as possible.

  Respondents' comments have led us to reconsider the proposals in the consultation document for differential charges for different categories of authorisations. We now propose that there will be one flat rate initial charge per specified component of a process for each application for an authorisation.

  There will also be a flat rate once-and-for-all charge for subsequent substantial changes in either the firm's operations or in pollution standards which require a fresh authorisation to be drawn up. There will be no charge for non-substantial changes that do not necessitate a fresh authorisation. There will be a lower flat rate charge in the case of the conversion of an existing statutory approval into an IPC authorisation. There will be an annual charge per component of an authorised process to cover costs of inspection, monitoring and enforcement.

  This system, based on the number of components for a process, is simple, whilst also relating firms' charge payments to their scale of operations and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's costs of regulation. Larger and more complex installations involve a larger number of components. For example, a steel works will typically involve 20 or more components, whereas a metal plating works may involve only one component and will pay correspondingly smaller charges.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will monitor its resources employed in dealing with different categories of authorisation to check for anomalies. The structure and level of the charges will then be reviewed in the light of experience. We will consider further developments as necessary, including the merits and practicalities of individual billing, which some respondents to the consultation paper favoured.

  The charging system for IPC will be compatible with other charging systems, notably HMIP's charges under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and those for the NRA. There will be a broadly compatible charging scheme in respect of the new local authority air pollution controls under part I of the Environmental Protection Bill.

  These proposals will cover operations in England and Wales. Comparable proposals are being considered for pollution controls in Scotland. Legislation for introducing integrated pollution control and a related charging system in Northern Ireland is being considered.

  My officials will be consulting with industry and other interested parties as they work up the details of the charging scheme, with a view to its introduction in April 1991.
  173
  This new charging system will underline the Government's commitment to the principle that the polluter pays.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to improve the management of the urban programme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department has today issued a consultation paper to the local authority associations asking for their comments on our proposals for improving the operation of the urban programme management initiative. These proposals, most of which build on the existing best practices of the DOE and local authorities involved, are intended to maximise the impact of the resources dedicated to the urban programme by ensuring that inner area programmes are efficiently prepared, approved and delivered. I have laid a copy of this consultation paper in the Library of the House.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's cash limits for 1989–90.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Yes. I propose the following changes subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates.

  The non-voted cash limit DOE/HCI (capital expenditure by the Housing Corporation) will be increased by £120,000,000 from £694,250,000 to £814,250,000. The capital resources available to the Housing Corporation in 1990–91 will be reduced correspondingly by £120,000,000 from £1,105,500,000 (as announced in the Autumn Statement) to £985,500,000. This reflects a greater speeding up of housing schemes by housing associations than had previously been forecast. It is not expected to affect the total of resources available and houses provided over the two years taken together. The increase in 1989–90 provision will be charged to the Reserve.

  The cash limit for class X, vote 2 (Central Environmental Services, etc) will be increased by £3,813,000 from £312,597,000 to £316,410,000 to cover increased grant in aid of £3,943,000 to the National Rivers Authority to carry out capital works inherited from the former water authorities. This increase will be fully offset by a reduction in the exit external financing limit of the former authorities and minor savings within the vote.

  There will be a token Supplementary Estimate for class X, vote 5 (Department of Environment: administration) and the running cost limit for my Department will be increased by £6,580,000 from £162,154,000 to £168,734,000 which reflects increased expenditure on additional staff and consultancy work and the recent transfer of inner cities work from the Cabinet Office and the Department of Trade and Industry to my Department.

  There will also be a token Supplementary Estimate for class X, vote 9 (Sale of shares in the water holding companies, etc). There will be a further announcement soon to Parliament giving details of the costs of water privatisation.

  The non-voted cash limit DOE/UAI (Urban aid and derelict land) will be reduced by £250,000 from £723,254,000 to £723,004,000 to cover a transfer from my Department to the Department of Transport to meet half
  174
  the cost of a £500,000 grant to Thames Line plc. A matching increase will be made to the Department of Transport's cash limit for class VIII, vote 2.

  The cash limit for class IX, vote 2 (Miscellaneous housing administration and grants) will be reduced by £1,000,000 from £79,417,000 to £78,417,000 reflecting reduced forecast expenditure on housing and construction research.

  North Sea
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the quality of marine life and water in the North sea, what proposals he has for their improvement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]: A full quality status report on the North sea was prepared for the second North sea conference held in 1987. As a result of a United Kingdom initiative at that conference, a North sea task force was established to co-ordinate North sea research, identify gaps in knowledge and prepare an updated and improved quality status report for the fourth conference which is expected to be held in 1995. Work on this is under way and in the meantime an update of scientific material will be submitted to the third North sea conference in March 1990, together with reports from the task force on sensitive issues such as seals and algal blooms.

  The Department of the Environment is co-ordinating the United Kingdom's input to the task force together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the National Rivers Authority. Additional research is being undertaken on a range of topics including fish disease, seabird breeding failures, the seal epidemic, the role of nutrients and transport of contaminants; and there is a special Anglo-French study of the English channel.

  I am confident that the third North sea conference to be held in March this year, primarily to review the work undertaken by member states in implementing the recommendations of the second conference, will also generate valuable new measures to improve protection of the North sea.

  Eastbourne Water Company
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Eastbourne Water Company about the level of its charges for the year ending 31 March 1991; and whether he will make it his policy to consult the hon. Member for Eastbourne before he decides whether to instruct the company to abate its proposed charges.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]: The Department's officials have had three meetings and detailed correspondence with the Eastbourne Water Company on this matter. Under the provisions of the Water Act 1989, the limits on charges must be set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at a level which enables each company to finance its functions but ensures that the interests of customers are properly safeguarded. There is no formal process of consultation with right hon. and hon. Members, but I am available to discuss the issues with those who wish to do so and would welcome a visit from the hon. Member for Eastbourne.

  Animal Imports
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the report of the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit in relation to the shortage of expertise to identify suspect species being imported contrary to CITES regulations.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: When the WTMU report was published, we had already started work on the establishment of a panel of consultant expert identifiers to assist the Department's wildlife inspectorate. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise or the police with the identification of wildlife species. The wide range of expertise already available within the Department's wildlife inspectorate will be further extended by the establishment of the panel.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: My Department's policy is to respond to the wishes of staff in developing policies on smoking in the offices and buildings which it administers and to prohibit smoking in places where it could be a safety hazard. With this in mind consultations are in hand to establish an agreement on the designation of "no smoking" areas within office buildings where this is wanted by staff and in individual offices where this is the choice of staff.

  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his most up-to-date estimates of the reductions in the level of sulphur dioxide emissions from Britain's electricity generating plant by the year 1995, 2000 and 2003.
  176
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: The Government have agreed to the European Community directive on large combustion plants. It commits us to reducing sulphur dioxide emissions from existing plants of this type, which includes electricity generating plants, by 20 per cent. by 1993, 40 per cent. by 1998 and 60 per cent. by 2003 from their 1980 base line. The details of the contributions to this reduction from different sectors of industry have yet to be decided.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average level of poll tax for households in Liverpool.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is not available.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 1990–91 revenue support grant entitlement per head of population, before safety net adjustments, for each borough and district council in Kent in descending order of magnitude.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: The information requested is set out in the table. For the purpose of this reply the population figures used are those for the relevant population of each council.

  1990–91 revenue support grant entitlement per head of population, before safety net adjustments

  Council

  £

  Thanet

  206·9

  Rochester Upon Medway

  205·8

  Gillingham

  199·3

  Dover

  195·5

  Shepway

  194·7

  Canterbury

  192·8

  Gravesham

  192·6

  Ashford

  190·6

  Swale

  190·6

  Maidstone

  188·4

  Tunbridge Wells

  188·4

  Dartford

  184·5

  Tonbridge and Malling

  176·4

  Sevenoaks

  173·2

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by The Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Community Charge: Arrears in Scotland
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest information on non-payment of the community charge (poll tax) in Scotland and in the Strathclyde region.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, while no overall figure is yet available, it would appear that the proportion of people in arrears with their community charge payments is broadly the same as under the rating system last year.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is extremely difficult to compare one rating system with another? Will he confirm that the number of summary warrants issued in Scotland to non-payers of a tax which came into existence in April last year is 400,000? Is he further aware that in the city of Glasgow 22 per cent. of those liable to pay the tax have not paid it? Can he tell me how he proposes to collect that tax in view of the fact that the Scottish banks have indicated that they are unable to handle the number of arrestment notices?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, it is difficult in this case to make comparisons between one year and another. I can confirm that the local authorities have produced certain figures which may be in the region set out by the noble Lord. Strathclyde initiated warrant action against 78,700 non-payers of domestic rates last year —about 18 per cent. of the number of private sector houses in the region.
The noble Lord asked about schemes for recouping losses from those unwilling or unable to pay. Bank arrestment is one such means. Recent meetings between bank representatives and councils allayed many of the banks' initial fears.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that his reply was in such Civil Service jargon that many noble Lords on both sides of the House smiled at it? What action is being taken against people who do not pay the tax?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, there are various ways of recovering debt. Three ways are used in Scotland at the moment. One is poinding or warrant sales; the second is through arrestment of wages; and the third is bank arrestment. These three ways of being able to obtain money from those who default are well known in Scotland and are written into law.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that this administrative nightmare will come south of the Border this year. He may then find a great many objections from his side of the House. Does he realise that many people have a genuine difficulty with the poll tax? Under the old rating system 100 per cent. rebates were available for those on low incomes. That figure has now been reduced to 80 per cent. Each person over 18 will have to pay 20 per cent. of perhaps £400 or £500. That is a severe blow to those who are in receipt of inadequate incomes and is especially hard on old people. The Government would greatly reduce the problem if they could reinstate for that category the 100 per cent. rebate.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I know what the noble Lord is saying because we debated the matter at length when the Bill passed through the House. Income support levels have been enhanced specifically to meet the requirement on recipients to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge. In those circumstances, if a person refuses to pay the charge it is only reasonable that local authorities should be able to recover the debt. I understand what the noble Lord says, but there is a remedy.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend judge from the tone of the questions from the other side of the House that they are an encouragement for laggards not to pay or an encouragement to laggards to think again and pay their proper dues?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, it is always unfortunate that those who do not pay, whether it be the business rate or the community charge referred to in the Question, make it more difficult for those who do pay. They have to carry the cost.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, did the Minister see a recent television broadcast which dealt with these problems in Scotland? If he did, how does he explain the position of crofters, who receive no local services? They have no street lighting, no street cleaning, and so on. How does he justify charging those people personal poll taxes?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I did not see the programme. I have special responsibility for the crofters. I do not think that the Government have let down the crofters in general terms, bearing in mind the amount of support provided, especially in the Highlands and islands. If one is poor one can obtain rebates. Why should a crofter be any different from someone who is poor in my area of the Borders?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, will include many people who have moved from one region to another? Strathclyde has not yet developed a sophisticated enough system to track them down. They are probably paying the community charge in another region while Strathclyde is still trying to obtain from them the money which is no longer due.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I know that the whole introduction of this new tax has been a problem for local authorities. However, I am advised that local authorities are responding very well to the difficulties of such a situation. I would not like it to be thought that the Government think in any way that local authorities are not living up to and coping with what is a difficult situation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that noble Lords on this side of the House very much resent the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, which implied that the Labour Party was supporting laggards? It does not support laggards. However, the Labour Party is concerned ——
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Is the noble Lord aware that the Labour Party is concerned about the nightmare —this is not only in Scotland but in the whole of England —which local authorities have in tracing people, getting the bills to them and finally getting the bills paid on time? This is not because people do not want to pay; it is simply because the poll tax is an absurd system which will benefit no one, least of all local authorities.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we must look at the overall situation. Perhaps I may tell the House that over 90 per cent. of the poll tax has already been paid in two regions of Scotland and in one area the figure nearly reached 98 per cent. I do not think that it is an impossible task but it is a difficult one. Moreover, I am sure that local authorities are facing up to it. While I am interested in the remarks made by the noble Lord, I have no doubt that a return to a property tax, which perhaps his party is thinking about, would not be very helpful to the nation at present.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, since I am the guilty party because I asked the Question, perhaps I may assure the noble Lord that it is no part of the policy of the Social Democratic Party —and I am sure that I may speak for the Liberals in this respect —to encourage people not to pay the tax. However, in view of the figure given of 400,000 summary warrants issued to individuals, is the Minister aware that it not only represents a socially unjust tax but, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, also an administrative nightmare?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, there are always reasons for people paying or not paying tax. I think that that fact will become clear as time goes on. However, perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord, as he was concerned about warrant sales and so on, that as regards the figure I gave for rate warrants issued in Strathclyde last year, out of the 78,000 warrants issued only four or five people actually had to go to warrant sales. That is a measure of the situation. However, we shall obviously keep this under review.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, the Minister mentioned what has been done for the Highlands and Islands and compared that with the situation of people living in the Border country. Can he specify the kind of services at the disposal of the people living on the Isle of Barra and people living in the Border country?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes, my Lords, much has been done for the population of the Isle of Barra. Indeed, this year we have instituted the Vatersay Causeway scheme at a cost of £3 million. The number of people living in those outer islands is very small. Of course we recognise that they need help, and they receive this under the crofters' capital grants system, which helps them enormously, and also through the agricultural development programme and so on. I could continue. I hope that noble Lords do not think that those of us on this side of the House do not realise that crofters need support. They need support and they receive it.

Health Policy
2.47 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that their health policy, as declared by the Secretary of State for Health, is consistent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government's health policies are fully consistent with our objective, which is to improve the health of the nation while securing maximum effectiveness and efficiency from the resources made available to the caring services.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Baroness care to make her contribution to this day of action by clarifying the situation a little? Is she aware that the Secretary of State for Health is widely taken as having said on the BBC television programme "Panorama" that he wanted a two-tier ambulance serice within a two-tier National Health Service? Is she also aware that on the following Friday on Radio Nottingham he denied that he had made that statement? By clarifying the situation the noble Baroness would be making a most valuable contribution.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am always delighted to try to help the noble Lord. I can tell him that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State assures me that he was referring to a two-tier ambulance service within the National Health Service as being the way forward. I see nothing in our National Health Service proposals to suggest otherwise.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, on the much broader question regarding the future of Britain's National Health Service, is the noble Baroness aware that the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Health Visitors' Association and the

161
Confederation of Health Service Employees are all gravely anixous about the future of the health service? Is she further aware that if things carry on as they are the health service created by Aneurin Bevan will ultimately be smashed by this Government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are all anxious about the future of our health service, which is why the Government are introducing the reforms.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we would obtain a more efficient ambulance service if the Government were now to agree to send the claim to arbitration?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I regret to say that I cannot agree with the noble Lord on that point. There is no provision for independent arbitration in any NHS pay agreements. The NHS management must retain control of the amounts that it pays out in salaries and wages. It has to ensure that pay awards do not divert resources from patient care. Over 96 per cent. of the NHS staff have settled their pay question without recourse to industrial action.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while many people are critical of some aspects of the NHS under all governments, a record amount of money is now being put into it; and that more doctors and nurses are being recruited? While I and others are critical of some aspects of the NHS, recruitment must be considered in context.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend is of course correct. Spending on the NHS is now at an all-time high. It is up by 30 per cent. in real terms under this Government. Next year spending will be nearly 44 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1978–79. The proportion of GDP spent on the NHS and per capita spending are both higher than they were 10 years ago. As was made evident in a Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing last week, the numbers of medical staff have also increased most encouragingly.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, there has been higher spending on the NHS every year for the past 42 years. Will the Minister report on the success or otherwise of the special cash initiative of 1987 which was designed to reduce the appalling length of waiting lists? Will she confirm a statement made by the general secretary of the National Association of Health Authorities that many health authorities are now using that money to prevent making the service cuts necessary due to funding problems? Secondly, will she confirm that the latest figures from her department show that in March last year there was an increase of 18,000 in the number of patients awaiting surgery compared with when the initiative was launched? The figures have gone up, not down.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the waiting list initiative, which was backed by the £119 million waiting list fund, has been successful in enabling hundreds of thousands of patients on the waiting
162
lists to be treated. In the first year of the fund, waiting lists and times fell in districts and specialties upon which the fund has been targeted compared to a rise elsewhere. The waiting lists are over 6 per cent. lower that the record high of March 1979. It is the time that people have to wait which is important, not the total number of people who are waiting. The latest provisional figures, which are for June 1989, show that the number of people who have been waiting for over a year has been reduced by 3 per cent. over the previous quarter; 22 per cent. more in patients and 69 per cent. more clay cases were treated in 1988–89 than in 1979.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Baroness help me, because the figures that I have received from her department show that the number of people waiting for more than a year rose from 150,000 to 166,000 in the year ended March last, which are the latest figures that we have.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not sure to which figures the noble Lord is referring. Would they be the figures quoted in the Statistical Bulletin which was issued last week, which does not, so far as I am aware, deal with that point? What is clear is that some regions cope much better than others, so that there is an inconsistent national picture.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, on the matter of the stated increase over the past 42 years, will my noble friend confirm that that was so except for the time when the Labour Party was in opposition, when capital expenditure decreased?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should be grateful if my noble friend would repeat that question. I am not sure that I caught it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever arguments may have been advanced about the NHS, that service is in many ways suffering grievously at the moment as a result of the ambulance strike? Will she tell the House what initiatives she and her right honourable friend have to bring that dispute to an end?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I understand it, we shall have an opportunity to debate the subject of the ambulancemen a little more thoroughly in the near future, because an Unstarred Question on the subject has been tabled. The Government's position is that the final pay offer —I do not understand why NUPE and its associated unions keep insisting that the final offer is still only 6·5 per cent. —is of at least 9 per cent. backdated to 1st April. That is the offer which is on the table, and the management side has always shown itself willing to meet to discuss that final offer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British public are becoming confused, puzzled and frustrated by the continued reference to figures which are increasingly difficult for them to understand? Would it not be sensible for her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to ask NUPE representatives (Mr. Poole and his

163
colleagues) to meet him for a sensible discussion to bring the dispute to an end?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have said on previous occasions, it is not the custom for the Secretary of State to become involved in such disputes; it is for the management side to settle with the ambulancemen and their representatives. As I said previously, the management side has always been ready to meet on any occasion. A number of meetings have taken place.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for getting up again, but it is not good enough for the Minister to say that her right honourable friend cannot be involved when he is involved every day in statements on that very issue in another place, on television and on radio. Will she convey to him the desire of the House —I believe on all sides —that he should, as a Member of the Cabinet and a representative of Her Majesty's Government, take an initiative now which would help to bring the dispute to an end, without waiting for an Unstarred Question in the House?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that there is perfectly adequate negotiating machinery in place and that that machinery should be followed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the ambulance drivers' representatives have clearly said that the issue should go to ACAS, on the condition that the ambulancemen will agree to whatever ACAS decides, if the Government will? What is her answer to that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my answer to that is a repetition of my previous answer. The Whitley Council is the machinery for that negotiation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, why do we have ACAS? Is it the Government's intention to abolish ACAS? I note that there is no answer to that question?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware ——
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Noble Lords: No, No!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are all anxious to help her as much as we can, especially if we can help her to persuade her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to settle the dispute? I believe that it is within her power to do so. Will she have a quiet word with him and ask him to be sensible?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have always made it clear that we are anxious to see an end to this unfortunate dispute.

B.Ae and Rover Group: Tax Benefits
3 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the value of the tax advantages available to British Aerospace as a result of their acquisition of the Rover Group.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government are not in a position to estimate the value to British Aerospace of the tax benefits arising from their acquisition of the Rover Group and available to them under normal UK tax law; such valuations are highly subjective and dependent on assumptions about the future taxable capacity of the enlarged British Aerospace group.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that these tax benefits which have been given to British Aerospace are a use of the taxpayers' money in order to bribe a company that is acceptable to the Conservative Party to take over the Rover Group? Despite what has been said before the Select Committee by the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, this represents a state subsidy to British Aerospace in order to persuade them to take over Rover.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in published correspondence to Mr. Gordon Brown, a member of the noble Lord's party, no particular tax benefits were conferred. Therefore the noble Lord's question does not arise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in his Answer the noble Lord mentioned normal tax law. Is he aware that Sir Peter Gregson gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in another place that the arrangement was that the company should have the opportunity to submit to the Inland Revenue its proposals for reorganising its affairs? The arrangement was that before implementing them, the company should obtain clearance from the Inland Revenue under Section 768 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Under what law or what provision of that Act or what body of any law is such clearance available?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, every commercial enterprise is entitled to make application to the Inland Revenue for whatever provision it thinks it is entitled to. Nothing special applies to British Aerospace in that connection.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord draw my attention to any company in the past 10 years that has received clearance from the Revenue under that section?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord points to the fact that the Inland Revenue is jolly hard to please!
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not therefore the case that the DTI was, first, advising the company badly; and secondly, prepared to go in for almost any tax fiddle that would get rid of Rover?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government did not employ any fiddle to get rid of Rover, as the noble Lord suggests. The Rover Group had contingent liabilities upon the Government of something like £1·9 billion. In addition, there was the prospect of the Government having to provide something like another £1 billion. In round figures that made a liability on the public purse of something like £3 billion. I am very happy that that liability has been transferred to the private sector.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is quite clear from the correspondence between his noble friend and British Aerospace that the whole transaction was politically corrupt from the beginning and that there was a deliberate effort to mislead the other place?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I completely reject those quite unfounded allegations.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that had the merger not taken effect, hundreds of thousands of people would have been out of a job? It sounds as though the Opposition could not care less about jobs.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said just now in answer to an earlier question, it is certainly the case that there were substantial financial problems facing the Rover Group. British Aerospace will clearly be in a position to overcome those problems, and I hope that noble Lords on both sides of the House will welcome that.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, may I return the Minister to the Question on the Order Paper, in particular his First Answer? Was he strictly accurate in that reply? He said that he could not give us a figure because it was not known how much British Aerospace would have available under their tax liabilities. Surely he will know how much relief was available under the deal, regardless of how it was to be used?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the position is nothing like as simple as the noble Lord suggests. Furthermore, matters have to be discussed and agreed with the Inland Revenue, as I said earlier. Therefore my original Answer was correct.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the noble Lord does not accept that this was a bribe, can he explain to the House what the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to the commissioner in Brussels about and also the chairman of British Aerospace, giving him three options? They were to help British Aerospace to avoid the attentions either of the commissioner in Brussels or of Parliament here. Can the noble Lord also tell the House whether the deal was put to the whole Cabinet, including the Prime Minister? Can he say whether the Cabinet and the Prime Minister knew of the details before the deal was struck?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the disposal of the Rover Group was an extremely difficult matter. There was not a queue of companies forming up to buy this enterprise. British Aerospace was the only enterprise willing to make an offer for it. British Aerospace fiercely fought the negotiations; indeed, on the day before agreement was reached it nearly walked away. The fact is that the taxpayer has achieved an extraordinarily good deal and I am very pleased about that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the noble Lord think carefully about what he has just said, that British Aerospace was the only company interested in buying Rover? Is it not the case that there were other candidates and that the Government gave exclusivity to British Aerospace? Therefore by definition it was the only company available to bid.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no bid other than the one from British Aerospace was received for the Rover Group. Some firms have alleged that they were making a bid or were going to make a bid, but none did. I think that the Lonrho Group or some persons purporting to speak for that group have suggested that they made a bid in association with a Japanese company. Apparently the Japanese knew nothing of it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, how on earth can somebody make a bid when exclusivity has been given to somebody else?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there was nothing to prevent anybody else making a bid if they had wished to do so. The Government would have been bound to consider such a bid, had it been received.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that Lonrho is lying?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have made no such suggestion. There may have been a failure of communications within the group.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on whose side was the failure of communications?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer for the affairs of that or any other company.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill be now read a second time.
This is an important measure. I have heard criticism that the provisions in the Bill are in effect too important to be brought together in a miscellaneous provisions Bill. At the same time I am bound to say that those who have ventured that criticism have also expressed the view that it is

167
unfortunate that some important matters have been omitted from the self-same Bill.
Surely it is better to take the opportunity presented by such a Bill rather than await four or five individual Bills containing four or five Second Readings, multiple Committee stages and the subsequent Report stages. The time of your Lordships is valuable and I suggest that it is better served by concentrating on this one all-embracing Bill such as we have today. I know that many miscellaneous provisions Bills contain an enormous variety of minor matters where some correction, amendment, clarification or repeal will improve the law. Individually these matters may be small but the cumulative value of all the reforms is substantial. But this Bill is not like that. It has three major parts and only a few minor provisions. It is therefore something of a self-denying ordinance on the part of Scottish Office Ministers and the Scottish Office, as it seems important that your Lordships should not be distracted by myriad detail from the central purposes of this measure. These are to introduce new arrangements for supervising charities in Scotland, to improve choice in legal services and to make important adjustments to the law on liquor licensing. I shall discuss charities first.
The first part of the Bill makes provision for the establishment of an improved system of supervising charities in Scotland. In July 1988 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland issued a consultative memorandum The Supervision of Charities in Scotland. The very full response to that consultation confirmed the Government's view that the current arrangements are inadequate for modern needs. My right honourable friend therefore issued in October 1989 a statement setting out his conclusions under the title Charities in Scotland: a Framework for Supervision. The provisions before your Lordships in Part I of the Bill give effect to the proposals in that statement.
It is not often appreciated that Scotland has never had a Charity Commission. This is not in itself a weakness but there have been some unsatisfactory consequences. Bodies which wish to be recognised as charitable in Scotland in order to qualify for tax relief must apply to the Inland Revenue for confirmation that their objects are charitable. The Inland Revenue claims section in Edinburgh which deals with such applications has built up considerable expertise in Scottish charitable matters and great praise for its expertise and helpfulness was given by many of the bodies which responded to my right honourable friend's consultation. However, the Inland Revenue's dealings with charities are in strict confidence and it is not possible for any member of the public, or indeed any official body, to obtain details from the Inland Revenue about whether particular bodies have been recognised by it as charitable. Moreover, if the Inland Revenue discovers instances of wrongdoing by a charity and that wrongdoing is not related to a tax matter, there is no body to which the revenue can report the matter for investigation in the public interest.
It is the Government's belief that if charities are to sustain the important function they play in Scottish
168
society it is essential that they should be able to enjoy the good will of the public on whose support they rely. The best way of maintaining the public's good will is to ensure that every charity is accountable, publicly and openly, for the manner in which it conducts its affairs and that in any rare instances where abuse or serious mismanagement of those affairs occur there should be provision for the affairs of the charity to be investigated and for those responsible to be brought to account.
With these objects in view Clause 1 of the Bill empowers the Inland Revenue to disclose to members of the public the names and addresses of bodies which it has recognised as being charitable and also to pass to myself as Lord Advocate information about any non-charitable activity among such bodies. Thus for the first time in Scotland members of the public will enjoy a facility and a right to be told which Scottish bodies have received recognition as charities. Clause 2 will prevent bodies which have not been recognised as charitable in Scotland by the Inland Revenue —or if they are established in England and Wales by the Charity Commission —from representing themselves as charities to the Scottish public; and it provides that those who do so without having obtained such recognition shall be guilty of an offence.
Clauses 3 and 4 place upon charities in Scotland a duty to keep proper accounts and to make available to members of the public on payment of a reasonable fee copies of such accounts. By these provisions individual members of the public will for the first time be able to discover as respects any charity in Scotland what its purposes are and what it has done to promote these purposes. Ready, direct public access to information about charities is thus the first key aspect of these provisions.
Clauses 5 to 7 make provision enabling me to carry out investigations within Scotland when it appears that the organisers of particular charities have been guilty of mismanagement or other wrongdoings and give me powers to petition the court both for orders remedying or preventing continuance of the abuse and for orders imposing penalties on those responsible.
Under Clauses 8 and 9 we turn to the second key aspect of these reforms. It is possible in Scotland under the doctrine known as cy prés, or approximation, for a public trust whose purposes have failed to petition the Court of Session for approval of a scheme authorising the application of trust funds to a purpose as near as possible to the original purpose. However, unlike the position in England and Wales, the cy prés procedure is in Scotland available only where it is no longer possible to carry out the trust's purposes in the manner prescribed. Clause 8 broadens the concept of cy prés to enable application to be made where the purposes of a trust have become obsolete or lacking in usefulness as distinct from being incapable of being put into effect. Clause 9 provides procedures enabling small public trusts with annual incomes not exceeding £5,000 to reorganise without the necessity of seeking court approval, while Clause 10 enables certain very small trusts no longer capable of

169
achieving the purposes for which they were established to spend capital in order to achieve their charitable purposes. Taken together these provisions should unlock charitable funds and enable them to be applied to good effect in modern society.
I trust that I have said sufficient to indicate the broad purposes of Part I of the Bill. It has been designed to meet the particular needs and circumstances of Scotland. I should like to pay tribute to the helpful co-operation which has been afforded in its development by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations on behalf of a wide range of Scottish charities and to thank the Charity Commission for England and Wales for the invaluable assistance it has given. I warmly commend the proposals contained in Clauses 1 to 13 to your Lordships' consideration.
I turn now to the second part of the Bill which deals with legal services. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the Scottish legal profession has much of which it can justly be proud. While it is beyond dispute that the advocates and solicitors of Scotland have served the country well for centuries, a fine history does not of itself make further improvement any less desirable. These reforms therefore remove some rigidities affecting the provision of legal services. The reforms to which this part gives effect are based on the Secretary of State's consideration of responses to his consultation papers The Practice of the Solicitor Profession in Scotland and The Legal Profession in Scotland and were announced in October 1989 in his policy statement The Scottish Legal Profession: The Way Forward. The broad purpose is twofold, to widen the choice available to those using legal services and to allow the providers of those services to respond to the demands of clients with innovation and flair to the maximum extent consistent with the interests of justice and the necessary protection of clients' interests.
I shall say briefly why these provisions are being brought before your Lordships. Conveyancing is of vital importance and it should certainly not be open to simply anyone to undertake such business. To permit that would be to jeopardise the quality of our property registers and to put the funds and housing of families at risk. But to insist that only solicitors in private practice should be entitled to provide the service is equally unrealistic. Solicitors who join the employ of, say, a building society do not thereby lose any of their competence in conveyancing. We are providing, as I have said, that safeguards comparable to those required of solicitors should be provided by any conveyancer. Thus conveyancing will continue to be in the hands of competent people who will safeguard clients' funds and who will be subject to discipline for misconduct. The Bill will make it possible both for individuals to qualify as technically competent to undertake the tasks involved in a conveyancing transaction and for individuals and commercial or professional organisations who employ qualified persons as conveyancers to offer services as conveyancing practitioners. This is a significant and positive reform.
Clauses 14 to 19 provide for the removal of certain barriers for prospective providers of conveyancing
170
and confirmation services and contain a structure for the authorisation and regulation of non-lawyers, whether they are large financial institutions or other suitably qualified individuals, who wish to offer these services to the public. At the centre of the structure will be the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board which will be responsible for ensuring that satisfactory standards are maintained by all non-lawyers wishing to offer either conveyancing or confirmation services. The membership of the board will reflect a broad range of interests, including those with knowledge of the services for which the board is to be responsible. The authority of the Law Society of Scotland over its members is of course unaffected.
There is also provision both in the Bill itself and to follow in regulations to create a context for the provision of conveyancing services which is fair to all providers. Regulations will ensure that authorised practitioners offer and bear the cost of the necessary consumer protection measures. By means of a statutory code of practice, practitioners will be required to conduct conveyancing business in a way which gives clients access to suitably qualified professionals. Particular attention will be given in the code to the way in which cost information is presented before clients select their conveyancer. That range of measures will produce a framework which is both competitive and fair.
Clauses 20 to 22 provide for a major expansion in the range of people who may represent clients in court proceedings. I believe that clients requiring supreme court representation should have the opportunity to choose according to their needs whether to instruct a solicitor with rights of audience in those courts or to engage the services of an advocate. Like the conveyancing proposals, that is a significant reform. It recognises that particularly high standards of advocacy and of conduct are required in the supreme courts. The Bill does not therefore confer extended rights of audience on all solicitors. Instead it provides for the Law Society to set the necessary standards, with the approval of the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Secretary of State, and for only those solicitors who meet those standards to have the additional rights of audience.
In that I see no threat to the independent Scottish Bar. Advocates who are confident about the standard of service they provide need not be apprehensive at the prospect of solicitors appearing alongside them before the supreme courts. Experience has shown that there is considerable demand for the services of advocates in the sheriff courts and at tribunals and inquiries, where solicitors share the same rights of audience, and I see no reason why advocates should not continue to command a sizeable proportion of pleading work at all levels of the court structure.
We are of course in quite different circumstances from those which obtain in England and Wales. Scottish solicitors have enjoyed rights of audience in the sheriff courts, with their extensive jurisdiction, including jury trials, for a long time. Nevertheless, the reform opens up new opportunities for solicitors which they have long demanded —at least I thought they had. The rather curious briefing which the Law

171
Society has given to noble Lords leaves in some obscurity whether solicitors still wish for that change. Even if it is not to be made clear to the Government I hope that where the Law Society stands on the matter it will be made clear to its members.
The approach that I have outlined above has been adopted deliberately to ensure that standards of supreme court pleading are in no way diminished. That is a matter to which the Government attach great importance.
The Bill provides for the removal of existing statutory barriers to the formation of multi-disciplinary partnerships including solicitors. In future the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates will be free to make rules in that area. Any such rules which prevent the formation of such partnerships which seek to offer services in relation to court work will require the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland who will wish to ensure that the interests of justice are in no way compromised. The current prohibitions in law on mixed partnerships are a rigidity which is not conducive to the provision of services in ways that may better meet the needs and preferences of clients.
The Bill will strengthen the mechanisms for handling complaints about the provision of legal services. It provides a statutory duty for the relevant professional bodies to investigate complaints, and to report the findings to the complainer and to the practitioner complained against. I believe that that will assist the development and maintenance of high standards in that area. I attach even more importance to that than to the other reform in that area, the replacement of the curiously titled Lay Observer by a new Ombudsman with a wider jurisdiction.
I have not sought to explain every detail of the provisions in the Bill since given that detail that is a task best left to the Committee. I have, however, attempted to explain the Government's thinking on the broad issues involved and to offer some examples of how that thinking is illustrated. The two major planks of the Bill, the extension of solicitors' rights of audience and the reform of the structure for conveyancing services, with the additional improvements we are making elsewhere in the Bill, will contribute to the efficient and flexible provision of legal services. I believe that that can only be in the best interest of clients.
I turn now to Part III of the Bill which proposes changes to liquor licensing law in Scotland. Your Lordships will recall that the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 introduced a new code of liquor licensing in Scotland, incorporating many of the recommendations made by a committee chaired by Dr. Christopher Clayson. Your Lordships will appreciate that a licensing code can only be effective where it is in close harmony with the social attitudes of the day. The Government's task in reviewing liquor licensing in Scotland some 14 years on has been to assess the effects of changes introduced in 1976 and to ensure that our licensing requirements continue to reflect social attitudes.
Once the 1976 code had been in operation for some time it was considered prudent to monitor its
172
impact. The reforms in Part III accordingly reflect the outcome of two surveys by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and an extensive consultation exercise. Over 2,000 replies were received in response to the consultation and those were carefully analysed before decisions were taken.
The main thrust of the measures in this part of the Bill is threefold: first, to enhance the more civilised regime which has developed in licensed premises since 1976; secondly, to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy in the administration of liquor licensing; and thirdly, to tighten up the law where experience indicates a need for greater restriction.
On the theme of tighter restriction, the Government have been concerned that the proliferation of late night extensions in some areas has been a source of disturbance and distress to local residents and imposed heavy demands on police and medical services. It has been decided accordingly to tighten up the statutory provisions which govern the grant of extensions to permitted hours. Clause 33 requires applicants for extensions to give positive reasons for the grant of an extension and prove to the board's satisfaction that the extension would be of sufficient benefit to the local community as to outweigh any detriment to the neighbourhood. The provision thus seeks to restore the original intention of Parliament in enacting the 1976 Act that late night extensions should become the exception rather than the norm.
The consultative review also revealed widespread and unprompted concern about the problem of under-age drinking. Your Lordships will recall the Government's support for the Bill introduced last Session by the honourable Member for Clydesdale, Mr. Jimmy Hood. It aimed to prevent the sale of alcohol to minors and enjoyed wide support in both Houses. Doubts were expressed, however, in your Lordships' House as to whether the provisions were workable, and since the amending provisions carried by the House came too late in the parliamentary Session, the Bill could not progress. However, I indicated in Committee on 21st July that the Government would consider the amendments moved by your Lordships in the preparation of the licensing legislation. The views of the retail trade, health interests, churches and social work and law enforcement agencies were sought last summer on an acceptable form for controls in off-licences.
On the basis of that consultation and official discussions with the retail trade, it has been decided to introduce a provision based on the amendment moved in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and agreed by your Lordships. The measure proposed by the noble Baroness represents a compromise between the shop-within-a-shop proposal which would be expensive and onerous for the retail trade and the simple prohibition on unsupervised sales by youngsters which is considered to be of limited effectiveness. The favoured solution is to prohibit the sale of alcohol by under-age persons in off-licences with three or more points of sale and to prohibit unsupervised sale in smaller licensed outlets. I commend to your Lordships these moderate measures which seek to meet the concerns

173
of the licensed retailers and the social work and law enforcement interests.
Clause 31 dispenses with the present requirement for licensed premises to close in the afternoon between 2.30 p.m. and 5 p.m. The afternoon break has ceased to be effective by reason of the widespread grant of afternoon extensions, and the consultative response indicated public acceptance of discretionary week-day opening hours for licensed premises from 11 in the morning to 11 in the evening. We have, however, accepted the clear majority view against any increase in Sunday hours for public houses.
Clause 31 also permits off-sale premises in Scotland to open on Sundays. Sunday opening of off-sales has of course been permitted in England and Wales for some years. The Government do not feel able to maintain the present bar on Sunday opening of off-licences in Scotland and regard as anomalous the present position where off-sales on Sundays from hotels and public houses are lawful but supply by other licensed retailers is an offence.
On the theme of deregulation, Clause 32 seeks to reduce the administrative burdens on licensing boards by removing the need for a separate application for Sunday opening. Research shows that Sunday opening is now widely accepted and there is therefore less need for applications to open on Sunday to be scrutinised separately by boards.
Part III also provides the police with a power to enter registered clubs at any reasonable time without a warrant. The consultative review revealed overwhelming support for a general police right of entry to clubs and we trust that this power will be acceptable as a necessary form of control. It is in the public interest to maintain the standards of clubs and ensure that they are properly regulated.
Turning now to the remaining aspects of the Bill, Clause 39 gives effect to the Government's commitment to improving the non-custodial sentencing options available to the courts and enables the Secretary of State to meet the full cost of probation, social inquiry reports and supervision of released prisoners in accordance with national standards. Clause 40 allows him greater flexibility in the use of prison accommodation.
There are provisions in the Bill to allow an experiment to be carried out into the method of calculating fines with a view to relating them more closely to an offender's ability to pay, thus imposing a more appropriate sanction on the wealthier offender and, it is hoped, reducing the incidence of imprisonment for fine default among those less able to pay.
I now turn to the provisions of the Bill which relate to divorce and matrimonial interdicts. The more substantial of those provisions is based on recommendations made by the Scottish Law Commission. The effect of Clause 43 is to reduce the periods of separation required to establish the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The reduction is from two years to one year where the other party consents to divorce and from five years to two years without the consent of the other party. That reflects the commission's conclusions that the present
174
periods of separation are unnecessarily long and have the effect of causing many divorcing couples to use behaviour or adultery grounds, with all their attendant unpleasantness and hostility, as a means of obtaining an earlier divorce. The Government believe that the modest amendment proposed by the commission, which received substantial public support in Scotland on consultation, will meet much of the criticism of the existing law without going beyond what is generally acceptable to the public.
Clause 45 and Schedule 4 to the Bill will establish a statutory version for use in Scotland of the draft Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. Those provisions will apply to all arbitrations which fall within the definitions of an international commercial arbitration in Schedule 4. In addition, an arbitration agreement can provide that the model law arbitration procedures will apply even though the arbitration is not an international one. The availability of a comprehensive code for efficient arbitration will, I am convinced, be helpful to those wishing to do business in Scotland and will encourage the use of Scotland as a forum for international arbitrations. The provisions implement the recommendation of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law that the model law be adopted into Scots law.
The Bill demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to the process of law reform and to the maintenance of a vigorous Scottish legal system. In that connection I should mention one further matter which was recently brought to my attention; namely, the absence in Scotland of any provision allowing evidence to be given through live television links from abroad. I am arranging for views to be obtained on this matter since a provision allowing that would, I think, be useful.
This is an extensive and important Bill. I look forward to listening to noble Lords' views and after Second Reading to those more detailed discussions which will necessarily follow at Committee stage. I am arranging for the Notes on Clauses to the Bill to be made available to noble Lords. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
3.35 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, for his detailed introduction to this important piece of legislation affecting many areas of Scottish life. I should say at the outset that I am pleased, as I am sure the House will be, that the topics have attracted a large number of eminent speakers, with no doubt varying viewpoints, including members of the Scottish judiciary and particularly the recently appointed Lord President of the Court of Session, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie. His contribution to the debate, based on his vast experience as a practitioner, judge and administrator in the supreme courts of Scotland is keenly awaited by us all. That is not to say that we

175
shall all necessarily agree with what he says, but we shall treat comments from such an authoritative source with the respect that they deserve.
Before making any comments on the content of the Bill, perhaps I may say that I am not convinced —and I am sure that the House is not convinced —by the explanation tendered by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate as to why the Bill should be in this form. I wish to make a protest about the fact that major issues relating to fundamental matters in Scotland are dealt with by means of the miscellaneous provisions procedure. The subjects raised cover multifarious aspects of Scottish life, ranging from charities to licensing, from divorce to major law reforms, covering rights of audience in the courts, conveyancing and confirmation procedures, judicial appointments and other related topics and reforms of the penal system. One has only to look at the Long Title of the Bill to see that it is absolute nonsense to bring all those matters before the House in one accumulated Bill.
As I understood him, the noble and learned Lord said that it would save noble Lords time in the House. As I see it from this side of the House, it will increase the time required to consider the Bill. I can assure noble Lords that they can look forward —or not look forward as the case may be —to a long and detailed Committee stage in considering the 49 clauses and six schedules, which represent major legislation and can in no way be said to be a tidying up process.
This is wholesale reform to which this type of legislation is completely unsuited. Miscellaneous provisions Bills have their uses, but, in my respectful view, this is an abuse of the system. Miscellaneous provisions Bills are notorious for burying pieces of amending legislation. It makes it extremely difficult not only for lawyers but for members of the public to see where the alterations to the law may be found. I say advisedly that to deal with those substantial issues in such a way is an insult to Scotland, and particularly to the Scottish legal system, which was one of the preserved areas in the Treaty of Union of 1707. The major reform should have been set out in a separate Bill, coupled with full public discussion prior to the publication of the Bill. We have had minimal discussion so far as concerns Scotland, and I ask: if it is good enough for England and Wales to have a Bill of their own, why are we in Scotland deprived of such a Bill when considering major legal reforms?
I do not know why the Government behave in that way. I suspect that it may be brought about by their inability to man Committees dealing with separate Scottish business in another place, so this has all been lumped into one piece, not for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, but for expediency on the Government's part in another place. If that is the reason, it is entirely unacceptable. The people of Scotland are entitled to an explanation of this omnibus approach to the matters covered in the Bill.
This side of your Lordships' House always welcomes any review which brings about beneficial changes. The Bill has parts which will not be opposed
176
in principle but, as is the tradition of this House, will be considered in detail during the Committee and Report stages when it is hoped that persons with an interest in the issues raised by the Bill will have made their views known in more detail. We shall be constructive and not obstructive in the hope that the Bill, like other legislation passed down from the Government for our consideration as a revising chamber, leaves this House in better shape than when it arrived.
Part I of the Bill, which relates to charities, is a forward-looking step with a view to controlling charities, informing the public of their existence and allowing the older and smaller charities, whose purpose is now of no relevance, to be altered or, if appropriate, to have their funds disbursed to a suitable substitute. There have already been suggestions that the charities will not be sufficiently identified and that information about their purposes, their accounts and the names of those involved in management, will not be readily, cheaply and speedily accessible to members of the public at points throughout the country.
There is no requirement on the Inland Revenue to keep a register for public inspection. It is a matter for the Government perhaps to consider whether, with modern computer processes, it would be possible to set up computer points at major centres throughout Scotland where people who wished to get at the information could do so quickly and cheaply. Such a facility should be central to the reform of the charity law. Any law which puts clamps on rogue charities and unsupervised collection of money by those who play on the good will of the public is to be encouraged. It can also be improved. It is to be hoped that reasonable amendments, designed to strengthen public involvement, if not accepted immediately, will be taken away for consideration by the Government. I give as an example the issue of the amount of information that may be made available.
Part II of the Bill deals with legal services. As one might have anticipated, it will provoke the most controversial reaction in view of the consequences for the legal system and, by inference, for the people of Scotland. Normally on this side of the House we should have agreed right away with many of the issues raised in Part II. But the more the changes are considered, the more we tend to the view that a system that might be suited to England and Wales is not suitable for the Scottish system of law. Questions have been posed more than once. Are the proposed changes in the first place necessary? In the second place, are they changes that will improve a system which, as recognised by the Government, has served Scotland well as part of its unique legal system?
Reading through the Bill, some very rich words strike one's eyes: rights of audience; conveyancing practitioners; qualified conveyancers; the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board; confirmation practitioners; and so on. They sound very grand. But where is all that taking the legal system and how will it benefit the public? The answers to those questions are not easy to find. What is wrong with the present system in which solicitors practise in an open and competitive market and still

177
manage to provide the public with sound advice and help in conveyancing to a recognised high standard of integrity and independence—the two keynotes of legal practice not only in Scotland but, one would hope, elsewhere.
Those standards of integrity and independence and that sound advice must not be put under unnecessary threat. It is accepted that there is room for a form of qualified conveyancer who might operate within limited areas but under the supervision of the Law Society of Scotland so that activities are properly supervised.
The process outlined in Part II of the Bill has about it the ring of dilution of the profession which prides itself on the standards that it sets and the protection that it offers to the public. The Bill ignores the detailed educational and practical training which is demanded to qualify as a solicitor and the extra work needed to qualify as an advocate, as well as the penalties which the profession imposes upon itself. It is easy to see from the Bill where the dilution comes in. Having created new categories of person —conveyancers and licensed practitioners —the Government have to cover their backs, so to speak, in Clauses 15(9) and 17(9) by setting out rules of conduct and so on.
The rules of conduct do not have to be brought into the legislation before the practices commence. As I read the Bill, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to make regulations because it says that he "may" make regulations. If the Government insist on making such regulations, I consider that they must change the word "may" to "shall". Before these diluted practitioners —if I may so call them —are let into the public domain, the public will have to know exactly what standard of conduct and what rules apply to them. Remembering in particular that they are dealing with people's money among other things, the public must not be left to guess what the Secretary of State might bring in at some time.
Time and again we have heard what is behind the Bill —the Office of Fair Trading. I venture to say that what is seen as fair trading between traders is not necessarily the best deal for the consumer. For the Scottish legal system, far from expanding the right of choice, which the noble and learned Lord said was a fundamental point of the legislation, the Bill will narrow the area of choice to both solicitors and members of the Bar. In Clause 21 we read that there will be extensions so that people who are not legally qualified at all can come in and practice, thus opening the door to accountants, surveyors and so on to be authorised to appear before the court.
As I read the Bill once again, it strikes me that one group has been ignored in this legislation; namely, the court. The court is entitled to a high standard of properly legally qualified people to present the legal aspect of the case, based on the evidence given by the experts within their own field. That is just another aspect of dilution.
As regards access to the courts, the same questions arise. Why is the Bill necessary? What will the new rights of audience achieve in improving the quality
178
and efficiency of the courts? How does this fit into the Scottish system? The answers to all those questions are in the negative. Advocates in the supreme courts after rigorous and demanding training and once they have acquired the basic legal qualifications provide a high standard of advocacy fearlessly and without commitment to any personal involvement with a firm or any close client involvement. The art of advocacy so practised by highly qualified practitioners is the best service that the client and the courts can obtain. The system serves Scotland well with the operation of the cab rank rule, which solicitors with offices and business commitments would have great difficulty in carrying out.
The quick and ready availability of counsel is a feature of the system. People who wish to have access to the supreme courts will have little difficulty in joining the Faculty of Advocates in our small country which has just over 250 practitioners in that field. If they want to practise the art of advocacy in the supreme courts, the door is open to them and there is very little obstruction.
In the past few years there has been an increasing number of ex-solicitors entering the Bar in Scotland. They seem quite keen to do so. There is an easy and relatively cheap two-way transfer between the two systems. We are worried about how discipline will be imposed over the members of faculty and over the new advocate solicitors. Is the dean of faculty to have power over both? If so, how will discipline be enforced and under whose rules? It is very difficult to see how that can be said to be an improvement of any kind.
I raise these matters at this stage to make a plea in general to the Government to think again about the provisions for rights of audience on the basis that they are neither relevant nor needed in Scotland. It is highly unlikely that the solicitor advocate, having attained his or her right of audience, will be able to service the courts in a way which will represent an improvement on the present system of servicing the supreme courts. Realistically, and having proceeded this far, we would be very surprised if the Government accepted my plea and took these matters away to think about them again.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, asked about the attitude of solicitors towards this extension of the rights of audience. I can tell him that, from a personal point of view, and after discussing rights of audience with solicitors, it is difficult now to detect the apparent enthusiasm which prevailed when strident calls for the introduction of extended rights of audience were being made by the same people. It is now appreciated by practitioners that the responsibilities of being involved in the regular servicing of the supreme courts, sometimes literally on instant demand, and running an office generating business and so on, are not reconcilable functions.
I ask this question: would a solicitor advocate be guilty of misconduct if he refused to leave his office, because of the pressure of business, when asked to attend the High Court, as an advocate is asked and sometimes instructed to do, by the dean of faculty? If so, who will discipline him and on what basis?

179
Generally speaking, therefore, the rights of audience will not improve the efficiency of the courts.
I turn to the question of multi-disciplinary practices, the licensed conveyancers and the rights of advocates to form partnerships. I said at the beginning that choice was being restricted. All these matters will restrict choice. It appears that the institutions do not really want to be involved in conveyancing. However, once they are given the right it will be hard not to enter that market. Then the institutions, with their persuasive advertising, will inevitably attract house buyers and sellers away from independent solicitors. The commercial and profit motive will be reflected in the attitude of the institutions from time to time in the manner in which they advise clients.
If clients are taken away from the open competitive market of the solicitors, who obtain 40 per cent. of their income from conveyancing, that will not be a good thing for practising solicitors in Scotland. It could have a deleterious effect on many firms, particularly the small firms which have one or two partners. The result may be that some firms will be forced to close down while the institutions take over the conveyancing.
The system that we have in Scotland is too small, particularly as regards the Bar, to have partnerships formed and advocates joining in partnerships with other persons, particularly with other firms. We cannot afford to have a drain on our resources for commercial purposes. I suggest that that is behind the legislation which has been introduced. I do not wish to take up more of your Lordships' time because there are many speakers to follow. I wished however to make certain points with a view to seeing whether the Government will take another look at the proposals.
In a recent article in the Scotsman by a well respected lecturer-professor in law, the Bill has been described as the Scots' Law Abolition Bill. We trust that this is an educated exaggeration. Care will be required to ensure that that is not the effect which the implementation of the Bill will have on a legal system of which we are all justifiably proud.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, it is with an understandable feeling of trepidation and diffidence that I, as a Welsh solicitor practising in England, rise to speak in this debate. Unfortunately, for reasons that I am not aware of, Scotland has been particularly unlucky in having solicitor Peers. Today, I am following such distinguished lawyers as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me and not think that this is a small way for an English solicitor to get his own back on a Scottish Lord Chancellor for what he is trying to do to our English system.
Seriously, however, I believe that we who practice in England, and particularly those of us who concentrate on conveyancing, have a very great deal to learn from the existing Scottish system. Very frequently we hear that we should emulate the
180
Scottish conveyancing system and that it has a great deal to teach us. Attempts have been made to import parts of the Scottish law into the English system. It is on that basis that I speak this afternoon.
I intend to concentrate on Clauses 14 to 19 of the Bill. I am aware that from the outset of the period of consultation, when the Secretary of State for Scotland issued his consultation paper entitled The Legal Profession in Scotland on 13th March 1989, its terms were less positive, and more conducive to real consultation than the consultation paper for England and Wales of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, when one reads it, it is becoming clear that the same questions are being asked as were asked by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
In due course the Secretary of State for Scotland issued his White Paper The Way Forward which I submit compared poorly with the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the English consultation paper which is entitled Legal Services: A Framework for the Future. I agree with the strictures made by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that it is a pity that such important legislation for Scotland should be contained in a miscellaneous provisions Bill.
Though the proposals are in a much shorter form, apart from the restructuring of the work of the English courts, they are remarkably similar for both England and Scotland. I am encouraged by the attitude which has been adopted not only by my own Law Society in England and Wales but also by the Law Society of Scotland in welcoming some of the changes which are proposed. It would be wrong to believe, as many laymen do, that the legal profession opposes any change of any description. There are aspects of both Bills which deserve widespread support. Sadly however, and equally important, there are aspects of both Bills —I am here concerned with the Scottish Bill —which cause me, and I am sure very many others, very real concern.
It is worth while to look back over a period of five years. In 1984 the Government embarked on a consultation exercise and issued a consultative paper in Scotland entitled Conveyancing by Employed Solicitors in Scotland. The thrust of that paper was to consider whether it was appropriate in Scotland for banks and building societies to be entitled to offer conveyancing services to their customers through the medium of employed solicitors. The Law Society of Scotland responded robustly to that consultation paper. It suggested that the interests of the public would not be properly served; there would be inadequate protection and control; there would also be grossly unfair competition. The Law Society also felt that there was more than adequate competition from the then thousand-odd firms of private practitioners in Scotland.
At that time those arguments must have been very persuasive because the Government chose to permit licensed conveyancers in England and Wales as many of us know, and not so much to our cost, but with some regret. Through the Building Societies Act 1986, subject to rules which were never introduced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, banks and building societies were permitted to

181
provide conveyancing services. No such provisions were made for Scotland. Scotland does not have licensed conveyancers, and Scotland is specifically excluded from any provision at the moment relating to solicitors employed by banks and building societies providing services to their customers.
What has changed in the four years that have passed to convince this Government that it is now necessary for banks and building societies to provide conveyancing services?
I have searched in vain for any piece of evidence, public demand or change of circumstance which would justify the proposals set out in this part of the Bill. What has changed is that in Scotland, as in England, the provision of conveyancing services is more competitive than ever. The competition comes from 1,000 firms competing fiercely among themselves to provide a high quality of conveyancing service.
At the time of the Royal Commission which considered the delivery of legal services in Scotland, a survey carried out by that body disclosed, noble Lords may think surprisingly, that 75 per cent. of the public were satisfied with the quality of the services provided by their solicitors. That has now changed. The Scottish Consumer Council recently carried out a survey. The opinion poll showed that 87 per cent. of the public in Scotland were satisfied with the services that they received from solicitors in the conveyancing field.
That does not demonstrate a great need for substantial change. But who wants a change? —apart from the Government, very few people. The consultation process in Scotland produced a wide range of responses from many people and bodies involved in the delivery of legal services. Although I have not read them all, I am advised that only the Building Societies' Association, the Consumers' Association and the National Association of Estate Agents wanted a change in the status quo. However, it is significatnt to note those three bodies are based in England and have based their responses on their English experience and, perhaps one might add, their natural hunger for profits.
The other people and bodies in Scotland who responded almost unanimously supported the idea of the status quo or there was in the interests of choice and competition an admission that there might be a need for licensed conveyancers. I cannot imagine that my friends in the Law Society of Scotland will feel strongly if licensed conveyancers are permitted to enter the field. They have made little impression in England and have found that the competition from solicitors is pretty fierce.
What is most significant is that the Scottish Consumer Council, to which I have alluded, opposed the idea of authorised practitioners because it was concerned about the quality and delivery of service to individuals but, most importantly, the prejudicial effect that banks and building societies undertaking those services might have on the delivery of other legal services in rural areas. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, touched upon that matter earlier.
182
The banks and building societies did not wish to change, although they indicated that they might require to reconsider their position if competition forced them to do so. The Keeper of the Department of Registers in Scotland, a man who I am advised knows more about conveyancing and the quality of services than anyone else, expressed concern and caution on the grounds that conveyancing is not easy. Indeed, it is difficult and he is frightened that less well qualified people may find the whole system difficult and that it may create problems for his department and difficulties for the clients. I was greatly encouraged in my view when I read an article in Scotland on Sunday published on 28th January. It disclosed that not all the banks and building societies in Scotland wished to undertake conveyancing work.
Again I ask the question: who wants the changes? The answer is obvious; the Government want some kind of common practice on both sides of the Border. But the practice of conveyancing in Scotland has always been different from that in England. In the past the Goverment have recognised that fact and have seen fit to distinguish between the systems and not introduce in Scotland licensed conveyancers and even the possibility of banks and building societies undertaking the work. What the Government are now doing appears to be based on dogma rather than on public need.
I am not alone in holding those views because there is widespread satisfaction in Scotland with the services provided by the legal profession. It is significant to learn that the Halifax Building Society, the biggest building society in these islands, has indicated that it had no plans to offer conveyancing services to its customers in Scotland, as opposed to offering them to customers in England. The two biggest Scottish building societies, the Dunfermline and the Scottish, have stated publicly that they do not propose to provide such services for their clients and would rather stick to doing what they do well. I have little doubt that if Scotland on Sunday is to be believed, many other bodies will take a similar view.
Therefore, if there is no demand by the major players, what is the justification for the proposals? The Government would say that it is consumer choice. The consumer is not daft and he is capable of choosing for himself. It has been said before, and doubtless it will be said again, that the man in the street may have difficulty in differentiating between the expensive and expansive advertising of banks and building societies. From experience as a solicitor for many years, I can tell noble Lords that the prospective purchaser wants an assurance that he has funds at his disposal to buy the house and that he will have a good title when he has bought it. He is unable to judge the relative merits of the services of individual banks or building societies. But doubtless with a variety of inducements he will be persuaded that he can obtain a service from the banks and building societies. I suspect that he will not find it equal to that provided by the legal profession with its experience, knowledge and integrity.
In response to the Secretary of State's consultation paper, the Law Society of Scotland has submitted its

183
own response entitled Public Protection: Professional Independence. In Chapter 6 it set out its arguments against conveyancing by banks and building societies and recommends the retention of the status quo. I am happy to support the Scottish Law Society's approach. I commend it for its stance in principle. It is unwilling to accept the inevitable and try to negotiate but it wants to stand up and maintain its present legal position.
In Scotland there is no need for banks and building societies to undertake conveyancing work. The plain fact of the matter is that the institutions do not wish to offer it. In Scotland there are properly trained solicitors and adequate consumer safeguards. Under a recognised and regularly enforced code of conduct they practice in the best interests of the consumer. I believe that that is a good enough reason to reject Clauses 14 to 19 to which I have referred.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Emslie: My Lords, I am deeply conscious of the privilege of rising in your Lordships' House to speak for the first time. I do so with diffidence and, I must confess, a degree of apprehension. I know that I must do my best to be uncontroversial about a subject on which noble Lords will not be surprised to hear I hold strong views.
I hope that the House will scrutinise with special care the provisions in the Bill which cause me anxiety. I have in mind the controversial provisions in Part II of the Bill and in particular those concerned with rights of audience in the Court of Session and the High Court and with partnership among advocates.
In a major way Clauses 20 and 23 innovate upon a system which for centuries has enabled the superior courts of Scotland to maintain high standards of judicial performance not only in the interests of the litigants but in the development of the law. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that a system which is good for the courts is a system which is good for the litigants and for the continuing vitality of the law.
I add to that suggestion a further suggestion that your Lordships' House may well be very slow indeed to permit any change in that system to take place if, as a result, the change would weaken the courts in the proper performance of their judicial function.
The system which I am talking about is that litigation in the Court of Session —I take that court as an example —is conducted within the College of Justice which was established in Scotland in 1532. The judges are the senators of the college and those who plead before those judges have been admitted by the court to the public office of advocate and membership of the college on completion of the final hurdle; namely, the vital training of pupillage, which is full time. Discipline within the college is positive and swift, and your Lordships' House may very well be aware of the important role which the dean of faculty plays in securing the maintenance of that positive and swift discipline in the interests of the court.
The strength of any court is not merely a reflection of the quality of its judges. It is, to a very significant extent, also a reflection on the quality of those who
184
plead before it. The Court of Session in particular—I can speak of that from long experience —is heavily dependent on the quality of its advocates and furthermore upon the mutual respect which exists between Bench and Bar and in the relationships of advocates to each other, relationships which involve a high degree of trust.
Of course, I do not suggest for one moment —and only a fool would —that all advocates measure up to the exacting standards required of them by the Court of Session and the High Court. Some do not or cannot. Those who fall into that category do not usually survive for long in significant practice and indeed will not or at least should not be chosen by sensible solicitors to conduct proceedings on behalf of one of their clients. However, the great majority, by their training, discipline and full-time devotion to the art of advocacy contrive to display a high standard of professional skill, competence and integrity; and (dare I say it?) the best can stand favourable comparison with the outstanding advocates in the common law jurisdiction.
It would be a mistake to assume that there is no material difference between the standard of pleading in the sheriff courts and that in the Court of Session and the High Court. Experience of a lifetime in the law of Scotland at all levels, including the sheriff court, has convinced me that the difference is real and striking. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism of solicitors, for in my opinion no one can really expect to acquire and develop the skills of superior court advocacy by practice in the sheriff court which is, of necessity, part time.
We are concerned with rights of audience. The question is: why are we concerned with rights of audience in this Bill? What is the justification for Clause 20? I am glad to hear that it is not suggested that the system which I have been talking about does not work well. I have not yet heard, although it may still happen, that particular attention has been given to the best interests of the courts. Indeed, the only justification, as far as I can tell, for Clause 20 is that if some solicitors are granted rights of audience in the Court of Session and the High Court, that will give to some clients at least a wider choice of representation. At the moment, your Lordships will understand that a client's choice is an informed choice, on the advice of his solicitor, of the full-time professional advocate who is best equipped or best suited for the conduct of the particular proceedings.
Is it perhaps likely to create a risk, if Clause 20 passes into law, that a litigant may find himself making an uninformed choice by allowing his own solicitor to conduct proceedings in the Court of Session? Your Lordships may feel that there is something in the view that in a matter of such importance an uninformed choice is hardly a choice worth having. Clause 20 envisages that those solicitors who wish to qualify for rights of audience in the superior courts must, among other things, undergo a course of training in superior court pleading and have had certain experience over a period of time in practice in the sheriff court.
A number of questions seem to arise and I shall suggest some of those to your Lordships. Is experience, over however long a period, of part-time

185
sheriff court practice likely to offer a fair basis on which to make a judgment of an individual's competence to plead in the superior courts? Can any academic course of training in advocacy, if such a thing can be imagined, be expected to match in any way the training of pupillage which advocates undergo, conducted as it is in connection with real and live work before the courts?
Does your Lordships' House find it in any way worrying that the Executive are taking so many new powers in relation to matters which hitherto have been within the province of the courts and the Lord President? Are solicitors who qualify —I echo in a sense what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar —for those rights of audience to practise under the same rules of conduct as apply to advocates and are they to be subject to the same discipline?
In this speech all that I can do, since it is a maiden speech, is to suggest some of the questions which I believe must be answered. I shall stoutly resist the temptation to offer the obvious answers which at least commend themselves to me.
I pass over Clauses 21 and 22 and come very briefly to Clause 23, which is of some importance and significance. I wonder what is the justification for it in this Bill. I have always believed that advocacy is the function of a skilled individual answerable for himself alone. What are the implications for the cab rank in Scotland, which is no bigger than it should be, if advocates are able to form partnerships with each other, because, as a matter of law, partners cannot act against each other? What are the implications for the cab rank rule if advocates form partnerships with solicitors? What are the implications for the control of members of the faculty by the faculty if some are partners in solicitors' firms? What are the implications for many of the aspects of the vital and interlinked relationship between Bench and Bar about which I spoke earlier?
Those are just some of the questions posed. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, has mentioned others, but perhaps the most important question of all for your Lordships' House is this. Is the combined effect of Clauses 20 and 23 likely to carry the risk of the disintegration of the College of Justice? If it does, it will be a very sad day for Scotland.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, has been a Member of your Lordships' House since 1980. Thus many of your Lordships have waited for 10 years to hear an example of the wisdom which he has dispensed during his notable term of office as Lord President of the Court of Session. My thoughts are winging, as they often do, to certain rooms along our corridors where is available a certain magical product of Scotland. On certain bottles are the words "10 years old". Those who sip from those bottles invariably want more; we hope, therefore, that we shall hear many more contributions from the noble and learned Lord.
I cannot but regard this Bill as a joint runner with the English Bill which has occupied your Lordships
186
on several nights recently. It is true that the contents of this Bill are more widespread, taking in the parts about charities and licensing, but I am bound to say that I think the contents of Part II are surely of enough importance to merit a Bill on their own when one considers the prestige which the Scottish legal system enjoys. I want to deal with that particular part speaking as one of the many ordinary citizens, clients, consumers or customers, call them what you will, whom the Bill will presumably benefit. In fact I regard mine as the still small voice of the layman amid the heavy artillery of the legal barrage.
With all respect to the noble and learned Lord in what he said and the reservations that he has about solicitors appearing in the Court of Session, I would not take exception to my own solicitor having the right of audience in that court provided that he wishes it and provided that he is approved. Nor would I resent his receiving a judicial appointment to the supreme court, again if he were regarded as qualified. However, I find peculiarly few signs of any demand among solicitors for this. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has witnessed any ranks of Writers to the Signet marching up the Mound brandishing their quill pens on their way to Parliament House. I am bound to say I have not, though I recognise that, as it often turns out, things may be different in Glasgow.
On that subject one solicitor has written a remarkably sensible letter to me on this subject in which he says:
"We country solicitors would prefer to continue with the existing arrangements where we are the GPs and the advocates are available to us as consultants. Our libraries are limited and it is convenient, and relieves us of a heavy responsibility if we can consult an advocate. So if the proposed reform means that there will be less work for advocates and therefore fewer of them I am not in favour for it will restrict my choice of consultants.
Note that in any case the relationship between solicitors and advocates in Scotland is much less formal and not at all to be compared with the relationship between solicitors and barristers in England".
What worries the solicitors, and country ones in particular, all across Scotland from Peebles to Perth and from Inverness to Ayr, is the invasion of the conveyancing field to which reference has already been made. I immediately ask why. They say, quite frankly, that it is their most profitable line of business. They make no bones about it. I therefore ask whether some competition would be a good thing. On the face of it, it surely would be, but we are talking here of the small firm in a country town where clients do not include the finance houses which rub shoulders in Charlotte Square with the fashionable Writers to the Signet.
A country solicitor's fees from conveyancing, so they say, enable him to cross-subsidise what he spends on making wills and advising on the problems which many individuals bring to him. If this method of financing his business is denied him. I am assured that many country firms will be unable to continue —this at a time when it is my impression that many people find that they get more personal attention from a firm of solicitors such as I have described than from the city firm with its 20 or 30 partners.
Perhaps I may make a further point. A bank or perhaps more likely still a building society will no

187
doubt assure a client that he can place total and absolute reliance on the advice which its solicitor will give him. I am quite certain that that will be said in all good faith, but there cannot but be a conflict of interests in such a circumstance. It would be the same situation which inevitably applies if I as a farmer am advised by a firm with a commercial interest as opposed to the local college of agriculture which has none.
I conclude by venturing to suggest what the client or consumer expects of our legal system. He wants any business which he transacts with his solicitor to be carried out efficiently, expeditiously and at reasonable cost. On the subject of cost, unless solicitors are in a class all on their own, with no experience of bank overdrafts, their costs must be influenced in these days by interest charges. I have been amazed how contented some solicitors seem to be not to send out a request for fees to be paid for months or even years.
Can speed and quality of advice be achieved? A case in which I had a family interest a few years ago involved three firms of solicitors. For once the Inland Revenue, was not involved. That department probably causes the biggest delays in settling legal matters. Documents and letters were sent to the three firms, from one to the other. Each firm kept the letters, before replying, for never less than two months. A resolution was not reached for between eight and nine years. That situation was totally unacceptable to me. I state that quite bluntly. The Law Society of Scotland, whose aid I tried to invoke, found it extremely difficult to help.
In the English Bill greater speed is being claimed by spreading the load more equally between the High Court and the courts below. Was this not done in Scotland some years ago when the sheriff courts were enabled to hear cases which previously had been limited to the Court of Session?
I echo what has already been said. What causes the change? Will it be beneficial? I only hope that the reason for the change is not in order to follow in the wake of English legislation. If that were the reason, I say quite frankly to my noble and learned friend that in these times it would be the most imperial political folly.
Finally I should like to say a word about the ombudsman, who is to have a wider remit than the lay observer. Will the powers be greater? I understand that for some reason they are not to be as great as those given to his or her counterpart in England and Wales. I recall that the first lay observer was Miss Herbison, whom many of us knew in another place. She and the most recent lay observer, on demitting office, both registered their disappointment that so few of their criticisms had been acted upon. I hope that the ombudsman has better luck.
4.33 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to join the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, in offering congratulations to the maiden speaker. It was my privilege in December 1965 to second the nomination of George Emslie to be Dean of the
188
Faculty of Advocates. For the last five years I have served under him as a judge in the Court of Session. No lawyer in Scotland is more distinguished or more knowledgeable than he. He has played a very large part in improving and developing the law of Scotland and in improving the delivery of services by reorganising the courts. We can look forward to his immensely valuable contributions in the course of the Committee stage of this sad and misbegotten Bill.
The Bill contains assorted provisions, some which I approve of and some which I think are quite wrong-headed. As the Chairman of a major national charity in Scotland, the Scottish Association for Mental Health, I welcome most of Part I. As a responsible citizen, I approve of the principle behind Part III, which introduces further controls over liquor licensing. As a supporter of stable social structures, I think that Clause 43, which deals with the periods of time before divorce is allowed, goes much too far. As a judge, I welcome the greater flexibility that is to be given to the courts in relation to probation and community service orders, unit fines and judicial factors.
However, as a Scots lawyer with a great respect and admiration for our distinctive legal system and traditions and the professional structures that we have fashioned over the centuries, I deplore utterly the victory of the competition theologists of the Department of Trade and Industry over that tradition —a victory which is made manifest in Part II of the Bill. As a member of your Lordships' House I am in an impossible position. The Bill is written round no single principle or set of principles which, by voting, I can approve or disapprove. Some of the provisions in Part II are of real constitutional significance. It is constitutionally obnoxious to put them all into one law reform (miscellaneous provisions) Bill.
At Second Reading we are permitted to talk about the Bill, but we are not permitted to vote against it. It may be said that we can come to Committee or Report stage and then vote against parts of the Bill. That is not a practical proposition. We are always told that in Committee we should not move wrecking amendments against the principle of a Bill. In any event, many noble Lords who practise law in Scotland, whether at the Bar, on the Bench or otherwise, are not able to attend a Committee stage in London. We are effectively deprived of our right to register our protest against particular parts of the Bill. It is entirely wrong that a form of Bill that is appropriate only to adjustments or reforms to the law should be used to effect changes in the constitution.
I shall concentrate my observations on Part II of the Bill. It is the most important part and the part which is likely to do real and irreversible damage to the legal system in Scotland. Part II confers on the Secretary of State no fewer than 20 new powers in relation to the legal profession, including the courts. He has powers to appoint people, to dismiss them and to pay them. He has the power to make regulations, to put a veto upon the regulations made by other persons and bodies, regulating the training, the conduct, the professional rules and the structures of those who are to practise in the courts or to

189
practise as lawyers or quasi-lawyers for the public. It confers powers upon the Secretary of State, if he is so minded, to put his own placemen into various boards and other bodies, in particular the Conveyancing Board. If he chooses to do so, he can appoint as temporary judges persons who have practised in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary for only five years. In my view the new powers amount to a frightening extension of the power of the Executive over the legal profession and the courts. That extension of the power of the Executive in this field is unnecessary, unwarranted and dangerous.
I shall not repeat the objections in principle to the extension of rights of audience which I stated last year when we debated the legal profession in Scotland. I should like to repeat my conviction, which echoes a question that was asked rhetorically by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart. The Secretary of State would never have dreamed up these proposals for Scotland had it not been for the fact that, for reasons that had nothing to do with Scotland, the Government decided to reorganise the English legal profession. We have been sucked into a process which stems from problems and circumstances which are absent from the Scottish legal scene. Neither the White Paper nor the Green Paper referred to any evidence that the problems to which the English proposals were directed existed in Scotland. All that the Secretary of State could say in response to that undeniable fact was this, in a rather pathetic sentence in the White Paper:
"It is the function of Government not merely to respond to complaints or problems but also to take the initiative where there is an opportunity to improve on existing arrangements."
Roughly translated into English, that means: "It is true that nobody wants these changes, but we have decided to make them anyway".
Clause 21 was not mentioned by the Lord Advocate when he introduced the Bill, no doubt because he is deeply ashamed of it. The wrong-headedness of the Government's proposals is most evident in Clause 21. Any professional or other body can apply for rights of audience in any court for any of its members. That applies to the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Scottish Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the Orange Lodge, the Showman's Guild and the Licensed Victuallers Association, all of which are from time to time concerned in litigation in our higher courts. All these bodies and their members are encouraged to think that if they produce a scheme they may be allowed to address not just the district court but the High Court of Justiciary and the Judicial Committee of this noble House.
The Lord President will have solemnly to consider each such scheme, however daft the whole idea may appear to him to be. As the Explanatory Memorandum makes plain, he is to receive no extra resources for this task and no extra staff to assist him in this or any of the other tasks that will be laid upon him. The Lord President has at the moment one personal private secretary, who is not a lawyer but is of the grade of junior executive in the Civil Service. He is assisted part time by two counsel in relation to his rule-making function. He is supposed
190
to undertake all these new responsibilities without additional staff. I want the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to answer two questions when he comes to reply. First, will he confirm that I am right in saying that the Bill does not contemplate making extra resources available to the Lord President? Secondly, have the Government asked the Lord President whether he can perform this function with the resources available to him?
To continue with Clause 21, any decision of the Lord President under the clause is subject to judicial review. It is furthermore subject to veto by the Secretary of State. He can in important respects rewrite any scheme which is produced and approved by the Lord President under that clause. Even within this outstanding piece of folly we find something that goes even further. Laymen may be given the right to practise in the High Court of Justiciary. That is plain from the Bill. Can the Lord Advocate name one lay body in Scotland with non-lawyers as members whose members might suitably be given the right to conduct jury trials in the High Court of Justiciary? I hope that he will answer that question when he comes to reply. I hope that I am still able to be here when he does as I have to catch a plane back to Scotland in order to be able to perform my duties in Edinburgh tomorrow.
Even if accountants, tax consultants and town planners are to be given rights of audience, what will happen when they confine a case to a matter of taxation or town planning but the defenders raise questions of fraud or of prescription which are not within their field of competence? Are they then to continue the litigation, or are they not?
I should like to refer to the Hamlyn lectures given in 1964 by the distinguished American scholar Dean Griswold. He looked at the history of the introduction of laymen into the courts of the United States. When speaking of allowing laymen to plead in those courts, from 1790 through to the 20th century, he said:
"This overzealous democratisation may well be said to be the chief cause of the major problems which have confronted the law and the legal profession in the United States down to the present day".
He quoted another distinguished academic, Dean Pound:
"The harm which this deprofessionalizing of the practice of law did to the law, to legal procedure, to the ethics of practice and to forensic conduct has outlived the era in which it took place and still presents problems to the promoters of more effective administration of justice".
The author finished by saying:
"You are fortunate in the United Kingdom that you have been spared such excesses of democratic zeal".
Alas, my Lords, we are to be spared no longer. The real truth is this. Clause 21, if it is enacted, will never be brought into force. No Secretary of State could be so foolish as to introduce such a provision. I trust that any self-respecting law officer, if the Secretary of State introduced it, would resign.
I have already explained why I disagree with Clause 20, which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie. What I find particularly distasteful about the scheme in the Bill is that after the Council of the Law Society of Scotland has

191
drafted rules about training, experience, knowledge and conduct required of solicitor advocates, and the Lord President of the Court of Session has then studied and approved those rules, the Secretary of State can veto them after consulting the Director General of Fair Trading. An English lawyer and his fellow DTI civil servant can persuade the officials of the Scottish Home and Health Department to advise the Secretary of State to disapprove the rules which have passed the Council of the Law Society of Scotland and the Lord President of the Court of Session. That is an enormous shift of power from the judiciary and the legal profession to the Executive and to the consumer-oriented officials of the DTI.
I have great respect for Sir Gordon Borrie, whom I have known for many years. He himself delivered the Hamlyn lectures in 1984, entitling them "Bold Spirits and Timorous Souls". When he invited me to Birmingham University some years ago to speak on Scots law, he confessed afterwards that he knew as much about the Scottish legal system as he did about the laws of the Medes and Persians. We in Scotland have always felt that the DTI has displayed an unfamiliarity with, and a kind of hostility to, Scots law. It is a sad day for Scots law when the DTI can get to the Secretary of State's ear after the Lord President and the Council of the Law Society of Scotland have finished their task. The final decision on rights of audience in Scotland's courts, criminal and civil, is given to an elected politician advised by English lawyers and civil servants.
Subsections (9) and (11) of the new Section 25A amount in my view to a constitutional monstrosity. I hope and trust that they will be removed. We do not need Clause 22. I acknowledge that under the common market provisions there are certain reasons why one moves in this direction. But the legal systems north and south of the Border are quite different. It is already difficult in Scotland to preserve opportunities for people to advance both in industry and in the professions and to stay in Scotland. This provision allowing English and Welsh lawyers to practise north of the Border is likely to increase the power of the big London-based legal factories —the big firms—to diminish the range and quality of the work available to those who choose to stay in Scotland. Of course the common market allows German lawyers, French lawyers, Greek lawyers and Italian lawyers to come to Scotland, but they do not come. The English will come, and we will suffer for it. The Scottish legal system will suffer for it and will, through time, be severely wounded by this provision.
There are other matters which I would hope to address in Committee if it is possible for me to come. I should like to say a word about the other important provision mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie. I refer to Clause 23 in relation to partnerships and multi-disciplinary partnerships. I know of no one —if the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate can name anyone I shall be interested to hear it —who wants to see advocates entering into partnership with other advocates, solicitors, accountants, town planners or English
192
solicitors. The Faculty of Advocates put up an extremely powerful argument against this proposal after the Green Paper was published. The Council of the Law Society of Scotland put up similarly powerful arguments against the multi-disciplinary partnership proposal. These arguments have simply been ignored. The Secretary of State says on page 5 of the White Paper that he has considered them and that he rejects them. There is not a word as to why he rejects them.
The structure of Clause 23 is that any rule made by a professional body which prohibits or restricts such a partnership is to be of no effect unless it is positively approved by the Secretary of State. So again he has a veto to override the Lord President and the professional bodies, and again after consulting the Director General of Fair Trading.
Clauses 14 to 18 deal with conveyancing. They are deeply flawed. We are told nothing in the Bill about what has to be done to demonstrate competence, integrity and knowledge in order to prove that one is a fit and proper person, to quote the words of the Bill. The board, which has great powers, is a creature of the Secretary of State. He appoints and dismisses every one of its members. There are no rules in the Bill laying down the minimum or special qualifications for membership of the board. The very bareness of this part of the Bill shows that the matter has not been fully thought through.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say that my distaste for Part II of the Bill rests upon a judgment that it ignores history, tradition and common sense. The arguments of the profession and the conclusions of the Royal Commission —which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will mention in his speech —have been swept aside. The Bill is doctrinaire in the worst possible sense. In my judgment it will do grave and possibly irreversible damage to the legal system. It will confer no discernible benefit upon the public, the profession, the litigant or the house buyer. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State probably know that as well as I do. I regret that the Bill has been presented to the House in such a way that I cannot register my distaste by a vote.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I shall begin by joining the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, and my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey in expressing pleasure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, has broken his silence of the past decade. It is many more years than that since I first met the noble and learned Lord. It was when this House was considering a Scottish provisional order. He appeared for one of the parties arguing against the provisions contained in part of that order. It is perhaps an indication of the quality of his advocacy at that time that the committee in its entirety accepted the views he expressed and that that part of the order was not implemented. I too hope that we shall enjoy the benefit of his experience during the Committee stage of this Bill.

193
When I was a Scottish Office Minister I had the misfortune in three successive years of having to handle a legal miscellaneous provisions Bill. At that time I did not have the advantage of a Scottish law officer in the House. Of course, it would have been quite inappropriate to ask an English law officer to help out, because I have the feeling that had I done so he would probably have known even less than I did about the matter. However, the task was comparatively easy because these were just a ragbag of items, all of which in themselves were worth putting into legislation, but which would never have justified a Bill on their own account.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate justified the Bill as being a proper one, although it contains two major changes in the law of Scotland. I must agree with my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar and other noble Lords who spoke against this type of legislation. My noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey mentioned the Royal Commission of which I was chairman. I do not intend to apologise for quoting from what the report said on two matters. It is upon those matters only that I wish to speak. The first matter is conveyancing and the other is rights of audience. In part I shall be agreeing with my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey, and in part I shall be disagreeing with him. I say that because I am not sure that he agreed with the Royal Commission on conveyancing. However, it is obvious that he, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, and my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar agree entirely with the view of the commission on rights of audience.
However, perhaps I may first refer to what the commission had to say on conveyancing. I shall start by referring to paragraph 9.37. It reads:
"Such information as we have been able to obtain suggests that conveyancing may be for many firms a very profitable part of their business. We see no compelling reason, however, why the buyers and sellers of houses should have to pay legal fees which in effect are subsidising other kinds of legal business. A somewhat different argument that has been advanced to us by the Law Society in oral evidence is that any high profits in conveyancing are made on the more costly houses and that these compensate for the low or nil profit made at the lower end of the market where the purchase of tenement flats, for example, often involves complicated or time-consuming conveyancing".
However, times have changed; even a tenement flat is now not a low price item. Indeed, I had experience of that recently. I had a two-fifths interest in a house which was sold. My share of the sale price was £750; but what I received at the end of the day was £450. Therefore, there was no nil profit in that particular transaction.
The commission went on to say:
"The crux of the matter, however, is whether the public interest would be better served if the conveyancing monopoly were to be broken. The factors that we have examined in the immediately preceding paragraphs do not in our view justify retention of the monopoly. Before finally concluding in this sense, however, we felt it necessary to consider whether the breaking of the monopoly might lead to some legal firms, particularly in rural and relatively remote areas, losing some conveyancing work and thereby being forced out of business. We doubt very much whether this would happen; but even if it did, we would not regard this as a compelling argument in favour of retaining the monopoly. If it were in the public interest that a legal firm should be maintained in a particular area, this could better be secured through a State subsidy rather than by high charges for particular clients".
194
The commission continues in paragraph 9.39 to say:
"Our conclusion is, therefore, that the case for the legal profession retaining the present monopoly has not been established".
Further, paragraph 9.31 states that,
"We considered whether to recommend the establishment of a new profession of conveyancers to share the monopoly with solicitors. Admission to the profession would be conditional on the applicant satisfying prescribed standards of competence or obtaining a prescribed qualification. Members of the profession would, like solicitors, be required to practise independently of any other commercial undertaking. A new profession would, like any other profession, evolve rules about ethics and the handling of complaints as well as meeting requirements for insurance and for safeguarding clients' monies. In a country as small as Scotland, however, it seemed to us that evolution of such a new profession would take many years; and that in any event the end we had in view —the provision of conveyancing at competitive prices—could be more quickly and effectively achieved by other means. We decided, therefore, against recommending the creation of professional non-solicitor conveyancers who could set up in practice on their own account".
Perhaps I may say at this stage that many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission were not directed towards action by government; they required action by the Law Society of Scotland —a body which, up to that point, would not have been entered as a candidate for speedy action in any direction concerning its affairs. However, I must say that when it comes to implementing the commission's recommendations, the Law Society has left the Government standing. Much of the competition which is now available in connection with conveyancing exists because of changes which the Law Society has made in the rules which make possible, for example, advertising by solicitors. There is also a degree of competition.
I remain convinced that the commission's recommendation that the monopoly should be broken is justified because, with their competitive attitude nowadays, solicitors are in a better position to stand up to competition from banks and building societies or any other professional organisation. I forbear from reading other parts of the report because I have given the Royal Commission's main conclusions on that point.
I turn now to rights of audience. The first part that I wish to read states:
"A considerable weight of legal opinion was, however, in favour of extending the rights of audience of solicitors to enable them to appear in the supreme courts".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that he was surprised that the Law Society had had a sudden loss of enthusiasm for extending rights of audience. It has now; but in 1979, which is what I am now going to quote:
"We had the unusual experience of the Law Society, on the latter issue, submitting a divided view in their evidence to us; indeed, when they gave oral evidence to us on this topic, they included representatives who argued strongly in favour of extended rights of audience for solicitors, and others who as strongly and sincerely argued that this would be a retrograde step and not in the interests of justice. The majority view, however"—
that is, the majority view of the Law Society —
"was in favour of extended rights of audience for solicitors who wanted it in the Outer House of the Court of Session and also in the High Court of Justiciary".
Then:
"Those representatives of the Law Society who argued in favour of extended rights of audience conceded, as we understood it,

195
that solicitors would not operate the cab rank principle. We are not surprised at this. The nature of solicitors' business might make it impractical for them to do so. We think, however, that competition in the supreme courts between the two branches of the profession, one of which could pick and choose its clients and the other of which could not, might lead to undesirable results".
Further:
"Finally, on this matter, we have considered the end result of extending rights of audience. It is impossible to predict what would happen with any confidence. It may be that very little use would be made of the right, in which case an alternative to the existing system would not be justified by any substantial results. It may be, on the other hand, that the right would be very widely used. If it were, the result would inevitably be some erosion and perhaps the eventual extinction of the Faculty of Advocates".
It is nearly 15 years since the commission was set up and 10 years since it reached its conclusions. If I remember correctly, there was a strong demand, especially from Glasgow solicitors, to have rights of audience. Of course there are even more lawyers in Glasgow than there are in Edinburgh —perhaps that is not so, but they are running neck and neck at worst. I do not know how many practising advocates there are today, but when the Royal Commission met, out of some 300 advocates there were 139 practising in the courts. If some 20 or 30 Glasgow solicitors decided that they wanted to exercise their rights of audience, the advocates' profession would not meet death by a thousand cuts but there would be a sudden diminution of its rights which would inevitably increase as the years went by.
The Royal Commission decided unanimously against fusion. If we are to have fusion of the two branches of the profession it should be done deliberately and not by the accident of the passage of time.
Finally, our conclusions on conveyancing were carried with one dissentient voice; our conclusions on rights of audience were unanimous. The commission's membership included one senator of the College of Justice, one QC, two solicitors, a trade union official who had a Batchelor of Law degree but who did not practise and four laymen. So to have covered those two major subjects with only one dissension in one case and unanimity in the other shows that the long time spent on and the thorough consideration of those two items by the Royal Commission were justified.
5.5 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who was chairman of a distinguised Royal Commission whose quality has been greatly underestimated. I should like to emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said. The inclusion of a clause dealing with what I call constitutional issues in a miscellaneous Bill is utter nonsense and unworthy of the Scottish Office. I am sorry that it has been done.
So much wisdom has been spoken today that I can be extremely short. I should like to take up the quotation from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which has been made before but which I believe is the key to where we stand. He said that the keynote of his movement was to improve access to justice for all concerned. There is no one in the
196
House who does not agree with those words, but what has happened? First, the Royal Commission has been ignored. We have been asked —I put it bluntly —to worship the god of competition. I am not against competition but competition does two things: it reduces price and it reduces quality.
If there is one thing that matters in the administration of justice, it is quality. One may pay too much for it, but that is nothing as compared with a loss of quality of justice. That point is supremely important.
When I thought about that I recalled the words of Hobbes, that strange philosopher during the great revolution, who said:
"Words are wise men's counters, they do but reckon with them. They are the money of fools".
We can easily be led astray by words which sound nice.
It is an embarrassment in some ways when so many distinguished noble Lords have spoken, but I should like to say just a word about the law of Scotland. I remember the late Lord Cooper, who was Lord President after the war. He said that the big difference between Scots law and English law was that English law was based primarily on precedent and Scots law was built on principle. It is generally regarded that the principle is based substantially on Roman-Dutch law. There then come the institutional writers of whom Stair is the leading one, although there are others, who put together a story of enormous importance. We then come to the third stage to which my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie referred: the quality and the discipline of the Court of Session. Those standards have been maintained through some stormy years when the courts in Scotland and elsewhere were regarded with a certain degree of indifference. That is why the quality of discipline and conduct in the Court of Session, in the Inner House especially, is of the utmost importance.
I do not for one moment say that solicitors do not become admirable judges. We all know many who do and whom we greatly respect. There is no reason why they should not. However, one cannot possibly have a court with people with two different standards of discipline pleading in it. That is just not on by any standard whatever, and for that reason alone the matter should be stopped.
We attach importance to our law in Scotland. Indeed, one can find that in the poems of Robert Burns if anybody had any doubts about the extent of the respect with which it is regarded. We acquired three things from the union of Scotland with England and Ireland: our banks, our religion and our law. The banks have been largely subsumed by economic elements, as I understand they are in Australia and in England, but they remain. Religion remains. However, it is in the interests of the whole country that we should retain the standards of Scots law. I shall not quote the amount of legislation copied in England in recent years but there is a long list of matters introduced into English law straight from Scotland. We should not underestimate that fact, but we should recognise that it has happened and I believe that it will go on happening.

197
It has been a great pleasure to hear noble and learned Lords speaking today. It has brought home to the Government something which they will not forget.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, first may I apologise to the House for not being present at the outset of the debate, in particular to hear the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. Alas, I was detained on business in another part of the building. It gives me great pleasure to take this opportunity of congratulating my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie on his maiden speech. I have been connected in law with the noble and learned Lord for more than 40 years. I have appeared against him, I have appeared as his junior and I have served under him as a judge in the Court of Session for nine years. The association has always given me great pleasure and I very much hope that his immense experience and wisdom will now be available to your Lordships on frequent occasions in the future. This has been only the beginning of many more speeches
Perhaps I may also commend the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for one or two matters in the Bill. I suspect that he is slightly short of commendations this afternoon, but I commend him first in relation to the retention and extension of the cy pres jurisdiction of the Court of Session under Clause 8. This seems to be admirable.
In addition, I cannot help but feel that the provisions which allow the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk to nominate judges to the Inner House cannot but be for the good and strength of the court. Finally, I wish to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on still using that fine old fashioned word "client". It is good to acknowledge that he has not yet been seduced by the honeyed words of the Department of Trade and Industry.
Much of what I proposed to say has already been mentioned by noble Lords, I therefore do not propose to say anything in the nature of a root and branch objection to the proposals. It has been far better said by noble Lords who have already spoken and it would simply be a waste of your Lordships' time if I were to repeat what they have said. However, that does not mean that I am not fully in accord with their views on the subject.
I wish to say a brief word on two matters. One concerns theoretical and practical training; the other, partnerships of advocates. Training is obviously of considerable importance in two respects. It is clearly of importance to the client. It is important that he or she should have a competent and experienced advocate. I use "advocate" in the generic sense now to cover anyone who appears in court to plead his case. It is also, although perhaps less obviously, of importance to the court. I anticipate that when one refers to the court some people will think, "Ah, the benefit of the court is just the benefit of the judges who happen to be sitting there at the time. It will make life easier for them". With respect, that is a complete and utter misconception. It is essential for
198
the administration of justice that the courts should receive the maximum help they can from whomsoever is appearing before them. Not only does this expedite proceedings but it enables the courts to be more likely to reach a correct decision. I need hardly point out that expedition of proceedings means more court time available to other litigants waiting in the queue to have their cases heard. So the interest of the courts in these matters is of great public importance.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie said, to permit solicitors to appear in the High Court of Justiciary is a novel step in the law of Scotland. To permit other persons, whether professionally qualified or not, to do so is also novel, but to date rather more removed from what the courts have been used to.
At the moment advocates have a theoretical training and a practical training which consists of devilling to a practising member of the Bar who instructs them in pleadings, in the presentation of a case, and generally in what to do. If he is a good devill master, he also instructs them in what not do do, which is nearly as important as what to do.
Solicitors have a similar theoretical training, but their practical training is geared to the chamber side of the profession. In my submission, it is extremely important that solicitors who are to be given rights of audience in the higher court, the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary, should have some practical training in those courts. That is to say, they should have some period of attachment to a practitioner in the courts, to learn their ways.
It is perhaps surprising that whereas, under the Bill, the Lord President is to be involved in any rules of conduct for solicitors appearing in the higher courts, as I understand it and if I read the wording correctly, he is not to be concerned in relation to the training. Clause 20(5) referring to the new Section 25A of the 1980 Act empowers the council to make rules dealing with training. As I understand it, those rules do not have effect unless the Secretary of State, after consulting the Director General of Fair Trading, approves them. It appears that the rules do not require to be referred to the Lord President.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate shakes his head. Perhaps I have an out-of-date copy of the Bill. My reading is that the Lord President is concerned with rules of conduct but not with rules in relation to training.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene, to ask him to look at Clause 20(8) and the reference back to Section 34(2), he will then appreciate the position of the Lord President in the matter.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. This is a reference back to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act where the rules which he makes are mentioned. I am pleased that that is so; it is clearly a matter of importance. No doubt the Lord President will take these matters into account.

199
Regarding members of professional or other bodies, the problem seems to me much more difficult. Apparently what is envisaged is some form of limited licence for persons to appear in limited categories of cases and in specified courts. If one assumes that a particular type of case —let us say a revenue case —involves only questions of revenue law, it might be simple enough to decide what training should be given to such persons appearing. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey has already said, that is not the case. Many revenue cases do not involve questions of tax at all, they involve consideration of a general law. Therefore it will be extremely important that persons who are given these limited licences to appear in courts in Scotland should have some appropriate knowledge of the general law, as well as of such specialised fields as they will appear in.
In my view they must have not only a theoretical training in their own field and in the general law, but also they must clearly have some practical training in the practice of the court. It would be almost unthinkable that an accountant should be allowed to appear in the Court of Session, let us say in an exchequer cause, having had absolutely no training whatsoever in advocacy.
I very much hope that in a matter of this kind the Lord President will be consulted, although not as proposed at present, and that he will come in on the ground floor. As I understand the provisions of Clause 21, the Lord President looks at a scheme prepared by an appropriate body with regard to the rules of conduct contained in that scheme, that is to say the code of practice referred to at Clause 21(2)(b)(ii). However, he does not have the opportunity of making observations in relation to the training requirements. He sees the scheme only after the matter has been referred to the Secretary of State. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that that is not an appropriate course. The Lord President is far more able to determine the kind of training, both theoretical and practical, that other professionals and non-professionals should undergo than is the Secretary of State and any of his advisers, whoever they may be, even with the assistance of the Director General of Fair Trading if he is consulted.
I say no more about training, but I wish to add a few words to what has already been said about advocates in partnership. I should like to know whom these proposals are intended to benefit. It would not be possible to give a positive answer to that, but it would be very simple to give a negative answer. The negative answer is that the proposals are certainly not intended for the benefit of the client as he will have fewer advocates to choose from, and if those advocates are tied to big solicitors or multinational accountants the client will almost inevitably have to pay more for their services. The client will have to go to such solicitors or accountants in order to employ an advocate in the first place as his own solicitor will not be able to use those advocates unless he abdicates his role in favour of the large firms of solicitors.
All in all, it seems to me that partnerships of advocates, of whom there are only some 250
200
practising in Scotland, can do nothing to assist the client but will merely reduce the number of advocates available for a client, if he requires their services. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will explain to the House precisely why he considers that partnerships among advocates and between advocates and other professionals will be of benefit to the public. If he cannot give a proper explanation of that, I hope he will consider dropping this clause from the Bill.
5.23 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I, like other noble Lords, was fascinated by the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie. I also listened with admiration and interest to the extremely eloquent speeches that other distinguished lawyers made in defence of the status quo of advocates and of the status quo regarding the way in which the courts work. I also listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in defence of the status quo regarding the way in which solicitors work in relation to conveyancing.
I wish to make some brief general comments on the Bill and then refer to three specific aspects of the proposals for charities, conveyancing and for the sale of alcohol in supermarkets based on my own much more limited experience. First, I shall deal with the criticism voiced mainly by lawyers outside this House and in the debate this afternoon that it is quite wrong to include important changes in the way lawyers work and on the matter of breaking their monopoly on conveyancing in the same Bill as other changes to Scots law, such as the law for charities, the law relating to divorce and the alcohol licensing laws. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, suggested that that was an insult to Scotland. I would simply say that all these are matters of immediate importance to us Scots. Clearly, there is time in each parliamentary Session for only a limited number of Bills. I would rather see the various matters dealt with now in this Bill, even if it is a little difficult for us to handle, than make the people in Scotland wait for one, two, three or more years for several separate Bills. In saying that, there is of course one important proviso; that is, that the business managers allocate reasonable time so that we can consider the Bill properly.
Another criticism which again has come mainly from Scottish lawyers' organisations is that the Bill proposes English solutions to Scottish problems. There is the counter criticism which has come from, for example, the Scottish Consumer Council that the Bill does not go far enough and not as far as the proposals for England and Wales in protecting the public, for example in relation to house buying and selling and in relation to the unscrupulous use of charity law. On that it must be said that the ways in which Scottish lawyers work, the ways we in Scotland buy and sell our houses and the ways charities are regulated in Scotland are very different to the ways those things are done in England. We are all proud of our Scottish legal system. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said, our house buying system is the envy of many south of the Border. However, that does not mean that our arrangements are perfect, that they

201
do not need updating as times change and that there is no room for improvement. As we examine this Bill it will be the needs of the people of Scotland and adjustments to our Scottish system that we shall consider, but for goodness sake do not let us fall into the trap of thinking that good ideas for adjusting to change in the modern world cannot ever cross the Border, southwards or northwards.
I shall now turn to Part I of the Bill, which concerns proposals for the regulation of charities. My own experience of working within and alongside charitable organisations in Scotland makes me agree with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations that the general objective of this part of the Bill is a good one. It is very important that the public should be able to find out more easily what organisations have been accepted by the Revenue as charities and that there should be public confidence that charities are well run and that their status is not abused.
I have two concerns which are shared by the Scottish council. First, will it be enough, as proposed in Clause 1(3) for members of the public simply to be able to obtain from the Revenue the names of charities and their last known addresses? Should there not be more detailed information available, if possible locally, perhaps in public libraries? Secondly, it is desirable, as Clauses 1 and 3 insist, that charities should be required to provide information about themselves, if asked, to keep proper accounts and to publish annually a report and accounts. However, is that sufficient? Surely the information made available should include not just the deed setting the charity up but also the crucial facts about who is in charge and who the trustees, director and senior officers are. The Scottish council is concerned about these matters and we shall doubtless discuss them in Committee.
I have one question for my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench. Clause 1(1)(a) refers to activities and purposes which are not charitable. What is the definition of a charity? Where does the charitable nature of an activity or purpose begin and end in the eyes of the Inland Revenue? I cannot find any definition in the Bill. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could help me on that point.
Regarding Part II, I have been much impressed by the trouble taken by the Scottish Law Association, the Faculty of Advocates and other smaller law organisations and by organisations such as the Scottish Consumer Council and the citizens advice bureaux in apprising noble Lords of their views. I have never received higher quality briefing than I have received on the Bill. I am indeed grateful.
At this stage I want to pick up one important point on the proposed new arrangements for conveyancing. I am all for giving Scots more choice of conveyancers when selling a house. In that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and his Royal Commission. However, I am concerned as to whether people will be sufficiently protected against conveyancers whose interest is not only in the seller of the property but also, directly or indirectly, in
202
who buys the property. The Bill seems imprecise in its definition of who will be allowed to provide conveyancing services. Clauses 15 and 16 say that it must be a "fit and proper person". What is fit and proper? Applicants will be required to make "suitable" procedures and arrangements. What is suitable? Are the Government confident that those definitions will do?
Secondly, and extremely importantly, I am anxious that there is not sufficient assurance on the face of the Bill that conveyancers or their associates will be forbidden to act for both seller and buyer at the same time. I do not believe that the present situation is good enough. I understand that the Solicitors (Scotland) Practice Rules 1986 govern solicitors who are conveyancers. Those rules state, in Paragraph 3, that:
"a solicitor shall not act for 2 or more parties whose interests conflict".
However, those rules do not, apparently, preclude two solicitors in the same firm acting for buyer and seller respectively. In my view that is not good, especially in small rural areas where firms are small and other people's business is news.
The client or customer will be even more vulnerable when there are multi-disciplinary firms and banks, insurance companies, building societies and the like which can do conveyancing. It will indeed be tempting for a conveyancer acting for the seller of a house to advise in certain circumstances that the house be sold to a particular aspiring buyer if that purchaser is likely to bring business to the conveyancer's firm or associates through the provision of a mortgate with associated insurance policies and commission in the future.
On 19th July, in introducing his White Paper for England and Wales, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made an important statement of principle on those matters. He said at cols. 779 and 780 of Hansard:
"There will be a detailed code of conduct laid clown by statutory instrument by which authorised practitioners will have to abide. Moreover, authorised practitioners will be prohibited from providing conveyancing services to both the seller and buyer in the same transaction (except in very limited circumstances) and from providing estate agency services to the seller and conveyancing services to the buyer in the same transaction. Making the provision of one service conditional upon taking another (so-called 'tying-in') in connection with house purchase will be prohibited. Authorised practitioners will be required to charge for their services on a basis which is not less than the true cost of providing them".
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether the Government stand by those principles for Scotland. I note that Annexe C to the original Scottish consultation paper offers a proposed code of conduct with sections on conflict of interest. Where has that gone? It is not in the Bill. All I can find in Clauses 15(9) and 17(9) is that the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Director General of Fair Trading, make regulations and such regulations may have respect to conflict of interest.
A representative of the Scottish Law Agents Society took the trouble to fly down from Inverness last week and put that question to me. The Law Society of Scotland and others are also very concerned about it. They have taken the trouble to

203
explain their concern. Can my noble and learned friend tell me whether the Government stand by the Lord Chancellor's statement in so far as concerns Scotland? If so, why is it that the Bill is so noncommittal? Why is there no code of conduct on the face of the Bill?
Linked to that point, I should like to ask whether the Government will consider including in the Bill prohibition of the process known as "churning", a process which is referred to in Paragraph 7.3 of the Government's statement. I shall not spend time on that matter now, but the Law Society believe that it costs house-buyers tens of millions of pounds every year. Is there no way of preventing it in Scotland?
Lastly, I should like to say a word about Clause 37. Here, I am on very familiar ground. The clause makes it mandatory for shop assistants under 18 to be supervised when they sell alcohol in small shops. It provides that no one under 18 should sell alcohol at all in large supermarkets. As my noble and learned friend said, that matter was fully discussed before the Recess under the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, which fell for lack of time. I said then, and I stand by the view, that it is wrong that at supermarket checkouts people under 18 should have to judge whether or not their contemporaries are under age. The Retail Consortium and Marks and Spencer have written to say that they disagree with the Government. I believe that they are wrong. I welcome the clause. I do not believe that it will present insuperable difficulties for shops. I hope that it will pass into law.
With those comments, I commend the Bill for Second Reading.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in Britain today with certain aspects of the law. I applaud the Government for trying to improve matters. My difficulty is that I do not believe that the Bill will improve matters. Indeed, I do not believe that it goes to the root of anxiety about the law.
Most of that anxiety has arisen in England or in connection with English lawyers. I have been astonished lately in this House by the complacency of senior English lawyers about the state of their profession and its standing in the public eye. We have had the Guildford case and the Wright case, and we have noted the contrast between damages for libel and for personal injury. The other day, an experienced merchant banker told me a horrifying story of the expense to which his firm had been put. It was a story of waste of money and delay. At the end of the day he thought that the case had been extremely badly handled.
I emphasise that most of those cases arise in England, but their effect rubs off on Scotland. The ordinary person finds that litigation in this country is far too expensive, uncertain and prolonged. If Scottish law is founded on principle, as we were told by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, we should apply our minds to those principles and try to ensure that they are the objects of the courts. On the other hand, if
204
we look at the procedure of the courts, it appears to be a gladiatorial contest in which the person with the most money starts with a clear advantage. That is why I am in favour of going over to the inquisitorial system. When I last mentioned that point, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey said that it would be even more expensive than the present system. Nevertheless, it would be based on reason and logic and I do not despair of the lawyers succeeding in making it relatively cheap. However, it is beyond the bounds of possibility that the Government would do anything so radical as to change from the present system to the inquisitorial system.
I welcome the idea that audience should be widened. The sheriff's court in Scotland is an extremely effective court, as far as is possible under the present system. In principle, I am not against widening the audience of solicitors to the superior courts, nor do I see that there is necessarily anything wrong in partnerships. I am impressed by the fact that those proposals —both the widening of audience and the proposition that partnerships or memberships of large conglomerations of lawyers or of lawyers and accountants should be allowed —have aroused the antagonism of highly accomplished and respected men in both countries. No one who listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, could have failed to be impressed by the fact that those proposals arouse great anxiety.
It is said that, if the proposals were to go through, the cab rank principle would go; the ordinary solicitor who, as has rightly been said, relies upon being able to go to an advocate to obtain advice, would find that much more difficult; the quality of advocacy among those appearing before the courts would deteriorate; and the cream of Scottish legal ability would go down to London or be absorbed in partnerships and memberships of companies and not available to the ordinary litigant. Those are extremely serious criticisms. I do not know whether they are true and I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate does either.
If the Bill is at all essential, it is in England that it is needed. If it were needed in Scotland, I should not support it but I would see the argument for the Government proceeding with it. The Bill would never have seen the light of day but for the English Bill. It is founded purely on the need, as the Government consider it, to do something about England. Its results in Scotland will do nothing to cure the system's faults. On the other hand, if the opinions that I have quoted are right, it will do incomparable damage which will be difficult to rectify.
I therefore suggest to the Government that since the Bill is not a matter of urgency —I do not believe that even the clauses on charities, which on the whole I support, or other parts of this curious rag-bag of a Bill are at all urgent; I have received few complaints about charities in Scotland —they should postpone it, or at any rate the second part of it, watch what happens in England and let the English go forward with their Bill. We shall see what happens to barristers and the general conduct of the courts in England. Although I do not agree with the Bill,

205
if there were any urgency in it, I would see the Government's point in going forward with it, but clearly there is none.
The Bill suffers from the usual defects of much of our legislation: it sets up another quango; it is extremely diffuse without being in the least accurate; it contains pages and pages of stuff which do not shed much light on what will happen; the powers which it gives to various boards are obscure; it is obscure as to who will be appointed to the boards; and it passes over even more power to the Executive. Above all, I must again object to the thread that runs through all these Bills, both in Scotland and in England; namely, that they are promoted by the Department of Trade and Industry. They refer to competition and consumers. I do not consume my lawyer, nor do I consume his advice. As has been pointed out again and again, it is a quite different relationship and it is extremely sinister that it continues to hover around these Bills.
Much of what is harmless in the Bill might be effected much more easily. As I understand it, if a solicitor wishes to appear in the High Court, he may become an advocate. That point was borne out by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. It is not difficult to become an advocate. If the Bill were passed, he could remain with his firm of solicitors. I am not sure whether it is necessary to set up new boards.
In principle I agree that a layman should be allowed to have whatever representation he likes. He might be very unwise, but he should not be debarred from having the advocate that he wishes. The courts-martial system worked well until the lawyers got at it. So long as the courts-martial were left to ordinary soldiers, they came, like most courts, to a conclusion, which was on the whole right, quickly and without much palaver. But when people like Grimond who had been trained in the law came on the scene, the business soon became much more lengthy and all kinds of little tricks were introduced.
I do not know what the phrase a "fit and proper person" means in relation to most of the Bill. I do not know what extra choice will be given to people under the Bill. Perhaps they will have their conveyancing done by a building society, but probably only because of the financial advantages. As my noble friend said, the building societies and banks do not show much enthusiasm for going into conveyancing. As for choice among lawyers, the number of lawyers in Scotland has risen greatly. The number of lawyers in the Inverness faculty, for instance, has more than doubled since the war. Many of them are in government employment, but there is nevertheless plenty of choice among lawyers. I do not think that the addition of building societies will make much difference to the ordinary person. The ordinary person wants a lawyer whom he can trust to advise him on all kinds of matters which are not strictly of a legal kind. I very much doubt whether building societies are suitable bodies to take confirmation. That is a human and personal matter.
It is Clause 2 which causes me most anxiety. I myself do not feel so strongly up against it as some people may feel. I simply do not know what its results may be. But I am influenced by what has
206
been said about the possible consequences of the change in the legal professions which it will bring in.
I finish by saying that the law is of immense importance in Scotland —far more important than it is in England. The law, the Church and education are the last vestiges of our nationhood. They present Scotland. We have no Parliament. They are what people mean when they talk about the Scottish tradition, Scottish customs, and so on. If we were to wreck what is possibly an unsatisfactory but certainly not disastrous method of carrying out the law, we should be very guilty indeed in the light of future generations.
As I said, it will be very difficult indeed to reinstate anything like the present position with the advocates in the courts if we once destroy it. I beg the Government at least to think again and, if this Bill is passed, possibly to postpone the date upon which the Act comes into operation. Let us see whether our forebodings come true. We shall see what happens in England. I do not think that much harm will be done and I believe that a great deal of good would result.
5.51 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I speak with some difficulty on this subject because I am not at all an expert in legal affairs. I shall speak very shortly and not detain the House for any length of time.
Having spent much of my life in charitable work with charitable trusts I should like to say a few words about that aspect of the Bill, which I strongly support. I entirely agree that all information about charitable trusts should be made available, including details of how the money is allocated and whom to approach. Such information is of great importance to those who raise money for good causes. Accurate information is vital so that no wrong action can be taken by anyone involved in an appeal. I think that that is a vital matter.
Such information should also be available to the public. It is available as a right to the secretaries of trusts but sometimes it is not clear who they are. I suggest that it should be available from public libraries and possibly in other reference areas where people can look it up. Perhaps it could be in a public list or report.
The trusts with which I have been associated, such as the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust and the Jubilee Trust, publish annual reports and accounts for everyone to see. That is right. It enables people to know the interests that trustees have. Any person who wants to know about such things should be able to discover them. They should be able readily to find out which bodies are recognised as charities for the purposes of tax relief.
The present Bill proposes to elicit a great deal of such information. I think that it should be followed up. However, there are one or two matters which have been made known to me through the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, of which I was the president for something like 16 or 18 years. That association recommends that, if the Inland Revenue is to be given the powers indicated in the Bill, the

207
Secretary of State should name a person within the Inland Revenue in Scotland as registrar, keeper of records or similar title. The naming of such a post would do much to assist public confidence in the system and allow for a measure of public accountability. I believe that that is a very good proposal and I commend it to the Government.
I feel that there should be a requirement on the Inland Revenue to publish an annual report showing, among other items, the extent and scale of its activities with regard to the matters in this Bill, together with an analysis of the information held. A directory of grant-making trusts based in Scotland should be compiled and published. It would be of great help both to the public and to the Inland Revenue. That is something which the Bill might encourage and that the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations would certainly support. Legislation and arrangements for Scotland should be no less effective than those for England.
The other problem arising from the new Bill concerns the changes proposed for solicitors in Scotland with the introduction of multi-disciplinary practices. Whereas at present conveyancing of houses—buying and selling —is done by solicitors, it can in future be done through banks and building societies. It is suggested that in order to be able to continue to deal with such work solicitors may get together with banks and building societies to form a group practice which will eliminate competition. That is a danger about which we should be concerned.
Moreover, if a person who lives in a rural area wants individual legal advice, he may have to go elsewhere and travel possibly some distance at considerable expense to obtain that legal advice. It may cost him a lot of money and take a long time. That would be very unpopular. This information comes to me from the chief executive of Roxburgh District Council, who is also vice-president of the Scottish Law Agents' Society. I promised that I would mention it today in the debate.
I feel sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has heard these arguments before. I hope that he will forgive me for stressing those points but I had much information sent to me and felt that I had to mention these matters. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, the information is extremely interesting and very well produced. I hope very much that the Government will pay some attention to the criticisms, in that I am one of the people who support the Bill.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, my noble and learned friends have said so much so much better than I can that my speech can be relatively short. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, seemed to think that it was a good idea that what the noble and learned Lord who was sitting on my left when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was speaking referred to as a dog's breakfast should all be in one Bill. Does she remember the Education Reform Act? Does she remember the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act? Each of those pieces of
208
legislation would have passed through this House and, I think, another place much more quickly and much better if they had each consisted of three Bills when going through the House, so that the separate issues could have been separately considered. That is the point that I think she ignores.
Contrast those marathons with the Evidence (Scotland) Act. My recollection is that it went through in a discussion totalling 20 minutes between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, and myself, and that was that. It is no use adding together this collection of bits and pieces, putting a constitutional hat on the mess and hoping that it will be a good Act. I intend to say very little about the various parts.
On divorce, I suggest that the reduced periods are possibly far too short. When people separate it is often a traumatic business. It is necessary that they should be given sufficient time to know exactly what they want and what is best to do. All the modern research suggests that divorce causes serious damage to the children of the marriage that is being split up. Is it really a good thing to leap in this way from two years and five years to one year and two years? I suggest that perhaps periods of two years and three years would be better.
I turn to the subject of charities. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked for a definition of charity. As a result of this Bill if it goes through, the answer is fairly easy: buy an English textbook. The Scottish law of charity disappears completely. I see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate shaking his head. If he refers to various decisions of your Lordships' House made, I believe, in 1953 concerning the Glasgow Police Athletic Association, he will find that there is such a thing as the Scottish law of charity. It is different from the Inland Revenue view of charity based on the law of Elizabeth I.
What of the Scottish law of charity when only the Inland Revenue law of charity remains? This may concern only those who are interested in keeping treaty obligations entered into in 1707 or who are interested in the history and preservation of Scots' law; perhaps it does not amount to very much. The provisions of the Bill are of very little use. According to the Home and Health Department the purpose was to establish a system whereby,
"Any interested person can readily discover which bodies are recognised as charities for the purposes of tax relief and can ascertain the name and address of the charity and the names of the trustees, office bearers and directors".
That is fine; we all agree with it. The difficulty is that the Bill does not say so. If it did, the Bill would be much clearer. Surely, in an era of data processing that should be possible. It is after all what is required. It is necessary to have lists available in major centres where one can see what are the charities dealing with a particular problem such as that of mentally deficient children. There is nothing in the Bill that provides any method of doing so, but that is what is needed.
I have the privilege of being the chairman of a charity, having succeeded in that capacity the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The charity is concerned with children and families. Many

209
charities deal with the disadvantaged. On occasions they require to criticise the policy of government. Sometimes they have to be fairly vociferous on behalf of disadvantaged people. It is a difficult line to establish when a charity is working, in Inland Revenue terms, for charitable purposes only and when it becomes a political pressure group.
Is it right that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, as a member of the Government, should be the person who decides these kinds of issues? I suggest that it is not. I further suggest, as a matter of practical politics, that it does not work very well. It is suggested that eight people are to carry out this work under the supervision of the Lord Advocate. I understand that that happens to be the number of qualified staff vacancies in one procurator fiscal's office in Scotland which the Lord Advocate cannot fill. Is this charities' body to be filled with people who are not very good at prosecuting in district courts and who have to be moved somewhere else? Alternatively, are they to be people who really know something about the law of trusts and charities? I suggest that there is a case for an independent body consisting of people who are interested and knowledgeable regarding public trusts.
There is another major change for charitable trusts and trustees which the noble and learned Lord will no doubt say is deliberate. Until now a gratuitous trustee was only liable for wilful misconduct. The Bill refers not to wilful misconduct but to any misconduct or mismanagement. Has the noble and learned Lord any idea of the difficulties of finding people to fulfil the necessary social job of being a gratuitous trustee in these circumstances? Is it really intended that any mismangement or misconduct is necessary? This contrasts with the person who holds himself out to be a conveyancing practitioner. He is not liable at all unless he wilfully and falsely holds himself out to be a conveyancing practitioner. Why is "wilful" omitted from the mismanagement?
I turn to the legal profession. Here the approach seems, from recollection, similar to the philosophy behind the Financial Services Act. Now that that Act has been in force for some time, I fail to see why anybody should consider such philosophy the correct approach. The effect for the small consumer of financial services has been to reduce competition, to decrease the availability of independent advice and to increase the cost of services. I now apply that to the legal services.
The major users of legal services such as the banks and the insurance companies —organisations of that kind —are not the people who need protection and help. They can pay for whatever they want and sometimes do. It is the ordinary citizen requiring a lawyer perhaps two or three times during his life who needs to have a reasonable expectation that he will be able to obtain good service at reasonable cost. The Bill does nothing at all for the ordinary citizen.
The conveyancing and confirmation services are to be available largely from banks, insurance companies and building societies. If one returns to the Financial Services Act one discovers that bodies such as the SIB, the RPB and the SRO, were all to be financed by levies from members. If the Government
210
believe in the phrase "the level playing field", why does the Law Society, as conveyancers, finance its own body? On the other hand, the building societies, banks and others who are to become certificated practitioners, or whatever they are to be, are to be financed by the Government. Why are the banks and the insurance companies not paying for the service themselves by a levy? Is there some change in the approach or is it that the banks, the insurance companies and the building societies are not interested unless somebody else pays?
The rights of audience provisions have a massive omission. There is one matter of importance which is included. I speak from experience because I have been a solicitor. It is said that the codes have to show that the person has,
"appeared in civil proceedings in the sheriff court over such a period, in such categories of litigation, and with such frequency … as seems to the Council to be appropriate".
I have done that. The effect of having 11 years of practice in the sheriff court is that I was required to unlearn almost all the procedure in order that I would get the Court of Session procedure right. So this provision is based on a complete fallacy.
The other oddity is that there is a code of conduct which advocates require. As a compulsory measure, people becoming advocates are required to pass an examination in that subject. There is not a word about rules of conduct or who is to enforce them in this education system.
When one turns to the question of the appointment of judges, one reaches the height of stupidity. It is proposed that after five years solicitor advocates may become Court of Session judges. How does that fit with the solicitor advocate, or solicitor, or advocate who must serve 10 years before he can be appointed a sheriff or a sheriff principal? How does that fit with a sheriff principal who, having served his 10 years, must serve five years as a sheriff principal before he is competent to be appointed?
It may be that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate will say that we must go back to Clause 19 of the Treaty of Union. He will read there that the clause specifically gives power to Parliament to change the period of time. If the noble and learned Lord goes back to Clause 19, why has he chosen the period of five years for advocates and not 10 years, which is the period for writers to the signet. Does he really believe that five years is adequate for qualification of appointment? What advocate has ever been made a senator of the College of Justice with a five-year qualification? Is it not better to change that provision rather than to have this absurdity?
In my view, the Bill is shockingly and badly drafted. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate should insist that those responsible for the drafting come to the House tomorrow to hear the debate initiated by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, which I regret I shall not be able to hear. They might learn a great deal.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for

211
the way in which he introduced this miscellaneous provisions Bill. Indeed, it is miscellaneous, as previous speakers have said. When it reaches another place I am sure that less polite but entirely parliamentary descriptions will be given because that is the usual fate of such a Bill.
I shall deal briefly with different subjects in the order in which they appear in the Bill. As regards charities, I welcome the general change that is proposed. As a trustee and officer bearer in charities —some of which are based in Scotland and some in England and Wales, usually dealing with the United Kingdom —I am aware of the different systems. In Scotland the Inland Revenue decides whether there should be charitable status and not the Charity Commissioners who operate only in England and Wales.
My impression is that the Inland Revenue is very efficient and an organisation applying for charitable status receives an answer quickly. I am also certain that organisations which have failed to pass the test are unlikely to avoid paying income tax or other taxes. The Inland Revenue works behind the scenes and therefore it is possible for an organisation in Scotland to pose as a charity and pass itself off to the media and the public as having charitable status when that is not the case. In my opinion, the Bill should improve that situation.
As regards conveyancing, an important change is proposed in the Bill. It is the first move to disturb the solicitors' monopoly on conveyancing in Scotland. For several years licensed conveyancers have existed in England and Wales following the attempt of a Private Members Bill tabled in another place by Mr. Austin Mitchell. It applied only to England and Wales and when he withdrew the Bill the Government committed themselves to bringing forward provisions in their legislation.
A different situation exists in Scotland where traditionally the solicitors carry out a large majority of estate agency business. In recent years it has been as much as 80 per cent. The Bill aims to introduce a system under which properly qualified practitioners can operate without creating conflicts of interest. I suggest that that aim needs careful attention because solicitors in Scotland act as agents for their clients and have been more involved in the buying and selling of houses than have their counterparts south of the Border. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that the Law Society of Scotland representing solicitors there is strongly opposed to the Government's plan. It believes that banks and building societies will move in on the conveyancing business.
I must declare an interest. During the past 14 years I have worked in one of the largest building societies in the country. I am director on the main board and for some years I have been chairman of its Scottish board. The society carries out a considerably greater proportion of its business in Scotland than the population there within the United Kingdom would suggest. Reflecting the rapid developments which have happened in financial services, the building society is now a large financial services institution.
212
At present we are negotiating the purchase of Girobank. For several years I have also been a vice-president of the Building Societies Association.
With that background, I speak from a personal viewpoint. I do not believe that the large building societies will wish to move quickly or to a great extent into conveyancing in Scotland. Therefore, to that extent I confirm what has already been said in the debate. They will accept the flexibility now proposed and have it in mind if it can help some of their members or the public, to meet their convenience and costs. Although that is only a personal opinion, I hope that it will reassure those who are concerned about the proposed change.
It is interesting to note the attitude of the consumer organisations in Scotland. The Scottish Consumer Council and the Citizens' Advice Bureaux of Scotland, while both approving the proposals in general on the grounds of extending competition, are concerned that solicitors' firms in rural areas may have to close if they lose much of their conveyancing work. That aspect has also worried me and I am glad to see that the champions of competition and the consumers recognise that possibilty.
I turn to the legal profession and the courts. I am not a lawyer and therefore I shall be brief. I have a special interest because as Secretary of State in the Scottish Office I was involved in the reorganisation of the courts in Scotland during the early 1970s through the Scottish Courts Administration. I hope that the Government will listen to the wise words spoken today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie. During the early 1970s when I was Secretary of State he became Lord President; that is, head of the judiciary in Scotland. Although he has been a Member of the House for several years he has not sought to speak in debate until today, having recently concluded his distinguished tenure. He held the post of Lord President in a most distinguished way for 17 years. Before that time also he made an immense contribution to the legal profession in Scotland. I hope that the Government will heed the points that he has raised. He spoke about important issues contained in Part II of the Bill and with great skill avoided a controversial speech.
Part III of the Bill and its associated schedule seek to make changes and to bring up to date the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. I believe that the Government have presented us today with most of what is needed. I have only two or three points of improvement to suggest. As some noble Lords will remember, my special interest is that I appointed the Clayson Committee in 1971 which reported to me while I was still in office and I was able to start preparing the legislation which eventually became the 1976 Act. I was pleased that the Labour administration which followed in the Scottish Office continued that.
That reform has been vindicated in the survey carried out over the first eight years of its operation by the OPCS. The report found that drinking had become a more civilised pastime in Scotland, which had been the aim; that there was a reduction in drunken excesses and particularly that there were few, if any, people trying to drink as much as possible before an early closing time.

213
The two points which I suggest to my noble and learned friend for consideration at the later stages of the Bill are, first, that the Bill makes it possible for hours to be extended on Sundays until 11 p.m. As far as I can see, that is for every establishment except public houses. I ask the Government to consider whether I am right in thinking that hotels, clubs, off-licences and entertainment premises will be able to do that but public houses will not. That seems to create an anomaly.
Secondly, Section 64 of the Licensing Act 1976 does not allow an appeal to the sheriff from a licensing board's decision. That right exists in similar parts of the Act and it is now, in my opinion, more necessary than ever to bring Section 64 into line with the arrangements in other parts of the Act.
Those and other matters are clearly to be raised during the Committee stage and later stages. I hope that the Government will take into account the views which have been expressed both in this debate and outside your Lordships' House and that they will be flexible at those later stages.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I should like to comment on Clause 43 of the Bill. It is with considerable diffidence that I speak in this debate on Scottish affairs. My chief claim to be connected with Scotland is that I had the honour of serving for nearly 20 years with a Scottish regiment.
As many of your Lordships will be aware, the only ground for divorce in Scotland —and the law is virtually the same in England —is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. That can be substantiated in the following ways: adultery, intolerable behaviour, desertion, no cohabitation for two years with the other party's consent to divorce or no cohabitation for five years where that consent has not been given. The provisions in Clause 43 would remove the reference to desertion and would reduce the periods of separation to one year with consent and two years without it. Those changes are in line with the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission Report No. 119.
At this stage I do not wish to comment further on the details of the proposed changes in law. What really concerns me is that any change in the divorce law deals only with symptoms rather than the problem itself which, in this case, is the state of marriage. I should like to be reassured that at the same time as we alter the divorce laws, we do what we can to protect marriage as an institution from the pressures which beset it.
The pressures on marriage are obvious and need no rehearsing. One only has to see how, on television drama, unfaithfulness to one's marriage partner is portrayed as the norm. More and more people, some of them having seen the trauma of their own parents' divorce, are deciding that they will be unable to show the commitment needed to sustain a marriage in the face of those pressures. Those people are shunning marriage and avoiding making promises to their partner.
That would not matter so much were it not for the children affected by the break-up of the
214
relationship. I know that we talk too much about people's rights but I believe that a child has the right to two parents wherever possible, one of either gender committed to each other and to their children. I should add that the words "wherever possible" refer to two parents and not to "one of either gender." For two people to run away from mutual commitment and yet to have children is to indulge in an extreme form of selfishness and irresponsibility. There is a need to reassert the traditional value of marriage as something which, from the beginning of time, has been given to us by God for our mutual benefit.
If we do not do that, marriage will become the exception and family life will be devastated. Parliament and the Government in particular can play a crucial role in developing a sound attitude towards marriage. Recent changes in tax relief on mortgages and taxation changes for married couples coming into force very shortly are steps in the right direction. A further opportunity will come next week on the embryo Bill when we debate whether fertility treatment should be made available only to women who are married.
Whatever the merits of the changes proposed in Clause 43, the shorter period of separation will diminish the public perception of marriage as a serious long-term commitment. That makes action to buttress marriage all the more important. Much was said on that subject in your Lordships' debate on the family on 29th November last year, not least by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. They rightly emphasised the need for education on marriage in schools and the importance of marriage preparation by churches. The right reverend Prelate also suggested that similar preparation should be given or offered to those to be married in registry offices. I hope that his suggestion is being looked at.
Furthermore, there is a need to develop improved conciliation and reconciliation services to help those whose marriages are running into difficulty. Those wider aspects of marriage appear to have been outside the scope of the Scottish Law Commission report. However, I hope that I have said enough to underline the fact that piecemeal alterations to the divorce law will do little to solve the basic problem which requires a reassessment and re-establishment of the position of marriage in our society. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for an assurance that those wider aspects are under consideration by the Government as a matter of priority. If not, I fear that Clause 43 will be a relatively pointless and potentially damaging exercise.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, my justification for contributing to this Second Reading debate is perhaps even less than that of the noble Lord who has just spoken. In fact, it hardly bears examination so I shall leave that alone. However, it behoves me to be extremely brief and that, I can assure noble Lords, I will be.
It came as no surprise to me that the Law Society in Scotland, as noble Lords will know from listening

215
to those who agree with its views, supported with enthusiasm all matters in the Bill which did not appear to tilt at the status quo of the provision of legal services in Scotland. Indeed, the burden of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, whose maiden speech I enjoyed immensely, was simply, "If it ain't broke, don't mend it". However, I believe from a variety of experience that however something may be perceived to be a success, that does not necessarily mean that there cannot be an improved way of going about it.
I believe passionately that that must be right and for that reason I support Her Majesty's Government in particular in regard to Part II of the Bill. The overall responsibility for developing and monitoring the administration of justice to suit modern needs must not lie alone with those who practise the law or who preside over the courts. The Government must always look to the best interests of all those they govern and not just those who practise or administer the law.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I have ceased to be surprised at the lengths to which some will go to suggest that the interests of justice must, by their nature, run parallel to maintaining the interests of lawyers. If broadening the opportunity of choice for those who seek access to the law means, as some have suggested, inter alia that the riff-raff will be granted rights of audience before the courts, I fail to see that lawyers have anything to fear.
I strongly believe it should not be left to lawyers alone to determine how justice should be administered or found. It is a proper role for government to determine those issues on behalf of and, above all, with the advice of, those whom they govern, ever bearing in mind the interests of justice and that the law is for the people. It is not to be seen —as it is unfortunately so often perceived by ignorant laymen —as nothing other than a plaything for academic and practising lawyers.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sure other noble Lords will have experienced speaking late on the Second Reading of a Bill having ticked off all the points made by a large number of earlier speakers. Imagine the situation now when not only is that the case but also when the points have been made by some of the best legal brains in Scotland. That makes my task even more difficult. I have no intention of trying to repeat in my own words those of such able advocates.
We were all anxiously awaiting the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie. I do not think anyone was other than delighted to have been here to hear it. He made some very pertinent points about the Bill from his great experience. It is true he managed to be overtly non-controversial, but I do not think anyone can doubt that the real anxiety that people feel about the Bill —an expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond —was present in the speech of the noble and learned Lord.
It is not just a pious hope to say that we look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord often.
216
I hope especially that he will be able to attend the Committee stage of this Bill as often as possible. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may not appreciate that there will be a fairly long Committee stage for this Bill. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, is able to be with us to give his guidance and the benefit of his experience. We all enjoyed hearing his speech.
With regard to the Bill, I merely repeat what everyone has said. It is a hotchpotch; it has everything in it. The legal part is obviously so important that it should be a separate Bill of its own. What worries me about a miscellaneous provisions Bill is that I was always taught as a child that ignorance of the law is no excuse for doing something wrong. How anyone can find their way through Scottish law now, with all the miscellaneous provisions we have had over the last few years, is beyond me.
Some parts of the Bill are good tidying up measures. Charities, as everyone has said, need a lot more definition. I am not however happy about the Charity Commissioner system operating in England; certainly it seems to be underfunded. I believe it is impossible in England to find out whether a charity is still in existence or what the state of it is. There is underfunding and records are in a very bad state. I hope in Scotland we will be able to put into practice all the proposals in the Bill. If so we will easily be able to ascertain where a particular charity stands, its status, its funding and its membership.
The question of legal services has been dealt with very thoroughly; but I should like to hear a great deal more about whether or not conveyancing should be let out to other bodies. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in an extremely powerful speech, said that the background to it all was inspired by competitive theologists of whom there are one or two on the political side in the Scottish Office.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, spoke pungently about charities. He pointed out that charities occasionally and necessarily tend to be anti-establishment, anti-government and opposed to legislation that is going through. We all agree that charities and pressure groups—because charities have to be pressure groups periodically —naturally tend to lean more on the Opposition than on the Government. Whichever party is in power the Opposition are most likely to hear from them and perhaps put their point of view. Consequently, we should be very grateful to charities. We need them to advocate particular causes. They are specialists in their own fields. Without the briefings that charities give us, I often wonder how well we would get on in this House.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, also referred to divorce. I feel incompetent to speak on the subject because I have had absolutely no representation from the Churches, the women's organisations, marriage guidance counsellors, individuals or even —and I do not decry them —the newspaper agony aunts who receive enormous correspondence. I do not know whether anything will come from those sources: at the moment I prefer to bide my time and take the view of the

217
Government. Perhaps one year and two years as proposed in the Bill are reasonable amounts of time. One must remember that the marriage may have lasted for 20 years before that point, so it is not as though people are not familiar with each other. When the point is reached of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage or a mutual decision to part there may be a case for one year. As I say, I should like to hear more from some of the organisations involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, spoke about the Clayson Report. I was very much involved in another place in the discussion and the arguments on that report. There is no doubt that it was a great step forward in taking away the old image of Scottish drinking. It may not be easy to judge its real effect because the relative cost of alcohol has gone down so much. Looking at the situation pre-Clayson and post-Clayson, one is not on the famous level playing field. However, I believe there is a great deal more civilised drinking in Scotland, though there may be some other kinds of which we are not proud.
A number of points on licensing have been raised by the licensing trades association and by the Retail Consortium. These will require answers by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate when we reach Committee stage. I shall not go into those matters in detail. They have been dealt with by other noble Lords.
There is the question of public houses being particularly restricted on a Sunday, and the question of off-sales. One matter which has more substance is whether there should be an appeal beyond the licensing court. One is on delicate ground in this respect because local licensing courts know their business better than anyone. There must be a method of appeal for someone who wishes to be a licensee and who thinks that he is being discriminated against in some way. That matter should be looked into carefully at Committee stage.
Finally, I should like to speak about the treatment of offenders. As a past chairman of SACRO, that is a matter with which I am particularly concerned. A number of provisions in the Bill take the matter forward. Generally speaking, SACRO and I support those points. The general drift of the Bill is correct, but there is a feeling that the wording is unclear and unduly convoluted. I hope that some amendments will be accepted which would clarify the types of reports that should be obtained from social workers.
The same situation applies to community service orders where it is difficult to understand what powers will be given to the sheriffs in extending the use of community service orders. Having said that, I doubt whether there will be a large change in the number of orders. It may be possible to reword the Bill so that the sheriffs have more liberty to impose community service orders and fines instead of imprisonment.
Those are Committee points. I have found the debate extremely enjoyable. I think that we will have a very serious Committee stage. As one noble Lord who is not a member of my party said to me: "By gum, the Government are going to need a three-line Whip during the whole of this Committee stage". I
218
am pleased that the Leader of the House is sitting here and has heard that comment. It will be a fairly stormy Bill. We can all look forward to it. We can take the good parts of the Bill, and perhaps with a little pressure from very powerful groups who are allied against the Government some important changes may be made.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I should like to join in the compliments that have been paid to the previous Lord President of the Court of Session, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, on his maiden speech. With great skill he avoided breaching the conventions of this House, but it would be unwise of me not to discern opposition on his part to certain provisions in the Bill. I hope that I shall be able to reassure him on one important matter. The noble and learned Lord made a remarkable contribution to the substantive law of Scotland during his time as Lord President, but it is less frequently acknowledged how much he did by way of contribution to the efficient organisation and disposal of work in the Court of Session. He has given us a lasting legacy.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, for his hand-me-down objection on miscellaneous provisions Bills. I am sure that his noble friend is aware that every single miscellaneous provisions Bill has attracted much the same kinds of objection.
I was a little taken aback by the comment made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, from his position as a serving judge on the Cross Benches. I thought that it went beyond what is proper for a serving judge to describe someone whom the Secretary of State nominates as a placeman. If I have misunderstood the limits of the convention, I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will correct me at a later date.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has once again made his plea for the introduction of a more inquisitorial system of justice in the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland. I am intrigued by that plea. The Italian criminal code which, after 24 years' gestation has just seen the light of day, goes out of its way to reduce the inquisitorial character of the procedure that Italy has enjoyed for a long time. I understand that similar movements are under way in Spain and France.
In spite of the last remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael in regard to the character of the Bill, I recognise that there are very strongly held views about Part II and about the matrimonial proposals. There are points that require to be clarified and debated at Committee stage on the other parts, but in substance there were no objections to Part I or Part III. Indeed they were welcomed, along with other parts of the miscellaneous provisions. Accordingly, it is with some apology that I need to find an artificial excuse for introducing a matter that I did not mention in my opening remarks in regard to licensing. Government amendments will be introduced to allow licensees to apply for a special children's certificate and to impose certain restrictions on wholesale dealers in alcoholic liquor. I apologise for my failure to mention that point.

219
I should like to turn to the Scots law of charity, which was a matter raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. We are not touching on Scots law. Whatever this Bill does, it does not alter the definition of a charity; nor will it be for me to decide what is a charity. I am concerned about issues of mismanagement, not with disputes as to whether a matter is a charitable objective or not. Mismanagement is the trigger for me to consider whether or not I need to take issue.
If there was a central theme to the points raised on Part I, it was the exploration of the opportunity that there might be to obtain yet more information from the Inland Revenue about charities that it recognises. Very reasonable points were made concerning issues as to whether there should be a directory and local access points to the Inland Revenue in order to discover these matters, which are clearly of interest to many of us.
The first priority is for a list to be established and the information transferred to microfiche. It may prove possible for copies of the microfiche to be made available at several outlets. The Inland Revenue will be happy to respond to telephone enquiries, as at present. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, suggested that in due course a directory might be produced. It does not follow that that would have to be done by either the Inland Revenue or the Government. The voluntary organisations in Scotland may wish to take that on. There were few points made in regard to the question of charity. I shall listen carefully to any proposals which are made.
I should like to turn to matters of conveyancing. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, paid a compliment to the practice of conveyancing in Scotland. When I am this side of the Border, the high regard for the Scottish system tends to focus on the fact that we have concluded missives at an earlier stage. Therefore the practice of gazumping is effectively excluded. The conclusion of binding missives between purchaser and seller is not within the monopoly that is allowed for in Scotland and exclusively reserved to solicitors. Anybody can arrange that part of the transaction without breaching any law. He might be ill advised to do so unless he were a good lawyer but there is no necessary rigidity or restriction on him doing that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, felt that, especially in regard to conveyancing, the Bill did nothing to help the ordinary citizen. While I accept that bodies such as the Scottish Consumers' Council and the Citizens Advice Bureau have their misgivings about the extent to which there is a lay involvement in the conveyancing board and in other areas, I took from their observations that in principle they approved of our arrangements. I accept the concern expressed all over Scotland that it would be undesirable if these changes led to the absence of solicitors in the rural areas of Scotland. I am not convinced that the risk is anything like so great as some have suggested. Even if there were some difficulty, I would say to my noble friend Lord Stodart that if I were a first-time house purchaser living in North Berwick I should not expect what I
220
had paid in conveyancing fees to be used in any way to cross-subsidise the legal services that might be extended to him, if he were to ask his practitioner, living as he does in a rural area, to provide services on agriculture or whatever else it might be. It is important that we do not confuse the matter.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked about the prohibition on tying in. This will be prohibited in Scotland by virtue of Clause 72 of the Courts and Legal Services Bill. This is because the matter needs to be covered on both sides of the Border. Furthermore, it is not a matter to be restricted to lawyers alone.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was anxious that, in regard to the conveyancing board, the test of a fit and proper person was in some respects too wide. The same test is applied in Section 6 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. The composition requirements for the conveyancing board are to be found in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act. The greatest point of concern on conveyancing, as has been reflected also in the representations received by noble Lords, arises on the provision of a code of conduct for conveyancing practitioners, which, as Clause 15 makes clear, is to be prescribed in regulations. Clause 16 sets out the areas of practice which such a code will cover, including that of conflict of interest.
While I am aware that some would argue that the code should appear in primary legislation, I am sure that the Law Society of Scotland will recall that during the passage of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 it pressed for certain matters to appear on the face of the Bill. But within months of the Act coming into force it was pressing the Secretary of State to seek to change that by means of regulation. If five years ago one had drawn up primary legislation to include a code of conduct on conveyancing, I doubt very much whether the issue of "churning" would have been addressed. Practices and conduct in carrying out these matters tend to change. It is useful and flexible to leave it to regulation while nevertheless acknowledging that there should indeed be a statutory code to cover these matters.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble and learned friend said that there is a list of the various aspects which will be included in the regulations. With respect, the problem is that the Bill says that they "may" be included. Is my noble and learned friend prepared to correct himself on that?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the clause uses the word "may". If these matters are set out as clearly and as separately as they will be, it is to be anticipated that they will be within the code of conduct that emerges. If that fails to happen I have no doubt that my noble friend will be the first person to make the sharpest objection to the Government.
My noble friend specifically referred to churning. I think it will be agreed on both sides of the House that everything should be done to discourage it. However, it is primarily a matter to be dealt with by the Securities and Investment Board under the Financial Services Act 1986. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already

221
indicated, this matter has been drawn to the board's attention and new rules are being considered to prevent this kind of market abuse.
I turn now to the changes in the legal profession and rights of audience. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench —I take it in the capacity of Front Bench Official Opposition spokesman —indicated that the Opposition are opposed to changes in the rights of audience set out in Part II of the Bill. I confess that I had not appreciated that the Official Opposition had taken such a firm view on this point. I am grateful to him for spelling that out so clearly for us.
As one looks to the extension of rights of audience one is not looking at the issue of fusion. That is not the Government's aim. In my opening speech I went out of my way to say that the continuation of an independent Scots Bar is considered desirable and that I was confident that that independence would be maintained, notwithstanding the changes we propose. I want to reiterate that that remains the Government's view. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred to his work on the Royal Commission, which rejected extended rights of audience for all solicitors. With respect to him, our approach of conferring rights of audience only on a particular group of solicitors who have demonstrated by way of training and otherwise that they are fit to appear before the Supreme Court is rather different from the approach set out at the time of the Royal Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was concerned that there was no cab rank rule equivalent for solicitors. That is right. There is nothing approximating entirely to that shorthand description of the Faculty of Advocates' rule. But the Law Society of Scotland is to make rules to ensure that any person requiring a solicitor in the Supreme Courts does not go unrepresented. The precise mechanism it uses to achieve that will be up to the society.
I hope I satisfied the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, that the Lord President has a part to play in the training regulations, although I accept that it is tucked away somewhat obscurely in that reference to Section 34 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. It was unfair for the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to say that the Bill changes the Constitution, with 20 new executive powers for the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can appoint the ombudsman. But I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord would have welcomed the appointment of an independent ombudsman. He can appoint a new board and, as will be appreciated, he appoints members to many boards. There is nothing constitutionally wrong with that. Moreover, he can insist upon consumer safeguards, which does not appear to me to be surprising, and can also arrange for English lawyers to have the same rights in Scotland as French, Italian and Belgian lawyers enjoy in the European Community. Again, that fact may not be welcomed by one and all; but it would scarcely seem to me to be a matter which indicated the wholesale removal of powers from the judiciary to the extent implied.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, did the noble and learned Lord say that the Scottish Office has the right to make rules as regards the conduct of business in the Court of Session?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords; the powers which the Lord President has are not altered by the provision. Indeed, in many respects he is brought into the matter to play an important part. In Clause 21, although I appreciate that it is not much liked, it is readily recognised that the Lord President has a critical role to play in the matter of the Court of Session.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will permit me to intervene as he has mentioned me twice. I hope that he will be good enough to read what I have said in Hansard. If he does so, he will discover that what I said was that the Bill gives power to the Secretary of State —and that means any Secretary of State —if he is so minded, to appoint his own placemen to various posts. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that I misunderstood the Bill in that respect?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords; that is not what I am saying. However, I think it was mischievous of the noble and learned Lord to suggest that because this wide range of opportunities is being given to the Secretary of State such powers are in some sinister fashion an unacceptable extension of the power of the Executive. I certainly take exception, as I have already indicated, to his use of the word "placemen". However, I may be unduly sensitive in that respect.
So far as concerns Clause 21, I do not envisage that the effect of the clause will allow laymen to act in jury trials in the Court of Session by this most indirect of routes. It would appear to me that we have taken enough bulls by enough horns as regards this particular set of provisions. However, if that had been what we wanted to achieve, we could have done so in a much simpler way. It is seen that there may be circumstances in which restricted groups of people will seek to have rights of audience, but there are provisions in place under Clause 21 to involve the Lord President in the way the scheme is put forward. I should like to qualify that statement by saying that I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, for what he said about the role of the Lord President under that clause. Moreover, I should like to look again at the manner in which he is involved therein.
Finally, on the issue of rights of audience, I should say that if any part of this Bill caused great fury, it was undoubtedly the provisions as regards partnerships under Clause 23. In this respect I address my remarks principally to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Emslie and Lord McCluskey, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, who are clearly very anxious about these provisions.
Perhaps I may approach the matter in this way. Had the Government intended to abolish the rule that now exists in the Faculty of Advocates which states that members cannot form partnerships

223
between themselves, or, indeed, with any other people, the clause could have been drafted simply to abolish that rule. Instead, the clause allows the faculty, if it so wishes, to make a rule against professional partnerships, and the rule will be perfectly valid if the Lord President and —I accept —the Secretary of State approve it. The Secretary of State must first consult the Director General of Fair Trading, but the present director to whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred —namely, Sir Gordon Borrie —has already publicly supported the idea of an independent Bar without partnerships. In such circumstances, it would seem to me that he was hardly the man to consult if the Government were hell-bent on introducing partnerships into the Faculty of Advocates.
Moreover —and, I stress this point —once the Secretary of State acting in the public interest approves any rule on partnerships, that will remove the rule from the direct supervision of the planned competition authority. Again, that is impossible to reconcile with a DTI scheme to stifle the independence of the profession. Further, in discussions with the learned Dean of Faculty and other members of the faculty it was, I thought, sufficiently understood by them why it was considered appropriate that the provision should be approached in this way. I emphasise, as best I can, that the provision is not there with the express purpose of getting rid of the Faculty of Advocates by way of requiring it to remove its rule on prohibition of partnerships.
I shall now deal briefly with matters in relation to licensing. It would seem to me that there were no substantial points of concern in this respect. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asked many questions. He asked first why there is no appeal against decisions by licensing boards on late night extensions. It was considered that licensing boards were best placed to make such decisions on the basis of detailed local knowledge. With some perception, the noble Lord indicated that he appreciated the fact that public houses are in a somewhat anomalous position, being the only group which will not be allowed to open on Sunday afternoons when all other types of business are so permitted.
I am grateful to those noble Lords who indicated their approval regarding what we are doing as regards matters of fines and sentencing. I trust that, although we shall have some interesting discussion on the issue, there will be little heat in it.
Finally, there is the matter of divorce. I appreciate that there are those who feel most strongly that the "hardback" should be left on the marriage certificate. However, we have sought to look at what the Scottish Law Commission concluded, having carried out some research on the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, the proposal seems to have generated a little heat in Scotland. It is not a measure which is designed to encourage people to divorce more frequently or more readily. Indeed, we understand and appreciate as well as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that marriage is the basis of much good in our society.
224
However, we are concerned that if there is too much difficulty in the way that divorces can be achieved once the marriage has broken down, then, instead of settling arrangements for the children for whom they have concern and coming to a proper arrangement on financial matters, the parents will be involved in protracted and mutually destructive arguments about the divorce.
Despite the threat made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, at the end of his speech that we are in for a long period of debate in Committee, I trust that after the explanations I have given there will at least be a constructive basis upon which to approach the matter.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Greenhouse Effect: Select Committee Report
7.8 p.m.
Lord Carver Lord Carver rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the Greenhouse Effect [6th Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 88].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing the Select Committee's Report on the Greenhouse Effect, and as Chairman of the sub-committee which produced it, I wish to express my thanks to the noble Lords who contributed so much as members of the sub-committee. We owe a great debt of gratitude to our specialist advisers: Mr. Andrew Gilchrist, former director of research at the Meteorological Office; Professor Henry Charnock, who is Professor of Oceanography at the University of Southampton; and Professor Michael Unsworth, Professor of Environmental Physics at the University of Nottingham. We are also most grateful to all those people who gave evidence to the sub-committee.
One must always remember that the greenhouse effect is in essence a good thing. Indeed, without it temperatures at the earth's surface would be 30 degrees centigrade lower than they are —too low to support life as we know it. The problem is the increase in the effect which there is reason to believe is being brought about by an increase in the concentrations of certain gases, caused directly or indirectly by human activity.
In discussing that important subject it is not easy to find the right balance between panic and complacency. The apocalypse is not now or imminent, but there are good reasons why we cannot be complacent. The first is that we are not merely concerned about what the situation will be at a fixed date in the future —2030 being the year upon which eyes are now fixed —because the increase in the greenhouse effect will continue to become worse at a greater rate unless the increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases is reversed. The second reason is what is called the thermal inertial of the oceans. There is a time-lag in their warming-up process so that they act as a sort of reservoir of warmth inherited from the past.
Our aim was to consider the state of the science upon which a policy should be based and what action this country should take. We began by looking at the

225
evidence of how the climate had changed and the link between that change and greenhouse gases. We concluded that the global mean temperature of the atmosphere had increased by about half a degree Centigrade since 1900, although not regularly. There was a cooling between 1940 and 1960, but in the 1980s there was a marked increase, and, although it cannot yet be scientifically proved that higher concentrations of greenhouse gases have caused that warming, the scientific evidence is that the increase in concentrations of gases that have been recorded in the period would have been expected to produce an increase of temperature of about that amount.
Next we looked at the greenhouse gases themselves. They are, in order of their contribution to the greenhouse effect: water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, ozone and nitrous oxide. Water vapour is by far the most important, but there is nothing we can do about it. An important factor is that the warmer the atmosphere the greater the volumn of water vapour. It therefore enhances the effect caused by the other gases, the concentrations of which are enhanced by human activity.
Next in importance is carbon dioxide. Its contribution to the greenhouse effect, excluding that of water vapour, is 50 per cent. of the total, and it is increasing at the rate of 0·4 per cent. per annum. That is due primarily to the burning of fossil fuels, but the reduction of the earth's biomass, expecially the burning of tropical forests, has also contributed. Of the carbon released in that way, about half remains in the atmosphere, the rest being absorbed by the oceans. In our report we have given details of the sources of carbon dioxide emissions. At present, the developed countries are the main culprits, but that situation will change as the standard of living of the less developed countries with large populations, such as China, India and South-East Asia, rise. Their consumption of energy and emission of all greenhouse gases looks like increasing dramatically and poses one of the greatest problems.
Methane is next on the list. Its main sources are decaying vegetable matter and the output —to put it politely —of the digestive process of herbivorous animals. It is not easy therefore to do much about it without drastic effects on agriculture. Chlorofluorocarbons come next. They are especially serious apart from their effect on the ozone layer in the stratosphere as they persist in the troposphere for such a long time.
Fortunately the action already taken under the Montreal Protocol should check the increase in the concentration of chlorofluorocarbons and eventually reduce it. However, that is dependent upon the less developed countries with large populations observing the protocol, and their potential demand for refrigeration and air conditioning poses a major problem. Surface ozone is next. Concentration in the troposphere has been increasing, due largely to motor vehicle exhaust gases. Nitrous oxide is also increasing, caused partly by agricultural practices and partly by high temperature combustion.
That is the easy part of the science lesson. It is much more difficult to predict the future. First, the
226
future concentration of the gases depends upon what action governments and industries all over the world take in reaction to knowledge as it develops; to public opinion, well or ill informed; and to vested interests. There are also great gaps in our scientific knowledge about the effects of gases on one another and what goes on within the atmosphere itself; on the part that the oceans play as sinks to absorb the gases; and of the interaction between the atmosphere and the oceans. Our report lists the international efforts that are being made to remedy some of those gaps in our understanding.
We concluded that greater emphasis should be placed on scientific observations in all those areas; on research into atmospheric chemistry at our universities; and on the relevant chemical and biological skills which have not been fully used in that field. We hope that the new Atmospheric Directorate which has been set up within the Natural Environment Research Council will help.
Uncertainty about future concentrations of gases means that there is an uncertain premise for predicting what effect they will have on the climate. That just adds to the great uncertainties inherent in the methods employed for that purpose. Climatology as a science is in its infancy. For historical and practical reasons its observations from satellites and other sources and its calculations by computer-based mathematical models are primarily oriented to short-term forecasts. They have been adapted to attempt to produce long-term predictions, but there are only five models doing that (four in the United States and the one at our Meteorological Office). The grid that they use is large and the data about many important inputs are crude or sparse. They have been trying to predict further changes in climate on the reasonable assumption that by 2030 the concentrations of greenhouse gases expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents will have doubled since 1900. They come up with generally similar answers although the degree they estimate varies between 1·5 degrees and 4·5 degrees Centigrade.
They estimate that the warming will be greater nearer the poles and less nearer the equator; that global rainfall will be higher, especially in high latitudes, and along the tracks which depressions tend to follow in the middle latitudes; but that there may be droughts leading to a reduction in soil moisture in summer in middle latitude continental areas, such as in the United States and the Soviet Union where the corn belts lie; and that there will be a marked cooling of the stratosphere. Other than those, they are at present unable to make any reliable forecasts of regional changes, and localised forecasting is virtually impossible.
That degree of uncertainty as to the magnitude of the change and of the timescale over which it may take place is clearly an unsatisfactory basis for making major policy decisions which could have far-reaching political, economic and social consequences. The committee therefore considers it essential that the models be developed so as to increase their resolution and to improve the methods by which they calculate the effect of one feature of climate, such as clouds, on another, and particularly

227
the interaction between the atmosphere and the surface of the oceans and the land, and with ice on both. They should also be able to represent a dynamic rather than a static situation. That will demand much greater computer power than is used at present. We therefore welcome the Government's decision to set up a national climate modelling centre by expansion of the facilities at the Meteorological Office.
Computers are no better than the data one feeds into them. There are enormous gaps to be filled in the field of scientific observation. Those observations are also of vital importance as indicators of whether the prognostications of the models are in fact being fulfilled. That data must be collected and disseminated on a global basis. We must make certain that the current standard meteorological global network is maintained at least at its present level; and it is urgent to improve observations of the oceans, both from within them and from satellites. In that field, the increased allocation in the science budget recently announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Science for the Natural Environment Research Council for marine scientific research vessels and for support of the European Space Agency's earth reconnaissance satellite programme is welcome. All that is in aid of improving our knowledge of what may bring about global warming and consequent climate change.
We next examined the possible impacts of those changes. In general we concluded that one impact would be a greater frequency of climatic extremes —hot and cold, wet and dry —and that their occurrence could be an indicator of increased greenhouse effects. That could mean stronger winds and more hurricanes which would aggravate the results of an increase in sea level. The latter would arise partly by expansion, as the seas warmed up, and partly as a result of the melting of ice and snow on land. Melting sea ice would not make any difference as it already displaces its weight in water. There have been various attempts to estimate the rise, and we accepted a figure of 15 centimetres by expansion and another 15 centimetres from ice melt by the year 2030. This is markedly less than the 80 plus or minus 70 centimetres which was accepted by the 1980 Villach conference, which we were persuaded by the Royal Society was not soundly based. Some estimates that have been made are even lower than the one which we accepted. Further research is clearly needed.
However, most important of all is the maintenance of an extensive worldwide monitoring of sea level. If the rise by 2030 is no more than we estimated, the existing measures of coast defence should suffice for this country. But, given the uncertainty and the possible increase in surges due to the combination of high winds with high tides, we recommended that the Department of the Environment should initiate a long-term research programme into possible impacts and responses of a rise in sea level.
In the fields of agriculture and forestry, one has to consider not only the possible effects of climate change, but also that of increased concentration of carbon dioxide on plant life. As regards agriculture,
228
adaptation to climatic change in comparatively short timescales by breeding techniques is a well-established science for both animals and plants and is well supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Council. It should produce no great problem for this country, but we recognised that in other parts of the world agriculture may be much less adaptable, and this would have substantial consequences for us.
Forestry poses a more difficult problem, both because less is known about the likely effects on trees and also because of the long periods trees, particularly hardwoods, take to reach maturity. Forestry research on an international basis should be accelerated and new planting should be composed of species that are resilient to possible climate change.
The effect on natural ecosystems is even more difficult to predict and is an important area where more research is needed. In this general field we concluded that the preparation of response strategies would be best served by ensuring that a broad research base should be maintained in this country in the full range of biological and molecular skills. A central chapter of our report deals with the counter-measures needed to control greenhouse gas emissions. I have not time to go into them in detail. I have no doubt that other members of the sub-committee will draw attention to them.
In summary, we stressed the importance of and the difficulties in implementing the 1987 Montreal Protocol about CFCs. We endorsed the conclusion of the report by the Select Committee on Energy in another place, that energy efficiency and conservation measures are the economically most advantageous and the quickest way of curbing carbon dioxide emissions. We repeated the opinion of our previous report on civil nuclear power, that nuclear power is the only proven large-scale alternative to fossil fuel energy generation. We thought that the future role of renewable sources of energy would be limited and local, and that in the case of wind, wave and barrage generation they posed environmental problems of their own.
We recommended that decisions on fuel use and emissions control in road transport should be taken in the light of full research into their effect on greenhouse gases, and that methane from landfill sites and oilfields should be collected whenever possible, or flared. We commended the work of the Overseas Development Administration and the forestry organisations in promoting sustainable forestry overseas. The contribution that additional planting in Europe could make is very limited.
In the course of taking evidence, we became keenly aware of the problem of the availability of scientific manpower. Not only is the number of scientists currently working in this field small, but expansion to meet the needs of the research that we have recommended seems likely to be restricted more by difficulty in recruiting new entrants than by finance. I expect that members of the sub-committee who are more closely linked with academic life than I will expand on this theme.
Finally, we looked at the problem of co-ordination of the research effort needed and its financial

229
support. After considerable discussion we did not recommend the establishment of any elaborate new government machinery specifically for co-ordinating climate research. We recommended that the Department of the Environment should continue to be responsible for research into impacts; but that, in the wider field of climate and climate-related research, the Advisory Board of the Research Councils should set up a review group, including representation of the Met. Office, to co-ordinate research activity and review it periodically.
We considered that the ministerial committee which the Prime Minister has established to review the whole of this field annually would be of central importance. We hope that it will lead to effective decisions in the allocation of government resources in the research field. We recommended that its findings should be published.
In the international field, we concluded that co-operation had already been established on a sound basis, with the World Climate Research Programme, supported by the World Meteorological Organisation and the International Council of Scientific Unions, dealing with climate research; and the UN Environment Programme dealing with impacts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which they have both established, is of great importance. Its three working groups are due to report towards the end of this year and they should form the basis of international action, both in the research field and in developing responses. We recommended that such reviews should take place every four or five years.
The additional government expenditure arising from our recommendations is only of the order of 180 million over 10 years, and largely consists of support for proposals which the research councils have made, but which at the time we finalised our report the Government had not yet accepted. Although it would double what the Government spent on climate and climate-related research last year, which was £15·5 million, in the light of the seriousness of the problem it surely cannot be regarded as a large sum. However, it covers only research and does not include the cost of counter measures designed to control gas emissions. That could be very large, although the Government appear to believe that energy efficiency and conservation can be encouraged by the market itself. Their response to the report of the Energy Committee in another place stated in paragraph 5.2:
"Current and future energy prices are likely to continue to encourage the efficient use of energy".
To me that would appear to mean that the cost of energy is now high and likely to become higher, which is not what I, at least, thought was the case or was the object of privatisation. The same paragraph stated that the Department of Energy was taking steps to provide a methodology which would make it possible for market mechanisms to recognise the external costs associated with energy consumption. It stated that when that was done,
"it is expected that market mechanisms would provide the most efficient means through which a response to global warming can be made".
230
I hope that the noble Lord who is replying for the Government will throw more light on how that is to be achieved, especially in the single European market, after 1992. I personally am not convinced.
In our report we judged that it would be impracticable to meet the 1988 Toronto Conference target of a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. within the next 15 years. But we recommended that the Government should begin to assess the policy implications of targets which might be set under a United Nations convention. We support the Government in the view that such a convention, to which protocols would be negotiated, is the best method of organising international co-operation in this field.
Since we reported, the Secretary of State for the Environment, at the Conference of World Environment Ministers held at Noordwijk, has signed the Noordwijk Declaration on Atmospheric Pollution and Climate Change. It is an admirable document. We must hope that the good intentions it declares will result in action after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reported.
The Royal Institute of International Affairs has published a detailed and very interesting study of the subject of targets which casts doubt on the possibility of achieving targets specific to each country. The institute proposes instead a system based on leasable permits for fossil carbon emissions allocated on an adult per capita basis. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will say whether the Government have studied the report, and what view they take about the feasibility of agreement on targets, of actually achieving the targets agreed and then verifying that nations have done so.
My Lords, I apologise, particularly at this time of night, for taking so long to introduce the report. However, your Lordships will understand what a complex matter this is. It contains many facets, all of which are important. I can only conclude by reminding the House of what I said in the debate on 20th December on the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I emphasised that the effort to improve our knowledge of all aspects of this subject must be organised internationally and that our own effort must make a major contribution, as it does now. I also emphasised that the most difficult problem would be how to avoid the development of the less developed countries leading to a great increase in greenhouse gases. Those countries must therefore be brought into participation in the international effort from the start.
However, governments cannot, before they act, wait until they can be more certain that science is giving the right answers. They must begin now to adopt insurance or what are called "no regrets" policies, particularly to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Those policies can be put into effect without causing drastic economic or social difficulties. They could also have advantages of their own. If governments fail to act in that way it may be too late as, with the thermal inertia of the oceans, the warming will be under way and it will be

231
impossible to counteract it. The committee hopes that its report will help your Lordships to influence the Government in that direction. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the Greenhouse Effect (6th Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 88). —(Lord Carver.)
7.32 p.m.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, I am a little alarmed to find myself in such a prominent position on the list of speakers in this debate as my intention is to concentrate on only one small part of the report. I shall start by congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and his committee on an excellent and timely piece of work. I also wish to congratulate him on his lucid handling in his speech of this complex subject.
The report is sober, factual, well balanced and properly agnostic where it is not possible to be certain. I hope it will raise the level of discussion of the greenhouse effect well outside the confines of this House because there is no doubt about popular concern with the subject. However, there is also no doubt about the level of popular misinformation. I myself had to protest recently to the authors of a draft report on environmental matters about their remarkable claim that the sea level would rise by several metres in the next 30 years.
The Select Committee's report is certainly needed. I am sure I express the views of many when I say how grateful we are for it and for the Select Committee which so effectively mastered such a huge and at times conflicting body of evidence.
The report focuses quite properly on the need for more research in a complex field. That is essential. Nevertheless, I share the hope which the noble and gallant Lord expressed towards the end of his speech, that concentration on research will not be used as an excuse for delaying action in suitable instances, even if the research is incomplete and we sometimes have to rely on reasonable guesses. As the noble and gallant Lord said, the difficulty is that we are confronting a phenomenon which has a long lead time, so that by the time we are ready to do something with full scientific backing it may already be too late to do anything effective.
Over the past few years I have been involved through the World Council of Churches in setting up local research and educational projects in Central America and Indonesia on the subject of the rain forests. The groups that we have set up have co-operated closely with local people who understand some of the complex social, financial and political pressures which lead to deforestation. We have tried to help people in different parts of the world to face the issues more knowledgeably and to share their experiences across half the world.
Against that background I turned with particular interest to paragraphs 10.32 and 10.39 of the report which consider the international dimension of emissions control. That part of the report deals with the matter of forests. I have also followed up the
232
extremely interesting references in the evidence on which these paragraphs are based.
It is clear from the evidence that the effects of deforestation or reforestation on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are not nearly so straightforward as some of us might like to think. That is a valuable piece of information. I was frankly surprised to learn that established forests seem to be in equilibrium with their environment and are unlikely to be net absorbers of carbon dioxide, although as long as they are allowed to survive they remain an important means of fixing carbon, which might otherwise be turned into carbon dioxide, where it is. All the same, I must confess to some disappointment that the only recommendation of the committee on this theme is that contained in paragraph 13.49, which simply commends the work of the Overseas Development Administration and the forestry organisations. I should have thought we could go further than that. I believe that in trying to consider our use and abuse of forests as a world problem it is not enough simply to think in terms of overseas aid and the work of voluntary organisations.
Serious concentration on forestry on a world level could achieve three things. First, it could help to preserve the existing rain forests with all the carbon locked up in them and with all their other enormous ecological advantages. Secondly, it could encourage, as the report says, new planting on a cyclical basis in other parts of the world, thus locking up more carbon in toto while at the same time providing a renewable source of fuel. Thirdly, it could take some of the pressure off the use of fossil fuels, bearing in mind, as the noble and gallant Lord has said, the huge energy increases that will be required in many developing nations.
It seems to me that, no matter what detailed refinements more research is likely to provide, those three matters are desirable objectives. Therefore I come back to my question: is it enough to try to attain those objectives on a world scale simply through aid and voluntary effort? I do not think it is. I believe we need to move in the direction of thinking of forests as a world resource for which the world pays, not just by paying for the wood when it is cut down but also by paying to keep the land afforested.
Let us suppose that Brazil, for instance, were to be paid a handsome sum on an annual basis for the amount of Amazonian forest that it retained. We would not be interfering politically as Brazil would still be free to do what it wanted with the forests, but the internal financial pressures towards destruction would be relieved. That would also be the case in many other parts of the world. It would not be hard on a macro-scale to estimate the forested area of each country and to pay each country accordingly from a common fund. Where would that money come from? It would come from the users of fossil fuels.
I know that there are groans at that point and that the idea of a fossil fuel tax is unpopular because no nation wants to put itself at an economic disadvantage. Everybody would like to find an answer to environmental problems which does not

233
have too obvious a price tag on it. However, suppose that we take the Government seriously and adopt the principle of the polluter pays. We are talking about pollution, because the essence of greenhouse pollution regarding CO2 is the release of carbon dioxide from carbon which has been safely stored away underground for millions of years. If the polluter is to pay for that pollution of the atmosphere then some form of tax on the burning of fossil fuels seems to me to follow logically. To use the revenue to help those countries which provide a service to the rest of the world through their forests seems to me to follow equally logically. I believe that at least some countries which are heavy burners of fossil fuels could be persuaded to see the sense of that.
The other obvious advantages of such a tax, in helping to promote the efficient use of fossil fuels, are too obvious to dwell on.
It is not my intention to put forward some utopian scheme. The report rightly concentrates on hard and basic facts. In particular, it concentrates on what Britain can do. One thing we can also do is help to shift world thinking in the direction of greater co-operation, a more global vision of the problems and a more comprehensive view of our dependence on each other's resources. I hope that a little imaginative thinking about the world's forests will he part of our future agenda.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Clitheroe: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for introducing the debate this evening. I should also like to thank him very warmly for the way in which he chaired our sub-committee which studied the greenhouse effect. I should like to join him in thanking those who helped with our deliberations on the subject.
The debate this evening will certainly be wide ranging. Although there are many points that one would like to make, time does not permit it. Therefore I shall restrict myself to comments on three issues which are interrelated.
The first issue is the quality of the science behind the problem. I do not wish in any way to denigrate the efforts that have been made by many working in the field, but the quality of that work has been deeply handicapped by inadequate and inaccurate data. No scientific work is worthy of the name unless it is supported by reliable experimentation. It has been said, and with some truth, that the quality of the science concerning global warming is inversely proportional to the amount of hot air generated on the subject by the media.
In 1896 in Sweden Arrhenius hypothesised that the consumption of fossil fuel would in due course double the CO2 content of the atmosphere and hence raise the global temperature by five degrees Centigrade. Sixty years later, in 1949, my tutor at Oxford speculated on the subject with me. Forty-one years later the speculation has grown from a murmur to a roar. However, it is still speculation. The facts, the measurements and the experimentation are largely missing. The scientific base has not yet been
234
developed, and science fiction can easily reign supreme. Therefore, I submit that the first issue is how to improve the data to provide a reasonably accurate basis for true scientific evaluation.
The Select Committee's report summarises a great deal of the work that is needed. It also emphasises the need to improve modelling techniques related to global warming. That raises another point of mine. Although I heartily endorse the need for improved modelling techniques, particularly in relation to improvement of the understanding of the atmospheric chemistry and the physics and biology which affect the world, I have some concern about the value of modeling for climate change without much more realistic and accurate input than we have today.
I have a healthy scepticism about modelling to predict the future and particularly if the input data are suspect. Memories of Malthus, of the Group of Rome, and, closer to my experience, of economic attempts to forecast the price of metals tend to show that the future is unpredictable. The trouble with models that attempt to predict the future is that, while it may be possible to devise one that fits a curve very snugly to any number of points in the past, its extrapolation can produce some wildly wrong forecasts.
It is a curious fact that human beings like to frighten themselves. Predictions of disasters —particularly global disasters —sell newspapers and television space almost as well as violence and pornography. It is of course arguable that unless one puts the fear of God into people one cannot obtain support for political action or to appropriate funds for necessary scientific work. The downside to that approach is that more emotion than logic can very readily be induced and foolish decisions can be taken in a hurry because of political expediency.
My concern is that some modelling on inadequate data and inadequate understanding of the enormously complicated processes involved in the interaction of atmosphere, oceans and land, chemistry, physics and biology may well lead to scenarios of disaster which are quite spurious. That could occur despite the qualities and abilities of the scientists performing the work. Spurious conclusions will lead to bad decisions. Therefore I suggest that all models must come with the appropriate health warning that they must not be used in the wrong context.
My third point is to endorse the policies recently recommended by the president of the US Academy of Engineers, referred to in the Select Committee's report, namely:
"policies that address causes and predicted consequences in such a way that future options are not foreclosed if projections turn out to be incorrect, and which may be desirable for other environmental and economic reasons. Insurance policies if you wish".
However, when one analyses it, even that statement has its snags. Political intervention in many fields is inevitably simplistic. What appears at first sight to be an obvious decision to take for the general benefit of all —a simple insurance policy —can have very serious and unexpected side effects.

235
Even such an obvious initiative as has been taken in another context to clean up the atmosphere —the promotion of green non-leaded petrol —may have induced its own health and safety problems and its own environmental risks which need very careful scientific analysis. The same may apply to CFCs and their substitutes. There is a great deal more work that needs to be done in that area.
Emotion may stimulate action, but only careful analysis can determine whether that action is beneficial or otherwise. Because of the public interest that has been generated in the debate on global warming reasonably rapid decisions and actions are called for. Insurance policies are a good answer. However, most insurance policies also need proper scientific evaluation.
I have two favourite insurance policies. One, which seems to me to be self-evident, is that work should be done to improve the total efficiency of energy production and use. That means energy conservation and many other things. But even that may need some economic analysis to back it up. My second insurance policy, which may not be so totally without contention, is to increase rather than reduce work on ensuring that nuclear energy can be economically and safely produced. That is clearly a subject for another debate, but it must be an issue central to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide in the long run.
Above all, I come back to the urgent need to improve the quality of the scientific base related to the field of atmospheric chemistry and the knowledge of the mechanism of the world's environment if we are to have any insurance policies. Without greatly increasing scientific effort in those fields, we shall surely take the wrong decisions. Improvement of the quality of the scientific base itself is the primary, essential insurance policy that is needed.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should like to thank most warmly the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and his committee for an important contribution to what is now a global debate and for the lucid way in which he introduced this complex subject. I share with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York his agnosticism in so far as the scientific world is not monolithic and its views vary tremendously on each of those important subjects. If I have any criticisms to make of the report, it is not that I profess to know better than members of the committee but that there are certain areas of the report which seem to me not to have taken into account the full weight of scientific opinion from all sides.
However, before I make any criticisms, I should like most warmly and wholeheartedly to support paragraph 13.5, which states:
"Action, by way of insurance or 'no regrets' policies" —
about which the noble and gallant Lord spoke—
"is therefore needed in advance of obtaining clear proof that a global warming due to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations is occurring. Such policies —whether aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions or mitigating the possible consequences of global
236
warming —will involve difficult political decisions and will require a firm base of scientific knowledge".
In addition, paragraph 13.39 emphasises once again the importance of action in advance of scientific certainty. That is the most important conclusion reached in the report. Paragraph 13.39 recommends the United Nations Climate Convention, but goes on to state:
"[every country] must plan to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases in advance of such a Convention".
I could not agree more with that. The paragraph concludes with a point to which I wish to refer briefly later; namely:
"Developed countries should assist less developed countries to do the same, especially where more advanced technology is required".
Having said that, I must take issue with the way in which certain issues in the report are dealt with. The first concerns the Toronto target, referred to in paragraph 13.4. It is printed as paragraph 3.40, but I think it should read paragraph 13.40; it is no doubt a misprint. Here the committee states that reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by the year 2005 is impracticable. However, looking through the report and the evidence, there does not seem to be any argument behind that conclusion. It is simply put down to testimony from certain witnesses.
We are dealing with an argument, not a dogmatic statement and I challenge the way in which that conclusion has been reached. It ignores a number of published scenarios which have established that Canada, the United States, Poland, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands could each reduce CO2 by 20 per cent. by the year 2005, usually without cost. The Canadian study, funded by the Canadian Ministry of Energy, established that Canada could reduce CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. by 2005 and save over 100 billion Canadian dollars. That conclusion appears to me to be under-researched.
My second and central point is to be found in paragraph 13.44 and concerns nuclear energy. I have spoken about that subject many times and noble Lords know my views. However, I am puzzled by the apparent anomaly, if not contradiction, in paragraphs 13.43 and 13.44. Paragraph 13.43 states:
"Energy efficiency and conservation measures are the economically most advantageous and quickest way of curbing emissions of carbon dioxide".
Paragraph 13.44 states:
"Nuclear power is the only proven adequate alternative to fossil fuel energy generation".
That is not necessarily a direct contradiction —that is not what I am saying —but there is an anomaly. If one accepts the conclusion of paragraph 13.43, surely the correct, sensible and imaginative policy would be to put in the maximum resources available for energy efficiency and conservation.
It is not established that nuclear power is the only proven adequate alternative to fossil fuel energy generation. We now know, although this fact perhaps emerged after the committee had met, that nuclear power is expensive. We have always known that it is dangerous, wasteful and environmentally destructive technology which nevertheless appears to

237
be recommended in the report. Numerous scientific treatises have catalogued the dangers of nuclear energy and have consistently shown, as paragraph 13.43 states, that
"Energy efficiency and conservation measures are the economically most advantageous and quickest way of curbing emissions of carbon dioxide".
The committee appears to have ignored that part of the evidence given by Friends of the Earth —I refer to paragraph 5.8 on page 220 of the written evidence —where Friends of the Earth quotes the World Commission on Environment and Development as declaring that,
"the generation of nuclear power is only justifiable if there are solid solutions to the presently unsolved problems to which it gives rise".
I could go on quoting, as I have done previously, along the same lines. Dr. Mike Kelly, a colleague of mine in the university which has adopted me —the University of East Anglia —writes as a scientist and a member of the School of Environmental Sciences. He has repeatedly pointed out that nuclear energy is not the answer to the greenhouse effect, and I would refer to his article "Meltdown" in the BBC Wildlife booklet last year.
Again, he writes:
"A recent authoritative study by the Rocky Mountain Institute compares the efficiency strategy and the nuclear strategy for reducing emission of carbon dioxide in the US. It finds that one dollar buys 50 kilowatt hours (kWh) of saved electricity if invested in efficiency measures and 7·4 kWh if invested in generating nuclear electricity. If that 7·4 kWh is used to replace coal burning, the efficiency measures prove almost seven times more cost effective in doing the same job".
He goes on to say that in the United Kingdom a similar study found that,
"each £ invested in nuclear power can remove the need for between 5·5 and 7·2 kg of carbon in carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired plants, whereas one £ invested in compact fluorescent lighting instead of incandescent lighting displaces 27·4 kg of carbon. Hence, investment in this particular form of energy efficiency is four to five times more cost-effective than investment in nuclear power".
One could continue. I suggest only that the committee's conclusion is not supported by an exhaustive examination of the scientific evidence which has been presented.
I should like to make two more points. Paragraph 13·47 refers to,
"Decisions on fuel use and emissions control in road transport [which] should be taken in the light of full research into their effect on greenhouse gases".
I believe that the noble Lord who is to wind up the debate should tell us the policy of the Government on this issue. It seems to be a divided policy. The Secretary of State for Transport is trying to devise a road system in London to allow more automobiles to use the roads. I understand that he has estimated that the use of cars will increase by 142 per cent. over 20 years into the next century. The Secretary of State for the Environment says that that is unacceptable.
Which is the Government's policy? One cannot have it both ways; there will be either a restriction on the increase in the use of cars or an increase in carbon dioxide emissions.
238
I have already mentioned the developing countries. I think that they are very important indeed. I wish that the committee had found time to go into the question more thoroughly. Paragraph 13.51 speaks of developed countries being,
"assisted to build up a source of expertise to advise the governments of those countries in the science of climate change".
That is surely a crusade for Britain and the developing world for at least the rest of this century and into the next. Unless the developed world can find a means of exporting that technology which is environmentally benign to the third world, then, as the noble and gallant Lord said in introducing his report, disaster faces us as the developing world seeks to advance its standard of living.
I can sum up the subject of this report by saying that the scientific opinions quoted in it establish that global mean temperatures will increase some 3 degrees Celsius by the year 2030. That is a higher temperature than has been experienced since humanity arrived on the earth. It is some three times greater an increase in world temperature than has occurred in civilised history. This is all to take place within the next 40 years—within the lifetime of the majority of the people already on the planet. If the scientists cannot find a way out of this mess, it appears that science and technology may not and cannot be the only way or even the best way of solving the problem.
Our responsibility, if we are to face the menace of the greenhouse effect, is to use every means we have to shift the perception of the industrialised world which has contributed 90 per cent. of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. We have to reform our profligate, energy wasteful, short-sighted lifestyle. And we have to help that half of the world which is underdeveloped not to follow our bad example but to find its better standard of living by means that do not damage the environment.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the report on the greenhouse effect so ably introduced by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, is one of the most balanced that has appeared in recent times amid a welter of documentation on this subject. It enables us to form a clear view of the state of knowledge on the subject, the gaps that need to be filled and action that should be taken pending the achievement of certainty in this somewhat uncertain science.
The fact seems to be that since about 1850, as the report says in paragraph 2.14, there has been a degree of global warming and that it has appeared to accelerate in recent years, in the 1970s and 1980s. If current trends continue, there could be further acceleration. The year 2030 has been taken as the year by which a fairly marked increase could take place.
It seems clear that the warming is associated with the emission of what are known as greenhouse gases and that on the basis of present trends those emissions could continue to increase not only in the developed countries but, what is more important, in the less developed countries. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble Lord, Lord

239
Clitheroe, were absolutely right to emphasise that the first step is to obtain a better knowledge of the subject and to collect more data. But, as the most reverend Primate indicated, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, we cannot wait for that evidence to be provided before action is taken.
For that reason at the Toronto Conference in 1988 the objective of cutting these emissions by some 20 per cent. by the year 2005 was promulgated. The report that we have before us throws some doubt on whether that can be achieved. That is the aspect that I should like to deal with. If we consider what is happening in Britain today, on the basis of estimates of future energy trends both in the sector of consumption of energy for heating and for transport, the impression emerges that, regrettably, far from emissions being cut by 20 per cent. they are likely to increase by about that figure. In fact, the latest estimates suggest that the increase may be as much as 30 per cent. Therefore, on what has been described as the business as usual scenario, this country, which is aiming to be in the van of how to deal with the problem, in the practical measures —unless there are major changes introduced —may be doing precisely the opposite of what was recommended at Toronto in 1988.
So the first question that we must pose to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who is to reply, is: what targets are there to be and when are the Government going to say that they should be achieved in order that we may get near what was proposed at Toronto, if we cannot achieve what was stated there? There are ways in which action can certainly be taken. As the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, indicated, there are many options open. The most effective option available, as all noble Lords who have spoken so far have indicated, is in the field of energy efficiency and conservation. Here is an area of action which, even if the estimates of what global warming can do to change the earth's climate turn out to be exaggerated, would be worth while of itself because it would lead to cost saving and a cleaner atmosphere.
I wish to deal particularly with three areas where I feel that we should now be taking much more energetic action than we are. I feel that there is here a new role for the Energy Efficiency Office. In this House we have many times drawn attention to our concern at the Government's reduction in the funding of this office. Even though no further reduction is contemplated, the level at which it is being funded at the moment is nowhere near enough to do the things that need to be done. There has to be some co-ordination and stimulus if we are to change the trend in these emissions and to bring about a more effective achievement in energy saving.
I wish to identify three sectors, though there are many others. The first concerns electricity generation and the use of electricity. Your Lordships recently had before you the report of the sub-committee that dealt with the efficient use of electricity. A number of recommendations were made. At the generating end there is no doubt that combined cycle gas can help to improve substantially the efficiency with which electricity is generated. I am glad to note that the coal industry, with which I
240
have had some association in the past, is experimenting vigorously with what is known as the "topping cycle" which will enable coal to achieve similar improvements when used for electricity generation.
Perhaps the most important and effective way of improving the efficiency with which energy is generated is by developing combined heat and power. We spoke about this at great length during the passage of the Electricity Bill. It is much to my regret that the Government were not prepared to take a more positive attitude towards this solution. We know from the experience in Scandinavia and most other European countries where this method has been developed that the efficient conversion of primary energy in power stations into energy that is acutally usable can be virtually doubled by that system. It is the most effective way of increasing energy efficiency and diminishing the greenhouse effect because all we are talking about here is the conveyance of hot water in pipes underground. It has no deleterious effect whatsoever on the atmosphere.
There is also the question of the efficient use of electricity. In our report on this subject we strongly recommended that there should be clearer information than is at present available on the relative efficiency of electrical applicances and that some system of labelling, which I believe is under consideration by the European Commission, should be widely adopted. So there is much to be done in the electricity sector.
Equally, as regards the building sector, we have as a country lagged far behind the rest of Europe in the way in which we build our houses. We have fallen behind in insulation and in the efficient use of heating in houses. In Scandinavia and on the Continent of Europe they do these things (and have done them) far better over the years. Even now, with the new building standards about to be brought into operation, they do not bring about the kinds of improvements we should have.
That is proved by what has been done at Milton Keynes. Many of your Lordships may be aware of what is happening there. Far greater levels of energy efficiency in house construction are being achieved at very little extra cost, leading to savings of 40 per cent. in energy through greater attention being paid to the problem and to the setting of higher standards than those which are likely to be promulgated by the Government in, I believe, April this year. So there is a great deal to be done in the home which we have not yet begun to tackle. What we can do in the home can be done in all other buildings.
The third area to which I wish to refer is transport. In this area we are still very wasteful of energy. There are undoubtedly two ways in which energy can be saved in this regard without in any way diminishing the means of transport. One way which involves the motor vehicle is to make their engines more efficient. Experiments have been carried out which have almost doubled the efficiency of the most efficient vehicles on the road. I am talking about 50 to 100 miles per gallon as being attainable. These are developments which need to be very seriously encouraged.

241
An even better means of improving the situation is through improved methods of public transport because it enables more people to be carried in the same vehicle. Therefore in terms of persons per mile, public transport is much more effective than any other way of reducing emissions in the transport sector.
I have just indicated three ways in which I believe that by effective action co-ordinated by a government agency, which I feel should be the Energy Efficiency Office, we can counteract the trend in greenhouse gas emissions. It is not just a question of improving on what we are doing but of doing the opposite of what we are doing. That will counteract the trend which is taking place at the moment. In order to do that we need to spend more on research into these matters and more on information and promotional campaigns, and we should work out financial incentives. We should also devise taxes which direct people in the right way.
I believe that in these areas we have a great opportunity not only of improving developments in our own country, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said in reiterating what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, said before him, of setting an example to others and particularly to those in the less developed countries who will be moving up to a higher level of industrialisation and growth in the years ahead.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I apologise to the House, and especially to the Minister, for the fact that a long-standing speaking engagement later this evening means that I must leave the debate before it has ended. I hope that I shall be forgiven. On behalf of the Select Committee I also wish to thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for leading our study of the greenhouse effect. He did so with characteristic persistence and charm.
I had the privilege of accompanying him to Washington, where we compared our findings with those of a number of American studies. Therefore, it is of no surprise to me that his impressive report has already been greeted with acclaim by Dr. Bromley who advises the president of the United States on scientific matters. The visit was extremely valuable because in almost every respect it confirmed our analysis.
However, we gained two new perspectives. The first can best be described by the American expression, "no regrets policies". The second perspective concerns the need for independent evidence. I wish to say a few words about both and also to touch briefly on the subject of scientific manpower.
As the noble and gallant Lord explained in his masterly introduction of this complex subject, we know that the greenhouse effect is real. Without it the earth would be uninhabitably cold. The question is whether man's activities are enhancing it to the detriment of the environment and over what timescale. The temperature changes that have been observed are small; about half a degree celsius this
242
century, perhaps speeding up a little during the past decade. However, they accord reasonably with what can be calculated in the present uncertain state of knowledge. If the uncertain calculations are extended to the future they suggest a continuing and worrying rise in temperature of a few degrees over a few decades. It is enough to entail climatic changes with environmental consequences, some of which could be severe.
All that is quite different from saying that we can be sure about the matter. Although I am not as sceptical as the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, I still say, "Do not be misled". Only one thing is sure; it is that the so-called "experts", who claim that the unusual weather conditions during the past few years provide overwhelming evidence of enhanced climate change, will be the first to forget about the greenhouse effect if a few normal years should follow.
Of course we must refine the calculations and extend the range of observations on which they are based. But given that any real rise in average global temperature will be small compared with the larger annual fluctuations which we commonly associate with good and bad weather for summer or winter holidays according to preference, it will take several decades before we can confirm the magnitude of the effect and, therefore, be clear about the scale of the consequences.
Why can we not simply wait until we have more certain knowledge? I make no apology for repeating what has already been said in the debate. The answer is that the effect cannot simply be put into reverse whenever we like. The thermal inertia of the oceans spreads all changes, desired and otherwise, over many decades. It is like a giant oil tanker which does not appreciably change course until long after the rudder has been applied. In those circumstances, good helmsmen behave with foresight.
The particular foresight recommended by the Americans is to adopt policies for limiting the consequences of an enhanced greenhouse effect. They would also be desirable policies for other reasons, even if it turned out that the climate change was not so serious after all. Chief among those is energy conservation, which is desirable for many reasons well known to your Lordships. It also reduces the rate at which greenhouse gases are pumped into the atmosphere. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has given that subject particular emphasis tonight, and I support what he has said about combined heat and power. Another measure is to stop the burning of tropical forests which are the home of so much desirable biological diversity. I was deeply impressed by the words of the most reverend Primate.
That is what the Americans mean by "no regrets policies". Just because we are not quite sure how far ahead are the rocks does not mean that we should not apply the rudder in good time. We should try to choose a new direction that is in any event to our advantage. Of course, we must carry out more research so that we can be more certain. But we do not have to wait for the results of that research before taking our earliest counter-measures. In that respect I happily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby.

243
Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, I am doubtful about whether market forces operating on fuel prices can alone provide effective mechanisms for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps by taxation or otherwise, it is the Government's intention to add to the price of fuel a substantial sum representing the damage done to the environment. But it is a long-term, and uncertain damage not readily allowed for within a normal price mechanism. I hope that the Minister will enlighten the House about that matter, and I shall read his comments tomorrow in Hansard.
My second point concerns the need for independent evidence. The Americans were insistent that the British effort was vital. In certain fields, especially the modelling of climate for which the Meteorological Office is renowned, in addition to its intrinsic merit our work provides the only really independent check on their efforts.
I understand very well and share the desire to eliminate waste in public expenditure. I understand, but do not entirely share, the common belief that duplication is waste. Of course, mere slavish repetition may well be little more than wasteful, unless it produces different results, when one knows that someone has made a mistake. After all, it may be important to know that. Usually, however, one does not slavishly repeat. One uses a different technique, or different data, or one tests against a different hypothesis. Let us call that "constructive repetition" as distinct from mere slavish repetition. Science proceeds by constructive repetition, learning from its apparent inconsistencies. Every experiment must be constructively repeated; every calculation must be constructively reworked. Otherwise we should never know what to believe and we should be in a state of continual "cold fusion", so to speak.
Therefore, the British effort in these fields is as important to the Americans as it is to us. To be sure, we collaborate with them and with other countries. But it is, as it must be if it is to be useful, a collaboration between partners working independently. In particular, we must pursue our modelling programme at the Meteorological Office on a grand scale and in the universities (where new ideas can most readily be explored) on a smaller scale.
We also need to contribute to the acquisition of data at sea-level and by satellite. That is expensive but essential. For example, in order to have the grid size one must collect data at eight times as may points. However, in order to predict regional variations in climate change, it would be necessary to reduce the grid size substantially. Therefore, I am also pleased to hear that the Government have committed themselves in principle to the European satellite programme, ERS2.
However, it is not merely a matter of increasing the volume of data. As I have already explained, it is important in science that there should always be independent sources of data and independent analysis. I only hope that the European and American programmes will never be too closely co-ordinated.
244
However, there are other relevant fields where there could be a more substantial British effort and where the essential skills are at present underused. We possess considerable expertise in the physical chemistry of gaseous reactions which could readily be applied to study the fate of the greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, will say something about that because that is his field.
We possess the skills required to understand how biological processes taking place in the ocean surface both affect and are affected by the heat and carbon balance between atmosphere and ocean. Both require basic research on a relatively small scale of the kind commonly supported by research councils at universities. I hope that the research councils may be persuaded to adjust their priorities in favour of such work, because it is needed in order to remove some of the present uncertainties in the modelling of the climate.
I doubt whether those two examples require much increase in scientific manpower or cost; more a temporary redirection of effort.
To increase the magnitude of our modelling effort there will undoubtedly be new demands on scientific manpower for the modelling itself and also for data acquisition. There will be the cost of new equipment, super computers, ships and satellites. To evaluate the consequences of climate change will require, for coastline erosion, the attention of engineering geology, and for agriculture the tools of molecular genetics and so on.
All told, that amounts to perhaps another £200 million over 10 years. However, as the noble and gallant Lord said in his opening speech, these costs are modest compared with those which we are trying to learn how, first, to predict and, secondly, to avoid.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble and gallant Lord not only for the report which his committee has presented but also for the very clear way in which he introduced it to the House. It was completed very soon after the report of the House of Commons Energy Select Committee on the same subject and is extremely complimentary to that report.
Our Select Committee says quite early in its report that it hopes that, while the report cannot be a definitive account of the phenomenon of global warming, it will at least serve as an intelligible and timely account of the state of scientific understanding. I believe that the report is certainly that. It is a clear-headed and intelligent survey of the state of scientific knowledge.
A variety of organisations have produced reports on the greenhouse effect. But, however thoughtful and well argued those were, there has often been a slight suspicion that there have been some ulterior motives. For example, it can be no surprise that of the 25 memoranda printed in the report, the two which were most sceptical about the greenhouse effect were those from British Coal and British Gas. On the other hand, it is likely that some of the groups have exaggerated the probability of the more dire of

245
the possible outcomes out of their commendable desire to try to galvanise public opinion.
The committee's report is therefore particularly valuable as an objective and impartial survey and a summary of our present day knowledge. Being a science and technology Select Committee, it is very scientific and technological. Much of the report concentrates on the state of knowledge and the need for more research. I am no expert on the science of the issue but the conclusions and recommendations of the committee in that area appear to me to be sound and I could personally accept them all.
Rather than entering into the detailed scientific argument, I believe it better to concentrate on what action is necessary by individuals, companies and governments to help to combat the greenhouse effect and to help to cope with the global warming which will occur in the next 50 years. Other noble Lords have referred to the comment in the report that action by way of insurance or "no regrets" policies are therefore needed in advance of obtaining clear proof that a global warming due to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations is occurring.
We cannot afford to wait until the seas flood and our crops begin to fail before we take any action. It was once said that it is better to be an optimist than a pessimist because it makes no difference to the final outcome but the optimist has a better time of it. That may be so. However, I believe on this issue that we must act as pessimists in designing policies in this area because, while preparing for the worst may be expensive, not preparing for it may be disastrous to us and to the world.
In the short term, the emphasis must be on energy efficiency. Research published last July by the Association for the Conservation of Energy and the Worldwide Fund for Nature shows how the United Kingdom, mainly by installing existing energy efficiency technology, could cut its CO2 emissions by 23 per cent. by the year 2005. At the same time, it could enjoy an annual gross domestic product growth of something like 2·5 per cent.
The energy committee's report from another place criticised the Government's lack of investment in energy efficiency and especially the Department of Energy's spending on promotion of energy efficiency. Indeed, it pointed out that the Energy Efficiency Office has been cut drastically and that further cuts are planned. There seems to be a misplaced complacency that consumers are now well aware of the case for energy efficiency.
This Govenment should not need to be reminded that markets only function properly if consumers have information about the range of choices available to them. They should increase their grants to the Energy Efficiency Office and promote efficiency through a mixture of regulations, penalties and incentives.
In the medium or long term greenhouse gas emissions will be best reduced by applying principles set out in the recent report by Professor David Pearce and his colleagues entitled Blueprint For a Green Economy. The publicity which the Secretary of State for the Environment gave to that report
246
was commendable. The report proposes the use of economic techniques to take into account the value of our environment and the costs of pollution by imposing social taxes where they prove to be necessary. That is a radical approach but I believe that that is right. It is hoped that many of its principles will be turned into policies when the Government's new environment White Paper is published in the autumn.
We shall need a broad all-party consensus if we are to be able to take the tough decisions which will soon face us. I believe that the hardest of those will be the need to impose a carbon tax. Such a tax to help to cut back on the carbon dioxide emissions by increasing the cost of coal, gas and petrol is undoubtedly necessary. However, I believe that it will also be unwelcome. Hastily to impose such a "green tax" in Britain alone would simply export jobs to our competitors. Environmental policy is one area where it is absolutely clear that international co-operation is necessary and EC attempts to come up with a workable carbon tax should be supported by our Government.
Even if there were simultaneous cuts in other taxes, the imposition of a carbon tax would be highly inflationary in the short term and reports last week suggest that the Chancellor has ruled out a "green budget" in March for that reason. He is right to do so. It is important that we achieve low and falling inflation before "green taxes" are able to be introduced. A green tax which only encouraged double digit inflation and increased unemployment would be very unpopular and would not last very long.
We live in a time of unprecedented concern about our environment. Last year's 14 per cent. support for the Green Party in the European elections was a warning to all politicians of whatever party that they ignore these issues at their peril. The opinion polls now very clearly show that the public rate the damage to the environment as the greatest threat now facing mankind. Nevertheless, there are also signs that people are not yet willing to pay the price for change. For example, an independent NOP survey last year showed that most people thought it was a bad idea to make it more expensive to travel by road and air and cheaper to travel by rail and water.
Saving the environment may mean that we shall be poorer and everyone will have to accept that, but we need to work now to build a cross-party consensus on a programme to tackle the global warming so that governments will be able to act even when harsh measures prove necessary. I believe that the report of our Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord is the foundation stone for that process.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for the admirable way he started this debate. I was not a member of the sub-committee of which he was chairman and I found the report most helpful. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, took part in the debate in the House on 20th December which

247
was initiated by me. He was good enough to give an outline then of the report's conclusions. That was a day's debate on the wider subject of the need for international co-operation to protect the world's environment. Within that subject global warming is a significant factor.
I suggest there are two general main conclusions in the sub-committee's report which should guide policies in the future. First, there is no certainty yet about the causes and effects which contribute to global warming. Urgent research, with nations working together, is still needed. Secondly, certain courses of action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases can nonetheless be adopted soon. It is clear that such action can be beneficial, though much will remain unknown until more research is completed; and that action is urgent, as the noble and gallant Lord told us in his opening speech.
It seems that our Government have the same view about an international convention as that expressed in the sub-committee's report. The expression, "an international framework agreement" is the same kind of convention as that suggested, probably to be negotiated through the United Nations. This kind of agreement can be built upon by protocols as knowledge increases and remedies emerge. Almost any action will mean higher costs for producers and users of energy. These may, at some time in the future, be regarded as sacrifices in some respects.
Developing countries —for example, China and India —are preparing for industrialisation on a major scale which would release large volumes of greenhouse gases. The developed countries are already sounding alarm bells and preparing for action. I am glad that the United Kingdom is playing a leading part in this. I remind your Lordships of the Prime Minister's speech at the United Nations in New York in November and the increased contribution to the United Nations Environment Programme; I understand the United Kingdom is now the second largest contributor in the world. In addition, there is British support for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
However, we must take with us the less developed countries if there is to be effective action on a worldwide basis. Developing countries could justifiably complain that the Western world has already industrialised, with pollution from which we are now suffering, yet it is now making that process more expensive and inconvenient for them.
I strongly support the following more detailed recommendations in the report. First, I support the recommendation on energy efficiency and especially research into improved efficiency in generation from fossil fuels. Secondly, there are the conservation aspects of building design. I shall not pursue the point because noble Lords will have heard me at Question Time on that subject. Thirdly, I believe that nuclear energy will be needed. How much and when are decisions which will have to be taken carefully by this country in the future. I, along with the Select Committee, regret that the Government have for the moment abandoned research into the fast reactor technology. Having myself observed the work at Dounreay over the past 20 years, I hope that
248
the Government will look at the recommendation in the report that the future of the prototype fast reactor be reconsidered. It seems a pity to lose the results of valuable work at a time when other forms of generation are becoming less favoured because they pollute the atmosphere.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, today we are discussing a huge subject. I should like to begin by adding my congratulations to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, not only for the masterly way in which he introduced the subject tonight but also for the way he handled our committee. I should add that much credit must go to our clerk and our technical advisers for their considerable help in this complex field. If a member of the sub-committee may be permitted to say so, I believe the end product of our report is fully up to the high standard set by previous Select Committee reports.
There is a tendency to think of the greenhouse gas problem, of controlling global warming, as a problem or the fault of the industrialised world. While that may be true of the past, or until today, it is the future which matters. In the future it is more a problem of the developing world. It is the problem of the developing world and our relationship with it on which I wish to concentate this evening.
A few figures indicate the size of the problem. Since the late 1970s the industrialised world CO2 emissions have been growing at the rate of 0·7 per cent. per annum. On the other hand, the developing world's emissions have been growing at 5 per cent. per annum, which is no less than seven times as fast; this in a decade when economic growth in the developing world has been relatively poor.
It is true that the developing world starts from a much lower base —about one-fifth that of the industrialised world —but, as I have said, the growth is seven times as fast. On present trends in 30 years it will be the biggest generator of CO2 emissions. Indeed, the likelihood is that it will occur in less the 30 years because in all probability the difference in the rates of emission —industrialised versus developing —will be greater than they have been in the past decade.
There are simple and exceedingly powerful reasons for this state of affairs and they are reasons which hitherto we have regarded as benign. The process of development, of moving towards industrialisation and higher standards of living, is pre-eminently powered by the use of energy: energy for domestic light, heat, transport, for factories, and so on. Energy is indeed the engine of economic growth. Invariably —and this point has not yet been made —with higher standards of living to begin with go rising populations. It is generally agreed that the best we can hope for is that the world population will stabilise at double today's figure some time towards the end of the next century. There will be another 5 billion people. Each of them will be consuming energy. There is nothing that we can do about that situation.
If the industrialised world managed to halve CO2 emissions, economic development in the third world

249
is likely to double their per capita emissions by the year 2030. With the population growth added to that figure, the global total of CO2 emissions would be two or two and half times what it is today. That is the size of the problem.
The largest single component of that problem is China. On the latest figures, more up to date than those contained in the report, China matches the whole of the European Community in the size of its emissions. It has plans for hugely increasing its output of coal to no less than 1,400 million tonnes per year by the year 2000.
It is neither right in equity nor is it a practical solution to attempt to shut off the economic development of China or of any other third world country. In some way we must accommodate their needs. In a very true sense this is a global problem because every tonne of emission by China is as much a problem for us as it is for them. In that sense, any attempt to deal with that problem must be founded on international agreement, as is stated in the report. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, proposed in Nairobi last May that the right approach is along the lines of a framework convention to which scientific protocols can be attached as issues arise and as science justifies.
We must avoid at all costs approaches based on simple percentage reductions across the board. That route would lead only to failure. The considerations of individual countries are so different and the economic considerations and differences are so great that such an approach would be utterly unrealistic and ultimately counterproductive. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is not in his place because I believe that that is the answer to the point that he was making about not following a single global reduction. There should be individual volunteer targets but not a single percentage target. That would be a failure, and there would be tears.
More importantly, it detracts attention from the more serious issue. How do we accommodate the energy needs of the third world countries in their justifiable pursuit of economic development? This circle can only be squared, if squared it can be (for it is a hugely difficult task) by assisting those countries in avoiding the inefficiencies normally associated with the early steps of industrialisation.
There are two issues involved. The first is to ensure the proper economic pricing of primary fuels and of electricity in third world countries. A great deal of hard and difficult work needs to be done in that area. The second issue concerns the application of technology and other measures in order to achieve energy conservation. That subject has been touched on by almost every speaker this evening. It is a well recognised point and common ground in the industrialised world.
There is even greater potential for conservation in the third world. China is enormously profligate in its use of fuel. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, stated that we were profligate in our use of fuel, but in relation to GDP, China uses eight times as much fuel per unit of GDP as the European Community countries. I say that in no way as a criticism; it is a natural state of affairs for a young industrialising country. It is a point that we must tackle.
250
Time does not permit me to go into the pros and cons of alternative measures that we should seek to promote or alternatively discourage, either unilaterally in the United Kingdom or internationally. I should like to make two brief observations. Firstly, given the uncertainty for at least a decade or two of scientific answers to the questions of how much warming there is going to be and when, and given the importance of energy to economic development, the right strategy is a no regrets policy where one works with the grain of economic forces rather than against it. Hence the emphasis which has emerged so frequently this evening on energy conservation. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, drew attention to the illuminating discussion of the entire issue in a recent Chatham House report by Dr. Michael Grubb.
I should have liked to mention the work being carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council, a body on which I sit. It is very exciting work and it is an important science in its own right. I should have liked to talk about the problems of energy conservation and to take issue with a number of noble Lords on that matter. I should like to have mentioned the rain forests and the work of the Royal Geographical Society in Amazonia concerning rain forest regeneration and alternative uses of rain forests. All of those matters are important but I have confined my remarks to the problem of third world economic development. I have done so because I believe that unless we tackle and solve that problem, then, irrespective of what we manage to do at home, we are merely whistling in the wind.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to join previous speakers in expressing appreciation to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for initiating this debate and for the lucid manner in which he introduced it. This is a very important subject which ranges far wider than the United Kingdom. It concerns what is taking place in the world today.
Although the noble and gallant Lord tended to calm the situation by saying that there was no dangerous problem at present, it is true to say, whichever way one looks at the problem, that unless we begin to take action now, time is not on our side. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that that should be done on an international basis. Some kind of agreement must be reached, bearing in mind the imblance in the developed world as against the undeveloped world.
I shall restrict my remarks to the question of the power resources of the world, how they are being used and what is the foreseeable future. Without doubt the biggest culprits so far identified in regard to the greenhouse effect and CO2 emissions are the international power stations which burn fossil fuels. The figures are variable but the mean works out at about 40 per cent. of all the emissions that are damaging to us on an international or universal basis.
I should like to put forward a balanced view in regard to future sources of power. I fully support the

251
view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, concerning district heating and combined power. That type of energy is absolutely desirable, but it is not a complete answer. It is a worthwhile bonus that we ought to look into. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, drew attention to the fact that we must be careful in our deliberations not to lobby for particular sectors. The noble Baroness referred to the fact that the coal lobby and the gas lobby are in some respects less than frank in what they state.
I should like to quote some figures in order to indicate the dimension of the problem as I see it. That is the only facet of the problem that I intend to mention. According to the Energy Statistics Yearbook, total world energy production in 1986 was roughly 2·5 billion kilowatts. Of that total, nuclear power production amounted to 11·16 per cent. and energy produced from fossil fuel to 65·6 per cent. In 1985 the world population was 4,837,500,000. That number was predicted to grow to 5·067 billion by 1988; to 5·69 billion by 1995; to 6·07 billion by the year 2000; and to 6·5 billion by the year 2005. Those figures give an idea of how much energy will be needed in the future. As previous speakers in the debate have forcefully pointed out, those population explosions are mostly taking place in areas which cannot produce enough energy.
At the same time predictions were made of world energy trends. It was predicted that by 1995 3,558 gigawatts would be required, of which the nuclear element would be 383 gigawatts. By the year 2000 it was predicted that 4,285 gigawatts would be required, of which the nuclear element would be 467 gigawatts. By the year 2005 it was predicted that 4,040 gigawatts would be required, of which the nuclear element would be 569 gigawatts. The CEGB did not have a percentage figure for the contribution of fossil fuels to CO2 emissions. However, it provided figures on the global contribution to CO2 emissions. In 1983, the total contribution through fossil fuel burning was 5,054 million tonnes; in 1984 it was 5,330 million tonnes; and in 1985 it was 5,300 million tonnes. Those are dramatic figures. No one has been able accurately to calculate what that increase will mean. The United Kingdom, with only 1 per cent. of the world's population, produces 3 per cent. of the world's CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Western Europe as a whole produces some 15 per cent. and therefore has a primary responsibility for what is taking place. It is calculated that the main source of CO2 emissions in the United Kingdom is electricity generation and that coal accounts for roughly 45 per cent. of CO2 emissions.
I should like to try to stop this apparent attack by the coal lobby on nuclear energy. If we are to provide the world with energy we need various sources. An increase in nuclear energy production would protect finite resources such as fossil fuels. Coal and oil can be used for more profitable purposes than burning in power stations. Paragraph 13.44 of the Select Committee report says:
"Nuclear power is the only proven adequate alternative to fossil fuel energy generation. Abandonment of research into the fast reactor technology is short sighted. Under section 3 of the
252
Electricity Act the Secretary of State should exercise his duty to promote R & D into new techniques for generation and reconsider the future of the Dounreay PFR".
I spoke recently in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has not been able to stay. He likes to debunk the view that nuclear generation is the only available alternative. Wind power and barrage power may make a contribution but in a global sense an increase in nuclear generation is the only answer. One noble Lord spoke about the tremendous programme of power station building in China. I am told that the Chinese will not only dramatically increase their production of power from coal but that they plan to increase dramatically their output of power from nuclear generation.
Great Britain is surprisingly well down the international league in terms of nuclear energy generation. At present the French produce more than 60 per cent. of their power by nuclear generation. The Germans produce more energy in this way than we do. We should play our part in promoting a power that does not pollute the atmosphere. The materials used in the production of nuclear power can be recycled, and so in this way we can protect finite resources. It may well be that those finite resources have not yet been adequately assessed. They may be difficult to recover. However, if one then starts to talk in terms of bringing that sort of coal and oil into being, the argument between nuclear power and coal —and I think that this has damaged the country —may well be blown sky high. I say that because it is only a few years ago that oil was so cheap that we were still making locos and burning coal. It was only because oil was so cheap at that time that the steam locomotive went out of operation in some areas of the world. Of course oil has become so dear these days that the situation may well be reversed. Indeed, it is a difficult situation.
In my view we should now be looking at future energy needs. In 1986 world primary energy conservation consumption was the equivalent of 7·5 billion tonnes; that is, 1·5 tonnes oil equivalent (toe) per capita. This figure ranged from 7 toe per capita in North America and Scandinavia down to 0.6 in China and 10 kilograms for a peasant in Ethiopia. In the report I have with me, it says that the major cause of an increasing world energy demand is not demographic growth but the movement from an agricultural economy to an industrial one demonstrated by countries such as Korea. In that country the population has grown by 80 per cent. since 1955, while energy consumption has increased more than 10 times to supply its new shipbuilding and car manufacturing plants. The report asks why —and indications of this were given by a previous speaker —should China, for example, not attempt to follow the same model?
I think that I have taken my share of the time available to us this evening. However, I hope that this debate in your Lordships' House will reach more people than just those in this country. In my view, what we are talking about is an international responsibility. The source of energy which is accepted in the Select Committee's report as being the major answer to providing the increased power

253
which will be needed in future is nuclear power. This may need to be done by way of an international convention.
I am saddened that because of privatisation our own particular energy programme appears to have been damaged. I hope that the Minister on the Front Bench will be able to bring to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy the need to try to shorten what I think is almost a four-year moratorium on what is to happen. We must ensure that research and development in the nuclear industry continue. If we do not do so, we shall fall far behind, and perhaps never catch up.
Finally, I should like again to express my thanks to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for initiating this debate on a subject which I think is of tremendous importance to the world at large.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee which drew up the report, I fully support its conclusions and recommendations. Nonetheless, I venture to inflict a few brief personal comments on the evidence as it strikes a non-scientist. It was one of the most complicated and intricate inquiries that the Select Committee has undertaken, because of the myriad of uncertainties involved. Further, the hypothetical effect of one uncertainty on the others serves to multiply their total and makes judgment extremely difficult.
What do we know for certain? First, we know that the global mean temperature is higher now than it was in 1850 and that there has been an acceleration in warming during the past two decades. We also know what are the gases that warm the earth and that their concentration is increasing, and why. It is also certain that the problem is a global one and can therefore only be effectively tackled by international action; but, further, we know that the scientifically advanced countries should give a strong lead.
In one particular case we know about the damage caused by the emission of chlorofluorocarbons and so international action is already in hand to deal with the problem, although care will have to be taken to ensure that the substitutes being developed do not have deleterious effects in other directions. After that, judgments are necessarily subjective and to some extent opinions involve an element of belief. There is virtual unanimity in scientific circles on the effects which increased concentrations should, in theory, have over time; but there is no certainty about the length of that time. Global warming to date is within the historic variations in world climate and could be due to natural causes. There is among the professionals a range of views —from scepticism to a belief that the greenhouse effect is already in operation.
It was the public statement by Dr. Hansen, an eminent American expert, before a congressional committee, that the greenhouse effect was already with us, four of the past 10 years having been the warmest on record, which struck home to the American public during one of their hottest summers.
254
It seems as though many recent climatic phenomena have at least been consistent with an intensification of the greenhouse effect. But there is no proof of it. As a cynic has observed, it needs only a succession of two or three cold summers to cool the American public's concern.
As the committee recommends, it is of the first importance that the uncertainties should be reduced as soon as possible. The preferred and possibly the only approach is through climate models. There are differences of view about the value of such models. Their imperfections are set out at length in our report, and the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, emphasised some of them. For example, their resolution is low; the information fed into them about the oceans, about clouds and about polar conditions is limited; and they cannot differentiate between regions. Even the introduction of a single new factor —for example, ice crystals in clouds —can have a radical effect upon predictions. The Royal Society told us that the introduction of the ice crystals reduced the computer temperature analysis of a doubling of carbon dioxide from 5·2 degrees to 2·6 degrees. However, when all is said, the models are the best instrument that we have and rather than denigrate them every effort should be made to improve the information fed into them and the modelling methods themselves.
It is on those grounds that the committee recommends substantial United Kingdom participation in a number of international experiments. I welcome the fact that the Government have made a commitment to participate in the satellite ERS2 and to make funds available to re-equip the research ship "Discovery" to take a full part in the world ocean circulation experiment, as well as setting up enhanced data collection and computer facilities under the Meteorological Office. I hope that the Government will also accept the other recommendations made by the committee for these purposes.
I turn for a moment to the possible impact of global warming. The wide publicity given to the greenhouse effect has led to some fairly horrendous predictions. I think that these should be taken calmly. I believe that global warming is a real threat, but like so many natural processes it may take much longer to come about than is predicted. That has been true of predictions made in the past; for example, about energy resources. Indeed, excluding catastrophes such as major earthquakes, the process may well be slow enough to enable vegetation, crops, animals, and indeed humans, to adapt to it to a great extent. However that may be, I strongly support the so-called no regrets policies to which so many noble Lords have referred.
In view of my past, I cannot refrain from referring to the Committee's recommendations on nuclear power. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby —I am sorry that he is not in his place —spoke at length about it. His views are well known to your Lordships. He will not be surprised to learn that I differ from him. I follow much more closely the views of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. I make only one comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. It relates to what lie called the

255
contradiction between the two recommendations of the report: 13.43 and 13.44. I suggest that these two recommendations are not contradictory but complementary.
Since the report was published, the Government have announced the suspension of the nuclear power programme. In sharp contradiction to the successful fuel cycle programme, this has been dogged almost from the beginning by bad judgment, sharp changes of course, poor industrial organisation and often bad management. When I look back at this sad story, it almost brings tears to my eyes. The Government have taken a decision to suspend the construction of the three remaining pressurised water reactors in the programme. But that does not mean that research and development on the PWR system should not be continued. Indeed, this is surely essential if a viable option is to be kept open, particularly as the PWRs in the programme were not of the most advanced design.
The Government repeatedly declare that it is essential to keep the nuclear option open. What better opportunity is there for doing this than by fully supporting the European fast reactor programme and keeping the Dounreay prototype fast reactor —an invaluable, indeed a unique test-bed for fuel research —going for longer than at present planned? Incidentally, this would cost a minute fraction of the capital costs forgone by the abandonment of the PWR programme. Together with the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Dean of Beswick, I beg the Government to reconsider the recommendations on the matter which the Select Committee has now reiterated with even greater emphasis.
An important element in the no regrets policy is forestry practice and research. Here the picture on the United Kingdom side is brighter. On the national scene, the Forestry Commission told us that existing forestry policy is very positive but that the research needed to ensure the continued adjustment of our forests to the potentially damaging effects of global warming has not begun in earnest.
The committee concluded that we know very little about how our native and acclimatised species would be likely to thrive or suffer as a result of climatic change. We considered —and so recommend —that research on this aspect should be pressed ahead. Because of the long rotation of forest trees, especially hardwoods, this is an area where adaptation to global warming could be most difficult. Both research and planting programmes ought to take the risk of global warming into account.
On the international front, the Forestry Commission, the Forestry Research Co-ordinating Committee and the Overseas Development Administration are making an excellent contribution to the tropical forest programme, drawing upon the fund of expertise on tropical forests which happily still exists in this country. They support the Food and Agriculture Organisation's tropical forest action programme and are also operating through bilateral action, notably with Brazil, and through non-governmental organisations and charities. The
256
most reverend Primate made some interesting comments on this subject. He said that we should go further. I am sure the Government will consider carefully what he said. But noble Lords had a good tour through the rain forests at Question Time last week so I need say no more tonight except that the committee commends the ODA work and hopes that it will be sustained.
Finally, there is one field outside the terms of reference of the committee in which vigorous action would have a greater impact on the onset of the greenhouse effect than any other. I am referring to population control. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, also referred to this. It is obvious that the increase in the world population at a rate recently mentioned in the press, if I remember correctly, of 25 million births a week will put an intolerable strain on natural resources and will cause a major increase in the emission of greenhouse gases. That is a subject for another debate, but I can think of no stronger candidate for a no regrets policy.
While the Minister will not be expected this evening to give more than a general response to the report, I hope he will be able to confirm the steps which the Government are already taking and to indicate that further measures of the kind recommended by the committee are in contemplation. Your Lordships will await with interest the Government's detailed reply to the committee's recommendations.
6 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for introducing this report, which, even if it does not provide all the answers, certainly provides most of the questions that we should be asking ourselves at this time on this truly global problem whose ramifications are ones which we cannot avoid or dodge for any great length of time. If the greenhouse effect is to have a deleterious effect on us, it will already have started to do so. We shall not be able to do anything about those effects for some considerable time due to the problem of the oceans' slow rate of warm-up and slow rate of cooling.
Much of what I wanted to say today has already been covered by other speakers far more eloquently and in far greater depth than I could achieve. However, there is a point which constantly drives itself home to me and that is that those of us in Western Europe, and particularly in North America, must accept a great deal of responsibility for the greenhouse problem for the simple reason that we were the first to go through the process of industrialisation. We started the whole thing. We are also currently the richest sectors in the world. We have the most strongly developed scientific backgrounds, and thus we must take full responsibility for trying to find solutions to the greenhouse problem and for initiating action on those solutions.
The report calls for greater research and a greater level of questioning on the part of the Western world than any other part of the world for the simple reason that the West is the only sector which can at present carry out such questioning. We have effectively

257
created a situation where those in the developing world must follow us if they are to keep up and be able to provide a reasonable standard of living for their own populations. As has already been pointed out, not least by the previous speaker, world population is growing at a phenomenal rate. Historically speaking, population growth rate is only reduced by higher standards of living. However, if higher standards of living can only be attained through the process of industrialisation, a vicious spiral is created which has unpleasant environmental effects completely outside the geenhouse effect. However, the greenhouse problem will be the first to reach us in the West and will probably have the most total effect on us.
We thus find ourselves in a situation where we must export what knowledge we have. That knowledge must be increased so that we can offer, to China and India for example —two countries where major problems appear on the horizon —the capacity to jump over the technological hurdles that we had to overcome. They cannot afford, and we cannot afford to allow them, to go through the process of having to clean up their environment, of making sure that their rivers no longer smell, as we did with the Thames in the 19th century, or that rolling smog no longer descends on them, as we had to clean our own air in the 1950s. We cannot afford that because the effects on us would be far too severe. The cost of not taking action will be far too great in the long term.
If the estimate of the rise in the level of the oceans is only a few centimetres out, what might that cost us in terms of additional expenditure on coastal defences? It is a hideous prospect. Our own economy would be affected detrimentally if we had to divert so much of our national resources to keep our shorelines intact. Other Western nations such as Holland will face that problem on an even greater scale.
We must share our knowledge with the developing world. We cannot expect them to buy it because that will only increase their need to create wealth. It will mean that they have to go faster down the road to cheap industrialisation, which is environmentally so extremely damaging.
An example of the technology which is already available to us, and an item which people in the developing world would be keen to acquire in their households, is the domestic refrigerator. In Europe the average domestic refrigerator uses 270 kilowatts of electricity per annum. An EC proposal would reduce that to 170 kilowatts per annum. The best available machines use only 80 kilowatts per annum. Those are figures which I have quoted before, in the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, initiated on 20th December. They provide an excellent example of the type of knowledge which we can give to the developing world to enable countries to produce goods that will require less energy so that they will be able to slow the spiral of increased energy demand and increased industrialisation.
The provision of technology such as the heat exchange system and more efficient power
258
production which my noble friend Lord Ezra described could be combined with that approach, providing both more efficient electrical goods and more efficient energy production. One could thus begin to reverse the present cycle.
That approach calls for a greater exchange of information. It places a heavy onus on the Government to provide the conditions which will enable present research to continue and further research to be undertaken. The Government must make sure that funding is available for the necessary projects and also that there is a career structure within the larger research establishments: it is extremely unlikely that this will be funded by industry. It is worth remembering that industry exists to succeed in business and not to carry out such environmental and technical research. The two are not necessarily incompatible but nor do they necessarily go hand in glove. The Government must make sure that the research takes place, that people are encouraged to enter the industry and to stay there and that the projects will provide the necessary knowledge.
Once we have achieved that, we can begin to solve our own problems. By solving them we shall solve the problems of the developing countries which will ultimately become our problems.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I sympathise very much with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but I have a slight reservation; namely, that in doing what I think he suggests, it is important for us not to appear too bossy and know-all. Otherwise, we shall be resented and the proposals will not work. The noble Lord will forgive me if I do not pursue that line. I have another that I want to follow. We must all be most grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and his sub-committee for producing such a thorough and carefully argued report on a subject which is of profound importance to the future of all peoples.
I have the good fortune to have two scientist friends who have taken a special interest in what is called the greenhouse problem. The first is Dr. Bruce Denness who has developed a computer model which I believe answers many of the more important questions that the report in paragraphs 13.4 and 13.14 considers still to be outstanding, notwithstanding the sceptical view about forecasting of my noble friend Lord Clitheroe. My second friend is Mr. Peter Grantham, who has devised a means of sufficiently economically reflecting the sun's rays by very large but lightweight reflectors in space and in deserts.
Most unfortunately, I did not become aware of the work of the sub-committee last year until much too late for it to be arranged for either of my friends to give evidence to it. I apologise most deeply to the committee and to noble Lords for failing to spot what is probably the most important study that any of your Lordships' Select Committees has ever undertaken.
I trust that noble Lords will allow me to outline briefly the contributions of my two friends. As

259
members of the sub-committee will be aware because he has sent copies to them, Dr. Denness has prepared a paper commenting in detail on the report. I propose to send a copy of it to my noble friend the Minister who will wind up the debate. I have copies available for any other noble Lords who might care for one.
With his model, Dr. Denness forecast in 1980 that 1989 would be the second hottest year on record and 1988 would be the hottest. In fact, he got the two years the wrong way round, but that is not bad as conventional modelling could not do it at all in 1980 or even now. His model has been the subject of many learned papers by Dr. Denness in the past decade, as shown in appendix 2 to his comment on the Select Committee's report. It may be of interest to noble Lords even at this late hour to hear briefly how he came to construct it.
Bruce Denness was a professor at Newcastle University in the 1970s when he was asked by the companies putting oil rigs into the North Sea whether he could tell them, about two years ahead, precisely when the weather would be suitable for positioning and securing the rigs. Accurate knowledge of that kind could lead to much saving of the considerable expense involved. That remarkable request, to which he undertook to respond —no regular climatologist at the time, I suspect, would have contemplated such an undertaking—led to Dr. Denness taking advantage of a concurrent ocean bed drilling programme being conducted by Americans near the Azores. That programme produced cores which enabled Dr. Denness to analyse world weather patterns going back 4 billion years. A further study of that kind might perhaps always be worth while, but I wonder whether the Select Committee's recommendation in paragraph 13.26 is necessary.
From his analysis, Bruce Denness has been able to develop a computer model which shows that there is a natural cyclical —certainly not random —temperature movement over centuries which can be analysed in detail down to years and even months, as was necessary for the oil rig exercise.
The greenhouse effect has always existed but has noticeably increased during the past 50 years or so. However, the natural temperature movement is of much greater significance in determining whether, for example, there will in the next 30 years be a marked rise in the worldwide water level and whether the tendency towards desert conditions in North America will continue and, if so, for how long. Dr. Denness believes that he can answer those sorts of questions with reasonable accuracy and, so far as he can tell, his is the only current model for which such a claim can be made. Perhaps that can be the independent source of information which, in his important speech, the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, told us was so necessary.
I have introduced Dr. Denness to Ministers in the Department of Energy and the Department of the Environment. He has met scientists from those departments and the Meteorological Office as well as other government sponsored bodies. His views are widely respected by leading climatologists in the United States and in NATO, which held a conference
260
on the subject in April 1989. However, there seems to be a strong flavour of "not invented here" among UK scientists with whom my friend has discussed his model. Certainly he deserves a better hearing than he is getting and if only I had not been so dilatory I suspect that he would have received it from your Lordships' Select Committee.
I turn now to the suggestions of Mr. Peter Grantham, whom I first met as a senior Admiralty scientist in the 1950s and 1960s. His contribution is somewhat different. He believes that if—I emphasise the word "if"—the global mean temperature change is going to be of the order shown in Figure 26 on page 43 of Volume II of the Select Committee's report, it will be necessary for us in the next 10 years to take temporary physical protective measures while the world as a whole gets round to reducing significantly the underlying causes of the greenhouse effect.
A way of doing that, which is well within the state of the art for such projects and within the order of cost of many very large industrial projects, is to place large reflectors in space and in desert areas on earth. I sent Peter Grantham's preliminary ideas on the subject to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in the DTI last autumn. That led to a very helpful reply from my honourable friend Mr. Eric Forth, the responsible Minister in that department, for whom Mr. Grantham is preparing a fuller paper on his proposals.
It certainly seems to me that temporary protective measures may turn out to be necessary because the action to contain the greenhouse gases looks as if it will be too slow. Thus it is worth evaluating now a possible means of providing such protective measures. In space terms the project is relatively simple and could be effected reasonably quickly if shown to be necessary. In the meantime I hope that Dr. Denness's model is also soon validated by others so that action on what it reveals with regard to climate changes can be taken with confidence by governments.
To conclude, I believe that this is probably the most important subject confronting the nations of the world today. The Select Committee is to be congratulated on producing a most valuable report. However, action to deal with the problems should not be long delayed.
9.44 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I suspect that by now noble Lords are beginning to feel that the number of words spoken and written about the so-called greenhouse effect is likely soon to exceed the number of molecules of man-made greenhouse gases which are added daily to our atmosphere. Such torrents of verbiage can be self-defeating. I shall therefore be brief. I shall not bother your Lordships with physics and chemistry, despite the invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, for me to indulge in my own subject. Instead, I want to emphasise just a few salient points.
First, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, made abundantly clear in his very lucid speech, it has long been known that, without the presence of

261
the earth's own greenhouse gases, the temperature of our earth would be 30 degrees Centigrade lower than it now is. We should not survive. Secondly, what we mean therefore when we talk about the greenhouse effect is in fact the enhancement of this natural phenomenon in consequence of man's economic activities which add to the normal concentration of greenhouse gases other gases which have similar properties and which will therefore tend to raise the temperature of the earth.
What we need to know is how much a given increment of man-made greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere will cause the temperature of the earth to rise; what climatic changes that rise will induce and what impacts those changes will have on our own activities. As the report of the committee describes, we have to admit that, while remarkable progress has been and is still being made by scientists in understanding the effects, and while we can be sure of the direction of the changes I have mentioned, nevertheless as yet we cannot be adequately precise as to the magnitude of the temperature rise nor the time-scale of this warming process. I mean by that the fraction of a degree per decade that the temperature will rise. Nor can we be more sure of what that temperature rise will do to the climate in land areas as small as the United Kingdom, though we can be reasonably sure that such small temperature changes may nevertheless produce perturbations in local weather which could have dramatic effects on the inhabitants.
What we also know is that the impacts could be major in, say, 50 to 100 years' time and that resources will have to be mobilised in good time if we are adequately to mitigate any adverse impacts. Two other considerations should be mentioned here. The first is that the oceans and the land masses which are warmed are so large that they constitute a great reservoir of heat. Therefore, contrary to what many would like to believe, even if the concentrations of greenhouse gases could be miraculously restored to their natural values in an instant, the temperature would not recover simultaneously. Its fall would be very slow.
This statement must not be misconstrued and used as an argument for fatalistic acceptance of what is thought to be inevitable. Nor must it inhibit us from taking what remedial action we can take now without too great a dislocation of the economy. The no regrets policy which has been referred to by so many and which is described in the report must be implemented as rapidly as possible. Prominent in that are energy efficiency measures, the emission of gases being reduced and likewise the promotion of afforestation, which was mentioned by the most reverend Primate.
At this point I should mention the second consideration. There are people (and I have met several) who argue that we humans are very clever and that increased knowledge will enable us to find some quick scientific trick by which we could maintain economic activities without adding to the greenhouse gas concentration. They believe this because they want to believe it; and they buttress their arguments with examples of man's past
262
conquests of plague and pestilence by such things as the magic bullets of the chemists.
These examples are of course wholly irrelevant to the issue in front of your Lordships today. Some others who are more thoughtful point with some understanding to the so-called hydrogen economy as the solution. By this they mean the complete avoidance of the use of fossil fuels as an energy source. Instead water, of which in these past few days no one would deny that we have an abundance, is to be broken up by electricity or sunlight into hydrogen and oxygen. Those two gases are then recombined by combustion either in power stations to generate electricity or in smaller units for motive power and driving machinery.
That proposal has an obvious appeal but the snags are clear and severe. In the first place, the direct sensitised decomposition by sunlight of water into hydrogen and oxygen alone is today nothing more than a gleam in the eye of some scientists. Secondly, to generate enough electricity from the sun's rays to electrolyse water —for example, by the use of photo-voltaic cells —poses many scientific and technical problems as yet unsolved.
So what, in those circumstances, should the United Kingdom do? Your committee is quite clear about that. We should do all that is reasonably practicable to diminish our contribution to greenhouse gases and by example, precept and discussion encourage other nations to take what actions they can in that direction. Many of the problems have already been referred to by other noble Lords and many aspects of them have been discussed in detail. In particular, as I have mentioned, the no regrets policies should be implemented now.
At the same time, one must recognise the fact that that policy can be soundly based only if the present imprecision and uncertainties in the predictions of the temperature rise, climate changes and probable impacts are markedly reduced. Therefore, the United Kingdom in concert with other nations —because it is a transnational problem —must engage in the necessary scientific and technological research and development in a purposeful way and on a time-scale which is not leisurely but has some urgency.
Fortunately, the United Kingdom is reasonably well placed to make a very significant contribution to that international work, though I am bound to say that in some areas it is limited by a lack of suitably trained and equipped scientific manpower. In the report we have listed particular scientific areas to which attention should be directed. Those have already been referred to by many speakers.
The committee has seen the scope and the need for government laboratories and universities to be involved in this work. Much of it is of an interdisciplinary or multi-disciplinary character and therefore some co-ordination will be necessary. But it must not be of the overarching, heavy-handed, top-down nature which stifles initiative and originality. Instead, it should be of a more flexible kind. It is there that the committee sees a role and important function which could be performed by the advisory board for the research councils.

263
One could go on. I was tempted by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, to expatiate on the physical chemistry of the upper atmosphere. However, the hour is late and I shall content myself by saying that some of us who served on the committee under the able chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, earnestly hope that your Lordships will find convincing its opinions, conclusions and recommendations, with which I wholly concur. I hope that your Lordships will give them your strong support and thus enhance their chance of acceptance by the Government.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, as a non-scientist it is a privilege to take part in a debate based on the brilliant report produced by distinguished noble Lords under the guidance of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I do not wish to take any advantage of my amateur status but I must be at odds with the conclusions of the report on the grounds of what was intimated by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. I am a fatalist and I believe that whatever we may try to do it will not be enough to prevent some of the physical processes that we have discussed this evening.
I felt that when I first raised the matter of greenhouse gases in an Unstarred Question on 30th November 1978. During the course of the debate it became quite clear that the greenhouse effect had not then been identified as a problem by Her Majesty's Government or by noble Lords in Opposition; therefore, it was not a matter for serious concern, despite the fact that figures available at that time were slightly higher than those produced in the noble and gallant Lord's report.
Therefore, while I felt that the second part of my Question which I wanted to ask at that time could not be relevant, I shall ask it now. It is, is the increase in global warming attributable mainly to industrial man's activities over the past century and therefore to some extent controllable or is it an inevitable part of the natural history of our planet over which mankind has little or no control one way or another?
The Sixth Report of the Select Commitee on Science and Technology seems to imply that the former might be the case. Therefore, the conclusions indicate that by a global change in energy production methods and energy consumption habits, coupled with other social changes involving the production and use of CFCs, it is thought, and has been thought by many noble Lords who have spoken, that industrial man might avoid some of the more drastic consequences created by a global warming due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere.
It is for that purpose that the noble and gallant Lord's report and organisations like the Association for the Conservation of Energy recommend energy policies which might require some of the following direction by governments all over the world: global restrictions on the use of fossil fuels for electricity generation, which has been mentioned; development of new types of refrigerators and air conditioners; a major reduction in the populations of flatulent cattle,
264
as mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord; ban logging and slash and burn activities and firewood extraction of the rain forests; create emission controls on motor cars and industrial plants and so on. I fully support all those no regret policies. I suggest, and I am sure that noble Lords would agree, that those are part of good planetary housekeeping. However, will they not prove politically impossible to apply to developing nations, the reason being, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and others have mentioned, the unacceptable costs and psychology involved in such policies?
For example, such restrictions could seriously affect industrial development, in particular, in countries like China which have easy access to immense coal reserves. How can they be expected to institute energy generation policies which will deny their own citizens the use of their own coal in order to benefit environmentally those who appear industrially better off and who live far beyond the confines of the Middle Kingdom?
It was announced today by the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate —and I wonder whether he even felt guilty for a moment —that 13·3 billion is to be spent by the Government on a road-building programme. I am sure that he does not feel guilty about that being announced on the day on which we are having this debate in the noble Lord's House. There will be an increase in motor car production and use, and that is forecast not only in this country but in all other European countries. That will not stop because of this debate or because of the suggestions made about the increase in greenhouse gases. I cannot see how those programmes can be changed or altered in the industrial world. Therefore I think it is rather unlikely that they will be changed in the non-industrial world. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply can confirm that the Government will go ahead with their programmes despite what has been said.
What are those non-industrial countries to do which might hope to share the industrial world's affluence in motor transport but which are at the moment reliant on animal power? Should they make the transition and add yet more ozone in the troposphere, or should they stay where they are without the internal combustion engine? The report says that that is also undesirable because of the extra volume of harmful methane created by cattle production in agricultural economies.
What hope of improvement for the future therefore can, say, an Indian politician offer his Hindu constituents in the villages of the sub-continent? How can he say that there must be a reduction in the cow and buffalo population while at the same time saying that there can be no replacement with tractors or motor transport? Likewise, how can an East African politician deliver the same message to his Masai constituents, and so on? Surely the only way that such policies can become politically and financially acceptable is if the planetary scientists can prove conclusively that all mankind's activities have an adverse effect on the global warming process. A collective solution must therefore be made available, perhaps through the World Bank or some other international financial

265
organisation, which can suit the rich and poor alike for the same costs. Such a solution may be a very long way off and politically and financially unattainable.
That brings me to my main question. Is the greenhouse effect a natural process with man's influence only acting on the periphery? In Volume I of the Sixth Report, page 18, figure 4, we find the famous graph which originally identified the greenhouse effect. This was achieved with a measurement at Mauna Loa in Hawaii of all natural and industrial carbon dioxide emissions around the world since 1958. It is a formidable looking graph, with an obvious and upward curve which has no real variations except those which reflect winter and summer growth of vegetation in the northern hemisphere.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord who will reply to the debate one or two questions relating to what I consider to be a very important graph. What percentage of these emissions are man-made and therefore controllable? Is it 2 per cent, or 20 per cent? I have been given both figures by NERC. Is the higher percentage identifiable in the graph? If so, why was there not a dip in the upward curve of emissions during the oil crisis of the 1970s and the subsequent cutbacks in energy production and consumption throughout the industrial world at that time? Could this graph of CO2 emissions reflect an atmospheric process which is primarily a natural rather than an industrial one?
I feel that the report of the noble and gallant Lord does not go into this last question either because it is so obvious and I should know about it —we should all know about it —or it was somehow avoided. It is a pity because it is, to me at any rate, of fundamental importance for the future to know what the answer to this question may be. Perhaps the noble Lord, in his wind-up speech, can put my mind at rest by giving a definitive answer to a non-scientist.
Let us suppose for a moment —as one of the later speakers in the debate I believe we are allowed to suppose at this time of night but I will not take long —that this graph reflects a natural phenomenon of global warming: what has taken place in the distant past, is taking place now and will return again at some time in the future. The Sixth Report reminds us that this is indeed the pattern, so what would it mean? It would surely mean that completely different policies and entirely new philosophies have to be evolved as a matter of some urgency once it is recognised that the phenomenon of global warming is a natural one whose direction is largely unaffected by mankind's agricultural or
266
industrial activities. The changing climate might even mark the end of the present inter-glacial season as the procession of equinoxes moves from Pisces into the age of Aquarius, the water carrier.
In referring to the water carrier, there is another paragraph in the report which mentions that the increase in precipitation in Antarctica could lead to an increase in the weight of Antarctica —I used weight in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy —of between 400 billion and 600 billion tonnes of water a year. Where does that water come from? There will be a yearly transfer of atmospheric water of hundreds of billions of tonnes perhaps from the centre and the mid-latitudes of the globe to one of the top latitudes of the globe.
I do not know what that means. Will the rotation of the planet slow down? Will there be a variation in polar wander? Could it be a trigger for the start of a new ice age, which is, I understand, somewhat overdue? The consequences of a natural greenhouse effect would become inevitable regardless of the efforts that industrial man might make to postpone them. According to the Sixth Report, no one knows whether or not that is the case. I am sure that it is a very unlikely situation, but it must be wrong totally to exclude such a scenario until scientific evidence proves otherwise. Homo sapiens over the past million years has had to adapt to dramatic changes in his environment. Many have failed to survive those changes because of the violence of nature or because they were unprepared for them.
The gales which have recently swept down trees and telephone and power lines throughout Northern Europe give an indication of what nature can do to bring an industrial and urban society to a standstill, apart from causing tragic loss of life. The disruption to transport, power and communications that was experienced in the South of England last week as a result of bad weather makes one wonder whether, in a period of major climatic change, urban man would become as extinct as the dinosaur.
In conclusion I should like to see the threat of a natural greenhouse effect cause homo sapiens to implement a global policy of de-urbanisation as a survival policy for the future. I believe that that would be a common sense and realistic objective, even assuming that fears about climatic change prove to be unfounded. That route is preferable, in my view, to suggesting rather arrogantly, as the Sixth Report is inclined to do on occasions, that mankind might be able to alter the course of nature by symbolically switching its refrigerator from an "on" to an "off" position.
10.6 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the committee for producing such an excellent report, covering almost any subject that the intelligent layman wants to know about in a generally understandable way.
We can now say that unless the scientists have left out some quite unforeseen factor in their analysis, we know that we are facing a serious situation which could become a world disaster in the not very distant future. A moderate estimate that has been mentioned is a rise in the sea level of a third of a metre by the year 2030. There is a climatic change that goes with that rise in sea level. It is thought by some that once under way the greenhouse effect will increase more and more rapidly. For that and other reasons it may be quite impossible to reverse or halt the effect if we do not do something about it now.
The need to appreciate and take action provides a situation which, to a greater or lesser degree, is quite common. So often a government will not face a problem until it becomes extreme, largely because the public will not accept drastic measures until the need for them is obvious. One could draw the conclusion that although one might turn to some expensive kind of generation of electricity, how much extra would the public be prepared to pay in order to avoid CO2? The same kind of situation could apply to the problem of traffic in London. The Government will not do anything drastic without public support, and the public will not give its support until the situation is drastic.
It is easy for the Government to say that a reduction in Britain's carbon dioxide emissions would only produce a small effect in the total emissions worldwide, and that therefore they may await European and international agreement before doing anything useful. What has happened to the concept of leadership if that is the view that the Government take? Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are approximately 10,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. However, they are present in very small amounts. Nevertheless, they produce an effective 14 per cent. towards global warming. They are better known for their effect on the ozone layer. I am sure that in a subsequent debate we shall be told that government establishments are major users of CFCs for refrigeration and air conditioning. Already there is at least one commercial firm concerned with the recovery or neutralisation of CFCs from air conditioning and refrigeration plants. Instead of actively encouraging this, the Government do precisely nothing to help.
I turn now to CO2 emissions, which represent 50 per cent. of the problem. The first and obvious course is to reduce the need for power stations by improving energy efficiency and conservation. Almost every noble Lord has made that point. Friends of the Earth claims that a 65 per cent. reduction is possible, but even at the very least, 25 per cent. is easily achievable on commercial terms with a three-year or four-year pay-back time. But what do we find? The Government have cut the Energy Efficiency Organisation's modest budget,
268
largely on its publicity. Yet this is just where more money is needed.
People are apt to think that energy savings are simply a matter of better insulation of houses and buildings. Yes, they are very important, and it would be useful if the Government could provide a scheme for better insulation of existing housing stock. Some 20 per cent. of our energy is spent in heating needs. But there are many other areas where substantial savings are possible; the latest types of fluorescent lighting, for example, can give large savings on existing installation in industry, and in the domestic field a greater use of now quite attractive fluorescent fittings would help, as would more efficient domestic appliances. Television sets, refrigerators and freezers are now so widespread and in such constant use that even a small increase in their efficiency could be important. In the industrial field there are great opportunities in energy-saving processes, even, for example, in the efficiency of electric motors. The list is endless.
Much is always said about alternative renewable energy sources. I support all efforts in this direction, but they simply do not, and will not in the foreseeable future, provide more than a small proportion of our total energy requirement. Geothermal power, at the very best, if successful, would give a tiny fraction. The same applies to waste incineration and gas from waste tips, though the latter does mean that methane, one of the greenhouse gases, can be collected and put to good use.
I am afraid that wave energy in bulk still looks vastly expensive, and I am reminded that to provide all the energy we need would call for roughly 900 miles of wave generators. Wind power could provide a useful contribution, perhaps up to 10 per cent. of our needs, if the public will accept what they would see on the tops of our hills. Putting wind generators out to sea might be more acceptable but the cost of electricity so generated is likely to be too expensive.
There are two other quite important ways of producing non-polluting generation. They are the Severn barrage and combined heat and power. The Severn barrage could provide about 6 per cent. of our energy needs, as could large combined heat and power city schemes. For either of these to become practical some degree of Government support is needed. However, that is not yet forthcoming to any effective degree.
From the point of view of reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we must try to lessen our energy requirements and promote, so far as we can, the non-polluting alternative sources of energy, even if each one of them were to contribute only a small proportion of the whole.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in congratulating my noble and gallant friend and his colleagues on a most admirable report delivered in the most elegant fashion to your Lordships' House, I feel that I have very little to add beyond a certain amount of personal perspective on the subject with which I have been engaged for many years.

269
I take first paragraph 1.3 of the report. It reads:
"to the extent that man failed to adapt, the social and political consequences could be very serious indeed".
Man will fail to adapt; he always does until it is too late. Then it will be a story of too little, too late. I turn next to paragraph 2.1 of the report. It says:
"Climate fluctuates on many timescales and the warming so far measured could, as far as the observational evidence is concerned, be part of a fluctuation which could in time change to cooling".
Some 40 years ago when Sir Vivian Fuchs was crossing the Antarctic, I was interesting myself in the thickness of the ice over the North Pole. I had two figures upon which to work: one was the measurement made by Nansen in 1900; the other was the measurement made by the Soviet expedition in 1936. In extrapolating these forward, it was obvious that the Polar ice cap was going to break up quite soon —that is, if the figures were to be relied upon. I could not gain access to Nansen's sampling techniques or to those of the Soviet expedition. Therefore, I was unable to work out what the standard deviation was statistically. Of course, an average quoted without its measure of dispersion is the most misleading thing from which one can try to learn.
However, just as I was warming to my subject, the clerk of the weather started cooling down and the trend that I thought I had detected —which was a genuine warming up, since the glaciers were retreating all over Switzerland —reversed itself and the earth started cooling down again. But in the past 20 years it has started warming up again. Such fluctuations do occur. In terms of communication engineering, we are operating in an area with a very unfavourable signal to noise ratio.
Let us allow the years to pass. In 1970 I was appointed chairman of one of the three meteorological committees in this country; namely, the Meteorological Committee. The others were the Meteorological Research Committee and the Meteorological Committee for Scotland. Of course meteorology has no frontiers and all three committees were eventually consolidated under my chairmanship.
When I retired in 1982 I could not help looking backwards to see whether my efforts had been in any way beneficial. When I took on the job we had six weather ships working in the Atlantic; when I retired we had only one. Why was that? It was because America did not think that, as part of the partnership, it was receiving value for money and since the contributions were in proportion to the gross national product, it meant that when the Americans retired from the project five-sixths of it disappeared.
I learnt then, as I had learnt before and have learnt since, that we shall never understand the oceans until we understand the atmosphere. And we shall never understand the atmosphere until we understand the oceans. Further, understanding the oceans is much more expensive than understanding the atmosphere because people live at meteorological stations on land, but they do not live on ships in
270
mid-Atlantic. Therefore, maintaining them and the ships, and alternating the crews so that they have some sort of home life, is a very expensive business. As I said, our cousins across the duckpond did not think that they were getting value for money.
I turn again to the report and read that Britain accounts for only 3 per cent. of the global warming. Therefore, whether we do something or whether we can do nothing, the net result at the end of the road will be exactly the same. There is only one thing we can do: it is the only way that you can ever influence other people. We must set them a good example.
We can set the world a good example by doing something in terms of money from which we may not get an immediate return. If our lead is not followed, there is nothing we can do: only Brazilians can stop other Brazilians burning down their forests. If they persist in their ways, what are we to do? Are we going to apply economic sanctions? That will not have much effect: they are already bankrupt.
Various remarks have been made about nuclear power. I entirely endorse the conclusions contained in paragraph 13.44 which tilt a lance against the Government's decision to threaten Dounreay with shut-down in the not-too-distant future. We should never shut down Dounreay until the European fast reactor has started up. There should be a period of overlap between the two because, apart from the Superfenix in France, which is not an entirely satisfactory power station, or has not been so far, Dounreay is the major materials testing laboratory for the whole of the nuclear power of the future. One cannot do accelerated ageing tests. One has to go on with one's components, submitting them to irradiation, finding out how density changes, how cracks develop and so on. One cannot accelerate that process. We should therefore keep Dounreay going until the European fast reactor project, in which we are partners, gets going.
It can never be sufficiently emphasised that we have in stock, at no pounds sterling in the books, 400 years' supply of power at our present rate of consumption, represented by depleted uranium and plutonium, all waiting until the engineering of the fast reactor is complete, and the atomic energy situation can become part of a balanced system which goes forward into an indefinite future.
There is one further matter to which I wish to refer; that is, the rise in sea level to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred. When I last talked to Sir John Mason, the former director general of the Meteorological Office while I was its chairman, about this matter, I said, 'What do you really think it is?" He said, "Over the next 50 years or so, perhaps 25 centimetres". Twenty-five centimetres is 10 inches. It is a little less than one-third of a metre, which the noble Viscount quoted. The greater part of Holland operates below sea level. The Dutch learnt the trick of beating back the tides with dykes. Most of our early dykes were built by the equivalent of civil engineers from Holland who were engaged on the task.
I have one last thing to say about our relative ignorance of climatic processes. We do not know the

271
origins of the little ice age which stretched from Elizabethan to Jacobean times. All knowledge of our past climate is purely anecdotal —"The Thames froze this year", "A storm wrecks 30 ships", "Primroses blossomed in February", and so on. That is all we know. Why? Because Galileo invented the first thermometer operating with alcohol in 1612. He was followed by Fahrenheit in 1714 and then by Celsius in 1742. Celsius invented the 100 degree thermometer which we called centigrade because the ice point is nought and the boiling point of water is one. Divided into 100 equal divisions it was known as Celsius all over Europe and centigrade only in Britain. We changed the nomenclature from centigrade to Celsius quite recently. Until those dates which I have quoted, we had no knowledge of temperatures because we had no thermometers. The history was all anecdotal; nevertheless, there was a little ice age from Elizabethan to Jacobean times, and no one knows why.
10.24 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and his committee on the most excellent report that they have produced. It has caused us to listen to an outstanding debate. I am only sad that a debate of this importance and interest to a majority of the population of this country should have taken place so late in the evening. With all due respect to the Scottish lawyers, I should have preferred it to be the first business.
I am not a scientist or an expert but I have read the report with great care. There is no doubt that the evidence given to the committee points to the fact that due to increased greenhouse gases the global temperature is higher now than in 1850. That is not wholly due to the greenhouse gases, because none of the witnesses was able to say for certain that the rise in temperature could be attributed largely to an increase in those gases. However one must assume, and the report assumes, that the gases are responsible for some of the rise in temperature. I am therefore wholly in agreement with the policy advocated that we must adopt an insurance or a "no regrets" policy to deal with the problem of emissions so far as possible.
It has also been pointed out that international co-operation involving an enormous amount of research is necessary to achieve a real impact. One hopes that the United Kingdom Government will commit themselves to international co-operation and also devote substantial amounts of money to research, both nationally and internationally.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, referred to the Third World and the problems that we in the developed countries will have in order to convince these people that they should not go the way that we have gone and create economic riches for themselves at the risk of further spoiling the environment for us all. It will be extremely difficult to put this across.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that the best way is to do it by example. Actions are
272
much more telling than words. There is an enormous amount that we ourselves can do in this country to reduce our input into the problem. First, nationally, as suggested by many noble Lords, the Government should provide funds to promote the efficient use of energy. My noble friend Lord Ezra referred to combined heat and power and better insulation for buildings, where the Government's input is essential. That is an action that we can take for which research I is no longer necessary. My noble friend Lord Ezra pointed out that these actions are taken in Scandinavian countries and have been proved to be efficient. That is something which we could do immediately to reduce the problem within our own nation and show by example that we are prepared to do the right thing.
Secondly, the aim for a reduction of carbon dioxide by the year 2005 in line with the Toronto target should be fulfilled. Much can be done in this country by way of a change in transport policy. That was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and by my noble friend Lord Ezra. Instead of following what one would hope would be a policy of reduction, the Government plan £ 12 billion road programme which will cause an increase of 142 per cent. in car emissions by the year 2025. In this country emissions went up by just over 2·6 per cent. last year, and the car business subsidy is five times the rail subsidy, which is the lowest in Europe. Countries like France and Germany have a different road and rail policy and they have managed to reduce their CO2 emissions during the past year. Britain should return to a greater use of rail travel and produce a properly co-ordinated road/rail policy.
Many noble Lords have mentioned the need for increased research into renewable sources of power such as wave and tidal power. I am conscious that they will not solve the problem and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, pointed out that they could have an adverse environmental impact. However, we must balance their impact on the natural environment with the impact of the greenhouse gases. Much more research should be put into this effort in order to avoid what I believe is a wrong course of action, although it is recommended in the report, and that is a return to a greater increase in the use of nuclear power.
In order to achieve those objectives we must set an example by creating a coherent policy. To create a coherent policy, much closer co-operation between the Department of the Environment, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture must be created. Those departments must work together to produce an environmental policy that is acceptable to this country.
The report suggests an annual review by Ministers to be chaired by the Prime Minister with an appropriate back-up from the Cabinet Office secretariat. An annual review is fine. I agree that it should take place and that its findings should be published, but what is more important than anything else is the political will in the Government to make the departments I have mentioned work together and jointly produce an acceptable policy.
10.32 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join with all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate in congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and his noble friends for a first-class and extremely important report. When I have to deal with Select Committee reports I like to read the evidence first and then look to the report. However, I must confess that a large part of the evidence and a considerable part of the report defeated me. As a non-scientist I was not able to keep up with the language and I am afraid that in many ways I was not able to keep up with the thinking. Therefore, I was particularly grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for the clarity of his exposition in introducing the report. The fact that the noble and gallant Lord was able to bring together the fundamental assumptions and conclusions of the report in the clear way that he did made life much easier for me.
I am not a scientist but I have been a user of statistics for most of my working life. I hope that I understand, if not the nature of the scientific evidence which is adduced for the conclusions of the report, something of the difference between the accumulation of observation and the statistical inferences which may be drawn from patently inadequate observations for scientific proof.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to his attempts to calculate the depth of the polar ice cap from two observations, one in 1900 and the other in 1936. To a statistician that means he had one degree of freedom, which will not take him very far. I think the evidence is rather better than that in this case, but certainly as we seek to place ourselves properly in the balance between complacency and panic, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, said, we are entitled to say that the fundamental evidence has been produced and is stated clearly in the evidence from the Meteorological Office.
The greenhouse effect is real and the increase in the number of greenhouse gases causes global warming. That may not have happened yet. It may not happen significantly in our lifetime. It may not happen dangerously in our children's lifetime. However, even if we do not know enough about the observations, and even if our modelling of the climate is not good enough for us fully to predict what will happen, nevertheless, we understand enough about the processes involved to be confident —confident in despair rather than in joy —that certain things will happen if present trends in the emission of greenhouse gases continue.
As Sherwood Rowland said (and he is quoted in the evidence of the Friends of the Earth to the committee):
"What's the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions, if in the end all we're willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?"
In the most valuable conclusion that this committee or any committee reaches, the committee says that we cannot wait for scientific proof; we have to take action now. That action must not be experimental but real action.
274
I am certainly not qualified to comment on the very important conclusions which the committee reaches on scientific policy and manpower. I was impressed by the evidence of the Natural Environment Research Council that the budgets available in this country for the research that is necessary are not adequate. I have no doubt that in replying the Minister will have some rabbits to produce out of the hat in that respect. I am sure that he will be able to introduce some exciting new initiative which will convince the House that the Government are taking the matter as seriously as they should. Therefore I shall pass over that very large and valuable part of the report which is concerned with the implications for scientific policy.
I want to talk about social policy. This is a problem for humanity and it will be social policies which will make the necessary difference. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, put the matter very effectively when she spoke of the need for co-ordination between the different government departments. She echoed the point that has been made over and over again in the course of the debate, about the need for energy conservation in particular. The Association for Energy Conservation calculates that the difference between continuing with existing policies and adopting what we know to be possible in terms of energy conservation is an increase of 20 per cent. in carbon dioxide emissions and a decrease of 20 per cent. in carbon dioxide emissions in a reasonable period of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and other noble Lords referred to the need for combined heat and power. A number of noble Lords, notably the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the paradox of energy prices. It is not so much that energy prices will go up, although, as the noble and gallant Lord said, that was not one of the attractions of privatisation that was debated when the Electricity Bill was discussed last year. Energy prices will go up irrationally and in a way which is not calculated to improve energy conservation. The balance between fossil fuels and other fuel sources is a matter which appears not to be a conscious element of government policy. The Government appear to be closing down the nuclear industry not because of any well-founded fears of the dangers of the industry, but because it is inconvenient to include the nuclear industry in the privatisation proposals.
On the issue of nuclear energy, fossil fuels and conservation, I find myself on the side of my noble friend Lord Dean and the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. I do not think that there is a conflict between energy conservation policies and the continuation of the use of nuclear energy. They are complementary; they are not in contradiction. We must spend as much as we possibly can. We must be as efficient as we can in energy conservation, but it does not follow from that that we must rely for all time on fossil fuels. As my noble friend Lord Dean said, fossil fuels will run out anyway. The proven resources of all types of fossil fuels will certainly last less than a century and an alternative must be found.

275
Thus, in energy conservation, in terms of energy generation, there is a vast amount for government to do. There has been a great lack of coherence in the Government's policies ever since, at the outset of their term of office, they abolished the Energy Commission and the Commission on Energy and the Environment.
There is a great deal to be done in the field of transport. A number of noble Lords referred to that aspect. I was disappointed to find that the report referred to transport policy in terms of decisions to be made on the basis of full research. When it referred to improvement, it mentioned the use of catalytic converters which, as we know, increases the emission of nitrous oxide, rather than the much more fundamental issue to which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred; namely, the balance between efficient road and rail and, above all, the balance between energy-efficient public transport and less energy-efficient private cars.
I am bound to repeat the question that has already been put to the Government: who is in charge? Is the Department of Transport, which is apparently prepared to accept a 142 per cent. increase in private cars by 2025, or the Department of the Environment in charge? Someone in government must be in charge. If the Department of Transport is in charge, God help us.
A number of noble Lords have spoken on the subject of energy conservation in buildings. It is clear that, if we were even to approach the conscious policies which have been adopted in Scandinavia for many years, the possibilities for improving energy conservation in the way in which our buildings are designed and constructed, and even in the way in which existing buildings might be converted, are great.
However, dwarfing all those issues are the international issues. The most reverend Primate referred very effectively to the problem of the rain forests. He made some imaginative suggestions about the way in which that problem might be tackled. It is certainly a problem. Evidence produced to the committee showed that a 1 per cent. decrease in the area of tropical rain forests was equivalent in damage to the atmosphere of a 3 per cent. increase in fossil fuel consumption. If the solutions of the most reverend Primate do not find favour with the Government, they will certainly have to come up with a meaningful alternative.
Dwarfing all those issues, as Sir John Mason of the Royal Society said in evidence to the committee, is the problem of conservation and of the increasing energy demands of the third world. In his evidence, Sir John said that, in comparison with the problems of increasing population, all the other issues which we are discussing are secondary issues. I should add that it is not just a matter of arithmetical increase in the population, but of what becomes a geometrical increase when one considers the increase in energy demand that it will make. Many noble Lords, notably the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Sherfield, referred to that problem. It so dwarfs our other considerations about energy consumption and
276
emission of greenhouse gases that we cannot think about our national issues without taking proper account of the international dimension.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, hoped that the Government's response to the committee's report would be positive. I am bound to say that if we look at the Government's response to the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy, there is not much hope that that will be the case. Their response was what can only be politely described as minimalist. They do not even seem to have got their act together so far as the organisation of energy conservation is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, quite rightly referred to the necessity to make the Energy Efficiency Office a lead agency in that respect. It is simply not enough to have what is glibly called the Department of the Environment as the lead agency unless someone gets together the act of all government departments, notably, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said, transport, agriculture and the energy department itself. As many noble Lords have said, time is not on our side.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, put forward the familiar analogy of trying to turn a large tanker on the sea. Nothing will happen until a very long time after the change of direction has been planned. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, when he talked about the warming of the seas referred to the most extreme case of the time-lag which is found. The fact is that in the first instance the seas will take longer to warm up and, if and when anything is done about it, they will take very much longer to cool down. So the problem will be with us for a very long time indeed.
In terms of the ability of people in the world as a whole to react to what we know to be a worldwide and desperately serious problem, the omens are not good. It took at least 10 years to reach any real understanding of the implications of the 1979 world climate conference, and even now I am not convinced that we are taking adequately into consideration the need for us to participate actively in the United Nations climate convention.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that for our own part locally we must set a good example to other countires and developing nations. However, I think he would agree that that is not enough. We have to participate in international action along the lines that have been suggested, if we are to get anywhere.
I started by quoting a scientist about the need to do something instead of just making predictions. I finish with the words of a poet, Robert Graves, who said: Come, live in now and occupy it well. Prediction is no alternative to forethought.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord. Before he sits down perhaps he will confirm that, although he has the total right to his own opinion, it is the official policy of the Labour Party to phase out nuclear energy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this matter is still the subject of a great deal of debate. The noble Lord is entitled to his opinion, as I am to mine.
10.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I must begin by paying tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the members of the sub-committee for producing such a comprehensive and well-researched report. Those of us who have seen the written and oral evidence that the committee received know that its final report represents the outcome of an enormous body of work. I am sorry that we have not yet been able to respond to the committee. The report covers a great deal of ground on which the department needs to consult widely. But I can assure the noble and gallant Lord and members of the committee that we shall respond very shortly. I can, however, say that we welcome the contribution that the report makes to the debate on this vital subject. We shall be responding positively.
Tonight has seen an extremely informative debate without rancour and with no politics. If I may say so, in a sense it is a great pleasure to look to the spokesman on the Benches opposite, who is a man whose career outside your Lordship's House has been one of interest in statistics. I probably wasted 20 years of my career in researching the internal combustion engine before coming to your Lordships' House. On all sides of the House there is an interest in the debate tonight. It has been a fascinating and, I hope, an informed debate.
We have heard today many informed and informative speeches from noble Lords. Their concern about the greenhouse effect is shared by the Government as it is undoubtedly shared by an increasing number of people in this country and throughout the world. Change to the world's climate is an issue which must concern every person, and one about which no one should remain ignorant.
It is a particularly important fact that we all play a part in educating young people to have a full appreciation of the importance of the environment, and I am delighted to say that copies of the Department of the Environment's recent publication, the booklet Global Climate Change, were sent to every secondary school and college.
In fact, such is the quality of this booklet and the timeliness of its production that the department has been somewhat overwhelmed with requests from schools for further copies. An additional 100,000 copies of the booklet are now being printed and sent out to schools across the country. This will complement the series of leaflets already produced by the Department called Environment in Trust which have proved informative and popular. There is a continuing need to maintain and enhance awareness and understanding of environmental issues and we shall continue to play our part in fulfilling this important objective.
The concern which we all feel for this issue is not always matched by understanding of the complex science involved in climate change. Perhaps I may take a moment of your Lordships' time to stress a few of the most important points. First —a fact not always recognised by the public—climate change and the greenhouse effect are inherently natural
278
phenomena. The history of the earth shows clearly that changes have occurred in the past and will inevitably occur again. These may be caused by small natural changes in our orbit around the sun and influenced by changes within the sun itself. Scientists have predicted that in perhaps 5,000 years the planet will enter another ice age which would not reach its furthest extent for another 10,000 or 20,000 years. In fact, the average rise or fall in the global temperature underlying these momentous changes may be very small. Equally natural is the greenhouse effect itself. Without this process which retains some of the sun's heat within the atmosphere of the earth the planet would be some 30 degrees cooler and so unable to sustain life.
It is central to the great complexity of the problem of the greenhouse effect that we as yet find it difficult to disentangle these natural changes from any additional man-made effects. What we know is that, certainly since the start of the industrial revolution, man's activities on the planet have led us to generate certain gases at an unprecedented rate and perhaps to severely deplete the means of reabsorbing them from the atmosphere.
Crucially, we have been producing and emitting carbon dioxide, CFCs, nitrous oxide and methane while at the same time depleting the earth's forests and releasing the carbon they otherwise lock up from the atmosphere. The clearest evidence for man's impact on the atmosphere is the well-established and inexorable rise in the concentration of these so-called greenhouse gases since the commencement of the industrial revolution.
Dealing with the problems of climate change is hampered at present by our poor understanding of many of the scientific questions associated with it. The need to improve this understanding was, I think, well recognised by the committee's report. Taking forward the research we need has become a major theme of the work of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, which was established jointly with the United Nations environment programme and the World Meteorological Organisation. This body, which is recognised as the principal focus for international work on climate change, has three working groups. The first is charged with drawing together an international consensus on the science of climate change. That is an undertaking almost unparalleled in its scope and complexity. The second will examine the possible impacts of climatic change, and the third will look at possible response strategies. If noble Lords prefer, they have set themselves three questions: what is happening? How will it affect us? And what might we do to avert or to adapt to the effects?
Not all noble Lords may be aware of the important role the United Kingdom is undertaking in chairing the IPCC's working group on the scientific assessment of climate change, a role that reflects the high regard in which our expertise in this field is held internationally. That is something which the Select Committee rightly highlighted in its report. However, we are also actively contributing to the work of all the IPCC's groups. The report of the IPCC will be completed in August and will be considered at

279
the second world climate conference in November this year.
Even before the IPCC's report we hope to have taken another significant step. In June we shall be hosting the second meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol. And we shall continue at that important meeting to press for the strengthening of the protocol to speed up the phasing out of CFCs. As well as their detrimental effect on the ozone layer, CFCs are, molecule for molecule, the most potent greenhouse gas, as has been pointed out by many noble Lords. Eliminating their production and consumption will be an essential part of our reponse to the greenhouse effect, as, without this vital action, the relative contribution of CFCs to the greenhouse effect would continue to rise in the future.
The success of the international agreements to control the production and consumption of CFCs is, in the Government's view, a model lesson for the way forward on climate change and the greenhouse effect. We have on many occasions emphasised our support for an international framework convention on climate change. That has been endorsed in many international meetings; for example, the Commonwealth Conference and the Conference of Environment Ministers in the Netherlands last November; and its importance was reiterated in the Prime Minister's speech at the United Nations. We firmly believe that concerted international action is an essential part of an effective response to climate change. Within the IPCC the UK is playing an important role, together with Canada and Malta, in co-ordinating the first attempts to reach a consensus on the elements which a framework convention should contain.
We have also recognised that we need to play our part in assisting developing countries to deal with climate change through technical and financial assistance, as many noble Lords pointed out. We have already doubled our contribution to the United Nations Environment Programme, and substantially increased our support for projects to help conserve the world's tropical forests. The Overseas Development Administration's programme in this field is built on a wealth of experience and expertise on the ground, and projects are always pursued in co-operation with the host country. In this regard, the Memorandum of Agreement on environmental co-operation which we have signed with the Brazilian Government will, I hope, set an important precedent.
The attention focused on the greenhouse effect has I think brought into better definition the issues surrounding nuclear power. I believe that it will increasingly question the views in the policies of the opponents of nuclear energy. It is hardly credible to suggest that nuclear power can have little or no contribution to make to our need for clean forms of energy. Yet, in advocating a reduction in the contribution which nuclear power makes, its opponents suggest that it is both the most polluting and the most expensive form of energy.
It is now clear that, far from being the most polluting, nuclear power emits almost no carbon dioxide and so, unlike fossil fuels and especially
280
coal, makes no contribution to the greenhouse effect. Perhaps its opponents would favour burning more coal and oil with the increase in emissions that that would cause?
As for costs, we already take account of the decommissioning costs of nuclear stations and the need to avoid damage to the environment, but we make no such adjustment to the costs of cleaning up after fossil fuels. Proper costing of energy production should take account of these costs and, in doing so, the balance between nuclear power and fossil fuels may well be significantly altered. That point was made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and my noble friend Lord Clitheroe.
Your Lordships' attention was drawn to a fact concerning energy consumption in China and it is absolutely correct. It is that, if one takes European energy consumption, multiplies it by eight and divides it by gross national product, one realises that we are facing a serious problem in the long term for the future of the greenhouse effect and the world in which we live.
In its report the committee took time to explore in detail the areas where further research into climate change is needed; and to look at the particular research projects where it felt that the United Kingdom should play a part. When he wrote to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, at the time when the report was published, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment stressed the positive view that the Government take of the need for continued research into aspects of the greenhouse effect and climate change. We shall need of course to concentrate our effort in those fields where we have undoubted experience and expertise, which includes the very important area of climate modelling which the committee quite properly highlighted.
Noble Lords will be aware that in her speech at the United Nations last November the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a new centre for climate prediction which will strengthen our contribution to international research on climate change and enhance our considerable standing in climate modelling. It will also, I am pleased to say, reflect another of the committee's recommendations in that it will be an international centre open to scientists from around the world, including developing countries, who will be able to work with and learn from British scientists.
So far as specific research projects are concerned, our formal response to the committee's report will of course discuss these in detail. But I should emphasise that we have already announced a significant increase in the funding available for climate change related research. For 1990–91, our funding for this research will represent almost a doubling of this year's expenditure to some £28 million.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that in demonstrating our commitment in this way we have responded positively to the thrust of the committee's report.

281
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York referred to his interest and knowledge because with his vocation he is also a pharmacologist. It is a great addition to your Lordships' House to have two great experiences and knowledge at the same time. He referred to the rain forest and carbon depletion from its hidden base in the ground and its release into the atmosphere.
I assure your Lordships that only last evening I had the privilege and honour of discussing with the environment Minister of Mexico the very points made by the most reverend Primate. He said two things which I believe are of great interest. I asked him whether there was any contribution which this country or Europe could make to the problem of afforestation in Latin America. He said that Europe did have knowledge and rightly pointed out my lack of education by reminding me why a certain current was called the Humboldt current. That was named after a man who had gone to Latin America, discovered, learned and contributed.
He felt that the world should understand that it is a simple fact that you have to reconcile the economic ambitions of those who live beside the forest and the economy which depends upon the forest with the preservation of the forest. That is not an exciting statement, but it is a statement about practicality. It is also a statement about hard work and communication. I am sure that that is the message which I understood from the most reverend Primate. I was very pleased to learn it from him for he knows far more about it than I do.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, mentioned the need to integrate a research programme on climate impact. I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord will be glad to know that the Department of the Environment has established a climate change impact review group under the chairmanship of Professor Parry of Birmingham University. That group will bring to us balanced advice on our own research.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, asked whether it was possible to reduce CO2s by 20 per cent. by the year 2005 under the Toronto target. The fact is that the assumptions, made in the figures agreed to, accepted an increase in nuclear power within the United Kingdom with regard to the United Kingdom's contribution to that reduction. I must sadly inform the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that as I understand it, Canada's Ministers feel that they are unable to achieve the Toronto target as it was outlined.
The noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to the forecasts and differences between the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment, as they saw it. The responsibility of the Department of Transport is not to encourage road transport but to be responsible for and to assess the possible level of road transport. The figure of 142 per cent. is an assumption about responsibility and not about encouragement.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, referred to public transport. I must again remind them of what
282
I said in the debate in your Lordships' House just before Christmas. The sad fact about public transport in Europe at present is that the highest level of per capita expenditure exists in the Federal Republic of Germany and the actual use of transport there is falling.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, referred to the saving of energy and, in particular, drew attention to Milton Keynes. For some reason, whenever I am at the Dispatch Box, both the saving of energy and Milton Keynes seem to arise. I had the privilege of being at the opening of Energy World in 1986. It is an example for all authorities throughout the country, and planners in particular, to see the potential which is available. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that there were two buildings around which there was a certain amount of controversy: one, which managed to be built without planning permission because, being built underground, it did not require planning permission; the other was the rotating aeroplane propellor in the sky which at the time also caused a certain amount of disquiet in conservation quarters.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also referred to combined cycle heat and gas-powered stations. I know that certain noble Lords earlier this evening referred —slightly dismissively in the case of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey —to the privatisation of electricity. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that so far as I am aware the only proposed power station, designed for the North-West, is a private undertaking to supply to a new generator. I believe it is supplied by ASCA Brown-Boveri using natural gas coming from the Morecambe field.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, referred to the possibility of a carbon tax. We discussed this point during the debate we had before Christmas. The fact is that we have a difficult balance to achieve. It would, on the one hand, be very easy to say that no car should be built in this country exceeding 500 cc. At the same time, it would be difficult to explain to the employees of the British car industry why they have been put out of work. We have to consider —the Government have said this; I have said it previously and it was discussed before the Recess last year —the fact that, while the carbon tax is now on the political agenda, it has to be achieved with equanimity throughout Europe and the developed world.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, rightly pointed out that many of the developing countries will ask whether they are to be the victims of dual standards. We are in a world in which we are a developed nation and have had the benefits of all that has come through developing our own resources and using them. The question they will ask is, why should they be deprived of the aspirations and material equality? This is in the context of another matter, which is the 5 billion people who, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, rightly pointed out, have not yet arrived on the planet and who will also expect equal treatment.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, referred to the limitations of models and their use. That is

283
absolutely right. I would, however, say that the department is committed to funding various organisations in order to improve modelling. However, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, will take the view that modelling will not be improvement enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, in a very modest way referred to his amateur status. It is important to remember that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, was the first to bring the matter of greenhouse gases to the attention of this House. When you produce something which is unfashionable, though you may not be agreed with, it is inevitable that that will be remembered long after I have faded away and gone from this Dispatch Box.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to the need to assist in the transfer of technology. He is absolutely correct for the future and the difficulty, for example, in the abolition of CFCs is how to remove the requirement without providing financial assistance. That is part of the object of the Montreal protocol.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, also referred to the CO2 increase which had been observed in Hawaii and inquired whether it was due to industrialisation. I am advised that the great majority of this increase is due to fossil fuel power. However, there is some uncertainty concerning the figure which he pointed out to the House, of why there was a fall and then a rise again in the use of fossil fuel against the predictions which should have existed in the chart.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone stated that he felt that the proposals of his friend Dr. Grantham had not been attended to. I am pleased to hear that the DTI are now considering them.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to the importance of understanding the oceans. I agree that, in order to understand the climate, we need to know more about the oceans. That is why the United Kingdom is strongly involved with various international research programmes.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in his usual inquisitive and charming way, asked whether the Government had any commitment at all to the environment. This Government have taken more initiatives, committed more money, shown more concern and have done more than any other government in regard to improving the environment.
There can be no easy answers to the problems of climate and climatic change, whether we are looking at ways to adapt to the changes or at the measures to limit the changes, or whether it is through measured ecological fiscal balance between fossil and nuclear power. It is interesting to note that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, endorsed the possibility —I go no further than that —of a future nuclear energy policy.
In the United Kingdom we may not have to deal with the more extreme impacts of significant changes in the world's climate. The Government will ensure that we continue to contribute our expertise towards the work of scientists in their attempts to understand climate change, our experience of the work of diplomats in their attempts to frame an international
284
response, and our commitment to the work of the politicians as the world looks to them for a lead. Without universality, there is no answer to the problem that we face.
11.11 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this extremely interesting debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, for his reply. I regret that he did not answer either of the specific questions that I put to him. One of those questions concerned the Government response to the House of Commons Energy Committee concerning how market mechanisms will cure the problem. The other question concerned whether or not the Government had studied the Chatham House report on targets.
I am not sure whether the Government are moving from a period when we are all discussing this subject, meeting about it and having conferences, to a period where action is being taken. The report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change —three working groups —and the climate conference that will follow it, must be the spur to taking action on all of these difficult problems.
There is no single solution to the problem. People are inclined to say that we can try nuclear power or energy conservation or forestry. The problem is so great that we have to explore every avenue and act on all those avenues and not waste time in discussing which is the best. All of them are necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (England) Order 1990
11.13 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 12th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order and the order relating to Wales have the effect of consolidating the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (England) (No. 4) Order 1989 and the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (Wales) (No. 4) Order 1989. All earlier orders have been revoked by these principal orders.
It may assist if I briefly set out the circumstances leading up to the imposition of the restrictions in these orders. As my right honourable friend the Minister stated in another place, a consignment of rice bran was contaminated during its transport from Burma. On its arrival in Belgium the unfit cargo was not destroyed but sold on and reprocessed into animal feed in Holland. The Dutch Embassy informed the Ministry on Wednesday, 1st November that a consignment of this feeding stuff — specifically, maize gluten replacer pellets —believed to be contaminated by lead, had

285
been delivered to two companies, one based in Teignmouth and the other in Liverpool.
The Ministry's own veterinary investigation service had by this time established from its own investigations a link between cattle deaths and lead-contaminated animal feed. Subsequent inquiries revealed that a total of some 2,085 tonnes of contaminated feed in four consignments reached the United Kingdom and was distributed to farms mainly in the Midlands and South-West of England and in Wales.
Against this background, the House will appreciate that the Government's immediate concern had to be to ensure consumer protection. The first step was to set in hand an urgent investigation of the records of feed suppliers, merchants and compounders to trace those farms which had or may have received consignments of contaminated feed. This was a colossal task, hampered in some cases by inadequate records and, in a few instances, by less than enthusiastic co-operation by the companies concerned.
As information began to emerge on the distribution of the contaminated feed, ministry officials contacted the farmers concerned to warn them that it would be necessary to place restrictions on their farms. At the same time, thousands of tonnes of the contaminated feed were traced and recalled. More than 2,000 farms in England and Wales were identified as being actually or potentially affected.
I should like next to turn to the statutory arrangements which the Government made to ensure food protection and which are the subject of today's debate. The immediate problem was to ensure that contaminated cattle, milk, beef and dairy products from affected farms were prevented from entering the food chain. Using powers under Part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, my right honourable friend signed the first emergency order on Monday, 6th November. This came into force at one minute past midnight on Tuesday, 7th November. Similar arrangements were also made by the Secretary of State for Wales.
Since then, scrutiny of suppliers', merchants', and compounders' records has continued and as new recipients of contaminated feed have been identified they too have been brought within the control arrangements. In other cases, where it could be established that contaminated feed had not after all been delivered, farms were immediately released from restrictions and the orginal orders have therefore been updated as necessary.
I now turn to the detail of controls the Government have introduced. We had first to ensure that milk from affected farms was not distributed to the public while at the same time avoiding having to store or dispose of such milk on-farm where adequate facilities just do not exist. We also wanted to come up with a system which enabled farms to be cleared of milk restrictions as soon as we had evidence that it was safe to do so. In conjunction with the Milk Marketing Board, therefore, arrangements were made for the milk concerned to be separately
286
collected and held in isolation from normal supplies. This milk was processed into milk powder and butter to facilitate storage until proper disposal could be arranged. Our tests have now shown that the lead levels in this butter and powder are below statutory limits and the Milk Marketing Board has therefore been allowed to release these products. I should like to pay tribute to the invaluable assistance which we received from the Milk Marketing Board in operating these arrangements.
We also had to make arrangements to have the specially collected milk individually sampled and analysed. Here again I should like to pay a warm tribute to the many officials and staff from various analytical facilities who worked around the clock on the collection and analysis of milk samples and the processing of results.
The second major element in our control arrangements involved control on the movement and slaughter of livestock, principally cattle, and the movement of meat products. My right honourable friend the Minister announced details of these control arrangements on 27th November 1989. These arrangements enabled cattle to be released under one of three schemes. Under scheme 1, farmers who were able to provide satisfactory evidence to the department that, while they received bagged contaminated feed, they did not use it and returned it intact to the suppliers were released from cattle restrictions. Twenty complete farms in England and Wales were released under scheme 1.
Scheme 2 was designed to cater for those farmers with a complete category of animals which received no contaminated feed. It applied, for example, if the contaminated feed was for calves and none was fed to beef animals on the farm. In those circumstances, and where blood or other tests provided satisfactory evidence that all was well, those groups of animals were eligible for release from restrictions. There was a time-limit of 15th December for taking blood samples under scheme 2. It was to safeguard against the possibility that, over time, blood lead levels would have fallen but lead in offal and bone would be high. More than 111,000 animals in England and Wales were cleared under scheme 2.
Finally, under scheme 3, we deal with the clearance for slaughter of individual cattle which have, or may have, been fed contaminated feed. Here, we are requiring blood samples and where lead levels are below 0·25 milligrammes per litre—that is, 250 parts per billion —the animal is permitted to be slaughtered and the meat supplied for human consumption, subject to a number of conditions designed to ensure that parts of the carcass which might be contaminated do not go for human consumption. More than 5,000 animals in England and Wales have to date been cleared under scheme 3.
Under these schemes more than 20,000 blood samples have been taken and analysed at 11 laboratories. I should like to thank all concerned for the major efforts they have made to enable this to happen, not least those private veterinary surgeons who have worked at great speed to ensure that blood samples were collected quickly.
In addition to these schemes we have been undertaking an extensive research programme which will continue as long as necessary to monitor the rate of decay of lead in animals. We are monitoring various groups of animals which are being slaughtered at regular intervals so that we can carry out detailed analysis of the presence of lead. We have also been doing extensive laboratory work in connection with lead levels in offal and bone with a view to reducing some of the constraints under scheme 3 if this proves possible without compromising food safety. I can assure noble Lords that we are giving priority to looking at ways of easing restrictions on farmers while, at the same time, ensuring that public health continues to be fully protected.
I hope that the explanations I have given will help noble Lords to appreciate the complexity of the task which has faced us in identifying the contaminated feed and recovering it where possible, in tracing recipient farms, in introducing measures to control contaminated livestock and dairy produce, and in operating control arrangements as sensitively as possible to avoid causing avoidable disruption to the farming community. However, while we will not retain controls any longer than is necessary, I make no apologies for saying that restrictions will remain in place for as long as is necessary to protect consumers from any threat from contaminated food and to preserve the good name of British agricultural produce. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 12th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is extremely grateful to the Minister for the way in which he explained the orders. I appreciate the lateness of the hour but we must take just a little time to consider them because we are discussing a most important matter which has caused great economic loss to many farmers in the affected area. Moreover, I believe that this is the first time we have had the chance to discuss the problem in this House.
In my response to these orders I have been helped by a long letter which I received from West Midland Farmers Association Ltd. which is a farmers' co-operative in Gloucester, the heart of the affected area. Of course, as a co-operative the association has received a large number of claims from affected farmers. The worst problem would seem to be the damaging effect of the blanket restrictions which were placed upon farms with regard to milk and animals, regardless of whether any particular group of animals had received the contaminated feed. This has been described to me as a "slow and ponderous overkill" if that is possible. The other problem for the suppliers of the feed —that is, not the original suppliers but the users of the feed, the merchants and so on —is that they have been told by the Ministry that they should have insurance cover. In this connection the letter reads:
"With regard to our ability to recover losses, this is likewise full of complexity. Our Product Liability insurance will neither cover nor be sufficient for all situations. There are many areas
288
which our insurers and legal advisers are considering but it is certain that there is no insured cover for many situations particularly with regard to milk losses when no contaminated feed was used. It has been widely reported that something in the order of 95 per cent. of the milk under restriction was within the laid down permitted legal limits. At the moment the farmer has received just 5p per litre against an average price of 19p per litre and there is no indication when the final payment will be made or how much it will be. It could lead to a massive level of claims"
on suppliers of feed.
I have some questions which I gave the Minister before the debate, as he is aware. Has the ministry been able to take into account the tests that have been carried out regarding the lead levels in the blood? My information is that in many cases the level is acceptable and will improve with time. Is account being taken of the amount of contaminated feed eaten by the animal? Is account being taken of the degree of contamination of the feed, which is variable? What further scientific information is coming forward to relieve the situation, and is account being taken of how much of the contaminated raw material was used in the final product? Although there were a few cases in the South West where the raw material was used indiluted, in most cases it was combined with other ingredients at a maximum level of 10 per cent.
On the subject of testing for the lead level in blood, I was struck by a letter published this week in the Veterinary Record from a veterinary surgeon in Devon, who wrote:
"A client, who keeps a few cattle on a part-time basis, had his cattle's blood lead levels tested…All had a low blood lead level (less than 50 ppb) except for one cow which had a very high level (over 250 ppb). As it was difficult to explain such a difference, the cow was retested one month later. At the time of the second sampling, the farmer asked if two samples could be taken and sent to different laboratories as he had heard that different results were being obtained from different laboratories …Again, one result showed a very high lead level (over 350 ppb) but the other sample taken from the same cow at the same time but tested at a different, private, laboratory, gave a very different result —'no detectable lead'. When he telephoned the Ministry of Agriculture laboratory concerned, they were at a loss to explain this result. It was decided that if any of the blood was still available it should be retested. This gave a result of just over 50 ppb. So, according to which result one believes, this cow can be regarded as: (i) Very highly contaminated with lead, having sufficient blood lead to exceed the levels set in scheme 2 and 3, (ii) having a blood level allowing it to pass schemes 2 and 3, or (iii) completely lead freed.. Surely, if the accuracy of the testing cannot be relied upon, it puts into question the whole of the testing procedure and the credibility of the ministry schemes."
That letter was from a vet in Devon, which is in the heart of the affected area.
We feel that there must be some way of obtaining compensation from the ministry when restrictions are imposed upon farmers who have not received contaminated feed or if farmers are affected by the way the restrictions are imposed. We have tabled some amendments to the Food Safety Bill to deal with that point. Many healthy animals have been retained on farms for a long time, with all the pressures that one would expect on winter housing and forage supplies. Pages and pages of farmers' names are attached to the orders. They represent a major economic problem or disaster for the farmer concerned. We must find a better, swifter way to deal with similar situations in the future.
11.29 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity which this short debate has afforded me to explain the Government's position on this vexed issue. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has asked a number of interesting questions and I shall try to respond to them.
The noble Lord's first point related to the need for blanket restrictions even where some animals received no contaminated feed. Information on the amount of contaminated feed sent to Britain and the pattern of distribution was extremely sketchy. We could establish which farms had that feed only by physically examining the records of feed suppliers, merchants and compounders, some of which have since proved to be far from accurate.
Against that background, it was necessary to draw the net of our restrictions widely to ensure that consumers were duly protected. Where we were able to establish that particular farmers received or fed no contaminated feed, all restrictions were quickly lifted. Where farmers received contaminated feed but were able to show that particular groups of animals received none of it, and where blood or milk analysis corroborated that, the "clean" animals were released from restrictions. As I said earlier, more than 111,000 animals have been cleared on the basis of this criterion.
The second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was on blood levels. Blood testing was used to corroborate claims that particular groups of animals received no contaminated feed and were thus eligible for release under scheme 2. The level of lead in blood remains the determining factor for eligibility for release under scheme 3. However, there is no known test which could be carried out on farms and which would enable animals to be cleared for release.
The noble Lord also asked me to clarify whether account is being taken of the amount of contaminated feed eaten or the degree of contamination of feed. This is not easy because of the variability of feed contamination and difficulties in establishing amounts fed to animals. We are actively considering whether a systematic scheme could be devised to allow restrictions to be eased without compromising food safety.
On the subject of further scientific information, we are in close contact with the Department of Health over the results of extensive laboratory analysis of lead levels in tissues, offals and bones with a view to easing some of the constraints under scheme 3. We hope on the basis of this work to be able to announce a further relaxation of restrictions shortly. We are also monitoring groups of animals which we are slaughtering at regular intervals, in order to monitor the distribution and levels of lead over time.
Another point concerned the audit of feed merchants' records. To ensure that information received from feed suppliers, merchants and compounders is reliable, MAFF staff have been carrying out their own detailed audits of stocks of contaminated material received and have been checking back on the ultimate destination and disposal of feed. A recent audit at a compounder
290
in Torrington, D. J. Cobbledick Ltd, revealed that contaminated feed was used in the preparation of a number of products which were not previously thought to be involved. The most important of these products was a dairy feed known as "Parlour Pride" which was distributed to over 500 customers. While many of these farms were already under restriction, there were 165 which had never been under restriction and which it was necessary to restrict immediately. This was done issuing formal directions on 17th January.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised a point on compensation. The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, under which restrictions were imposed, does not contain provisions for statutory compensation. The Act is designed to ensure consumer protection against any hazard arising from the human consumption of contaminated food. Claims for compensation are a matter for farmers to pursue with suppliers of contaminated animal feed, through the courts if necessary. I understand that the National Farmers' Union is advising its members on this question.
Finally, let me repeat that the Government's principal concern throughout this incident has been to protect consumers from any hazard to health arising from the consumption of contaminated food. That has to remain our first priority. Nevertheless, we shall continue to do everything possible to reduce both the extent and the duration of controls and to ease the burden on farmers by lifting restrictions just as fast as we possibly can, consistent with the overriding need to ensure the continuing safety of the food chain. I commend these orders to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (Wales) Order 1990
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.: My Lords, I have spoken to this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 15th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before midnight.

  TRIDENT PROGRAMME: US DEFENCE BUDGET CUTS
  TRIDENT PROGRAMME: US DEFENCE BUDGET CUTS
  DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
  DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
  AFRICAN COMMODITIES EXPERT GROUP'S REPORT
  AFRICAN COMMODITIES EXPERT GROUP'S REPORT
  PREMIUM BONDS: PRIZE MONEY
  PREMIUM BONDS: PRIZE MONEY