Sitting of 3 July 1990

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords]
GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 5 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    NHS Inflation
    Mr. Leighton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate for national health service inflation for the remainder of the current financial year.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The Government do not make estimates of inflation in the national health service before the end of the financial year concerned.
    Mr. Leighton: Is not the underfunding of the national health service for inflation one reason why the service is starved of cash? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the financial crisis in the North East Thames region that has led to the postponement of phase 3 of Newham general hospital? It was promised in 1984, but has now been scrapped, and that has led to a sense of betrayal in Newham.
    Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the growing and projected population moving into London's docklands and the need for health facilities for them, which have been mentioned by the district health authority and London Docklands development corporation in representations to his Department and the Department of Environment? Nothing has been done. Why? Will he do something about that? Will he review the position of health services in the London borough of Newham?
    Mr. Clarke: The health service is not underfunded. Indeed, the resources available to it have grown so fast that we are now spending almost half as much again, over and above inflation, as the previous Labour Government were spending when they left office. This year, health authorities have at least an additional 4 per cent., ahead of inflation, in their coffers compared with last year.
    842
    I am aware of the postponement of the hospital in Newham. It is an unfortunate result of the fact that the North East Thames capital programme was racing ahead, partly on the basis of land sales in a booming property market. Those land sales have now slowed and the region has had to review its programme. I agree that it is a serious problem and, together with the regional health authorities, I shall continue to review the capital programmes, and especially that of the North East Thames region.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify a point recently announced in the press—that some districts will not be required to achieve a level playing field by the beginning of the next financial year? If that is the case, why should others suffer?
    Mr. Clarke: No one is suffering, because it has always been a requirement that all parts of the national health service should live within the growing amount of resources available to it. All districts have always been expected to keep within those resources, and they are being urged to do so now.
    I accept that one or two district health authorities may not manage to do that this year, but we will accept that only on the basis that they are well on course to eliminating the deficits as quickly as possible thereafter.
    Ms. Harman: Will the Secretary of State make good the underfunding of Camberwell district health authority? Is he aware that tomorrow night that health authority will consider proposals to cut 106 beds and begin the reduction of its junior medical staff by up to 40 doctors? Does not he think that people in south London and throughout the country will be disgusted by the fact that, with hospitals in south London facing £3 million of cuts this year, he is prepared to spend £3 million of taxpayers' money on propaganda leaflets?
    Mr. Clarke: The system of cash limits in the national health service was introduced by the previous Labour Government. It was a wise move, and I am sure that no future Government will remove cash limits from the national health service.
    The cash limits for Camberwell or, indeed, anywhere else vastly exceed the levels expected when Labour was last in power. It remains a fact that all parts of the national health service are expected to deliver their services within the growing resources allocated to them. Sometimes they can cut beds and facilities and switch the money saved to more important parts of the service or use it to maintain the number of patient treatments at reduced cost. That is part of managing the health service and Camberwell, like every other district, sometimes has to face difficult decisions about how best to maintain high-quality services within the resources available.
    Mr. Speaker: We now come to question No. 2.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, answer questions Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 and 15 together at 3.30 pm.

    Hospital Doctors (Pay)
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage change in the pay of hospital doctors in the national health service since 1979.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Since 1979, the pay of hospital doctors has increased in real terms by 33 per cent.
    Mr. Irvine: Does my hon. Friend agree that that encouraging answer provides clear evidence of the Government's commitment to the national health service? What is more, does not it provide clear evidence of their readiness and ability to back their commitment with hard cash?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If she has them, will my hon. Friend give the comparative figures for the period 1974 to 1979, when Labour was in office?
    Mrs. Bottomley: By chance, I am able to give that information for the period between 1974 and 1979—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to everyone, the Minister should answer one question.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I shall answer only one question, and provide the information that my hon. Friend wants. Between 1974 and 1979, the pay of hospital doctors fell by 6.4 per cent., which contrasts with a 33 per cent. increase over the years that the present Government have been in power. That is a strong indication of our belief in the professionals who work in the health service as well as of our commitment to the patients whom we are all there to serve.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Minister tell the House about another 33 per cent. increase for last year only? I refer to the increase gained by company chairmen following a 28 per cent. increase the previous year. If it is good enough for company chairmen, bosses, and friends of the Tory party, why cannot hospital doctors, nurses and others who work in the health service receive the same kind of increase?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is exactly that type of contribution from the hon. Gentleman that makes all those who work in the health service fear the day that Labour ever achieves power. It is precisely that type of political mischief-making that so enormously depresses the 1 million people who work in the health service. The hon. Gentleman mentioned nurses. Their pay has risen by 43 per cent. while the present Government have been in power, which contrasts with a fall of 21 per cent. when a Labour Government were responsible for the service.

    Speech Therapists
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what target he has set for the level of provision for speech therapists per 100,000 population.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): We have not set any national targets. It is for individual health authorities to assess the numbers of speech therapists they require.
    Mr. Squire: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a national shortage of speech therapists, and that in the North East Thames region the shortfall is estimated at 35 per cent? The figure for my district is similar. Will my hon. Friend give his full commitment to increasing the supply of qualified speech therapists and to reducing the number of children who sometimes have to wait more than one year for an initial assessment?
    Mr. Dorrell: We recognise the need to increase the number of speech therapists in the future. Perhaps the best earnest of our intention to do that is the 80 per cent. increase in the number of speech therapists in post since 1979. An important way of improving the flow of people into the profession is to ensure that pay and conditions are made properly flexible. That issue will be addressed as part of the review promised for this autumn.
    Mr. Dalyell: What does the Minister mean by his remark that pay and conditions should be made properly flexible?
    Mr. Dorrell: It means ensuring that the pay and conditions offered secure an adequate flow of people into the profession.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of speech therapists, who do an exceptionally good job, often in difficult circumstances, for people who desperately need help?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Speech therapy offers an important release for people who would be unable to get as much out of life as they can with the help of a properly qualified speech therapist. As my hon. Friend will know, the Education Act 1981 was instrumental in identifying the major opportunities for improvement in individual circumstances that is offered by speech therapists.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware just how seriously the current shortage of speech therapists is being felt by disabled children and their parents? In particular, is he aware that there are schools for such children, many with severe speech impairments, that now have no speech therapy at all and that this will involve lifelong consequences for the children affected? What action will he take to help them?
    Mr. Dorrell: I have already said that I recognise the need for further improvement in the number of speech therapists. I should have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the increase of 80 per cent. in the total number of speech therapists in post since he left office as Minister for the Disabled.

    Doctors' Surgeries (Rents)
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the operation of the cost rent scheme for doctors' surgeries.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We have received one formal representation about the operation of the cost rent scheme.
    Mr. French: Will my hon. Friend issue guidelines to family practitioner committees to avoid the difficulty under the cost rent scheme when permission for a new doctor's surgery is first given and later withdrawn?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has a constituency case on which he has made diligent and persistent representations. I assure him that in his FPC area 63 schemes out of 86 practices have been approved. A letter was sent to FPCs six months before the new system started, and in the current statement of fees and

    845
    allowances clear guidance is again given. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will respond to my hon. Friend on his constituency case in the near future.

    Mental Handicap Services
    Mrs. Wise: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to introduce a specific grant earmarked for mental handicap services.
    Mr. Dorrell: No, Sir. Local authorities already accord these services a high priority.
    Mrs. Wise: Does the Minister understand the surprise that will be felt in the House on hearing that statement? One of the great fears of parents of mentally handicapped offspring is that when they die their children will have nowhere to go. Is he aware that there is wild fluctuation in the priority accorded to mental handicap services by different authorities? What is he doing to stop his right hon. Friends from exerting unreasonable pressure for cuts in local government spending which will certainly be felt in mental handicap services?
    Mr. Dorrell: It is a funny way to cut services for the mentally handicapped. Since 1979 places in local authority homes and hostels for the mentally handicapped have increased by 57 per cent., places in adult training centres and day centres have increased by 30 per cent., and the number of local authority staff employed in residential homes and hostels has increased by 109 per cent. The facts simply do not accord with the hon. Lady's prejudices.
    Mr. Favell: Life in the community for the mentally handicapped is one of the most important but least applauded reforms made by the Government. When I meet mentally handicapped people who have moved into the community I ask whether they would prefer to go back where they came from. I have never yet found one who would prefer to be back in hospital or in a home rather than in the community. It is a wonderful reform and it is about time the Opposition recognised it.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He speaks with some authority. I happen to know that he is the president of Stockport Mencap. The line that he takes is supported by patients and the professionals who look after the patients and it should be supported by the House.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware of Mencap's concern about the absence of services for mentally handicapped adults? Does he accept that his figures confirm that there is a shortfall of 22,000 places—25 per cent.—in adult training centres? How did he respond to Sir Brian Rix's letter to Members of Parliament which said that if that shortfall continues there will be a lottery leading to empty hours, empty days and empty years for some of society's most vulnerable people?
    Mr. Dorrell: What the facts confirm, to pick up the hon. Gentleman's phrase, is that there has been a 69 per cent. increase in real expenditure on facilities for the mentally handicapped in the community since 1979. That hardly makes out the case for additional protection for expenditure by local authorities on the mentally handicapped.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that specific grants would go against all the traditions of local
    846
    government finance? Does he suspect that the Opposition's enthusiasm for such grants illustrates their lack of confidence in Labour-controlled councils' spending priorities?
    Mr. Dorrell: It also squares ill with the repeated allegations of the Opposition that the Conservative party wants to centralise power that properly belongs to local government. It is a proper exercise of local discretion.

    Community Care
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations have been received from local authorities regarding the costs of implementing the Government's proposals on community care.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We are having discussions with local authority associations in the usual way. The local authorities have produced an estimate of those costs which they believe will be necessary in the implementation of care in the community.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that the Government appear to be having extreme difficulty understanding the argument? It is not a question of centralising power; it is one of a shortfall in finances. Does the Minister agree that by 1994 social services depts will be facing a shortfall of £500 million? The projections are that the fall in Government funding and increasing costs will mean that the social services departments will have the greatest difficulty implementing the Children Act 1989 and care in the community. What do the Government propose to do about it?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is right that local authority social services departments are already implementing the Children Act as well as carrying forward plans for care in the community. Social services departments have seen an increase in their spending of about 37 per cent. over the past 10 years. Of course, they will have to seek good value for money and meet the most important priorities in carrying forward their plans. We have always made it clear that adequate resources will be made available for implementing care in the community.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How can my hon. Friend assure the House that there will be adequate funds for community care after April 1991, bearing in mind the fact that it is almost inevitable—I have it from the highest level of government—that there will be additional capping next year? How can my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State guarantee the House that the most vulnerable groups of people—the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill, the elderly and the disabled—will get the sums of money that are allocated to them under the present system when capping will take a major part of next year's local government financial allocation?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There were those who believed that local authorities should not be entrusted with the important task of care in the community. I am not one of those people. Had the health service undertaken that responsibility, it would have become a directly managed service. Local authority responsibility involves local accountability. Where a particular need has to be addressed, a limited specific grant is appropriate, and for that reason last week my right hon. and learned Friend the

    847
    Secretary of State introduced the popular ring-fenced grant for drug and alcohol-related difficulties. We have made it clear throughout that adequate resources will be made available for the implementation of care in the community.
    Mr. Kennedy: Does not the Minister appreciate that in addition to the problems faced by local authorities, as outlined by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the health authorities are offloading people into the community far more rapidly than was ever envisaged when care in the community gained all-party support? They are forced by the squeeze on their budgets to release property on to the open market or to release patients back into the community without adequate back-up care. When will the Minister make sure that one arm of government is working in conjunction and harmony with other arms of government so that people do not fall through the net? That is precisely what is happening at the moment.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I do not underestimate the difficulty of implementing care in the community. It will take 10 years to achieve the care for the frail and vulnerable that many of us hope to see. One such difficulty is not the narrow question of resources that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned. The key is persuading the different groups to collaborate and to plan together to ensure that those who require the help receive it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State spoke of the increase in resources to the health service. I have made it clear that there has been a substantial increase in funding to local authority social services departments, quite apart from the vast resources that are given through social security. The key is to make those substantial resources work effectively in the best interests of the frail and vulnerable.
    Mr. Wilshire: When my hon. Friend responds to representations from local authorities, will she resist the pressures to support ring fencing of budgets? Does she agree that hon. Members who support wholesale ring fencing of local government budgets are in favour of destroying local government as we know it?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's point. Ring fencing of substantial sums of money undermines local accountability. Those who believe in local government should welcome local accountability. Plans will have to be made for community care. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will have powers of direction and there will be appropriate safeguards.
    Mr. Robin Cook: What advice on the cost of community care did the Minister and her colleagues give the Secretary of State for the Environment before he capped 19 social services authorities? Is she aware that in the past month, as a result of that capping, North Tyneside has had to cut its social services budget by a tenth, Derbyshire by £2.5 million, and Fulham by £1.5 million and that Barnsley is having to shut old folks' homes and introduce charges for home helps of £5 a week? Is not she concerned about the effect of those sharp cuts and savage rises on elderly and disabled people in our community? What is the point of her lecturing local authorities to
    848
    provide more community care when her colleagues in the Government penalise the local authorities that provide the most?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman constantly identifies with the producer interest rather than with those who must pay the community charge. I am well aware that elderly and disabled people and others must pay the community charge. They welcome the fact that they have been protected from the excessive spending of their local authorities by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is right for local authorities to make proper plans, but that does not involve spending £1 million on a publicity department for Derbyshire county council.

    Junior Doctors
    Mr. Lambie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to meet representatives of national health service junior doctors to discuss their terms and conditions of service.
    Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to meet representatives of national health service junior doctors to discuss their terms and conditions of service.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I shall next meet the representatives formally later this summer to discuss the first report of the working group that we have set up with the key parties involved to discuss the problem of junior hospital doctors' hours.
    Mr. Lambie: I am disappointed by that reply. I should have thought that the Minister would seek an immediate meeting with the junior doctors. Is she aware that the British Medical Association is carrying out a survey of junior hospital doctors on industrial action over hours of work? The junior doctors want only a reduction in their hours of work to a maximum of 72 hours a week instead of the 92 hours that they are working at present, with no more than 36 hours of continuous work. In the best interests of patients and the national health service, will the Minister grant those fair demands?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I have had a series of formal and informal meetings with junior doctors, and I hope shortly to meet the new chairman of the hospital junior staff committee. For the first time, we have called together all the key players who affect junior hospital doctors' hours—the royal colleges, consultants, junior hospital doctors and management. We are determined to have further action and will take all possible steps to achieve it, but it is very much for the profession to demonstrate commitment and to make the necessary changes with us to ensure that we put an end to unreasonably long hours for junior hospital doctors.
    Mr. Lamond: Is not the Minister's answer a little unconvincing when we recall that her Department has found time wholly to reorganise the health service, to disrupt the relationship between the general practitioner and his patients and to pull the rug from under the national health service hospitals, while this simple problem, which has been known about for years, has still

    849
    to be tackled? Junior doctors, who are an essential link in the health service, are expected to work, on average, more than 90 hours a week.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct in his facts. The junior doctors worked more than 90 hours a week—91 hours a week—when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. However, under this Government, their working hours are down to 83 hours a week, with about 58 hours when they are actually working. It is a complex issue because there is a difference between being on call and working. We are determined to see further progress and I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman that, by the summer, only around one in eight junior hospital doctors will be working more than one in three onerous rotas. That is substantial progress over two years and we are determined, with those directly involved, to see further progress.
    Mr. Conway: Will my hon. Friend continue to emphasise the difference between being on duty and being on call? Does she accept that, before any radical change is made, all junior doctors—not necessarily just their representatives—should be consulted, because any shortening of the number of hours would have implications for the length of time that doctors must serve before registration?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is a large distinction between being on call and working, which is why legislation is an irrelevance in the context. My hon. Friend also identifies another important point, which is the role of the royal colleges in approving the training places. We are at an opportune moment when, for the first time, the royal colleges, the consultants themselves—and there are, of course, 21 per cent. more consultants than there were 10 years ago—and the juniors are prepared to work with the NHS management to ensure that our junior hospital doctors can be alert as well as awake when on duty.
    Mr. Forman: I welcome the obvious progress toward shorter hours for junior hospital doctors, but is my hon. Friend aware that many of us share a deep concern about the problem, especially when we read stories of such doctors falling asleep on duty? Where does the real difficulty lie? Can my hon. Friend tell the House about the obstacles?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I share my hon. Friend's deep concern. He is addressing the point about continuous hours of duty. There is a difference between the cumulative hours worked in a week and having long, continuous hours on duty. In many cases, the juniors themselves prefer to have continuous hours on duty so that they can have long weekends off duty. It is for them to sort out with the consultants in their particular locations the best way of organising the work rotas. In many cases, a move towards a team approach rather than an individual firm approach makes a difference. In other cases, other members of the health care profession, such as nurses, can substitute for doctors. It is a complex and subtle matter on which all parties are determined to make progress. Progress is in the interests not only of the junior hospital doctors, but of the patients, who are entitled to be treated in hospital by doctors who have had a good night's sleep.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister agree that any progress made so far has been modest and slow and that the average hours worked by junior hospital doctors are still 87 a week? Any improvements have been achieved simply by shifting work from one group of overworked junior doctors to another group of overworked junior doctors. Is not the solution, as the Minister in part suggested, to look at ways of shifting work, such as giving responsibility for intravenous injections and phlebotomies to nurses and, most of all, to increase manpower, especially consultant manpower, so that they can take over some of the duties?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As I was able to inform the House a moment ago, the number of consultants has increased by 21 per cent. It is important that some of the new consultants should be prepared to cover. If the new consultants refuse to cover for the juniors, the difficulty of the juniors' hours will persist. The working practices of juniors, consultants and management alike are involved. But there has been much more substantial progress than the hon. Gentleman suggests. The number of junior doctors working such hours has fallen from one in four to one in eight over two years, and regions that have shown real determination have cut by a half the number working onerous rotas. I would mention in particular South West Thames regional health authority, Northern regional health authority and South Western regional health authority.
    Sir Robert McCrindle: Like the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), I have recently been on the receiving end of the valuable services of junior hospital doctors. Will my hon. Friend take on board the suggestion that one way of relieving to some extent the burden to which junior hospital doctors are subjected would be to try to give them some clerical and secretarial assistance? In my recent experience, junior hospital doctors spend a great deal of their time engaging in such activities, which, arguably, could be dealt with by somebody else.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The discussion will soon be taken up by the working party that I have established, on precisely this subject. As my hon. Friend said, clerical skills may well play an important part. The work requirements of the consultants are important and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) said, the training requirements of the royal colleges are also involved. In many cases, a shift system could be introduced and in others juniors could be used to cover for other specialties in which they have had appropriate experience. In addition, in certain cases units can be amalgamated so that the junior can cover. What is clear is that all those involved are determined to take the necessary constructive action to bring an end to what I regard as an unacceptable problem.

    Speech Therapy
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have requested speech therapy treatment from Liverpool area health authority but remain without care.
    Mr. Dorrell: I understand that on 20 March there were 1,300 people receiving speech therapy in Liverpool district and a further 1,775 people registered as requiring the service.
    Mr. Alton: Is the Minister aware that of the nearly 2,000 people in Liverpool requiring speech therapy but currently denied it, 800 are children with special needs—partially hearing or disabled children? There are hospitals completely without speech therapy cover and there is no speech therapist to deal with the special needs of the deaf. Does the Minister agree with the view of the local area health authority chairman that the profession needs to be restructured and that improved resources and regrading are required? Does he further agree that the starting salary of £8,000 for a graduate is one reason why it is impossible to retain speech therapists within the service?
    Mr. Dorrell: I agree that regrading would be desirable and we are committed to doing that in the autumn. I also agree with the conclusions of the Davies and Enderby study that, although pay and conditions are part of the problem, we must also look at patterns of work within the speech therapy profession to ensure that we make the best possible use of the skilled manpower available.
    Mr. Wareing: Does not the Minister realise that the Government are regarding the problem with great complacency? A child of four in my constituency has been told that when his fifth birthday comes he will be able to obtain the speech therapy treatment that he requires only by going to a school in Warrington or Southport. Is not that disgraceful, and is not it about time that the Government gave real priority to the management of the speech therapy service so that conditions of service are such that speech therapists are retained in the service rather than being forced into other occupations?
    Mr. Dorrell: I challenge the hon. Gentleman to find any part of the health service in which there was an increase of 120 per cent. in real expenditure during the Labour Government's four years in power. We have increased real expenditure on speech therapists by 120 per cent. and we have increased the number of therapists in post by 80 per cent. That is not complacency.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in places such as Liverpool, where the problem is acute, as it is in my constituency, there will always be a temptation for employers to look for people calling themselves speech therapists—which anyone can do—without guaranteeing the quality that qualification as a speech therapist ensures? Will he give the assurance that, in his tremendous efforts to solve those difficulties, he will not look for a cut in the quality of the service that is offered?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to the extent that we must ensure that the people who offer those services are properly qualified to give them. Equally, we must not allow ourselves to regard the services as a mediaeval mystery. We must ensure that speech therapists are adequately qualified but not overqualified.

    Eye Tests
    Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further evidence has been made available to his Department regarding the effects of the introduction of charges on the numbers of eyesight checks undertaken.
    Mr. Rees: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further evidence has been made available to his Department regarding the effects of the introduction of charges on the numbers of eyesight checks undertaken.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have received no new independent evidence on sight test demand since the publication of the independent national opinion poll report last month, which showed that the number of sight tests being undertaken is fully in line with past trends.
    Ms. Short: I am shocked that the Secretary of State did not see the Which? report—he is not doing his job properly if he did not. That report showed that there has been a serious drop of 2.5 million in the number of eye tests. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, one in 20 people are referred for serious sight and other health problems, which means that about 125,000 seriously ill people are being missed. Will he now admit that that is a disastrous move for people's health, apologise for misleading the House and the country, and scrap the eye test charge, because people's health is too valuable for them to miss eye tests?
    Mr. Clarke: There has been no reduction in the number of eye tests as a result of the introduction of charges. All the evidence—not only our survey of 10,000 people but the MORI survey that was carried out for the Association of Optometrists, and even the telephone ring-round by the Royal National Institute for the Blind—shows that there has been no reduction in the number of eye tests compared with the tend that was established before the charging system was changed in 1987.
    The Consumers Association, in its Which? magazine, has not explained the methodology that produced its rather startling conclusion. Most of the contrary claims are based on leading questions about whether people think that charges might deter them. All sensible surveys show that there has been no evidence of deterrence. The Labour party's only spending promise to spend £90 million to go back to the previous system is based on a mistaken assessment of the facts.

    Community Care
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the policy of care in the community.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We receive many representations in correspondence and at regular meetings with organisations concerned with our plans for community care.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government believe that voluntary organisations have a major role to play in delivering policies on care in the community? Is she aware of the warm welcome that has been given to the policy of giving grants to voluntary organisations to deal with specific problems of drugs and alcohol?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend. I am fully aware of the importance of encouraging voluntary organisations. We want a mixed economy of care for the frail and the vulnerable. I know of my hon. Friend's distinguished service in one such organisation. I can confirm that there has been a wide welcome for the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last week that voluntary bodies concerned with drug and alcohol-related difficulties will receive special funding.
    Mr. Ashley: Does the Minister care to deny that every voluntary organisation concerned with disabled people condemns the Government's failure to provide adequate community care for mentally handicapped and mentally ill people? Does she deny also that thousands of those people have been denied adequate help and that the present situation is an absolute scandal?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman's account far from resembles my experience. There has been a substantial improvement in the care of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped in our community. If we contrast what is available now with what was available several years ago, the situation is striking and most impressive. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that more should be done. That is why I welcome the work that is being carried forward by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the specific grant for mentally ill people. We believe that there is a special need for co-operation between health authorities and local authorities and that further work needs to be done.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. David Young. Mr. John Hughes. Mr. Ted Leadbitter. Question 24.
    Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What question are we on?
    Mr. Speaker: I was informed that the hon. Gentleman's question 21 had been withdrawn. If that is not so take question 21 first.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: With permission, I shall answer this question together with question 2 at 3.30 pm as it is one of the 32 questions on the Order Paper about self-governing trusts. Like you, Mr. Speaker, I believed that the question was unstarred. Obviously we were wrongly informed that the hon. Gentleman had withdrawn his question.
    Mr. Speaker: Then we go to question 24. Mr. John Hughes.

    Junior Doctors
    Mr. John Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to meet representatives of national health service junior doctors to discuss their terms and conditions of service.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: As I have made clear, we hope to meet soon the new chairman of the junior hospital doctors staff. We are determined to see further action on junior hospital doctors' hours.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister's knowledge that the mishandling of the ambulance dispute classically demonstrated how an individual, subject to far fewer pressures than the complex pressures and experiences—
    Hon. Members: Reading.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please paraphrase his question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] Order. This takes time out of Question Time.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister's knowledge that the mishandling of the ambulance dispute clearly demonstrated that an individual subject to fewer pressures than the pressures daily experienced by junior doctors will act in an irrational manner? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] Has that equipped her to understand—
    Hon. Members: Reading.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes a lot of time out of Question Time.
    Mr. Hughes: —than the long-winded procedures that she has set up to deal with the junior doctors issue will put patients' health at risk? Will she take immediate steps to meet the doctors and resolve the issue?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I shall reply more formally when I have had a chance to study the hon. Gentleman's question in the Official Report. We are determined to see further action on junior hospital doctors. It is a matter for the professions involved and the royal colleges, but we believe that, for the first time, we have called the relevant parties together. We hope that there will be a constructive and realistic outcome.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including—
    Hon. Members: Reading.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition always have an opportunity to refer to their notes.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—including one with Chief Anyaoku, the new Secretary General of the Commonwealth. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Chinese ambassador. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Prime Minister agree that there are some terrorists whom her Government deal with? Every year at the United Nations, the British representatives vote for the seating of a Khmer Rouge representative. If the representatives do not vote for that this year, it is a bit late as the genocidal murderers march for a second time on Phnom Penh. How does she sleep at night knowing that she has helped to bring that about?
    The Prime Minister: Nonsense. Who shall have the seat to represent Cambodia is very much a matter for the

    855
    United Nations. We have hitherto supported the United Nations. In future, we shall reconsider our vote as to who should take that seat for Cambodia.
    Mr. Jopling: If the Prime Minister can find time today to give further thought to future policies, will she ask herself why it should be necessary for the Forestry Commission to own £1 billion of real estate in land and growing timber? Is not it a good candidate for privatisation?
    The Prime Minister: I am well aware that my right hon. Friend has consistently taken that view, and I think that there is something in what he says, but we must consider it in more detail for future policy.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does not the Prime Minister think that it would be only fair if the booklet about the changes being imposed on the national health service were paid for out of Tory party funds?
    The Prime Minister: No. I think that when families have to spend £39 a week to maintain the national health service, they are entitled to a booklet on the national health service reforms, the people involved in it and how it works. It is extremely good value for money.
    Mr. Kinnock: Families support the national health service. However, as for the proposals, the doctors do not support them, the nurses do not support them and, most importantly, the patients do not support them. Whenever they are put to the vote, they get turned down by huge majorities. The only organisation that supports the proposals and propaganda is the Conservative party. Let it pay for the booklet.
    The Prime Minister: If the doctors do not support the proposals, it is astonishing that there are so many applications for both self-governing hospitals and practice budgets. I quite understand—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: I quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying—any choice, whether on the part of the professionals who run the health service or the patient, is anathema to socialism.
    Mr. Kinnock: If the Prime Minister is so confident about opting out and the reception that it will receive, will she give me an undertaking now that when it is proposed that a hospital should opt out, but the doctors, nurses and patients are against it, the Government will not accept the proposal for opting out?
    The Prime Minister: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman does not understand—
    Hon. Members: Straight answer.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: No hospital is opting out of the health service, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He deliberately tries to give the opposite impression. Self-governing hospitals are part of the national health service; the real reason why the Labour party does not want them is that they will be extremely popular due to the better service that they will give to patients and will offer choice, which is anathema to the Labour party.
    Mr. Lord: Amidst the excitement of World Cup football—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Lord: Amidst the excitement of World Cup football and Wimbledon, does the Prime Minister think that it is right to remind ourselves of the great difference between sportsmanship and gamesmanship? Does she further think it right to remind all those involved with sport, particularly people in the public eye—players, officials, commentators and correspondents—of the enormous responsibility that they have to maintain the standards of the game and to set an example, particularly to young people interested in sport?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We all wish our team well and success tomorrow evening. We hope that it and all our spectators will act in accordance with the best standards in Britain.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.
    Mr. Ashdown: In view of the Prime Minister's well-known admiration for the views of Dr. Pöhl, the president of the Bundesbank, did she note that in his speech on the exchange rate mechanism yesterday, he clearly stated that, in his opinion, the Prime Minister's seven-year-old statement that Britain should join when the time was right now meant that Britain should join soon? Is she still unable to agree with him?
    The Prime Minister: I read every word of Dr. Karl Otto Pöhl's speech. I saw him for more than half an hour yesterday morning and discussed those matters with him. I should not disagree that we are bound to join the exchange rate mechanism. We have accepted that, and we shall join—as Karl Otto Pöhl said—when the time is right. I do not know quite what he meant by "soon", but I could agree or disagree with that according to what it means.
    Mr. Burt: Is not it the case that in the past few years this country has given assistance to black South African students to enable them to come to this country, to education projects in the townships and to humanitarian projects in South Africa to support the rural black community? At the time of the visit of Mr. Nelson Mandela, is not it right that due credit should be paid to this country for its work in furthering reform and progress in South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have made a point of giving far more help to black South Africans in education and housing. We made it clear that we are for the end of apartheid—which is totally immoral and which must end—and that we were going to do something for black South Africans. All the kinds of assistance that my hon. Friend has enumerated were gladly given, and have already been a great help to them. That help will be of even greater assistance when they form the majority Government in South Africa.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McFall: The Prime Minister must be aware of the grave difficulties of pushing the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill through the House, not least with her tiny band of Scottish Back Benchers who have revolted. Will she pledge not to guillotine the Bill and curtail debate on such an important measure, or will she back her totally isolated Secretary of State for Scotland at the perilously high price of ignoring her Scottish Back Benchers?
    The Prime Minister: The Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers is part of the Government's legislative programme; it came from the other place, and was given an unopposed Second Reading in the House of Commons. It is a significant reform, especially the parts that deal with the legal profession. It is important that it should receive proper consideration in Committee, and in due course become law.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend ask her Cabinet colleagues to have a word with the president of the Bundesbank today, so that he can explain to them that the only choice is between joining the exchange rate mechanism—and moving inexorably towards a common currency and a common monetary authority—and not going in at all? He would also explain that there is no clever compromise, and that if we attempt one it will lead to greater instability in European currencies and the justified anger of our European allies.
    The Prime Minister: We are pledged to join the exchange rate mechanism when the Madrid conditions are fulfilled, and we shall join it when they have been fulfilled. It is clear that some of our colleagues in the European Community wish to go further than the exchange rate mechanism. The proposals outlined in Delors stages 2 and 3 were debated in the House, and my understanding is that a move towards a single currency—with a board of bank governors not democratically accountable to anyone—was totally rejected. That being so, we wish to find a way forward with which other countries in the European Community—as well as Britain—could agree, and which would satisfy the demand for some kind of common currency throughout the Community.
    We have put our proposals before the Community, and I am sure that they will be fully debated. We do not wish to adopt a single currency with a board of central bank governors who are not democratically accountable. We are prepared to have a common currency, provided that it does not lead to any inflation. That would mean our having a hard ecu.
    Mr. Radice: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Radice: In view of the new Government figures on increases in high street spending and borrowing, and reports that the Treasury has revised upwards its fourth quarter inflation estimate, is not it clear that the Government's policy of relying entirely on high interest rates is not working?
    The Prime Minister: No. The economy is extremely strong and very dynamic and there are more jobs, higher output and a higher standard of living than ever before. Of course it will take time for a high interest rate to work. That is not the only policy and I am surprised that that has escaped the hon. Gentleman. He knows full well that there is a budget surplus. That, too, is part of the policy.
    Mr. Ashby: My right hon. Friend has often said that for every right there is a corresponding duty. Will she alter the rules so that those claiming benefit should first have to produce a certificate saying that they have registered for the community charge?
    The Prime Minister: That would be a needless extra bit of bureaucracy. We are very pleased that the overwhelming majority of people properly registered for the community charge in spite of Opposition forebodings to the contrary. We believe that the overwhelming majority as citizens will pay it, and we hope that a bigger percentage will pay the charge than used to pay rates.
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Will the right hon. Lady give a straight answer this time? If doctors, nurses, medical staff and patients are against opting out, will she listen to them?
    The Prime Minister: No hospital is opting out. All are in the health service. If the professionals wish to apply for self-governing status, the application will come to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health who, after a period of consultation, will make his decision. It is quite clear that the Opposition do not want people to have choice. They are socialists to the backbone.
    Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 12 months of freedom from union domination and restrictive practices, Britain's docks have moved from strength to strength? Is not this anniversary of the abolition of the dock labour scheme—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—a suitable moment to reiterate the superiority of free enterprise over socialism and trade monopoly?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is one year today since the dock labour scheme was abolished. Since then productivity has raced ahead, ships have been loaded and unloaded far faster, we have the lowest strike record in Britain, and the hinterland of all the ports is flourishing. It was a good day when we abolished that scheme and we note that the view of the Opposition was to call that abolition an act of wilful sabotage against the country's economic interests. Wrong again, they were.

NHS Trusts
The following questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards setting up national health service hospital trusts.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the effect on services to patients in those hospitals which choose to become national health service hospital trusts.
Mr. Cecil Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the first national health service trusts to be in operation.
Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many expressions of interest in the formulation of self-governing hospital trusts have so far been received.
Mr. Roger Stott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's latest information on the total expenditure incurred so far on preparation for self-governing hospital trusts.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence of the views of community health councils regarding the formation of self-governing hospital trusts is available to his Department.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last had discussions with the chairman of the Mersey region health authority; if the opting-out of hospitals on Merseyside was discussed; and if he will make a statement.
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer these questions together.
On a point of order, I should like to give the House an explanation which Opposition Front Bench Members have requested about the adoption of this procedure. Last night, when I started the final detailed preparation for answering parliamentary questions, I discovered that there were 32 questions on the Order Paper about applications for national health service trust status. Last night there were eight such questions in the first 25. It became quite clear that, if we tried to handle those in the course of ordinary parliamentary questions, first, most hon. Members would not get an adequate reply to their questions—[Interruption.] They are about to get more than adequate replies to any questions that are forthcoming. Secondly, it was also clear that no other subject could sensibly be dealt with during health service questions. For example, we would not have reached the questions on junior doctors' hours and on eye tests which the Opposition regard as important.
I regret that this is an Opposition Supply day because I realise that that has caused some difficulties, but it was obviously for the convenience of the House to handle these questions at this stage.
Mr. Robin Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State, in his apology
860
to the House, conceded that the device that he has adopted has caused offence. He proposes to answer not one question but seven linked together. That is not for the convenience of the House; it is an abuse of the procedures of the House. It is inevitable that that abuse will take time out of the debates on the motions on education and housing, tabled in the Opposition's name—time that was available to the Secretary of State during health questions. He will not remove that offence by making a statement to the House under the guise of giving an answer to questions on the Order Paper. He knows perfectly well that by using such a device to make a statement he is avoiding the need to give the Opposition advance notice of the text, and he is denying the Opposition the right to respond immediately, which is presumably why he has chosen this method of smuggling in a major statement on a controversial issue. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to reflect on what additional protection is necessary—
Mr. David Shaw: This is not a genuine point of order.
Mr. Cook: I am addressing my question to Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Gentleman will listen.
What additional protection is necessary to defend the rights of this place against a Government who, despite a majority of more than 100, constantly seek devices to prevent the Opposition from getting a fair hearing in the Chamber?
Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not take any more points of order at this stage. Of course it is up to the Government how they link the questions. I was aware of the decision, and that was why I suggested that the Government consult through the usual channels as to whether this was an appropriate method to deal with the matter.
Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to put on record the fact that this procedure is not acceptable to the Opposition, and we made that clear from the outset. It is clear that, before today was allocated as an Opposition Supply day, the questions were on the Order Paper. In any preview of today's business at Question Time, the Government would have foreseen this difficulty—long before it was known that Tuesday would be an Opposition Supply day. This is a squalid device on the part of the Government's business managers to prevent the effective use of time by the Opposition on a Supply day, and no one should be in any doubt about it.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order on the matter. We must get on.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The National Health Service and Community Care Act gives me the power to establish NHS trusts, by order, as self-governing units within the national health service. NHS trusts will not opt out of the national health service, and they will continue to provide treatment free of charge, but they will be given substantial freedom to manage their own affairs. In particular, they will be free to determine the terms and conditions of service of the staff

861
they employ, to acquire, own and dispose of assets, to borrow money and to retain surpluses. We intend that trusts should use their powers to improve the quality of the health care which they provide and to respond more effectively to the needs of general practitioners and NHS patients.
We intend that the first NHS trusts should become operational on 1 April 1991, and I have now invited formal applications. Units will be able to apply for trust status at any time, but those units intending to become trusts from 1 April will wish to submit their applications as soon as possible.
One hundred and ninety nine NHS units have expressed interest in NHS trust status. They represent a wide range of units—single hospitals, groups of hospitals and non-hospital facilities. I understand that about 60 to 70 of the units which have expressed interest—
Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not good enough. This is a statement.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that it is not for me to say—
Mr. Haynes: It is for you.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must reflect, if they are concerned about protecting the Opposition's time, that a statement would take much longer than questions answered together—[Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the points of order provided that hon. Members reflect on the fact that they take time out of the Opposition's Supply day. Mr. Haynes.
Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is shameful and you are allowing it to go on. It is time that you put your foot down because the Government are running all over us. They did it last night and you did not do anything about that. They introduced amendments—
Mr. Speaker: Sit down. How on earth can the hon. Gentleman make that charge about last night? I was not in the Chair last night.
Mr. Haynes: But you knew about it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that dastardly charge against me? I was not even here.
Mr. Haynes: I accept that you were not in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but I still say that you knew what was going on last night. You always know what is going on in this place, and you know what is going on today, but you have not done a damn thing about it.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will reflect quietly on this. This is an Opposition Supply day. [Interruption.] It is up to the Government to decide whether to make a statement or to answer questions at the end of Question Time. A statement would probably take half an hour and questions taken together after Question Time would take about 15 minutes. The House can decide what it wants to do.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am in the middle of attempting to answer, in effect, 32 parliamentary questions. The answer is therefore undoubtedly lengthy, but all the points that I am covering relate to the questions on the Order Paper. If the Labour party prefers to get excited about procedural matters rather than matters of substance, it is free to do so. If it is worried about wasting its Supply day, it has the simple remedy of not asking any supplementary questions.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are clearly in difficulty over this, but if it would help the House the Secretary of State can make his answer and I will treat it as a statement. If it will help the House, I will do that.
Mr. Robin Cook: I am obliged for that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. Of course it is implicit in what you have just said that what the House is now hearing is not an answer to parliamentary questions but a statement. The Secretary of State has already been speaking for more than two minutes—
Mr. David Shaw: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Cook: That is a question that the hon. Gentleman must address to his Secretary of State because the Secretary of State is well aware that this is a matter of major interest to the House on which, had he wished to make a lengthy statement, he could have arranged to do so. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, the procedure for making statements contains within it certain protections for the rights of the Opposition, one of which is that the Opposition receive advance notice of the text that the Secretary of State is to share with the House. The device that you are proposing, which is to treat the statement as a statement, while recognising the reality of what the Secretary of State is up to, does not contain that protection of the rights of the Opposition.
I therefore submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that since it would appear that you are now persuaded that what we are hearing is not a parliamentary answer but a statement, the appropriate thing to do would be to invite the Secretary of State to take away his statement, to return with it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am addressing my remarks to the Chair, not to Conservative Members. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but some Conservative Members appear to think that they are the Speaker and so are answering my question.
Would not the appropriate course be to invite the Secretary of State to come back tomorrow with a statement which will protect the Opposition's right to see the text in advance and enable the House to proceed with the important debates in Opposition time on Opposition motions?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
Clearly the House is in difficulty on this matter. It appears that communications between the usual channels have broken down, which is a serious matter. When I heard about the matter at lunch time, I understood that the usual channels had come to an agreement on it. Those hon. Members whose questions are on the Order Paper today have a right to have their questions answered. If communications between the usual channels have broken down on whether to have a statement or to have

863
supplementary questions, we should hear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because they have a right to put their questions.
We should hear now what the Secretary of State has to say. I will call those hon. Members and then we shall move immediately to the Opposition's Supply day.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a very long list of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, and it will be difficult for me to call them all.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that it will be helpful.
Mr. Winterton: I am sure that it will be helpful, and I am seeking your advice and guidance, Mr. Speaker.
Many hon. Members who have been in the House for a few years are aware that quite a number of questions on a particular subject can be tabled to a Department on any one day. From what has happened today, are we to understand that if six, seven or eight questions are tabled on one subject to a specific Minister, the Government of the day can adopt the procedure that they have adopted today, which is to make a statement in all but name and therefore deny the Opposition the opportunity of having knowledge of what is to be said?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must allow me to answer. It is in order to pursue such a procedure under our rules, as they stand at the moment, although it is unusual to answer quite so many questions. That is why I suggested that the matter should be agreed through the usual channels, and a resolution reached that would be to the convenience to both sides of the House. I must ask the Secretary of State to continue.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I will—
Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take it later. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.
Mr. Clarke: I will accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and resume. I gather that we are now in a mixture of answering questions and making a statement. Of course it would have been possible to make a statement, but the effect of that would have been to take more time out of the Opposition's Supply day. It would also have deprived the hon. Members who have tabled questions of a reply to them.
Some 199 NHS units have expressed an interest in NHS trust status. They represent a wide range of units, single hospitals, groups of hospitals and non-hospital facilities. I understand that about 60 or 70 of the units that have expressed an interest in trust status are likely to submit applications in the first wave. The first three applications from Mersey region were handed to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health yesterday. When applications are submitted, I shall direct regional health authorities to have public consultations on the applications and to report the results to me.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Why should we put up with this sharp practice? It is disgraceful.
Mr. Wareing rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.
Mr. Clarke: Regional health authorities will decide who should be consulted, taking account of the facilities offered by the proposed trusts and the patients served. However, we made it clear that those consulted should include the health authorities and family health service authorities concerned, staff of the proposed trusts, general practitioners and the local public. I shall decide whether to accept applications on the basis of consideration of the application documents, comments received by regional health authorities in local consultation and any other relevant information. No group will have a veto over my decision, which will be based on my assessment of whether, in the light of all relevant factors, NHS trust status for a particular unit will benefit NHS patients in that locality. We have made it clear that the cost of implementation of the NHS review will not be met from—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is absolutely intolerable and more bad behaviour on the part of the hon. Members concerned. They know the situation perfectly well. The Secretary of State must be allowed to finish his statement. [Interruption.] I know that it is not a statement, but has the right hon. and learned Gentleman finished his remarks?
Mr. Clarke: The establishment of NHS trusts will represent a major step in improving the quality of care available to NHS patients, and I welcome the enthusiasm with which groups of managers and clinicians have been working on preparing their applications.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a very long answer.
Mr. Wareing: You allowed it.
Mr. Speaker: Allowed? The hon. Member knows perfectly well that my position has been made clear. The Government have a right under our existing rules to do what they have done. It is for the usual channels to consult on this matter. That they have broken down is very serious, but it is not my responsibility. The hon. Member is a member of the Whips Office, and he should know.
Mr. David Nicholson: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that comprehensive reply. Does he acknowledge that these reforms must be justified by the assurance of better services to patients? In particular, will he confirm that one of the advantages of the reforms will be that NHS trusts will be free from interference from such people as Chris Wright, known as "the prat in the hat"? He is a former parliamentary Labour candidate and a Labour appointee to Croydon health authority, who is under a life ban from Crystal Palace football club and was one of the ring leaders of the hooliganism in Sardinia last month.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Just because there has been a very long statement, hon. Members must not abuse the House by asking very long questions, because that is just as bad.
Mr. Clarke: If Mr. Wright had succeeded in his aim of being elected as a Labour Member of Parliament, he

865
would have felt quite at home in the demonstrations that we have just seen of Labour's approach to matters of consultation on NHS trust status.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the only basis for judging applications for national health status, self-governing status or any other reforms is whether or not they are likely to lead—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must warn the House that the next action I shall take will be to suspend the sitting until right hon. and hon. Members have calmed down. That will take even more time out of the Opposition Supply day. Therefore. I am reluctant to do that.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo: If I am right in believing that the services provided by trust hospitals will be effectively by contract with the district health authority acting on behalf of the national health authority, and if, on advice—for example, from their own medical or surgical faculties—such hospitals want to provide additional services such as heart surgery, as they wanted to do in Nottingham but were denied by the regional health authority, will they have that kind of independence?
Mr. Clarke: Those hospitals, like all other hospitals—
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order afterwards.
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking points of order now, and I will not be bullied by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).
Mr. Faulds: This is quite disgraceful.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I order the hon. Member to resume his seat.
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not having this.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Harry Barnes.—[Interruption.] Order. I suspend the sitting for 10 minutes until this matter is sorted out. This is an intolerable breakdown of the usual channels. I ask them immediately to get together to sort out this matter.
Grave disorder having arisen in the House, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45 (Power of Mr. Speaker to adjourn House or suspend sitting) suspended the sitting for 10 minutes.
Sitting suspended at 3.54 pm.
On resuming—
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the usual channels have now had an opportunity to discuss the matter. The Government have applied to make a statement about it tomorrow. Of course I shall ensure that those hon. Members listed on the Order Paper for linked questions today will be called on that statement. It is now in the best interests of the House that we move on.
Mr. Robin Cook: May I briefly welcome—
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be seeking to make a point of order, but I did not call him.
Mr. Douglas: Why are you always—
Mr. Speaker: I did not call the hon. Gentleman. Please sit down.
Mr. Cook: May I welcome your statement, Mr. Speaker, which provides a sensible way of proceeding this afternoon? This exchange, and the outcome, represent an important defence of the rights of this place.
Mr. Douglas: I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the unfortunate precedent that you tried to establish of making an answer to a question a quasi statement—
Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down, please, while I explain to him what happened. It is not for me to grant leave to answer questions at the end of Question Time or even statements; that is entirely for the Government. At lunch time, when I heard about the large number of questions to be answered at the end of Question Time, I immediately sought to discover whether it had been agreed between the usual channels. I was assured, after some negotiations, that it had been arranged. As I understand it, that information was incorrect; but it is nothing to do with me.
Mr. Douglas: During the interchange subsequent to the Secretary of State trying to give an answer to a question, you, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, indicated that you were going to take answers to questions as a quasi statement. I trust that we start de novo and that what you said is expunged from any scintilla of precedent of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I was merely seeking to be helpful to the House. I am not part of the usual channels; perhaps it is a pity that I am not. I was trying to see how it might be possible to get on with the business.
Mr. Faulds: I am most regretful that I had to cross swords so noisily with you, Mr. Speaker, but may I say in defence of you that it is quite clear from what has transpired that you were misled by the Government into thinking that there was an agreement when there was no agreement between the two parties? The proceedings went ahead because of the usual deceitfulness of Ministers.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I was not misled; I was perhaps misinformed.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is fair to say that you, Mr. Speaker, and the House were let down by the fact that the usual channels did not function as well as they should have done. That involves all of us; there were distinct misunderstandings on both sides. It was only just before 2.30 pm when I was warned that there was any doubt about this procedure, and I thought that I would resolve it by the first explanation that I gave. Plainly, that was a mistake and we all proceeded on mutual misunderstanding. The usual channels have now worked very well by restoring order and allowing a statement to be made in the usual way tomorrow.
Dr. Cunningham: This place operates by consent and can operate in no other way. When consent and agreement are trampled on by a Government determined to impose their will on the House regardless—[Interruption.]—oh, yes, regardless of whether there is agreement, breakdowns

867
occur. I hope that we can now proceed with the business and deal with this important matter in the appropriate way with a statement tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
Ordered,
That the draft Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. [Mr. Patnick.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.

  Former Cabinet Ministers (Interests)
  4.8 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit former Cabinet Ministers, within a period of five years after leaving office, from accepting any employment with or payment from a company which was privatised while they were members of the Cabinet, or which had a commercial or contractual relationship with a Department of State for which or in which they had Ministerial responsibility.
  There is considerable unease that Cabinet Ministers can, shortly after leaving office, join companies that were privatised when they were in the Cabinet and, in some cases, when they were the Ministers who carried through the privatisation measures.
  My Bill would exclude former Cabinet Ministers from being involved in such companies for five years and would ensure that former Ministers would not be able, for the same period, to join any company that had a commercial or contractual relationship with the Departments for which they had had ministerial responsibility. That would be a fair way of dealing with the issue and I can see no reason why anyone should think otherwise.
  The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbitt) joined the board of British Telecom in November 1987. As Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he had been responsible for privatising that company three years previously. The right hon. Gentleman then became Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and chairman of the Conservative party. He left the Government in June 1987.
  The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) became a director of British Gas on 2 June this year, having left the Government just a few weeks earlier on 30 April. British Gas was privatised in 1986 when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Energy, after which he became Secretary of State of Wales.
  I have written to all these right hon. Gentlemen to say that I would be mentioning their names. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) joined the board of National Freight. He had been Secretary of State for Transport until a year before the privatisation of that company, he had been in the Cabinet when the company was privatised and he left office only this year.
  Lord Young was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry until 24 July last year. As we know, he has become the new chairman of Cable and Wireless. While he was Secretary of State, Lord Young granted Cable and Wireless a personal communication licence, which caused a great deal of controversy at the time. British Telecom, for example, said at the time that the Minister had unduly favoured Cable and Wireless. I cannot, of course, say whether the accusation was right. I want to remind the House of the date of his leaving the Government. Lord Young resigned as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 24 July last year. The previous day, The Sunday Times carried an article stating that Lord Young might well choose to go to Cable and Wireless to succeed Lord Sharp as chairman. I cannot say whether Lord Young will now join the board of British Aerospace.
  There are guidelines for ex-civil servants. Although I believe that those guidelines could be tougher and could be implemented more vigorously, at least they exist. The guidelines state that on promotion to grade three, a senior civil servant must sign a notice saying that he has read the rules, which state that it will be necessary,

  869
  "to obtain the assent of the Government before accepting within two years of resignation or retirement offers of employment in business and other bodies and in semi-public organisations brought into being by the Government or Parliament."
  I believe that the period should be increased to five years and that the rules should be applied more vigorously.
  If it is necessary for former senior civil servants to sign such a declaration and for such guidelines to exist the same I believe should apply to former Cabinet Ministers. Why should there be a difference? Bearing in mind what has happened recently, there is all the more justification for changing the rules or the law in this matter. The Bill would of course apply to all former Cabinet Ministers.
  Several names of former Labour Ministers have been bandied around by Conservative Members and we may hear some of them today if the Bill is opposed. Lord Robens has been mentioned. Labour Members may not be the best people to defend some of those named who have changed their political allegiance. Lord Robens, however, was appointed by a Conservative Government to be chairman of the National Coal Board in 1961. The industry had been nationalised in 1946 and Lord Robens had been out of office for 10 years.
  Lord Marsh became chairman of British Rail in 1971. The railways had been taken into public ownership in 1948. Lord Marsh was appointed by a Conservative Government and, as was the case with all the appointments of former Labour Ministers that I have mentioned, his appointment could have been debated in this House. Those appointments were subject to public accountability.
  Lord Glenamara, formerly Ted Short, has also been mentioned. It is true that he became chairman of Cable and Wireless in 1976 and that he had been Postmaster General, but he had left that office in 1968—eight years before he became chairman of a public concern.
  I hope that we shall not be told that very few letters have been received on this subject and that there is, therefore, no need to take any action. How many letters had hon. Members received before it was decided to set up the Register of Members' Interests? It was recognised that there was an abuse; something was wrong, and we had to put our house in order. That is why the register was set up; it was not a question of waiting for letters to be received. How many letters were received before the guidelines for ex-senior civil servants were established? Very few, I imagine. Government and Opposition alike recognised that it was wrong that former senior civil servants should immediately on retirement join companies with which, in many cases, they had negotiated while in public office.
  We have recently been witnessing what I would describe as the politics of the pork barrel. Such practices are indefensible. The very idea that a Minister can privatise a company and then, shortly after leaving office, become the director or chairman of that company, is unacceptable to the people of Britain.
  The right hon. Member for Chingford wrote a piece in the Evening Standard defending himself. I doubt whether many of his colleagues would be too keen to rush into print to defend him. It is interesting to note that, three days later, there appeared in the same newspaper a cartoon, which showed the board of a company waiting to start a meeting. One of the directors was on his feet, saying, "I am very sorry. We have just had a telephone message from the
  870
  chairman. He has not yet quite resigned from the Government." That illustrates rightly the cynical attitude that many people take to what has been happening.
  Perhaps we shall be accused of mischief making and told that this is just an Opposition ploy. My response to that is simple: end the indefensible practices and the politics of the pork barrel and we shall not have any mischief to make over this.
  I have no illusions. I know that even if my Bill is carried today, it is not likely that, in a Tory-dominated House of Commons, the Cabinet will give me the time necessary to make progress on the Bill, although I should add that if I were given parliamentary time, I should be willing to listen carefully in Committee to arguments in support of any amendments tabled by Conservative Members. But, as I said, I have no illusions. I have merely put down a marker by highlighting the practices of the Tory Government and some of their former Ministers. I have illustrated a need for a change in the rules, and, although I know that it will probably be a Labour Government who introduce the reforms that I have advocated, there is no doubt in my mind that what I propose is required by the public.
  Even Conservative newspapers that have carried editorials on the subject—papers which rarely, if ever, support the Labour party—have concluded that what has been happening is unacceptable. In my view, it is also indefensible and I therefore ask the House to give me permission to bring in my Bill.
  4.17 pm
  Mr. Steve Norris: First, let me make it clear that I have no personal interest in this matter. I had entertained hopes of high office, but when, in that connection, I saw my name on the front page of The Sunday Times my hopes were instantly dashed. I therefore have no interest in the matter.
  My initial reaction—like that of many hon. Members—was to dismiss a Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), whom Lord Wilson of Rievaulx once described as the silliest man in the House of Commons. Most of us would not necessarily wish to detain the House on such a Bill. To be absolutely honest, I believe that Lord Wilson was being characteristically kind. The hon. Gentleman may be silly: I do not know. A lot of hon. Members on both sides of the House might just qualify for that title. But I think that the Bill is complete humbug. It is appallingly sanctimonious and it is typical of what we have come to expect from the hon. Gentleman.
  My right hon. Friends can all look after themselves. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and my noble Friends in the other place need any help from me.
  As we are in the business of relating a few histories, I thought that I might relate one or two myself. Forgive me. I do not want to go over the ground that the hon. Gentleman covered when he talked about people such as Lord Glenamara, but he was selective in what he said. It is indeed true that the former Ted Short, who, incidentally, is a former deputy leader of the Labour party, appears, if I am correct, to have gained his extensive industrial experience as the headmaster of Princess Louise secondary school in Blyth. That was pre-LMS—local management of schools—so goodness knows how he would fare now.
  Having relinquished that role, Lord Glenamara became chairman of a company called Cable and Wireless. On the

  871
  basis of his experience, it may be true that, as was alleged at the time, he did not know his cable from his wireless. Whether or not that is true, it is true that Lord Dick Marsh joined the board of British Railways. However, what we should reflect on is that the noble Lord, after ministerial experience at the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Technology, the Ministry of Power and the Department of Transport, became chairman of the British Railways Board. As the hon. Gentleman singularly failed to mention, he went on to hold, by my calculation, 15 other chairmanships and major directorships and is, incidentally, still, as I understand it, an adviser to Nissan, which broadened my understanding.
  We were told of Lord Alf Robens—
  Mr. Winnick: A member of the Tory party.
  Mr. Norris: Yes, indeed. That is absolutely right. Lord Alf Robens, having been Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, became chairman of the National Coal Board. However, Lord Robens was a director of Vickers and of Johnson Matthey. Does not every picture tell a story? He was also a director of a company called AMI, whose business is private hospitals. My goodness me, as far as I am aware, that is the same Lord Alf Robens.
  Then, of course, there is Lord Eric Varley, the man who landed the taxpayer with £1.6 billion worth of guarantees under the Varley-Marshall plan. Having had a spell at the Ministry of Technology and then as Secretary of State for Energy and Secretary of State for Industry, he went on to become chairman and chief executive of Coalite. That is a rather useful juxtaposition—energy, industry, and then the board of Coalite.
  Also, sadly, there was the late Lord Frank Beswick. Having been Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Civil Aviation in the Labour Government, he went on to become chairman of British Aerospace—useful—and special adviser to the chairman of the British Aircraft Corporation. Then there is Edmund Dell. I delved and I found Dell. Having been a Minister in the unlamented Department of Economic Affairs, he became Minister of Technology.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not take points of order in the middle of ten-minute Bills. I shall take it at the end.
  Mr. Norris: Practically every one of those gentlemen is distinguished by having been in the Ministry of Technology. It is extraordinary that, even now, none of us can remember what the Ministry of Technology was supposed to do or indeed did, but they have all been Ministers there. Edmund Dell went on not to run a private hospital, but to be chairman of a merchant bank, which is all jolly good stuff.
  I do not want to confine my remarks to past Members of the House, because we have enough evidence of current useful industrial interchange on Opposition Benches at the moment. We have directors of insurance companies, airlines, radio and television companies, computer companies and publishing companies. I do not have time to mention them all, but I have the names if my hon.
  872
  Friends would like them. It seems to be a classic exercise in, "Don't do as I do, do as I say." I suspect that that saying motivates many of the Labour party's policies.
  The entry in the Register of Members' Interests for the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is a director of a publishing company called Localaction Ltd., says:
  "It is a company formed to cover the publication of my book and any other major writing."
  What an interesting thought. I see a seamless stream of writers, Nietzsche, Marx, Lenin, Socrates, Livingstone—that has a certain ring about it.
  Eighteen Opposition Members are paid advisers to trade unions and to commerce. I note that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is in his usual place and I am sure that he would defend his role as adviser to the Association of University Teachers, as the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) would defend his role as an adviser to NATFHE—the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education—and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) would defend her role as adviser to the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. All would say that they were entirely objective in the advice they gave and that if they were Ministers in a future Labour Government and in charge of the Department of Education and Science their previous jobs would not, of course, have the slightest influence on their judgment. Why on earth does the hon. Member for Walsall, North argue that the same is not the case for those right hon. and noble Gentlemen on both sides of the House who have gone on to give industry the benefit of their experience?
  The real truth is simple—it is the old politics of envy again. The hon. Member for Walsall, North is distinguished, so far as I can determine, by two things—one, that he has never done a real job in his life and, secondly, that every year he loses the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff—APEX—elections to Roy Grantham.
  The Bill reveals a simple truth about the Labour party. No one who is seriously involved in business would pay for any Member of the Labour party to do any job other than chopping sticks. No Opposition Member, including the shadow trade and industry team and the shadow Treasury team, has the slightest idea of the requirements of management. The Labour party cannot see enterprise and success without wanting to attack them—it does not seek to foster them. When industry and commerce look around for talent, energy and entrepreneurial skill it is no accident that they find those qualities in overwhelming abundance on the Conservative Benches.
  Every other country in Europe recognises the interchange between the Government and industry. They appreciate that it is vital, healthy and necessary to sustain industrial and commercial growth. That also leads to a greater understanding in national Parliaments of industrial and commercial issues.
  I believe that we should treat the Bill with the contempt it deserves. It is a typical exercise in humbug and the politics of envy. It has no place in logic and I invite my hon. Friends to treat it with the contempt it so richly deserves.
  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), and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?
  Mr. Winnick: We have just witnessed a shocking abuse of our procedures. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) is a twit, because he has not answered my argument.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is in order for hon. Members to speak against a ten-minute Bill, provided that they register their objection. It is not always necessary to have a vote. That practice is enshrined in our Standing Orders, but it might be as well for the Select Committee on Procedure to consider it for the future.
  Mr. Winnick: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw the word "twit".
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard worse expressions in the House.
  Mr. Winnick: It is mild I agree, but I am a moderate chap.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. George J. Buckley, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Ms. Joyce Quin, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mr. Martin Redmond and Mr. Alan Williams.

  FORMER CABINET MINISTERS (INTERESTS)
  Mr. David Winnick accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit former Cabinet Ministers, within a period of five years after leaving office, from accepting any employment with or payment from a company which was privatised while they were members of the Cabinet, or which had a commercial or contractual relationship with a Department of State for which or in which they had Ministerial responsibility: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 176.]
  Mr. Speaker: I know it is nearly the start of the summer holidays, but we should contain ourselves until the end of the month.

  Opposition Day
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Opposition Day

    Schools
    4.29 pm
    Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
    That this House is profoundly alarmed at the crisis in the nation's schools and the collapse in teacher morale, the serious problems of retention and recruitment, the deteriorating state of school buildings, and the under-funding of the system; condemns Her Majesty's Government for its lack of ambition and leadership for the nation's young, for pushing through changes which are adding to the crisis, for the fact that one-third of children are getting a raw deal, and that fewer young people stay on in full-time education than in any major competitor country; and calls for action now to raise the standards of education and to invest properly in the nation's future.
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. A large number of hon. Members wish to participate in this debate and, sadly, as a result of our late start, it will be impossible to call them all. I shall be able to call many more if speeches from both the Front Benches, and also the Back Benches, are brief.
    Mr. Straw: This late start owes nothing to the endeavours of the Opposition and everything to the attempts by Conservative Members to sabotage an Opposition day yet again.
    Across the country there is a rising sense of crisis in our schools. It is a crisis recognised in all areas by people of all political persuasions. It is a crisis for which the Government are overwhelmingly responsible. Some 11 years ago, this Administration came to power promising to promote higher standards of achievement. Similar pledges were made in 1983. The 1987 Conservative manifesto stated:
    "The time has now come for school reform."
    We do not know how many votes were garnered on the promise of those so-called reforms. We do know what has happened. Ill-considered, meritricious and often contradictory changes have turned out to be a lethal cocktail which has brought the school system to a lower point than at any time since the war.
    The Government's prospectus for the system has clearly failed. The Secretary of State knows that. In April, The Independent on Sunday stated:
    "Many of the school and college changes introduced by Kenneth Baker when he was Secretary of State for Education are falling apart. His successor, John MacGregor, is increasingly preoccupied with a damage limitation exercise."
    The scale of the crisis caused by that damage can scarcely be exaggerated. Every day, I receive letters and reports from head teachers, governors and parents, worried sick about their children's education. Those representations come more often from traditional Conservative areas than from Labour's heartlands.
    The chairman of governors of a large and successful secondary school in Cheltenham wrote to me:
    "the supply of teachers"—
    even in her area—
    "is becoming such a problem that the state education service is under threat."
    I have a letter from the headmaster of Hyde primary school in Hampshire, which has no physical education

    875
    hall, kitchen, dining area or playing fields and has outside toilets for boys. The headmaster said that inadequate funding under the local management for schools formulae was causing him to "cut back staffing". That point is underlined in a survey published today by the National Association of School Masters/Union of Women Teachers. It shows that well over 3,000 jobs are likely to be lost as a direct result of the introduction of the local management of schools.
    School buildings across the country are in an appalling state. There is a £3 billion backlog. The Bucks Herald led its issue of 7 June with the headline, "Crumbling Schools Crisis" and quoted the county architect, John Stewart, as saying:
    "We are rapidly reaching the point … where we can no longer keep pace with the progressive dilapidation of the buildings under our control."
    Saving money, making do and mend, is a constant theme of the reports and letters that I receive. The Mail on Sunday led its edition of 27 May with the headline:
    "The Scandal of Our Schools."
    It stated:
    "Britain's State education system is in danger of collapse,"
    according to disturbing new research commissioned by the National Foundation for Educational Research. It continued:
    "Only huge contributions from parents are saving schools from a complete breakdown."
    The research that the paper quoted found that one third of all money spent in schools on books and equipment came from parents, who were providing nearly £40 million for primary schools alone.
    What a mockery all that makes of parental choice, of which we hear so much from the Secretary of State. The choice facing many parents is no choice at all—the "choice" of paying up a second time for essentials for their children's education, which they thought they had already paid for once through taxation.
    The very principle of free state education is being whittled away by the Government. For example, what kind of choice have the parents of children at Crawford primary school in Southwark? One class there has had four teachers this term, and the children were told a couple of days ago that they would have to be sent home until September. There are overwhelming teacher shortages, because teachers' salaries are insufficient. Some secretaries in the area are paid more than they are, and the Government have poll tax capped the local education authority.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I visited a London school when Labour was in office I found that one class had had the misfortune to have seven teachers in one term? We all agree that it is extremely difficult to teach in London, and that is one of the reasons why the Government have introduced education reforms. No one condones the present position; however, the problems were infinitely worse under Labour, and were not solved under its Administration either.
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady is wrong. As anyone involved in the education system knows, the position was infinitely better under Labour.
    Ms. Harriet Harman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an appalling indictment of the system that parents have had to take over and teach children at Crawford primary school? They have been told that otherwise the children will have to be sent home, and there will be no more schooling for them until next term, at the beginning of September. Have not the Government been appallingly complacent in ignoring the problems of teacher shortages in London, especially south-east London?
    Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State for Education and Science has shown abject complacency: he has washed his hands of responsibility for what is happening, not only in inner London but in many other parts of Britain where he is seeking to ensure that authorities spend less than they do now. He is more concerned about the level of poll tax bills than about ensuring that children receive a decent education.
    Mr. Spencer Batiste: The hon. Gentleman is making a case for massive extra expenditure. How much would he spend if he were Secretary of State for Education and Science, and why is the Leader of the Opposition doing so much to suggest that a Labour Government would not spend those vast sums?
    Mr. Straw: I was hoping to quote the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) later in my speech. In a fine speech at Chatham House, he said that there must be an increase of one third in spending on state education. He caustically asked any of his hon. Friends who might challenge that policy whether any of them, or their children, had ever been inside a state school.
    My answer to the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is that, just as the Leader of the House cannot say what tax rates will be—even on the day before the Budget—I cannot say exactly how much we shall spend when we are in government, in two years' time. With the backing of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I can say for sure that a Labour Government will spend more on education and training, because it is essential for the economy of this country and its survival that we start investing in the nation's future, instead of undermining it.
    Mr. George Walden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reading my speech—let alone quoting from it—but I fear that he may have inadvertently failed to give the House the full flavour of what I said. I said that I was in favour of increased spending on education, but emphatically not in favour of putting any money at all into the failed education philosophy represented by the Labour party.
    Mr. Straw: I know what the hon. Gentleman said, but I was going to send the hon. Gentleman a few tracts so that he would realise that we are thinking along the same lines.
    So tight is the financial squeeze on primary schools that, on average, they are given less than the cost of four Mars bars a week to spend on books and educational equipment for their children—a point eloquently made by the president of the National Association of Head Teachers.
    Some reports of school responses to the squeeze have a grotesque, pathetic flavour. The Daily Telegraph reported on 23 June that the Chilvers Coton first school in

    877
    Nuneaton saved money by cutting paper towels in half but had stopped the practice after two pupils had contracted hepatitis.
    These accounts of life in the English schools system in 1990 are confirmed by a succession of official reports. The Government-appointed teachers' pay committee in its report in February said that teacher morale was lower even than in 1989–90. That was also recognised by the Select Committee. There was also a stark message from the teachers' pay committee that the pay award forced through the House three weeks ago would lead to a real pay cut for almost every teacher.
    Some 50 per cent. of newly trained teachers leave the profession within five years. The proportion of graduates entering teacher training has halved in eight years and at Cambridge university it halved in a year last year. The Secretary of State denies that there is a problem. He held a press conference on Friday to announce the success of recruitment advertising by Saatchi and Saatchi. He is so complacent about teachers and teaching that in the litany of self-congratulation in his amendment there is not a single mention of teachers.
    If it is all so good out there, will the Secretary of State now guarantee to every parent that no child will be without a properly qualified, permanent teacher in front of the class in September? I invite the Secretary of State to answer that question. He does not respond, so I shall repeat the question. I am asking for a simple reply. He says that there is no problem and proclaims the success of Saatchi and Saatchi's advertising. Will he guarantee to every parent that no child will be without a properly qualified, permanent teacher in front of the class in September?
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am waiting for the Secretary of State to answer my question. The Secretary of State has been given two opportunities to reply and has failed to do so.
    The most damning part of the Government's record is the report from Her Majesty's senior chief inspector of schools which stated that, in terms of educational standards, 30 per cent. of pupils—over 2 million—were getting a raw deal. What an indictment of the Government after 11 years in power. The Secretary of State's amendment refers to the local management of schools and the national curriculum.
    Mr. Greenway rose—
    Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but, before doing so, I remind Conservative Members that, thanks to the Government, this is a short debate.
    Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman's dismissal of the efforts of teachers and his slighting of their efforts will be bitterly resented in common rooms throughout Britain. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the courtesy to listen. I know that basically he is a courteous man. When he and I first met we were attacking wicked cuts in education by the Labour Government of the day. At that time he had the courage to stand up to his party, but he seems to have lost that courage. The hon. Gentleman will remember that in 1976 there was such a
    878
    shortage of teachers that those of us who were running schools had to scour the streets in an effort to find people. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must respect the Chair and I hope that he will do that in future. Interventions must be brief.
    Mr. Straw: I made a mistake in giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Doug Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), whom you have just rebuked, say that you deserved it.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the remark, but I saw the hon. Gentleman making gestures that were clearly discourteous to the Chair. I hope that I shall not have to endure a repetition of that.
    Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State's amendment refers to the local management of schools and the national curriculum. In both cases the Government have taken a good idea and nearly murdered it. Centrally dictated formulae for funding which take no proper account of a school's circumstances are barmy. A national core curriculum could and should be a guarantee of education entitlement for all children. There is a role for testing and assessment, and it is to diagnose children's strengths and weaknesses, and to provide information to parents and teachers on children's progress and on the performance of schools. However, Ministers have allowed this national curriculum and the formal testing associated with it to get completely out of hand.
    On Friday the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), spoke about "wieldy and intimidating tests" which the Government have imposed by way of a pilot scheme on about 400 schools. He said that those tests for seven-year-olds would have to be reduced. Apparently even the Prime Minister has had second thoughts. In April she told The Sunday Telegraph that she wondered whether the Government were "doing it right" on the national curriculum. The answer to the Prime Minister's question is that her Government are doing it wrong and, despite the Secretary of State's blandishments, they continue to do it wrong.
    In a thinly disguised attack on his predecessor, now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Secretary of State announced in February
    "measures to cut the burden of paperwork on schools caused by the Education Reform Act."
    He claimed that that measure would save 150,000 sheets of printed paper. That sounds impressive, but it works out at just six sheets per school. It pales into insignificance compared with the 1,438 sheets of paper which almost every teacher has received and has to absorb under the national curriculum. That compares with more than half a billion sheets of paper which the system as a whole now has to digest.
    The day after his damning report of the state of English education the senior chief inspector of schools gave an interview to The Daily Telegraph. He described the national curriculum and the local management of schools as a gamble. He said that in the short term it would exacerbate
    "teacher shortages and resourcing difficulties."

    879
    He was right. Ministers have been gambling with our children's education. Their behaviour is made all the more culpable by the fact that the spin of the wheel, the gamble, is always with other people's children and never with their own.
    When the Opposition say that most Ministers have educated their children in the private sector the discomfort of Conservative Members is patently obvious. In February The Sunday Times said that, of 21 Cabinet members with children, 20 had sent their children to private schools at an average cost of a place today of £4,200 a year. That is twice the average of £1,900 in the state system. All three of the Secretary of State's children went to private school, as did both children of the previous Secretary of State.
    Mr. James Paice rose—
    Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way.
    If those Ministers who sent their children to private schools were to apply the same policies and financial constraints to private schools as they apply to the schools which educate 95 per cent. of the country's children, they would be beyond reproach. In truth, they apply a double standard of breathtaking proportions which so mocks those in the maintained sector as to be immoral.
    The national curriculum applies by law to state education but not to private schools. Rigid formula funding is imposed on state schools, but, under the assisted places scheme, no formula applies to state funding of private schools. The actual costs of up to £7,000 per day place are paid wherever they are incurred. Local authorities are poll charge capped for spending £1,900 per pupil while the state funds fees in private schools at two or three times that level per pupil. The standard spending assessments for education are set so low by the Secretary of State that local education authorities would have to cut millions from their budgets and sack thousands of teachers to get anywhere near those levels. However, private schools are able to raise fees well above the level of inflation.
    Mr. Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: No.
    Pay increases for teachers in state schools are held below the level of inflation, while private schools and city technology colleges are able to pay more to get the best. Private schools can use their influence to raise millions of pounds for laboratories and equipment while state schools are starved of cash. The conclusion to be drawn from such double dealing is that, like other people, Ministers want the best for their children but they believe that they can have that only if they pay for the best: for small classes; well-equipped laboratories; well-maintained buildings; and well-paid teachers. But it is different for other people's children. Ministers claim that they can get the best in larger classes and crumbling buildings, with too little equipment, too few books, and a demotivated and underpaid teaching force.
    Another consequence is that by boycotting the maintained system Ministers send out a clear message that they lack serious personal commitment to state education
    880
    and that they are as profoundly ignorant of its achievements as they are of what needs to be done to sustain and improve it.
    Mr. Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman, although I realise that he does not like it, that I am not going to give way any more because of lack of time. He should make his own speech. Perhaps he might complain to the Government Whips about their attempts to sabotage this debate earlier.
    The Sunday Times recorded in February that the Secretary of State sent his son, who is now grown up, to Highgate school, which is on the border of the London boroughs of Camden and Haringey. Fees at that school amount to more than £4,000 per pupil per year, and many of its pupils are subsidised by the state through the assisted places scheme.
    How can the Secretary of State justify poll tax capping Camden and Haringey local education authorities, which are spending £1,200 less per child in their charge than he thought it right to spend on his child? Would he be happy to have his child educated with the level of resources that the Government have dictated is sufficient for poll tax capped authorities to spend in the north, the north-west, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Greater London and Avon?
    I hope that the Secretary of State will now respond to a second question, because his amendment claims that there have been
    "lasting improvements in standards in schools"
    in the past 11 years. If, as the Secretary of State claims, 11 years of Tory Government have led to lasting improvements in the state system, is that system now good enough for him to have his child educated by it? I invite the Secretary of State to reply to this critical question about whether the Government apply one standard or two to the education of our children. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] For the second time today, we have seen the Secretary of State refuse to answer questions—first about whether he could guarantee that every child in a state school will have a teacher in September; and secondly about whether, after 11 years of Tory Government, the state system is sufficiently good to educate his children or those of his Cabinet colleagues. What a lack of confidence that displays in the system over which he and his colleagues have presided for 11 years.
    Mr. Dave Nellist: My hon. Friend may not have heard several Tory Members accusing him, from a sedentary position, of personalising the debate and of attacking only the Secretary of State. Does my hon. Friend realise that 250 Tory Members have been to public school and received private education? As a section of society, they are not prepared to give our children the same facilities, the same pupil-teacher ratios and the same start in life that 250 of them received.
    Mr. Straw: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: No. I have given way more to Conservative Members than to my hon. Friends.
    By any serious international standards, the state to which the Government have reduced the education system is a disgrace. "National scandal" was the phrase used by Derek Jewell, the chairman of the Headmasters'

    881
    conference of private schools, to describe state funding of the system which, as a proportion of national wealth, has declined in the past 11 years. We need a Government with a clear ambition for the nation's young people, ready to set targets for raising academic performance and the percentage of young people staying on at school, with clear mechanisms for delivering those targets. We need a Government committed to investing more in young people's education, and equally committed—by example, leadership and systematic appraisal of performance—to ensuring that we get more out of that investment and end the enormous and unacceptable variations in performance between otherwise similar schools. We would get all that from a Labour Government, but the Secretary of State has no ambition and no leadership: he is a Treasury placement so uninterested in the effect on children's lives of the policy to which he is a party that he could not even bring himself to meet education representatives from poll tax capped authorities.
    Incredibly, instead of using demographic decline to secure a once-in-a-lifetime boost to the staying-on rate after 16, without substantial extra cost, the Secretary of State in his public expenditure White Paper plans to cut 80,000 places in full-time education for 16 to 19-year-olds, and he stands supinely by while the Secretary of State for Employment cuts nearly £300 million from the budget for training young people.
    As ever, as the Government flounder, Ministers start to blame each other.
    "Senior Conservatives are alarmed by Labour's growing lead in the polls over the government's education policies,"
    reported The Independent on Sunday on 18 June.
    "The shift of opinion in Labour's favour has been greater than on any other issue…The Prime Minister and Kenneth Baker blame John MacGregor the Secretary of State for Education for failing to promote Government changes".
    A month ago we learned from a report which has the fingerprints of the Conservative party chairman all over it that the Secretary of State was to be given a new public relations minder—a man called Robin Light—as Central Office was so worried about the Secretary of State's performance.
    To add insult to injury, we read in yesterday's diary in The Times of an attempt to bail out the Secretary of State:
    "Conceding that education is their weakest area, a number of Tory MPs say Mrs. Currie should join John MacGregor's team and add flair and excitement to a lacklustre department."
    I do not wish to intrude on private grief, but the piece continued:
    "MacGregor, who as agriculture minister had to take much of the flak over her salmonella-in-eggs gaffe, might suggest another description."
    It also raised questions not only about the future of the Secretary of State but about that of the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State. Although Conservative Members may want them to go, we want them to stay, because every time they open their mouths they raise our lead in the polls.
    In a catalogue of failure, few policies have failed so monumentally as opting-out. In 1987, the Prime Minister predicted that by the next election—which will be next year or the year after—most eligible schools would have opted out of local authority control. That would amount to thousands. The dice have been heavily loaded in favour of opted-out schools. The advice that the Department of Education and Science has issued to schools has been so biased that even the Tory-controlled Association of
    882
    County Councils has protested. Despite that, not thousands, not hundreds but only 44 schools have opted out, with more in Tory-controlled than in Labour-controlled areas.
    So the Prime Minister, who is pathologically obsessed about local education authorities, announced off the cuff to a conference 10 days ago that opting out is to be made easier, and that the local government finance system will be rigged so that poll tax can be reduced where schools opt out. When that emerged, the Secretary of State was reduced to getting his press officer to telephone journalists to tell them that there is no difference of opinion between him and the Prime Minister.
    If there is no difference of opinion, will the Secretary of State tell us now, or in his speech, how the scheme for cutting the poll tax is to work, how the new arrangements for opting out are to work and how such further upheaval squares with a categorical undertaking that he gave in an interview on 9 March, that
    "No new school reforms would be introduced by a Conservative government until 1994 at the earliest"?
    That the centrepiece of the Government's answer to the educational challenges of the 1990s should be fiddled ballots for opting out is a mark of the mediocrity to which their education thinking has now been reduced.
    It first dawned on this country towards the end of the last century that the rise of Germany as an industrial power had been built upon superior investment in education and training. Then other countries such as Japan, the United States, France and Italy overtook us. Our £20 billion trade deficit is paralleled by an even bigger deficit in the education and skills of our young people. If we are to compete as well as to give our young people their birthright, we must invest in their education and training. We need an end to the Government and an end to their wilful damage of our education service. We need a Government who are committed to a state education system, who use the system and who have real ambition for the nation's young. The only way to achieve that is to have a Labour Government.
    4.59 pm
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "congratulates the Government on its programme for securing further lasting improvements in standards in schools through its policies for the national curriculum; assessment and testing, increased parental choice, and greater autonomy for schools; notes increased recurrent and capital expenditure since 1979 in real terms per pupil of 40 per cent. and 13 per cent., respectively; notes widespread public support for the Government's reforms and welcomes the significant increase in staying on rates among 16 and 17-year-olds in the last two years and in the numbers going on to higher education which show the success of the Government's policies; and contrasts this inspiring programme with the failure of the Opposition to produce alternative proposals offering similar leadership for the nation's young.".
    The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made a profound speech. However, having listened to his speeches since I became Secretary of State, I am bound to say that they have three characteristics. First, the hon. Gentleman always uses the same material and it is getting pretty tired and trivial now. Secondly, his sole preoccupation seems to be to string together every negative quotation and every negative statistic that he can find—and they can be found

    883
    in every country and in every education system—and by lumping them all together he seems to think that he is making some sort of contribution to the education debate. Let me tell him quite clearly that he is not. The picture that he gave today is unbalanced, incoherent and a travesty of what is happening in our schools.
    Ms. Harman: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. MacGregor: We have heard that this is a short debate, but I shall give way just this once.
    Ms. Harman: Is the Secretary of State aware that in my constituency alone six primary schools regularly send children home and that six and seven-year-olds go to school only to be told again that there is no teacher for them? What will the Secretary of State do to guarantee a decent education for Southwark children?
    Mr. MacGregor: I shall come to that point in due course, because we have been doing a great deal. But it is a travesty to suggest that what happens in some schools in Southwark is typical of what is happening throughout the country.
    The hon. Member for Blackburn completely failed to acknowledge the substantial progress that is being made. He has given no credit, please note, to the teachers for their many recent achievements. His sole intent is on black headlines and never mind the real story. He is the classical perpetual Opposition spokesman.
    Thirdly, once again the hon. Gentleman has failed to answer the key question that has been put to him so often from the Conservative Benches—what would Labour actually spend? It is not enough for him to claim that resources are insufficient when his own policy document is long on platitudes, short on costs and takes refuge in those all pervasive words "as resources allow".
    Mr. Win Griffiths: The Secretary of State uses those words.
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not use those words. The Labour document is riddled with that phrase, and I know perfectly well why.
    Mr. Griffiths: I remind the Secretary of State that when he appeared before the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts he referred to expanding education as soon as resources allowed on more than one occasion when he was challenged by Conservative Members. He can check the record. He used those words.
    Mr. MacGregor: Of course, I believe in spending as resources allow, but the big difference is that, by its hints that it will spend more, the Labour party somehow pretends that that does not matter. But the record shows that this Government have been spending more on education than the previous Labour Government did because we have been improving the resources. That is the key difference. The question that the hon. Member for Blackburn never answers is what a Labour Government would spend. The answer is clear from his silence in every debate that we have had—not a penny more. That simple fact destroys the whole of his speech.
    On an earlier occasion I described a decade of action under this Government: to improve education standards,
    884
    to extend opportunity and choice and to improve the management of steadily increasing resources. I deal now with the ground that we have covered in the past year.
    First, the programme for the national curriculum is well on target. There is absolutely no retreat. The House has approved programmes of study for English, maths, science and technology. We are completing work on geography, history and modern languages. The proposals are rigorous and have widespead support. We are taking practical decisions on arrangements for assessment, ensuring that they achieve their objectives in a workable way.
    On assessment at seven, it is right to try different types of schemes. They are being piloted in 2 per cent. of schools. They are not in full application and they are not being reported. We shall be assessing the pilot schemes and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am determined that that assessment will be carried out in a workable way. But it must be real assessment, which improves standards and—I think the hon. Gentleman agrees with this—which achieves the results that we seek. We must strike the right balance and we shall do so.
    In the classroom, Her Majesty's inspectors report excellent progress in the range and quality of work in the core subjects. There was not a word from the hon. Gentleman about that. There is a marked improvement in curriculum planning. I meet many teachers who are making good use of that national framework for exercising their professional skills. That has been a major programme of work and reform and it will continue to be so for some years ahead.
    In April, all but a handful of local education authorities introduced schemes for local management of schools. That gives schools fairer shares of the education budget and much greater autonomy in the management of their affairs. In itself, it does not alter the total resources available, but it distributes them in a more open way, based on better and clearer criteria. One in eight schools already have delegated budgets. Next year, it will be one in four. That will reduce local bureaucracy. It has made schools and local education authorities more accountable and it has enhanced the position of head teachers and staff in line with changes in the pay structure that reward leadership and responsibility.
    Ms. Harman: The Secretary of State does not know what he is talking about.
    Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Lady talks to teachers in schools that have piloted local management of schools during the past few years, they will tell her of the benefits.
    Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. MacGregor: No, I shall not give way. I have already said that I would not give way again.
    During the past school year we have lifted artificial limits on the places available in popular secondary schools. By this September the number of grant-maintained schools will have increased from 18 to 44. The number of applicants to those schools has risen sharply—by 40 per cent. on average this coming September. There has been a remarkable change in atmosphere and morale and proposals are already coming from another 16 schools.

    885
    The same goes for city technology colleges. Four more will open next term to join the four already in operation. Again, the demand from parents for places for their children in those city technology colleges is high.
    I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Blackburn is so implacably opposed to that policy. He cannot bear the thought that those schools are proving so popular. The Labour party prefers the monopoly supply of a uniform product. It likes to think that it knows what is best for children and is determined to deprive parents of that choice.
    We have set in hand a major programme of work towards further improving the standard and relevance of post-16 education and the proportion of young people who benefit from it. Those improvements start in schools. We have introduced the general certificate of secondary education and the technical and vocational education initiative. That has markedly increased standards of attainment.
    In 1989, the proportion of candidates achieving grades A to C increased from the previous year by 3.5 percentage points to 46 per cent. It is encouraging that many more young people are staying on in full-time education. To listen to the hon. Gentleman, one would not think that such things had happened. He does not like hearing about them. He prefers to talk his way through them.
    The first year after the introduction of the GCSE saw the participation of 16-year-olds rise to 52 per cent. In the second year, 1989–90, provisional figures suggest that as many as 56 per cent. Of 6-year-olds are now engaged in full-time education. Provisional figures from the largest examining body, the Associated Examining Board, suggest that the number taking A and AS examinations is likely to be the highest ever even though there are fewer pupils in the relevant age group. All of that is working through to substantially higher numbers going into higher education—more than 1 million students now compared with 750,000 in 1979. The number is increasing markedly year by year, with an increase of about 10 per cent. in the past year in the number going to universities and polytechnics. There is a clear sign that that will continue next year.
    We have now implemented this year's pay settlement, based on the interim advisory committee's admirable report, enabling us to introduce further improvements to the career structure, local flexibility and rewards for responsibility and classroom skills. All of that, to use the report's own words, can surely be described as far reaching.
    Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question that I put to him twice during my speech? If things are so good for the teaching profession, can he guarantee that no child will be without a permanent properly qualified teacher in front of his or her class this September?
    Mr. MacGregor: Did the Labour Government ever give that guarantee, and would one ever do so in future? I shall deal with the position of teachers later, but I will tell the hon. Gentleman now why that is a false question. There are problems in some geographical areas and in some skills. Some issues of considerable standing reflect not simply on the education system but on the geographical area in which they arise. We have been taking a number of actions to deal with those problems, at a time when recruitment for all sorts of occupations is becoming more
    886
    intense. I am not prepared to be unrealistic and to give such a guarantee, but we are doing a great deal to address the issues.
    That question was about as silly as the hon. Gentleman's other question, which I shall now answer. I sent half of my children to state schools and the other half to independent schools. That was a considerable time ago. It is right that people should have that choice. If I had children now, I should happily send them to the many excellent schools in Norfolk. However, at the time I was concerned about the quality and direction of education that was being provided in the borough, and I exercised choice, which I think is a parental right. We have the assisted places scheme to extend the range of choice. I note that the hon. Gentleman went to Brentwood school in Essex, which takes pupils on the assisted places scheme. Would he deny others the opportunity to give their children the education that he had, by abolishing the assisted places scheme? That is one of the questions that he must answer.
    Mr. Straw: I am delighted to answer the question. The reason why I am in the Labour party and not in the Tory party is that I want every child to have a similar opportunity with a similar level of resources. The test is not where someone went to school, but where he sent his children to school. Let us consider the example of the school that the right hon. Gentleman's son attended. Some £4,000 per pupil is spent by the state at Highgate school, while the Government are poll tax-capping two London boroughs, Haringey and Camden, which are spending £2,800 per pupil—£1,200 less. How is that justified?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already written to the hon. Gentleman about that. He has completely missed the point about parental choice and opportunities for different sorts of education. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have written to him saying that the comparisons being made were bogus because he failed to take into account parental contribution and other considerations. I shall repeat what I said in my letter to him. Once an allowance is made for those areas of spending, there is little difference in the average payment made in support of an assisted place and the average secondary unit cost. That deals with that point.
    I have just completed wide-ranging consultations on the future pay mechanisms for teachers with a view to introducing legislation next Session. We are continuing with—indeed, adding to—a substantial package of measures on teacher recruitment, including investing in measures to tackle shortages in particular subjects, and an advertising recruitment campaign, which is having an excellent response, but which, typically, the hon. Gentleman tries to denigrate. Those are just a few of the many very positive areas of achievement and progress in the past year.
    There is one new announcement that I wish to make this afternoon. I am today writing to the local authority associations setting out my proposed support grants programme for 1991–92. There are three background points that I wish to stress before giving the detailed figures. First, as announced earlier this year, I am accepting the recommendation of a recent efficiency scrutiny that the education support grant and local

    887
    education authority training grant scheme should be brought together into a single programme. Next year's grant programme will reflect that.
    Secondly, it must be borne in mind that that programme is small in relation to total spending on schools, which this year will amount to well over £11,000 million. The actual expenditure on the subjects that I am about to announce will often be a good deal greater than the amounts supported under the grant programme itself, because a great deal will come out of that £11,000 million as well. Nevertheless, the programme has an important effect in ensuring targeting of significant sums on specific aspects of policy.
    Thirdly, I held meetings with local authority representatives earlier this year during which I said that the specific grants programme should be more effectively concentrated on fewer items of high priority, and I suggested those that I had in mind. There was general agreement with the views that I expressed.
    I now propose a programme that will support no less than £364 million of expenditure in 1991–92. Of that, more than £270 million will be targeted on the education reforms of the 1988 Act, which we are now putting in place. That is a major funding boost. In 1990–91, education support grants and training grants are already supporting more than £190 million of spending on reforms. The programme that I am announcing today increases that by almost £80 million, or 40 per cent.
    My proposals include almost £90 million of spending on activities to improve school management, including support for local management of schools, management training for school heads and other staff, and training and support for school governors. They include £170 million for activities underpinning the national curriculum, including a new £35 million activity to help get the new national curriculum assessment arrangements into place, a new activity to help schools buy more books, more support to help schools to buy information technology equipment, and more support for preparing teachers to teach the national curriculum.
    The focus of the grants programme is very much on the education reforms. However, as in previous years, I intend that the grants should also cover other key areas. I am proposing a substantial increase in support for teacher recruitment. That will help local education authorities take steps to draw into teaching more mature entrants and former teachers, through setting up creches, taster courses, keeping-in-touch schemes, counselling services, and so on. There is a new activity to help local education authorities to improve provision for the under-fives, especially through better planning and co-ordination of work across the maintained and voluntary sectors. Full details of my proposals have been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames rose—
    Mr. MacGregor: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I should not give way again.
    The grants programme that I am announcing today will provide significant and essential underpinning of the Government's education policies. It will ensure that funds are directed purposefully and effectively to where they are
    888
    most needed. The £364 million is vital further support for schools and colleges that are already working so hard, helping them to make a real success of the reforms.
    I shall now deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's specific charges. He referred to Her Majesty's inspectors' annual report and others. It is typical of him to be highly selective in what he quoted, so I shall cite some of the main findings to get the perspective right, and they are the main findings. Some 70 to 80 per cent. of work seen across schools and colleges was satisfactory or better; one third was good or very good. The beneficial impact of the Education Reform Act 1988 is already beginning to show. The implementation of the national curriculum is beginning to bring about specific and general improvement. The benefits of the GCSE and TVEI continue to be felt. That is all stated in the report.
    Primary schools have made a rapid and effective start to implementing the national curriculum in the core subjects. Both in post-16 and in higher education, the general picture is that some 80 per cent. of what HMI saw was judged satisfactory or better. The quality of teaching and learning in further education colleges is generally satisfactory and slightly better than last year—just over 80 per cent. of the lessons were of good quality. The great majority of heads welcome the opportunity that local management of schools presents to control their budgets.
    I could continue, and I think that it is right to do so, to put the perspective right because the hon. Gentleman always draws attention to the bits that could be improved without recognising all the things that have been done and the great improvements that have been made. It is demoralising for teachers if he continues constantly to emphasise that when there is so much good happening in the system. There will always be much more to do, improvements to be made, standards to be raised, new challenges to be met and new teaching methods brought in by technology to be exploited. We are doing a great deal to continue the improvement process.
    The overall conclusion of the report states:
    "The overall picture is of a service in which most of what is done is of reasonable quality or better. That is a sound basis for improvement and change and should be recognised as such."
    Opposition Members do themselves no credit and earn no thanks from the many hard-working and dedicated teachers whom I meet by constantly dwelling on the negative. They should do as we do, and accentuate the positive while taking effective action to improve what is poor.
    On resources, the hon. Gentleman's speech contained nothing new—although I listened carefully to what he said. He asserted, by implication, that schools were starved of resources. He knows that that is not true. They are better staffed and better provided for than ever before. The pupil-teacher ratio is an all-time best. This is the bit that the hon. Member for Blackburn never likes to hear. Funding per pupil has risen more than 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. Overall spending on the various sectors of education has also risen in real terms. There has been a 58 per cent. increase in provision for the under-fives, a 33 per cent. increase for special schools, 17 per cent. for primary schools, 12 per cent. for secondary schools, and more than 20 per cent. for further and adult education.
    It costs nothing for the Labour party to say that it will spend even more "as resources allow". No one believes

    889
    Labour anyway. Labour might pretend that it will spend even more "as resources allow", but we all know what that meant under the Labour Government of the 1970s. It meant positive reductions in some education programmes and a much smaller increase than we have achieved in others.
    We all want education to benefit from increased prosperity. The Government's reforms will help in addition to get better value for the money already invested.
    There are many more things that I could say, but in the interest of allowing other hon. Members to speak, I shall not respond to other charges made by the hon. Member for Blackburn. However, I shall address recent claims that local management will force schools to make thousands of teachers redundant. I have seen claims that tens of thousands would be made redundant—at one point the figure given was 70,000, but it has been whittled down and down. That simply is not the case. I quote:
    "Local management of schools serves as a convenient whipping boy for those unwilling to face up to the realities of falling rolls and surplus places."
    Those words are not mine but come from an editorial that appeared in The Times Educational Supplement at the end of last month. In none of the cases of teacher redundancies reported in the press so far has the treatment of teacher salaries under local management of schools been a contributory factor.
    What are the facts? First, vacancies. There are 400,000 teachers, and under this Government there have never been more than 2 per cent. of so posts vacant. The figure remains below that—and in many authorities, well below. What we must tackle is uneven distribution, particularly in inner London and in certain subjects.
    Secondly, the number of teachers leaving the profession has not changed significantly for 10 years although migration from inner London has increased. But recruitment has also increased steadily. This year, 21,700 students started initial teacher training courses, which was 2.5 per cent. above target—and we are increasing the target. Primary recruitment was up by 13 per cent. Applications to postgraduate certificate of education courses starting in September are currently 5 per cent. up on this time last year. About 25,000 people enter or re-enter teaching each year.
    The problem is local and subject-specific, and I agree that there are subject-specific issues. The reason is that the skills concerned—mathematics, physics and technology—are precisely the skills for which over decades we have not been producing enough people. That problem is now being addressed by the national curriculum, GCSE and TVEI. In an expanding and prosperous economy, they are also the skills that are in high demand. Our approach involves target-specific recruitment measures, including bursaries, which have improved the position, and the licensed and articled teachers scheme to bring back into teaching people who are more mature. In that context, the high response that we received in the recruitment advertising campaign from people aged over 26—graduates and non-graduates alike—was significant. Clearly, that is a well-targeted approach.
    As to teachers' pay, there is more local flexibility and a willingness to pay more on a higher-grade scale for skills that are in short supply—which is what every other employer has to do. The recruitment campaign is designed not only to improve the status of teaching with the slogan that we have chosen but to attract more recruits, as every
    890
    employer is now doing. Every employer is making the same approach. Those are the right ways of tackling the problem. Attendance at the various roadshows that we have run this year has also been very positive—75 per cent. up on last year.
    The response that we are receiving to that targeted programme demonstrates that teaching as a career is attractive. I want to go on and on making it more attractive, including the perception held by the public at large. It would make much more sense if the hon. Member for Blackburn joined me in saying that "Teaching brings out the best in people," as the slogan says, and that teaching as a career is on the up.
    That returns me to the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn, who never acknowledges the substantial achievements of recent years. Apart from the fact that the Labour party has nothing distinctive to say now about the great education reforms that we are carrying through, there are two fatal flaws in Labour's approach that undermine the hon. Gentleman's position. First, there is a clear policy distinction. The hon. Gentleman would abolish grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and the assisted places scheme. That is because they give power and choice to parents. I warn the hon. Gentleman that he is making a big mistake. I suggest that he talks to parents, teachers and governors who pioneered the first grant-maintained schools and CTCs, and to pupils on the assisted places scheme who were given the opportunity and choice to which their parents want to contribute all that they can. If the hon. Gentleman does that, he will learn more about that which he is so anxious to destroy and how successful it all is.
    Secondly—and I make no apology for returning to this—I must ask what the hon. Gentleman's policy is on resources. The only attack that he could develop today was that the Government are not spending enough on education. On the previous occasion when we debated education issues, I challenged the hon. Gentleman to explain Labour's position on resources for teachers' pay. He said that Labour would allow either free negotiations between teachers and employers or a review body without any cash limit. The morning after that debate, I wrote to the hon. Gentleman asking him to clear up the confusion between his statement and the phrase "as resources allow". I have now received a reply:
    "Cash limits would apply in the normal way"—
    if it were a local authority negotiation—
    "or (if we inherited an interim advisory committee arrangement) as they do in respect of employees covered by Review Bodies."
    So there would be cash limits "as resources allow". Still the hon. Gentleman has not answered my question and that of my hon. Friends. Is he promising anything in terms of extra money? His is a bogus attack.
    The Government have a coherent policy for schools that is already achieving substantial results, and it will continue doing so. Standards will continue to rise. There will be greater diversity of schools, greater choice for parents, and the guarantee of a balanced curriculum for all pupils, with clear expectations of what they can achieve. That is why I urge the House to support the amendment.
    5.27 pm
    Mr. Martin Flannery: The Secretary of State appears to be benign, rubicund and charming, but the same old vicious policies emerge as were

    891
    embraced by his two predecessors. The Secretary of State says that there is no crisis. We chose the title of the debate, which we had to initiate because the Government never wants to debate education. We have to do that out of the small amount of time at our disposal, and today half an hour was pinched out of that, so it is again a very short debate.
    We chose the theme of the crisis in our schools, because there is a crisis, and we know that that theme would find a response throughout the country. We knew that it would, if I may dare to use a pun, ring a bell—especially among the teaching profession.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) correctly said, there is no crisis in your schools. The crisis is in our schools—in the state education system. You do not have a crisis. You have the money, and you send your kids to your schools. Most of you went to the same schools yourselves.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not bringing me into his argument.
    Mr. Flannery: I thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my remarks were absolutely accurate.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member keeps referring to me.
    Mr. Flannery: I meant to refer to Conservative Members, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is Conservative Members who send their children to their schools, and who then cut and cut money from the schools that our children attend.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House spent almost 300 hours examining the Education Reform Bill. As I have said before, it is a deform Bill. It deforms the education system and everyone knows that it does. As the Act unfolds it becomes more desperate. The Minister says that he intends to recruit more teachers and has new methods of recruitment. He knows as well as I do that all he needs to do to recruit teachers is give them better conditions and wages and restore their negotiating rights. Britain is the only country that has withdrawn teachers' negotiating rights. We were condemned by the United Nations for doing that and so violating ordinary trade unionism.
    We have seen long years of attacks on the teaching profession led by successive Ministers. Lord Joseph, then Sir Keith Joseph, led the way with vicious attacks against the profession. He was followed by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—his constituency is aptly named—who is now chairman of the Conservative party. He launched deadly attacks all the way through. Teachers deeply resented those attacks which underestimated the teachers and, even more, undervalued their profession. They were hurt and they are bitter about it to this day. No matter what the Secretary of State says, the fact is that teachers have had to put up with attacks. Teachers were demeaned. Parents and other people were virtually asked by the Conservative party to undervalue and constantly attack the teaching profession.
    Now the Secretary of State praises teachers. He says that he talks to tons of teachers. A while ago we found that he never talked to anyone in his constituency. He talked only to people in other constituencies. He should talk to teachers. They would ask him why they have no
    892
    negotiating rights over their salaries. They would ask why there is a shortage of teachers not only in certain subjects but overall. They would ask him why the Select Committee issued an important report on teacher shortages, of which he seems to have taken no notice. The report was produced by not only Opposition Members but Conservative Members, who have a majority on the Committee. The Committee knew about the shortage of teachers and also knew that there was a crisis in that shortage.
    The Secretary of State knows about the local management of schools. Often it is mismanagement of schools. In our city of Sheffield no school has opted out, and none has in Leeds or Wakefield. The idea has been spread that lots of schools are opting out. Only 40 throughout the country out of the thousands of schools have opted out. Yet the Secretary of State says that it is popular. We can formulate our own conclusons based on—
    Mr. Batiste: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Flannery: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman must excuse me. I want to make a few points.
    The assisted places scheme has been mentioned. A great deal of money has been spent on it. The Government's expenditure plans show that when the assisted places scheme started in 1984–85 £22 million was provided for the scheme. In 1985–86 a total of £30 million was provided. In 1986–87 it was £38 million. In 1987–88 it was £46 million. The next year it was £51 million. The year after it was £59 million. That comes to £246 million of our money spent in private education that was taken away from the education of our children. In the next three years another £192 million is to be spent—£62 million, £60 million and £70 million. Added to the £246 million, that comes to £438 million.
    The city technology colleges scheme began with £1 million. Then the figure increased to £14 million and for this year it is £37 million. It is planned to increase it to £45 million, then £50 million and then drop to £40 million. That comes to £187 million, making a grand total, with the £438 million, of £625 million spent on CTCs and the assisted places scheme. That money was taken away from our children and put into private education. Schools near the CTCs suffer. The CTCs benefit from resources which should go to our schools.
    The Secretary of State talked about local management. We have had letters from schools all over our city of Sheffield saying that they will have to sack teachers. The Secretary of State knows that as well as I do. He gave figures to show how few teachers have gone. He knows as well as I do, as an experienced teacher, that he should count how many teachers have gone at the end of this term when they are not hired for next term.
    Many small schools have budgets which are £13,000 lower than last year. That is true of all primary schools. They will all have to sack teachers. Morale is lower than ever because teachers do not know who will be sacked. I have spoken to many of them. They are worried and miserable about whether they will be sacked, because they have already been told that somebody will be sacked. That is happening throughout the kingdom. The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that that is superimposed on the shortage of teachers which is implicit in the Select Committee's report. Those are the facts and they should be borne in mind.

    893
    Other features of the crisis in our schools are crumbling school buildings and endless bureaucracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn mentioned some of the documents that make up that bureaucracy which are sent round to teachers. Teachers have told us and the Conservative party that merely to carry those documents home at night and take them back to the classroom is a new chore. They have to read all those documents. Under the heading "Teachers" the chief inspector's report says:
    "If actually carrying out assessments, recording and reporting outcomes and accounting for what has been done do turn out to be overly prescriptive and inquisitiorial, not only will the quality of teaching and learning be adversely affected but the competence, professionalism and creativity of the teaching force may be undermined. Ultimately, the effective implementation of the Education Reform Act will depend upon the work of teachers who are trusted to use their pedagogical skills and experience in the interests of their pupils and the nation, with a minimum of external checks and balances, but who are properly accountable for what they do. Too much prescription and too detailed an external scrutiny of the work of teachers will lead to impossible workloads; bureaucratic inflexibility, and a de-skilled teaching force."
    Increased bureaucracy and the fear of being sacked are the fundamental reasons for low morale among teachers and in schools.
    We hear constant attacks on local education authorities. The LEAs are elected authorities which have existed for many years. They understand the problems of great cities. They are talked about as if they were villains of the piece by people who do not even send their children to LEA schools.
    Mr. John Butcher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Flannery: Not just now.
    That criticism is hard on people who, with little or no pay and often voluntarily, devoted their lives to the education of our children for all these years. LEAs were not set up solely by the Labour party. They were supported by Tories of the past and Liberals of the past.
    Mr. Butcher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Flannery: I am not giving way. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, other people wish to speak and I want to put these points over.
    The Government have introduced testing at seven and then more testing at later stages. There is a lack of funds for schools. They attack LEAs. The Government attempt to persuade schools to opt out by giving them inducements. All those factors have caused teachers' morale to fall to its lowest ebb. It is not for nothing that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said that teachers are not mentioned in the Government's amendment to our motion. Their amendment is glorious and lyrical. As I said, it could be set to music. It has nothing to do with reality in our schools. It was thought up to fox people into believing that the Conservative party is doing something good for our children.
    Our people from Sheffield insist on coming down to London and meeting the five Labour Members and the one Tory Member who represent Sheffield constituencies in a room in the House and the Minister is invited to attend. At first, we planned to meet just one or two people, but then demands came from all over Sheffield. As the Minister probably knows, the local newspaper, the Star, which is a very powerful newspaper in South Yorkshire, is helping us because those running it believe that there is a
    894
    crisis in our schools. That is happening all over Britain. If the Minister does not know it, in heaven's name why is he the Minister? Everyone else knows it. If he can talk that crisis out of existence he had better get on with it.
    Practically all primary schools in Sheffield will be losing teachers. Parents are demanding to lobby the Minister and I am inviting him to meet them on 11 July to discuss some of those problems.
    Bureaucracy, form filling, testing and endless reports are hindering the education of our children. In the primary schools there is practically no non-contact time. Teachers have no time away from the children. They have meetings before school, after school and at lunchtime. They spend their time trying to take lessons and share out classes when teachers are away because they are so tired. Now, supply teachers are being used to fill permanent vacancies. The Government's answer is to scour Europe and other countries for teachers when we have about 100,000 teachers who are willing to return to teaching if they get a decent wage, negotiating rights, resources and schools that are not crumbling. More teachers are needed now. We need more money and more resources urgently.
    The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who has a fixed smile on his face, can go on smiling. There is a crisis and all the laughter and smiling will not stop it. Teachers need to be treated as professional people; wages and conditions must be improved, and crumbling schools must be repaired. The Conservative party should address those problems to achieve what we want for our children. Failure to do that will develop the present crisis into a catastrophe by the autumn term if something is not done. Never mind the Minister's lyrical concepts; the Government's failure to treat state education as an immediate priority will alienate more teachers and parents. The Government's amendment pretends that there is no crisis. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House of Mr. Speaker's earlier appeal for brief speeches.
    5.42 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Thornton: During our brief education debates, I sometimes wonder what those who spend their lives working in education, the parents of the children in our schools and the teachers who devote their efforts and show great commitment to our children will think when they read our debates. So much of what we hear is a sterile and weary repetition of party points which have little or nothing to do with the real problems which are recognised by many hon. Members. Those problems must be addressed seriously, responsibly and with planning and forethought.
    Everyone who knows anything about education knows that the leads and lags in the system are enormous, and long-term improvements have to be initiated some years beforehand. Equally, when standards have fallen and problems have arisen in the system, the roots of those problems can be found in decisions that were taken many years ago. Those who want to address the problems would do far better to learn from the lessons that history has taught us and to try to see where we went wrong so that we can avoid making the same mistakes in future. Personal attacks about where people send their children to school

    895
    have nothing to do with the debate. More than 90 per cent. of our children are and will continue to be educated in the state sector and we must all strive to ensure that the state sector is made as good as possible.
    I bitterly resent the sweeping statements about Conservative Members and their attitudes not only to their own children and generally. I am probably one of the few Members of Parliament who can claim day-to-day responsibility in a large educational unit. I have been chairman of the governors of one of the largest primary schools in the country for 16 years. It has been a pilot school for local management of schools: we have a large staff and large numbers of pupils. The school is in an area of social change and we have experienced many of the problems that are inherent in the education system. I am familiar with them and deal with them most weeks of the school year. This Friday, I shall be there looking at staff appointments, so I can claim some knowledge of the system and direct week-to-week contact with teachers.
    Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Thornton: I am sorry, but I must get on, as many other hon. Members wish to speak.
    One of the essential ingredients in our attitude toward educational reform must be common sense. So much of what we do in education concerns common sense. It does not involve party dogma, systems or listening to conflicting advice from expert after expert, by which politicians of all parties have been seduced on far too many occasions. All too often the teachers in the classroom can teach us what we need to do to provide the best education for our children.
    We hear a great deal about the problems created in LMS. Too much is owed to the vagaries of local authorities and what they are doing apart from their education policies which affect their overall expenditure.
    We should try to address the future while learning from the past and we should recognise certain essential facts. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred, recently produced a report. No one who served on the Select Committee would say or would expect me to say, as the Committee Chairman, that there are no problems in our schools. The hon. Gentleman mentioned non-contact time in primary schools. Wearing my school governor's hat, I can talk about those problems from personal experience. But that does not mean that the reforms should be written off or that the changes that we are trying to bring about will not result in an improvement.
    However, I would stress one matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister. Those reforms will be delivered only by ensuring that there are enough teachers to deliver them. We must recognise that there are not sufficient teachers in certain areas. I recognise that coverage is patchy and that there are subject shortages, but there is enough evidence to suggest that to make these essential, widely welcomed reforms work we must will the resources. To deny them is to deny the education system and our children the opportunities of building on the recognition that, for too many decades, the education drift has been allowed to go unchecked.
    896
    I said that much of what is said in these debates is sterile and pointless. There is agreement among people who care about education, about children and about the delivery of education that a well-qualified, well-remunerated and properly motivated teaching force is the way forward. If we can achieve that and stop the endless bickering about who was responsible for this, that or the other, we can make some progress. If people outside can see the House responding to genuine concerns, as it can and should, we will do education a great service indeed.
    5.51 pm
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The debate is about the crisis in our schools. I believe that there is a crisis and that, above all, it is a crisis of morale among many teachers, if not all, because of their difficulties in implementing Government reforms which, whether they agree with them or not, they believe have been introduced at a pace beyond their ability to cope. Yet, at the same time, they must ensure that children receive the correct level of education and care.
    I am conducting a tour of schools in Cornwall, and visited three different schools only last Friday. It confirms that professionals working in the service—parents, pupils and councillors—are aware of the crisis but are astounded that the Government appear to believe that the solution is more bureaucracy, more gimmicky initiatives and more central control, whereas, in truth, more investment is desperately needed.
    That shows the difference of opinion between those who are directly involved and the Government. I do not want to get into a debate about whether or by how much the Government have increased investment, but I stress that the more teachers I talk to, the more anecdotes I can give the Secretary of State and hon. Members of the need for still more investment to meet the objectives laid down by the Government.
    It is extraordinary, given that the principle of the national curriculum has such widespread support, that the Government have managed to create a curriculum that has received such widespread criticism.
    There is much support for the principle of a national curriculum, and my party was the first to make a manifesto commitment to it. But the structure that the Government have fronted—I say "fronted" because I am not sure that it is entirely the Minister's fault that it has got out of control; it may have more to do with how the National Curriculum Council works—is far too extended and extensive and teachers are struggling to control it because it is far too prescriptive. We favour a national curriculum that offers a framework of educational aims and objectives, not one that lays down every dot and comma of what each teacher should be doing and ignores the principle that teachers should be trained to present skills in an individual way and that classrooms should not be treated as factories, where everybody must do everything the same way in a repetitive system.
    The opportunities for local variation and flexibility, which should be central to the national curriculum, have been squeezed out by the Government. The recent survey on reading skills has caused much concern. Whatever the background and the reasons for the fall-off in reading skills—I accept that the Secretary of State will want to know much more about it—the report makes it clear that it may have been caused by particular systems and styles

    897
    of teaching. If the Government get it wrong, squeezing everybody into the same straitjacket may lead to squeezing them into the same faults. My concern is that the national curriculum ignores the principle of diversity and choice as protection against everybody getting it wrong, even at the risk that some teachers may get it wrong some of the time.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that teachers should be allowed individuality in their teaching methods and approaches, but does he accept that it is not unreasonable to set common aims for teachers and children under the curriculum?
    Mr. Taylor: I agree. The problem is how much the aim is common and how it is defined. The curriculum and the testing system under it is so detailed that it does not allow teachers enough flexibility. They cannot afford the flexibility and time necessary to make it work.
    The reports of teachers I speak to—I speak to many—are precisely in those terms. That is the major criticism they make, whatever their original opinion of the national curriculum. They say that the learning process is being hindered by the detail and testing process in the national curriculum and that the normal good practice of teacher-parent dialogue gives parents more information about how their child is doing than do the raw results of testing.
    The Government claim that testing will lead to higher standards, but I fear that it may lead to lower standards. The British Dyslexia Association has advanced that argument on behalf of those about whom it is particularly concerned.
    Although it is good that testing of seven-year-olds has been restricted to only the core subjects, the bureaucracy of administering the tests means that there is a risk of insufficient attention being given to the foundation subjects. There is a danger that teachers will be forced to teach for tests, which will not stretch the most able but will brand many as failures at an early age. The regimentation of the standard assessment tasks diminishes the role of teachers and denies their professional judgment and diagnostic skills. The testing arrangements do little to determine the needs and ability of individual pupils, because administering them for a class of 30 childern is highly unlikely to leave time to use them for diagnostic purposes to help children overcome individual problems.
    The problem of stress among teachers cannot be ignored. Even if all the other factors that I have mentioned can be put right and teachers become used to the curriculum, the stress and the difficulties that teachers are under could gravely damage the pupils now experiencing the implementation of the process, precisely and simply because it is being pushed through so quickly.
    I and other Liberal Democrats believe that national testing before GCSE is inappropriate and that a more developed record of pupil achievement, involving not only the teaching staff but pupils and parents, would have been a better way forward. Ministers do not accept that position, but there is room for them to slow the pace of change in the classroom to allow the teachers to have a real chance of making testing effective for present and future pupils.
    The whole problem has been exacerbated by the morale of teachers, who are suffering from the burdens imposed on them. A major investment is needed not only in cash, but in time and care for those teachers and their
    898
    professionalism to combat the growing problem of teacher morale. The falling morale among teachers especially saddens me, yet the Government seem determined to ignore the difficulties that teachers are facing and to heap more and more work on to them.
    One head teacher in my constituency wrote:
    "The workload is becoming almost insurmountable for all of us—we will work for the sake of our pupils, but these excessive demands, lack of time and preparation to complete everything within government issued deadlines will result in the continued erosion of the teaching profession, and you will find that existing expertise, dedication and professionalism will recede."
    Another head teacher said:
    "I have a good many years left to give to education but my enthusiasm for teaching cannot go on indefinitely unless the Government provide significant additional resources to enable us to implement the National Curriculum in a professional manner."
    We recently debated in the House the Government's decision not to implement fully the award recommended by the teachers' pay review body. I said then that I had spoken to head teachers and other teachers who were leaving the profession in Cornwall. Cornwall is not an area in which it is especially difficult or unrewarding to teach; on the contrary, we have some of the best education in the country. I went home after that debate and on the Friday I visited another school. Blow me down, once again the head teacher said, confidentially, that he was giving up and taking early retirement because of the burdens that he faced. There is a real problem; it is not just make-believe. All of us who speak to teachers and head teachers find the same problem.
    Another issue which is less important, but which should not be ignored, is pay. Teachers have such commitment to their pupils that they are willing to work for lower salaries than they could obtain elsewhere. None the less, the way in which the comparable level of their salaries has been eroded is a direct sign to them that they are undervalued. In its report on teacher supply, the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts said:
    "The government should implement the IAC's recommendations in full without delay."
    The Government are not doing that. The failure, year after year, to give teachers a fair deal over pay will do nothing to solve the morale problem or the supply crisis. The Government have a duty to establish a political climate in which the professional status and authority of teachers are held in high regard. The Government have failed even to try to do that. They have a duty to restore professionalism to the job.
    The Government should look again at the proposals from many quarters for the establishment of a general teaching council. That would be the clearest sign we could give that we see teachers as professionals in the community. I see that the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) is in his place and I see that he agrees with that point. There is wide agreement among all parties in the House and outside that that is the way to go forward.
    Both the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East and I have had Adjournment debates on the crisis of the quality of Cornish school buildings in which teachers have I o teach. That is on the record so the hon. Gentleman need not look too bashful. We know that in Cornwall we need to spend £100 million to bring the schools up to the level that the Government set in 1981 for schools to achieve by 1991. However, the county has been allowed to spend only

    899
    £6.522 million for 1990–91. It is simply impossible to reach the minimum standards that the Government say should be achieved. Will Ministers cut the standards? Will they review the standards that they believe are necessary for education, or will they accept the fact that for the indefinite future teachers will teach in surroundings that are inadequate by the Government's own standards? On the current levels of spending, we cannot meet those minimum standards. Ministers have repeatedly refused to put in the extra money necessary to meet the shortfall. I do not deny that some money is going in, but in Cornwall we can now offer only lower standards for the future.
    Time after time, the Government have been warned that the crisis in our schools is weekly becoming more acute. Rather than recognise the problems and listen to teachers, the Government are obsessed with gimmicky initiatives such as the assisted places scheme and the city technology colleges, which fail to tackle the real needs. They have also heaped further burdens on to an already stressed and devalued teaching profession by the bureaucracy of an over-prescriptive and underfunded national curriculum. All the evidence and experience of the past year shows that the Government reforms are causing chaos. It is imperative that Ministers think again, slow the pace of change and give the education service the priority and funding it deserves.
    The miracle is that, despite the pressures and lack of resources from which they have suffered, teachers are still doing a superb job in our schools. On that at least I agree with the Minister. Their commitment to their pupils and their schools is unwavering. If the Government showed only half that commitment to state education, a debate on the crisis in our schools would not be necessary.
    Between now and the general election—and afterwards—my party will make it clear that if improving our education system means spending more money and raising taxes, we shall not flinch from doing so because we believe that investment in our young people is a priority for which raising taxes should not be dodged if it is necessary. I feel sympathy for Labour Front-Bench Members who are not allowed to say that in this debate but who believe that as well. I hope that they can persuade their leadership to allow them to say it too as they approach the general election.
    6.6 pm
    Mr. James Pawsey: The real crisis in our schools would be the one that would occur if Labour Members ever won power. The House was not surprised to learn of the negative attitude displayed by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) because the whole of the Labour party's education policy is negative. Labour Members would abolish the grammar schools, the grant-maintained schools, the city technology colleges, the assisted places scheme and, as we have heard this afternoon, even the independent sector. The Labour party has become the party of abolition; Labour Members would even like to abolish choice itself. They want the uniform greyness of mediocrity.
    The Government remain committed to improving the quality and standards of the state education system in which the majority of our children are educated. I need hardly remind the House that in 1976 the then Prime
    900
    Minister, Lord Callaghan, called for "a great debate" and that is what he got. There was no action, but plenty of talk. The present Government have acknowledged that there are problems and have introduced, alongside other measures, the Education Reform Act 1988. The thrust of the Act was to restore choice to parents.
    We believe that parents are the best guardians of education. Most parents know best what is right for their children, so parents should be trusted and involved in the education process. The Labour party seeks to thrust the nation's children into one type of school—
    Mr. Nellist: Good schools.
    Mr. Pawsey: —irrespective of ability, preference or need. I hear Opposition Members endorsing that by saying "good".
    Mr. Nellist: I said, "Good schools".
    Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned ambition. Indeed, the Labour party is ambitious; it is ambitious for itself. Labour Members want office and they are prepared to promise anything and to jettison anything if it means that there is a chance of their gaining power. The Labour party has also discovered standards and Labour Members talk about introducing an education standards council. I must remind them that that idea has been dismissed by the teachers' unions as a gimmick. Labour Members talk about a parent-school contract, but they forget that the present Government have already enshrined in law rights for parents. The Labour party is talking about introducing five-subject A-levels, which would undermine one of the accepted and established beacons of academic excellence.
    Conservative Members stand for choice, and more parental choice will ensure an improvement in standards. Parents naturally want the best for their children. In the independent sector, for example, as we have been repeatedly reminded by the hon. Member for Blackburn, parents are prepared to pay for choice, and to pay heavily. In the state sector, parents are willing to invest their time, their interest and their commitment.
    I believe that parents will be the great engine of educational change. The hon. Member for Blackburn criticised the introduction of grant-maintained schools. I believe firmly in grant-maintained schools and I am anxious that Ministers should drop the artificial 300-pupil threshold for entry. Let us see more schools, more smaller schools and more village schools applying for grant-maintained status.
    We should remember, however, that such reforms take time and that it is now only two years since the passing of the Education Reform Act 1988. Only now are we beginning to see the introduction of local management of schools and only now are the first grant-maintained schools beginning to emerge.
    Mrs. Wise: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr Pawsey: No. The hon. Lady must forgive me, but many of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
    The national curriculum is bound to encounter some teething troubles before it is accepted. But let no hon. Member doubt our commitment to improving the quality and standard of state education.
    On 7 June we debated teachers' pay and conditions. There is no doubt in my mind that the teaching profession

    901
    is no longer as attractive as it was 20 or 30 years ago. In those days, teachers were on a par with doctors and architects. That is no longer the case and much of the responsibility for that loss of esteem must lie on teachers' own shoulders. As I have said before, if they wish to be treated as professionals, they must act as professionals, and professionals do not march, demonstrate, strike or obstruct.
    Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I believe that the vast majority of teachers in Britain are committed both to their profession and to the children in their charge. It is unfortunate that the efforts of the majority are undermined by the efforts of a militant left-wing minority. Anyone who doubts that has only to remember the appalling scenes that recently occurred at the teachers' conferences, where the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers was howled down by a militant left-wing mob of his own members. Teachers are to education what the house is to home. One cannot have one without the other, and I should like teachers to occupy once more their old and coveted position in society.
    There are problems in our schools, and some of them have their roots in increasing indiscipline. Indiscipline and an attendant lack of respect are increasingly to be found both in the home and at school. But it would be wrong for society to place all the responsibility for school problems on teachers' shoulders. Parents must understand that they have duties and responsibilities as well as rights and that they cannot abdicate them as soon as their children go through the school gates.
    Education is a partnership between parents and teachers. I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) in his place, because he has made just that point in many of our education debates. Too often the partnership between parent and teacher deteriorates into a casual association that takes place once a year. We need to restore respect for teachers, and respect must be earned. Boys of 13, 14 and 15 can be difficult and unpleasant—well able to turn a teacher's life into something of a nightmare. In such cases, firm discipline is required, and I fear that such discipline is missing from many of our state schools.
    Teaching is best achieved in a firm, disciplined framework, both at home and at school. When that framework is absent, chaos begins. We need to go back to some of the basics, both in teacher training and in the classroom. Over the past 25 years, teaching has suffered from too many experiments and too many theories—
    Mr. Robert Hicks: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's support.
    Too many proven methods have been scrapped, on the scantiest of evidence, for the new fashion of the day, and children's education has suffered as a result. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not a fashionable man and he is not a theorist. What we need now is not more innovation but a period of consolidation. Under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that is what we will get—to the benefit of our children and to the benefit of the nation's schools.
    6.15 pm
    Mr. Win Griffiths: It has been a revelation and a source of amazement to me to hear hon. Members' deliberations on the state of our education system. One has only to visit half a dozen state schools to realise that everywhere disillusioned teachers are struggling to provide a good education for the children in their charge and finding that their task is made more difficult by the Government's action.
    In the past decade, we have suffered a cut in investment in the education service and in the future of our children. We spend less of our GDP on education today than we did under the Labour Government, and it is the under-resourcing of the service that is causing so many of the difficulties.
    What state can our education service be in when we read of parents being asked by school governors to lob in £50 apiece for teachers to be employed? Do we realise the depth of the crisis when we read that parents in Harpenden, that citadel of Conservatism, have set up Harpenden Parents Against Education Cuts because of the way in which local management of schools is working?
    Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend referred to local management of schools. He may or may not be aware that, in the past day or two, chairmen of boards of governors have received letters from the National Association of Governors and Managers pointing out to them that, because of LMS, they now face a great risk of being sued for negligence, errors and omissions, and inviting them to take out insurance against such claims. Does my hon. Friend agree that that will create a crisis of confidence among school governors equal to that among teachers, and that it is greatly to be deplored?
    Mr. Griffiths: I had heard about that, although I had not seen the document until my hon. Friend produced it. It appears in any case to be another unthought of consequence of the Government's reforms that will cause great aggravation in the education system. They are already causing aggravation for teachers and that is why we have a growing crisis of teacher supply in the United Kingdom. The problem is particularly severe in inner London; indeed, in boroughs such as Southwark and Tower Hamlets it is a scandal. It is beyond belief that any Education Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box and not suggest positive solutions to the problem. It is a national scandal. The problem is steadily spreading its tentacles to other parts of the country.
    At one time, we were principally concerned about maths and science, but we now find that there is a shortage of skilled and qualified teachers of modern languages, design and technology, and music—half the subjects in the national curriculum. Is it any wonder that there is a crisis in our schools today? On DES teacher training targets, we are 27 per cent. short in maths, 23 per cent. short in physics, 16 per cent. short in modern languages, 42 per cent. short in chemistry, and 22 per cent. short in technology. There has been a failure to meet DES targets, and the problem will get much worse before it gets better. That failure can be seen in Wales, fabled for its teachers, where teachers are provided as if they were on a conveyor belt. In Wales, local authorities are experiencing difficulties in recruiting secondary school teachers, qualified Welsh language teachers, and science, maths and modern language teachers. They are lucky if one or two

    903
    people apply for such posts. The difficulties are to be found everywhere. Morale is low and the profession overburdened.
    The praise that the Government heap on teachers is rather like the praise that the generals heaped on the soldiers in the trenches in the first world war. It came from people who were strategically inept, had a poorly paid soldiery and were poorly equipped. That is why, in the past six months, the so-called "escape committee" has increased the number of people wanting to join from the profession from 700 to 3,000. Teachers are disillusioned because they are being asked to do too much too soon and too quickly, when their pay is too little too late and too slow—staged payments of a cash-limited pay award. There is worse to come.
    In my county, teachers will lose their jobs as about half of our primary and secondary schools have had savage reductions in their budgets because of formula funding and the LMS scheme, which the Welsh Office forced on my local authority of Mid Glamorgan. That has adversely affected our schools.
    LMS is not about giving parents and governors the chance to run their own show; it is about exposing schools to formula funding, which means that they will be closed. There is no doubt that small schools will close in the near future.
    On nursery education, poll tax-capped authorities will consider areas in which, at the moment, provision is non-statutory, so there will be cuts. It is salutary to think that poll tax-capped Labour authorities are among the best providers of nursery education. It is no coincidence that Tory education authorities are the worst providers of nursery education.
    Throughout the education system, teachers are struggling to provide a high-quality service, when virtually everything that the Government are doing is counter-productive. We have a legacy of crumbling schools, crumbling teacher morale, teacher shortages, teachers not being taught, classes without teachers in front of them, and change for the sake of change. Parent governors are thoroughly disillusioned and say that their meetings are about finance and not about education. They can foresee the day when they will ask not who is the best but who is the cheapest when they appoint teachers. That is our education service—the cheapest.
    6.25 pm
    Mr. Robert Hicks: I shall make just two general observations about the current position of education, based on my impressions in visiting schools and talking to parents, teachers and governors, and certainly not from the point of view of an expert. I shall also raise one specific requirement for Cornwall.
    First, as has been mentioned, there is no denying that our primary and secondary schools have been subjected to a period of significant change, not least because of the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988. I have no objection to the majority of the measures. Indeed, I warmly welcomed the introduction of the concept of a national curriculum and local school management. Of course there will be teething problems and certain genuine difficulties, and they will all require careful consideration. It cannot be denied, however, that the changes have meant
    904
    extra responsibilities and an increased work load for teachers, parents and children. That fact must be recognised by all of us who are anxious in the widest sense for the future education of our children.
    The scheduled time scale for the changes has always worried me. The rate of change demanded of teachers and children alike has been onerous. Furthermore, as a direct consequence of the time scale requirement, the necessary advice, information and procedures to be adopted have not always been available to schools. That has undoubtedly caused additional anxieties. That is why we now need a period of consolidation—indeed, tranquility—in our schools. As legislators, we owe that at least to our teachers and children.
    Fortunately, there is evidence that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State understands that requirement. His remarks about assessment today confirm that impression. Consolidation does not mean weakening or losing the basic objectives that we seek, or even the momentum that is essential to implement the changes. Common sense dictates that consolidation is required to maximise the effects of the changes.
    My second general point is about teachers. I mean no offence, but we all know that a small minority of teachers, or perhaps their representatives, are a nuisance to the teaching profession. They do untold damage to the teachers' cause. I ask Ministers and colleagues to recognise that the great majority of teachers are hard-working, committed and anxious to provide the best possible standard of education for our children.
    I hope that the independent negotiating machinery to determine teachers' salaries and conditions, whether it takes the form of a teachers' council or some other form, will soon be restored. Certainly we have been given some firm promises on that by my right hon. Friend. It is essential that the new framework provides the necessary ability to restore the morale of teachers. It is essential for public confidence that we are perceived as a Government who recognise the crucial work undertaken by teachers, as demonstrated by the establishment of the new framework.
    Two years ago, almost to the day, I had an Adjournment debate on the county of Cornwall's school building requirements. Since local education authorities will soon be finalising their applications to the Department for next year's financial allocations, I want to use this opportunity to emphasise the need for Cornwall to receive a meaningful capital allocation to sustain a rolling programme of new school building, accommodate the rising number of pupils and bring about the replacement and improvement of existing school stock.
    I remind the Minister that there are 33 secondary schools in Cornwall and nine, including Liskeard in my constituency, still occupy split sites. In 1973 I took a delegation to see the Secretary of State for Education, now my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Liskeard school. We are still waiting for results.
    Mr. Ken Eastham: Promises, promises.
    Mr. Hicks: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that, but I remind Opposition Members about the delegations that one took to see their education Ministers: their promises were not delivered either.
    I want my right hon. Friend to ensure that sufficient allocation is made so that we can make the maximum use

    905
    of scarce financial and human resources. The problems caused by split-site schools do not allow for the maximum use of those resources.
    In 1992 Cornwall's primary school population will exceed 40,000 pupils—the highest figure ever achieved. Undoubtedly that will exacerbate an already difficult situation. Our chief education officer estimates that there are some 50 projects that would merit urgent priority if sufficient funds were available. He also estimates that 50 per cent. of those projects can be classified as major—costing more than £200,000.
    Our county has always been a modest-spending area and it does its best to top up the Department's allocation. This year the county will spend £14 million thanks to the use of capital receipts and reserves, compared with the Department's allocation of £6.5 million. Last year the corresponding figures were £8.9 million and £6.1 million. Each year the council's education committee faces an almost impossible task—some might say that it is invidious—in determining priorities. I have not mentioned the new building regulation requirements that could add a further £70 million to our financial needs.
    Mr. David Harris: Apart from the problem of split-site schools, does my hon. Friend agree that the tremendous legacy of old schools from the Victorian era, particularly in our villages, means that it is necessary to get on top of that problem once and for all?
    Mr. Hicks: My final remark answers the point that my hon. Friend has rightly raised. The current building requirements in Cornwall are the price we have had to pay for the relative lack of activity in that regard in the 1950s and 1960s. That does not absolve us, however, from our responsibilities to our children in the 1990s.
    6.34 pm
    Mr. Dave Nellist: The debate coincides with an article in The House Magazine by the Secretary of State for Education. The Secretary of State begins his contribution by describing his aims as follows:
    "To encourage all children to achieve the highest level of their different abilities and discover and develop their own particular talents, thereby acquiring the wide range of skills and abilities they will need to deal with the many and diverse challenges which lie ahead."
    If that was true, there would be no difference between us and we would happily agree on the definition of what education should provide for our children. However, there is no consensus between us, for three reasons.
    The first is on philosophical grounds. The Government aim to create an education system that is designed not to develop the potential of each child, but to fit this generation of children to the short-term needs of their friends in business. That is what LMS and city technology colleges are all about: they are aimed at creating a generation of managers and technicians to run industry and commerce in the future. In recent years the privatisation and the orientation of education towards the needs of business have been the Government's themes.
    Secondly, if what the right hon. Gentleman said was true, we would have a well-paid and well-motivated teaching profession, enjoying high morale. We have exactly the opposite. That profession is suffering a haemorrhage. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has shown me an article which says that six out of seven primary school teachers in
    906
    one school in Lambeth intend to leave that school in the next three weeks. Come September there will be one teacher for those children.
    Thirdly, there is no consensus between us because of the way in which the Government have dealt with the needs of local authorities to repair, renovate and even maintain the fabric of the schools in which our children are taught. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who comes from my part of the country, spoke about standards, grey uniformity and choice.
    One part of the national curriculum relates to the teaching of computers—it is covered by the information technology section. I have a photograph from my local paper, the Coventry Evening Telegraph, that shows children of the Chace primary school in Willenhall, in my constituency, being taught computing in toilets. After 11 years of a Tory Government children are being taught in the loo. How can those children be assessed on their ability to absorb in those conditions? The photograph could not show the open drains, nor pass on the smell that will come with hot weather. How are teachers supposed to inculcate in those children the sense of wonder and awareness of the world when they are sitting in a toilet learning about computers? "Our Crumbling Schools" is not just the title of an article in that local newspaper or a campaign of the Labour party, but reality for children in the city of Coventry and elsewhere.
    In the past three years my local authority has bid for £11.8 million, £16 million and £12.4 million from the Department of Education and Science for essential repairs. If those repairs are not carried out, it will severely impair the ability of teachers to deliver good quality education and, as a result, morale will go down.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has already mentioned a school in Nuneaton, of which the Minister will be aware, where children have caught hepatitis A because there is no soap in the toilets and the paper towels have been cut in half. The north Warwickshire district medical officer said of the outbreak:
    "Financial cuts in education, where children are only allowed half a paper towel, no adequate soap and no, or poor quality, toilet paper made the problem more difficult."
    The savage cuts in, and under-provision for, education are now to be exacerbated by poll tax capping. More than £200 million has been cut from the education spending allocation in the 20 authorities affected. In the past three years Coventry has bid for about £40 million—we were allocated £10.6 million. Last year we were awarded;£1.96 million—15 per cent. of what the council bid for. It was the lowest allocation to any council in the west midlands; and of the 109 education authorities in England and Wales, only 14 are worse off than Coventry.
    I was talking to parents in my constituency, and to governors of Chace primary school at Willenhall, over the weekend. The toilets, where computer studies classes take place, are out of date and smelly. When it rains, teachers have to put up with puddles inches from the computer terminals. The rain also comes into the school on to the carpeted areas where children are supposed to sit and listen to stories. The female staff toilet is now a store room for computer and games equipment and the caretaker's room is a storage area for science equipment. The library, where remedial teaching takes place for those with difficulty in learning how to read, consists of half the main hall. There is a curtain down the middle of the hall and physical education classes are conducted in the other half.

    907
    It is hard to imagine how somebody like the elderly lady I spoke to the other night, who is a volunteer, going into that school to help with remedial teaching, manages to teach in half a school hall, separated from the PE class by a curtain.
    Her Majesty's inspectorate is worried about Chace primary school, which is one of numerous crumbling schools in our cities. It is not one of the schools visited by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, when he came to Coventry. He and other hon. Members from my area know that we are not talking about a left-wing authority or a city council that has ever disobeyed a single Government instruction during the past 11 years. It has never been anywhere near being rate or poll tax capped.
    The local paper has provided the Under-Secretary of State with a dossier of what is going on in Coventry. What is he going to do about it? How do the Government decide on allocations that leave schools in Coventry lacking such facilities? Why is Coventry the area with the lowest budget in the west midlands and the 15th lowest in the country? How are such positions reviewed? How can we get the money this year so that bairns of five, six or seven years old in such schools in Coventry may have decent facilities in which to be taught this year? That is what the debate is all about for me. Those are the most important years in a bairn's life. It is when the mind blossoms and awareness develops.
    I am proud and lucky. I have four healthy bairns growing up and being educated in Coventry. However, in Coventry there are parents with children at schools in which, according to the local newspaper survey, the stench from decaying toilets causes regular outbreaks of sore throats and stomach bugs. How are kids supposed to learn in such conditions? It does not happen in Harrow, Eton, Marlborough or Charterhouse and the private schools that I have visited as a speaker, where the walls are panelled in oak, as are the walls of this place.
    The average spent on children's education in this country is just over £1,900 per child. In Avon, a poll-tax-capped authority, the figure is £1,870. The Government spend money on their assisted places schemes to send kids to the private school of Charterhouse. They spend £7,200 per child, four times what they say is too much to spend on our kids in state education. That is why an HMI report this January stated that one third of secondary schools, in which 1 million children are taught, have accommodation so unsuitable that the quality of the children's education was being "adversely affected".
    This year, Coventry asked for £12.2 million. We were allowed—note the word "allowed" to spend £1.96 million. But the Government are spending £7.65 million—four times that amount—on one city technology college in Nottingham. It is not that the Government do not have the money; they are hypocritical. We have a Government education team that does not care about the 95 per cent. of children in the state education sector. Why not?
    The reason the education team do not care is that the Government are at present engaged in precisely the same pre-privatisation rundown that has occurred in every nationalised industry prior to privatisation during the 11 years of this Government. It is a simple exercise designed
    908
    to make the product—the Government call it a product—the education system, unworkable and unpopular among parents so that they cry out for privatised control. That is not yet working. The Secretary of State has offered parents of this country an opportunity to opt out, but out of 4,257 secondary schools in England and Wales, only 40—less than 1 per cent.—have asked to go private, and not a single primary school has done so.
    During their period in office, the Government have cut the proportion of public spending on education and science, and increased money for private schools. They have closed 1,575 primary schools and 312 secondary schools, and opened a handful of elite city technology colleges. They have cut back expenditure on text books, and put up the price of school meals; and, according to The Times Educational Supplement last Friday, there has been a 3.2 per cent. fall in the average reading ability of seven-year-olds. Millions of ordinary families cannot get nursery education or care, which would not only be good for the children, but would open opportunities for parents, particularly women. Only one quarter of the three and four-year-olds in this country receive any form of nursery education.
    Education should be about a lifetime for people to go in and out of education as they need it. But it is not. There are few nurseries for our bairns to attend, and colleges, polytechnics and universities, where grants have been cut by one quarter, then frozen and—if the regulations are passed—from this summer, even benefits will be taken away from students. When dealing with our children's education, the Government cut funds, but when dealing with their children's education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough said, they are prepared to spend an extra £0.5 billion on assisted places.
    Socialists believe that education is a right. The Government believe in privilege. As soon as we get rid of the Government and have a decent, socialist Government, we can once again make education the right that it should be.
    6.46 pm
    Mr. Derek Fatchett: This debate is about the crisis in our education system. The view that there is a crisis is held by parents and teachers throughout the country. A striking factor in the debate was the utter complacency of the Secretary of State. The way in which he described our education system and the activities taking place in our schools would not be instantly recognisable by teachers and parents. That shows the great divide, the gulf, that exists between the Government and the teachers and parents of this country.
    I suspect that there is one point on which we can agree with the Secretary of State, but he comes to that position with a record behind him. He has, to use the criminal jargon, some form. Nevertheless, we welcome the fact that he now holds a slightly different view. He told us that teachers were a key resource and we had failed to sing their praises. He should go back and read all the education debates during the past few years because he would then realise that Labour spokesmen, on each and every occasion, have sung the praises of teachers and recognised the tasks and burdens carried by them.
    The Secretary of State now says that teachers are doing a good job. This is where his form is relevant because it is this Secretary of State's Government who have done so

    909
    much to undermine the morale of teachers throughout the country. The Secretary of State's Government—we must remind ourselves of this, because it is an essential part of the current malaise in schools—took away from teachers the basic human right to bargain and negotiate freely with their employers. The Secretary of State's Government took every available opportunity in the House and outside to denigrate teachers' professionalism. That reached its height in the middle of the last decade and has had a remarkable impact on morale. The Secretary of State's Government have, on every possible occasion, refused to work with teachers and go with the grain of teachers' professionalism in developing the systems of both testing and the national curriculum.
    The hon. Members for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said that there was a need for a general teaching council. We echo those views because we believe in teachers' professionalism, and have been saying so for some time. We welcome the Secretary of State as a partial convert, but he has a long record to get rid of before he becomes a true convert.
    A key element of the debate involves resources. The picture painted by the Secretary of State was that all was well in our schools and there was no problem. When my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) asked about schools in Southwark, he had a simple response. He said that the Government did not generalise, Southwark had its own peculiar problems and so we could not argue about teacher shortages there. I wish that the Secretary of State would put that argument to the parents of those children in Southwark, who do not know whether they will have teachers in the classroom this autumn. Why does he not go down to the east end of London and visit the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), and talk to the parents of the 300 children in Tower Hamlets who still do not have a school place because of the teacher shortages?
    Mr. Peter Shore: My hon. Friend rightly referred to the national scandal that more than 300 children are now out of school who have the right to education in our school system. Is he aware that, exactly a year ago, I took a deputation to the Secretary of State's predecessor to explain to him in detail the problems and the shortages, and that nothing has happened since? Will he join me in pressing the Minister to give an immediate, serious pledge and guarantee that a target date and timetable will be set, at the end of which my constituents' children will have the right to the proper state education that is guaranteed for all children in this country?
    Mr. Fatchett: My right hon. Friend has made a powerful intervention. Certainly I join him in asking the Secretary of State whether he is prepared to make that timetable commitment. We noticed earlier that he was not prepared to give parents a commitment about the availability of a teacher in every classroom this autumn; will he now give a commitment to the parents of Tower Hamlets, and to the 300 children who have no teachers? I shall give way if he wishes me to, but once again the House and my right hon. Friend will notice that he has no interest in these matters, and is not prepared to give any commitment.[Interruption.] I repeat that, if the Secretary of State wants to make the commitment, I shall give way—but, by pointing a finger, the Secretary of State suggests
    910
    that the Minister of State will do it. We look forward to that, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to intervene.
    The argument about resources was not addressed by the Secretary of State. We all know why he was appointed. The previous Secretary of State was full of ideas, none of which as we all know, and as the Conservative party regrets—worked effectively in practice. This Secretary of State was appointed to do the Prime Minister's bidding. While he is doing that, he himself is never bidding for education, or for resources for the education system.
    Let us have a look at what the present Secretary of State has agreed to. He has agreed to standard spending assessments for education: if they had been followed by local education authorities, that would have meant a £1.4 billion cut. That is how hard the right hon. Gentleman fought for education. He said that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was wrong to compare levels of expenditure in the maintained sector and on the assisted places scheme. However, he is never prepared to argue for the children in rate-capped authorities who, halfway through the school year, will have their educational resources cut. Where has the Secretary of State been? He has simply rolled over for the Treasury and the Prime Minister.
    This afternoon, the Secretary of State made a major announcement. The nub of his speech—his pot of gold—was the amount of money that he had for the system. He said that he was announcing expenditure for 1991–92 of £364 million, through the educational support grant system. I thought that he was being generous to the education system, so I went to the Library and examined the figures for this year's expenditure. They come to £357.7 million. The right hon. Gentleman has therefore announced an increase of £6.3 million—or 2 per cent.—when inflation is running at nearly 10 per cent. As always, he has announced a cut in real terms. Again, if he wishes to intervene I shall gladly give way.
    This is the Secretary of State who tries to give the impression that he argues with his ministerial colleagues on behalf of education. Hon. Members who heard his opening contribution will remember that he said that he had argued for the success of TVEI and for additional resources. Where was he when the 22 authorities embarking on TVEI had their expenditure reduced by 50 per cent? Was he knocking on the door of the Department of Employment, saying that it was crucial education expenditure? We have not heard a squeak from the Secretary of State: yet again he has failed to stand up for the education system, and for what is good in it.
    Against that background of a lack of resources, we must make another criticism of the Government's record. It concerns the confusion and lack of clarity in their thinking. With the complacency that was characteristic of his speech, the Secretary of State said that there were no problems with the local management of schools. Obviously, neither he nor any of his hon. Friends has been to any of the schools that my hon. Friends and I have visited, and talked to teachers, governors and parents. If they had, they would know that there are massive problems, and that schools are finding it increasingly difficult to meet their budgets. The Secretary of State knows that the Coopers and Lybrand report warned him that local management of schools could work effectively only if there were adequate resources in the system. Those resources are not available.

    911
    There is also confusion about testing and the national curriculum. In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph at Easter, the Prime Minister said that she had never expected the national curriculum to work out as it had. That is typical of the Prime Minister: it is abundantly clear that she does not lead her own Government when there are any difficulties. However, she has one advantage over the Secretary of State: I suspect that he still has no idea how the national curriculum will work out in practice.
    There is a problem in every school in the country. Teachers are being bombarded by material without any sense of direction and purpose from the centre. On top of that, children are to be tested at the age of seven. There seems to be a difference of opinion between Ministers on that point. The Minister of State—who may be making a valedictory speech in a few minutes—said, in an interview with the Today newspaper a few weeks ago, that testing was being piloted and that no decisions were being taken, although she did seem to favour a rigorous, detailed system. Last Friday I was delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State in Leeds. I suspect that, if the newspaper reports are correct, he is the only junior Minister in his Department who can be confident about his future. He said that testing was to be slimmed down. Whose version is the reality? Which is the Government's version? Is it the Minister of State's version, or the Under-Secretary's? Why do we not hear a word from the Secretary of State? The reality is that teachers do not know what is expected of them in the autumn of next year.
    Our indictment against the Government is a powerful one. It is about resources, confusion, drift and a lack of leadership. Any country that wants to build for the future realises that education is the investment for the future: investment in education today is the guarantee of economic success tomorrow. That is recognised by the French and the Germans and by people in the developing countries of south-east Asia. It is recognised by all economically successful countries. The only people who fail to recognise the importance of education are the Government and their Education Ministers. The clear message is that we need a change of education policies and a Labour Government to safeguard the future and our children.
    7 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The substance of the debate, couched in terms of an Opposition motion that does nothing to value teachers' efforts or to encourage parents and children, should have given the Opposition an opportunity to outline some new policies. However, not one Opposition Member has offered a concrete suggestion that would lead to any change for the better. They said that the most important anouncement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on education support grants and education authority training grants was rubbish.
    Without exception, Opposition Members have dwelt on their determination to put the clock back. They say with pride that history will repeat itself. They would diminish parental choice, as they did before, by the abolition of the direct grant schools which many of them were privileged to attend. They would threaten local education authority maintained grammar schools, the very schools which
    912
    provided education for children whatever their background and parentage. They would undermine the reforms that have been broadly welcomed by schools and parents alike. The hopes that schools and what is taught in them would take the direction that many teachers have been looking for for years would be dashed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) was right to condemn Opposition rhetoric. He was also right to emphasise that time is necessary to repair the damage that has been done over years to the education system, and right to dash the assumption that only socialists send their children to state schools. That is a disgraceful assumption, and it is absolutely untrue. It is in the interests of all hon. Members to strive for excellence in every school.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby spoke about the local management of schools and said that local authorities themselves must be given the opportunity and urged to deliver to the schools the most that they can. The only way to ensure that our reforms work is to allow schools to govern themselves and use the resources that are available to them. He said that we must ensure a sufficiency of teachers for the system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done that by properly addressing the problem with great urgency and giving it high priority.
    The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) made an interesting point on the national curriculum. I am glad to know that he is in favour of the concept of the national curriculum but sad to learn that he has not troubled to study the way in which it is being introduced to our system. There is much flexibility. Much of the national curriculum produced by the working group is on the established principles and methodology that teachers have been using for years. The curriculum draws together into a coherent programme study and syllabuses for children throughout the years that they are at school from the age of five to 16. It certainly enables teachers to use their skills and their own style of teaching. Those who seek to slow the pace of reform simply wish to prevent the children of this generation from benefiting from our reforms.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was right to point to the uniform mediocrity of a blanket system. He was also right to draw attention to the measures that successive Conservative Governments have introduced. Parents are the key to improvement, and if they are allowed to choose what they want for their children they will choose academic standards.
    I direct the attention of the Opposition to an Islington school that has recently had a change of head teacher. It is in one of the inner-London areas that we have heard about in the debate. Parents are flocking to that school to which the head teacher has introduced old-fashioned ideas of academic standards, uniform, and good behaviour. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. There are many meetings going on in the Chamber. The hon. Lady deserves to be heard.
    Mrs. Rumbold: That boys' school in Holloway deserves to be seen as a model for parents who are considering what kind of school to choose for their children. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth supporting the grant maintained schools.

    913
    The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) rather mischievously misunderstood the principles of local management of schools. The Welsh Office does not deliver the formula for such management. The county sets the formula and delivers the money to the schools. The hon. Member for Bridgend should be sure of his facts before he makes mischievous statements to the House and to the wider world.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) will be glad to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises the importance of allowing schools to have lighter burdens within the reforms. He accepts that in the schools and for teachers there must be a lightening of the burden. We also recognise that our teachers are professionals. They can be sure that the Government are committed to the return of their negotiating rights as and when agreements have been reached.
    I have visited a number of schools in inner London. I admit that I have not been to schools in Southwark, but I have certainly visited Hackney, Camden and Tower Hamlets. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) does a great disservice to the elected members and the director of education in Tower Hamlets who have been working ceaselessly to ensure that they will have sufficient teachers.
    Mr. Shore: It will not do to pretend that I am blaming my local education authority. I am not. It is doing its best, as ILEA did before it. The real trouble is that the Government have not backed the authority's efforts and given it the resources to take children off the streets and into the schools so that they can receive the education not only that they deserve but to which they have an absolute right.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The Government have recognised exactly that problem by making quite sure that authorities have a substantial capital allocation for rebuilding schools and building new ones.
    Mr. Fatchett: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Rumbold: No, I will not give way to listen to a catalogue of disaster. There is no truth in the Opposition's charges. A bird's eye view of what a future Labour Government would do as resources allowed shows that they would return everything to where it was 11 years ago, and that will cause nothing but damage. By contrast, during the last decade the Government have striven to meet the needs of children of all abilities. Apart from the reforms of the Education Reform Act 1988, our policies have enabled more children to stay on at school after GCSE and more people are going to university.
    We are not in the least bit complacent. We shall continue to pursue policies that will free our schools and our children from the stranglehold of bureaucracy. They will allow choice for parents and freedom for professional teachers to do their job in the way that they think best. Most important, our policies guarantee that children will receive a high quality, broad and balanced education. I urge the House to support the amendment.
    Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. By leave of the House, I should like to ask the Minister to respond to the questions that I put to her.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's point, and it is not a point of order.
    Mr. Nellist: On a point of order.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. If he has a point of order, it should be addressed to the Chair and not to the Minister.
    Mr. Nellist: In this sort of debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the Clerk in front of you will no doubt confirm, if I use the phrase, "with the leave of the House" —as has been done in other circumstances—I am allowed to speak a second time. That is what I am trying to do.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am giving the guidelines to the hon. Member. If he asks for the leave of the House, only one voice has to be raised in opposition for it to be refused. If the hon. Member is asking for the leave of the House, I must put it to the House.
    Mr. Nellist: With the leave of the House—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There can be no further point of order about the leave of the House.
    Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a new point of order?
    Mr. Nellist: Yes.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: In that case I must hear it.
    Mr. Nellist: Following your ruling, which I accept, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Minister asks, with the leave of the House, to speak again, will it be in order for her to answer the questions that I put to her, because I am the only hon. Member whom she has not answered?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is very hypothetical. Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 287.

    Division No. 281]

    [7.10 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Caborn, Richard

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Alton, David

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Anderson, Donald

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Canavan, Dennis

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Carr, Michael

    Ashton, Joe

    Cartwright, John

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Clay, Bob

    Beith, A. J.

    Clelland, David

    Bell, Stuart

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cohen, Harry

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

    Coleman, Donald

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Blair, Tony

    Corbett, Robin

    Blunkett, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Boateng, Paul

    Cousins, Jim

    Boyes, Roland

    Cox, Tom

    Bradley, Keith

    Crowther, Stan

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Cryer, Bob

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Cummings, John

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Buckley, George J.

    Cunningham, Dr John

    915

    Dalyell, Tam

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Darling, Alistair

    Marek, Dr John

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Dewar, Donald

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Dixon, Don

    Martlew, Eric

    Dobson, Frank

    Maxton, John

    Doran, Frank

    Meacher, Michael

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Meale, Alan

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Michael, Alun

    Eastham, Ken

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Faulds, Andrew

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Fearn, Ronald

    Morley, Elliot

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Flannery, Martin

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Flynn, Paul

    Mullin, Chris

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Murphy, Paul

    Foster, Derek

    Nellist, Dave

    Foulkes, George

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Fraser, John

    O'Brien, William

    Fyfe, Maria

    O'Neill, Martin

    Galbraith, Sam

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Galloway, George

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Parry, Robert

    George, Bruce

    Patchett, Terry

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Prescott, John

    Gould, Bryan

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Graham, Thomas

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Radice, Giles

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Randall, Stuart

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Redmond, Martin

    Grocott, Bruce

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Reid, Dr John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Richardson, Jo

    Haynes, Frank

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Rogers, Allan

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Rooker, Jeff

    Henderson, Doug

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Salmond, Alex

    Home Robertson, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Hood, Jimmy

    Sheerman, Barry

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Howells, Geraint

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hoyle, Doug

    Short, Clare

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

    Illsley, Eric

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

    Janner, Greville

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Snape, Peter

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Soley, Clive

    Kennedy, Charles

    Spearing, Nigel

    Kilfedder, James

    Stott, Roger

    Lambie, David

    Strang, Gavin

    Lamond, James

    Straw, Jack

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Leighton, Ron

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Trimble, David

    Lewis, Terry

    Turner, Dennis

    Litherland, Robert

    Vaz, Keith

    Livsey, Richard

    Wallace, James

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Wareing, Robert N.

    McAllion, John

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    McCartney, Ian

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    McFall, John

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    McKelvey, William

    Wilson, Brian

    McLeish, Henry

    Winnick, David

    McNamara, Kevin

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    McWilliam, John

    Worthington, Tony

    916

    Wray, Jimmy

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Mr. Martyn Jones and

    Mrs. Llin Golding.

    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.
    MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates the Government on its programme for securing further lasting improvements in standards in schools through its policies for the national curriculum, assessment and testing, increased parental choice, and greater autonomy for schools; notes increased recurrent and capital expenditure since 1979 in real terms per pupil of 40 per cent. and 13 per cent., respectively; notes widespread public support for the Government's reforms and welcomes the significant increase in staying on rates among 16 and 17-year-olds in the last two years and in the numbers going on to higher education which show the success of the Government's policies; and contrasts this inspiring programme with the failure of the Opposition to produce alternative proposals offering similar leadership for the nation's young.

    Housing
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    7.23 pm
    Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move,
    That this House condemns the Government's incompetence and indifference in the face of the mounting housing crisis which is evident from growing homelessness, soaring mortgage costs and rents and the lack of affordable accommodation in urban and rural areas of Britain; and notes the failure of the Government's chosen instruments, as evidenced by the financial crisis of the Housing Corporation which is undermining Housing Associations, and the failure of the Housing Act 1988 to achieve its targets on Housing Action Trusts, Tenants' Choice and Assured Tenancies.
    Homelessness and unmet housing need may not directly affect as many as are affected by the problems of the national health service or the education service, but the scale of those problems means that homelessness and the housing problem must take their place among the major social issues which Britain faces.
    There are various ways of measuring the problem. The first is to look at the Government's homelessness statistics. Those figures, which were running at a high level last year, already show a dramatic increase for the first quarter of
    1990. They show that for the year as a whole it is likely that no fewer than 150,000 households will be accepted officially as being homeless. On the usual extrapolation of those figures, that means that about 500,000 people are now regarded as homeless. Of those households, 33,000 are in some form of temporary accommodation and about 12,000 are in unsatisfactory bed and breakfast hotels. Those figures represent an increase of about 500 per cent. since 1982.
    In anybody's language, those figures are shocking, but they are only a fraction of the true measure of unmet housing need. Ministers will understand well that the figures do not measure those who applied to be treated as homeless but were not accepted, and that figure in turn is also at a shockingly high level—nearly 300,000 households at an annual rate this year.
    That figure does not include those who simply do not fall within the official definition of homeless. In other words, the young single homeless do not appear in the statutory figure and it does not include those who are now widely described as the hidden homeless. A recent survey in London estimated that figure at about 300,000. Those are the people familiar to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, those who present themselves at their surgeries—young couples, perhaps with a young baby, compelled to live apart, each with his and her respective parents and families who are compelled to move from one temporary address to another, begging the charity of friends and relatives. One of my constituents has no address; he simply lives in a car. He, too, does not appear in the homelessness statistics.
    The statistics do not tell the full story, but part of that story is told by the evidence of our own eyes. It is told through the evidence of the homelessness which we now see in the streets of our great cities. It is worth making the point in parenthesis that, although we tend to regard homelessness as an urban problem—indeed, as a London
    920
    problem—the problem of homelessness among young people is rising faster in areas outside London than in the capital city.
    The sight of young people sleeping rough, alongside those who are mentally and emotionally incapable of looking after themselves and those who are the victims of changes in the income support rules or who are inadequately provided for in the wake of the care in the community provisions, is truly shocking. It is little wonder that the Government have reluctantly decided that that daily witness to the growing problem of homelessness—the sight of young people begging on our streets by day and sleeping on our streets by night—is too great a blot to be tolerated and that they have to do something about it.
    The £15 million measure announced by the Minister for Housing and Planning about 10 days ago at the Institute of Housing, while welcome, is no more than a street cleaning exercise. That is an inadequate response to a problem which demands much more than cosmetic treatment.
    Mr. Robin Squire: We note the way in which the hon. Gentleman has opened his speech. I hope that before he sits down he will set out the sort of money that he would expect to spend if he were on the Government Front Bench.
    Mr. Gould: I hope to meet the hon. Gentleman's points before the end of my remarks.
    Perhaps the most compelling evidence for Members of Parliament is that presented to us through our postbags and at the surgeries which most hon. Members hold in their constituencies. I hold regular surgeries, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does in his constituency. In recent years I have noticed a worrying and remorseless rise in the proportion of cases brought to me which involve housing needs. I estimate that perhaps 70 per cent.—sometimes more, but certainly 70 per cent.—of all my constituency cases involve some degree of unmet housing need.
    By the end of a long evening—perhaps three or four hours—considering such a range of problems, I feel profoundly depressed. That must be an experience common to hon. Members on both sides of the House, when we not only witness a parade of human misery, which is depressing in itself, but have to acknowledge that we cannot do anything, even in conjunction with a hard-working local authority, to alleviate the problems of most of those people. The all-too-predictable and depressing aspect of the housing crisis is that it hits those who are most vulnerable.
    A recent and good Department of the Environment survey showed that only 3 per cent. of the homeless had incomes at or above the national average. In London, a similar survey showed that fewer than 4 per cent. could afford to buy or rent homes in the private sector. We are dealing with people who are at the bottom of the income scale and, in many cases, are already vulnerable because of a physical or mental incapacity that makes it difficult for them to handle their affairs properly. We are often dealing with people who, by reason of membership of a minority, ethnic or otherwise, are likely to be discriminated against and to find themselves at the bottom of the pile. I fear that those groups are strongly represented in the numbers of those who are increasingly finding it difficult to be adequately housed.

    921
    Britain is a rich country, still full of resources—at least according to some Conservative Members—and at the end of a decade of prosperity. It has certainly had an unprecedented bonus from North sea oil perhaps £120 billion to £130 billion of North sea wealth that was not previously available. How is it that a country that spends a great deal, perhaps notoriously, of its natural resources on housing and on subsidised housing can fail to provide adequate housing for a substantial minority of the least fortunate citizens in our midst?
    The facts that underline the problem can be simply stated. The problem arises, not surprisingly, because there is a shortage of housing at prices that people can afford. That shortage arises primarily because we have not built enough homes. Housing completions for 1989 made a total for that decade that was the lowest peacetime total of housing completions since the first world war. That failure occurred right across the board. If the trend established by the preceding Labour Government had been maintained this Government would have built an additional 600,000 houses. They would have reduced by 200,000 the number of houses that lack one basic amenity. There is a substantial shortfall because of the Government's failure to maintain the record established by the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman must be a little more than fair. If we compare the past 10 years with the 10 previous years—which is what he was trying to do—surely he would agree that in that first decade many of our cities were just slum clearance areas. They were demolishing old houses and replacing them. There was an agreement between the Conservative and Labour parties in the city of Nottingham that, by the end of the 1970s, it would be out of the replacement era and would no longer be building 2,000 houses a year. It would be a different scene. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is comparing like with like.
    Mr. Gould: I am more than happy to be fair to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that being more than fair is a little more than is called for. I do not think that he can sustain his argument. It would be a valid argument if there was now no unmet housing need. However, we are far from that. The whole point of the problem that I have described is that there is a growing homelessness problem, which cannot be denied. While that is the case, the pressure, the demand, and the need to build more houses remain and grow.
    I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can explain the worst record of his Government in the way that he has attempted to do. The facts are clear. Under the six years of the preceding Labour Government, housing completions averaged 230,000 per year, but during the 10 years of this Government for which we have figures, the average annual total was 170,000. That is a substantial shortfall. It goes a long way towards explaining why there is the degree of unmet housing needs that Britain currently faces.
    Mr. Jeff Rooker: If there were no slums, and if the number of households was the same, the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) would have validity. However, the rate of household formation has changed, and that must be taken into account. That is what causes part of the pressure of the unmet housing need. The hon. Gentleman ignored that.
    Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend is right. The rate of household formation has risen for a variety of unfortunate reasons, such as marriage breakdown. There is now the relatively new or at least increased phenomenon of evictions and mortgage repossessions. All those factors have increased the need for additional housing, which is why the shortfall becomes so important.
    The failure to build houses over that period extends right across the board. The private sector did well for a short time, but, as everybody knows—and it hardly needs reinforcing—it has now fallen victim to the regime of high interest rates and its contribution to the housing scene has been much reduced since mid-1988.
    Housing associations, on which the Government pinned such great hopes as the main providers of social housing, have been hard hit—not only by high interest rates, but by the recently discovered problems of the Housing Corporation. No proper explanation has yet been offered about whether those problems are the result of mismanagement, bad luck, or simply having to grapple with the environment created by the Government. What is known is that even if the housing associations were freed from the problem of the difficulties of the Housing Corporation, they could not hope to meet more than a fraction of the shortfall, even at best. We also know that because of the Housing Corporation's difficulties, the Government's forecasts of completions by housing associations for the coming two years are now not worth the paper they are written on. I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment replies to the debate he will inform the House, the housing associations, and all who depend on them for social housing of the new forecasts. I suspect that he will have a sorry story to tell—that is, if he is prepared to come clean. We certainly expect him to give us the figures.
    Mr. David Nicholson: If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will see that I am not unsympathetic to the points that he made at the beginning of his speech. However, his policy appears to be spend, spend, spend; build, build, build. Does not that ignore the problem of 100,000 empty council properties and over five times that number of empty private properties? Should not we use the resources available at present to solve the problem?
    Mr. Gould: If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will know that I take the view that one property empty for no good reason is one too many. I do not dissent from the need to impress on local authorities, private landlords, housing associations, the public sector and, not least, Government Departments that it is a shocking betrayal of the homeless to keep properties unnecessarily empty.
    The hon. Gentleman must accept that even if we were to squeeze that figure, and even if we could persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to do something about the high rate of housing stock kept empty by Government Departments, we would still not have done enough to make good the failure to build the houses that we need.
    The picture is at its bleakest in local authorities. The private sector has fallen short, housing associations have been crippled even in respect of the relatively unambitious total set for them, but local authorities—despite all their efforts and against their will have been forced to cut housing provision dramatically.
    The figures are shocking. In 1976, local authorities in England completed 105,000 houses. Last year the figure

    923
    was down to 16,000. It is scheduled—as Ministers will agree—to fall still further in the current year, and if the present Government remain in office much longer, no doubt it will be destined to disappear altogether. That is where the shortfall arises and why, particularly in social housing where the need is felt at its most acute, we are confronted by today's problems. Hon. Members do not face those problems, but they are faced by the homeless.
    Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend has been describing the plight of the homeless, but does he agree that many other people, although not homeless, desperately need adequate rented accommodation? Is not the situation made worse by the lack of local authority building on any significant scale? There has been none in my borough for 11 years. The Government say that housing association provision can take the place of local authority dwellings to some extent. In 1978, under a Labour Government there were nearly 18,000 starts, but in 1989, before the Housing Corporation's present crisis, the figure was only 9,600. Does not that prove that even housing associations are not achieving anything like the number of starts, or providing anything like the accommodation, that they did under a Labour Government?
    Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for that information. We have yet to hear the Minister's predictions for housing association completions over the next two years.
    It is a question not just of the shortfall of supply but of the affordability of housing. The impact of high mortgage interest rates on home owners is well known. I suspect that it is felt by a number of hon. Members, who will not need too much persuading of the severe repercussions of that development. Home ownership, so long held up as the great objective not only of Government policies but of all right-thinking people, has become an impossible dream for many—and an impossible nightmare for many more. I refer to the people who find it extremely difficult to maintain mortgage repayments.
    Many households and families whose budgets have been totally destroyed by the impact of high interest rates do not figure in any official statistics. At the fringe, there is the small but inexorably growing number of people who are substantially in arrears with their mortgage repayments. The number of those who have arrears of six months is growing all the time, as is the number of repossessions.
    It would be a mistake to imagine that the impact of high interest rates has been felt exclusively by owner-occupiers. Rents, too, have risen sharply, across the board. It is difficult to measure the rise in the private sector, but rents of housing associations—on which so many hopes were pinned have also sharply increased, by 24 per cent. Last year alone. That is because those associations are directed increasingly to raise capital on the open market, so they, too, pay high interest rates.
    In the public sector, as among the private rented sector, tenants have faced substantially increased rents. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has done excellent work in detailing the impact on one local authority area after another. No doubt he will say more about that issue later. It is clear that many local authorities
    924
    have found it extremely unpleasant to be forced to push up council rents against their own better judgment. It is worth recalling that the west Oxfordshire Tory councillors who resigned the Tory Whip did so not just because of the poll tax but because they resented and were unwilling to comply with the direction to force up council rents to market levels. They pointed to the impact of ring fencing on the housing revenue account, and of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in directing local authorities to raise rents to market levels.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: We know that what is vilified by Labour spokesmen this year will become conventional Labour wisdom next year. Will the hon. Gentleman go through his entire speech, as he did at the Institute of Housing conference, without making one policy suggestion or stating what a future Labour Government might do?
    Mr. Gould: If the hon. Gentleman will contain his impatience and allow me to proceed, I will rapidly reach the point that will satisfy his request.
    Inadequate supply and increasing housing costs go some way to explaining the crisis but not why it exists. No Opposition Member supposes that the Government deliberately created it. Rather, it is the consequence of a failure of analysis and the priority given to ideology. The Government have been misled by their own obsessions. As in other areas, it is not the Government but the most vulnerable who are paying the price for the Government's mistakes.
    I do not expect to carry Conservative Members with me when I make that assertion, but I hope that they will listen—particularly when I concede, as I have on other occasions, that we, too, have been guilty in the past of approaching housing from too ideological a viewpoint. We used to believe that only local authorities could provide social housing and that the intrinsic merits of public sector rented housing should override individual preferences. We recognised our mistakes, and I hope that the Government will do likewise.
    The Government's first mistake was a mirror image of our own. They held, for reasons of ideological obsession, that local authorities had no role to play in housing provision. That is why we saw a shocking decline in new house completions for which local authorities were responsible during the 1980s. That is why local authorities had their allocations cut and why their ability to borrow on the capital market was reduced. That is why they are subjected to the lunatic control that prevents them from spending their own capital receipts on housing provision. That shows how far the Government have been prepared to press their hostility towards local authorities, in an attempt to eliminate them from their essential role in meeting housing need.
    The Government's second mistake was excessive reliance on the private sector. No one disputes that it has a role to play, but, as is currently evident, the private sector is vulnerable to volatile market conditions, and is unable to sustain output when interest rates rise. The encouragement of house price inflation that was meant to sustain a boom has produced a bust instead. It was a mistake to assume that the private sector could carry the load by itself.
    The private sector itself acknowledges that truth. Unlike the Government, private companies in the

    925
    construction industry admit that, while they can do a certain amount of work themselves, in many cases the price of success for them is co-operation and partnership with the public sector. They appreciate that, although they have capital and expertise to contribute, that is not enough by itself and that only local authorities in most cases have the land, land assembly powers, powers over planning, development, and most of all the democratic legitimacy—the accountability to their local communities—that allows them to provide and guarantee developments that are in the interests of those local communities.
    The Government's third mistake of an ideological nature was the belief that the market can always provide. Given the peculiar and convoluted structure of housing finance, and the structure of land prices and building costs, there is no way that the private market can meet the need for social housing. The Ministers must know that, because a study commissioned by their Department and carried out by Price Waterhouse last year demonstrated that a married man with two children on an income just above housing benefit level could afford a two-bedroomed house for his family and pay a private sector market rent for it in only two cities in Britain—Leicester and Newcastle. Elsewhere, the private sector simply does not provide housing to such a family at a price remotely in relation with its ability to pay.
    The Government's fourth mistake is obsession with tenure. They believe that changing tenure is somehow a solution to the problem of housing shortages. Whatever its merits or demerits, selling council houses does not add a single new unit to the housing stock. Indeed, it makes the management of existing stock in the public sector so much more difficult. Again, I suspect that many Conservative Members understand the experience that my local authority has. As family houses have been sold from the housing stock and the local authority has been prevented from replacing those houses, and making good that loss, it has become impossible to pursue the sensible management of the housing stock in the interests of the tenants.
    Previously, it was possible to put young, married, childless couples in high rise blocks. When the couple had children, they could be moved down to a flat or maisonette with a garden. As their children grew up the family could be put into a family house. When the children left home and the parents retired, the couple could be put back into a flat, as they wished. That was a sensible progress in the use of the housing stock, but it has ground to a halt because losses have been sustained to the housing stock but nothing has been done to replace the housing lost. The system now condemns young mothers with growing children to a permanent future in a flat at the top of a high rise tower block.
    I am aware that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) can hardly contain his impatience, so I shall tell him what I believe is the way forward. It could be embraced by the Government as well as the Opposition. We must approach the provision of housing free from ideological preconceptions. We must use in as flexible and pragmatic a way possible all the instruments that lie to hand. That means that we shall encourage the private sector to make its contribution in what under a Labour Government would clearly be a more stable interest rate and investment climate.
    We would encourage the private sector to enter into partnership arrangements with local authorities and housing associations so that each could make their proper
    926
    contribution to the joint enterprise and provide the houses that are needed. We should extend and encourage the role of housing associations. I hope that we shall be assured this evening that the problems of the Housing Corporation are of short duration and that the Government will come to the aid of their favourite instrument. We shall encourage local authorities to resume their essential role in meeting the need for social housing. We shall begin by progressively relaxing and removing the controls that prevent local authorities from spending their capital receipts. About 8.5 billion is held by local authorities. In many cases they would be willing, indeed keen, to spend a proportion of that money on the provision of housing and, in particular, on a programme to relieve the immediate problem of homelessness.
    We calculate that it would be possible to establish—indeed a Labour Government would immediately set in train—a scheme that would produce 50,000 houses at a cost of only a small proportion of the capital receipts held by local authorities. In case anyone asks what that figure is, I should mention that it is £1,850 million. That would be an immediate solution to the homelessness problem. We would then progressively further relax constraints so that local authorities could draw on the skills and resources required to enable them to make a proper contribution.
    We should not only approach the matter free from prejudice but encourage a level playing field in terms of subsidy so that people can really choose which type of tenure they prefer. Housing should be free from the imbalance that currently disfigures our housing finance. A huge and growing subsidy is provided to owner-occupiers. Admittedly that is a reflection of high interest rates. That provided a substantial financial incentive until recently to those who were tempted to buy their own homes.
    Mr. David Nicholson: What are you going to do?
    Mr. Gould: What we intend to do and have committed ourselves to do is to reduce and remove the excessive subsidy to those at the highest level of the income scale who receive tax relief in proportion with the size of their income. The first essential step which should be taken and which will be be useful in restoring the balance that I have described is to reduce mortgage tax relief to the standard rate of tax. We also believe that we should remove the idea which so informs the Government's housing policy, that to rent one's home is somehow an inferior or second-best form of tenure.
    I am glad to see that Ministers are avid readers of "Looking to the Future". Many of our proposals are designed to narrow the gap between tenants and owner-occupiers in the control that they have over their housing conditions.
    Mr. David Martin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman must let me complete this point.
    We believe that it is right to increase tenants' control and rights so that they can again choose in accordance with their personal preferences and circumstances the form of tenure that suits them best. They should not be driven by their inadequate rights as tenants and the inadequate subsidy that tenants receive in comparison with owner-occupiers into making arrangements to purchase a house which, for many of them, proves disastrous.
    Mr. David Martin: The hon. Gentleman mentioned "Looking to the Future" and referred to ideology. How will the Labour party carry out the following policy described in that document? It says:
    "We are also looking at ways of extending the right to buy to private tenants who have rented for many years from a non-resident business landlord."
    Would not that finally kill off any incentive for such landlords to provide housing? Does not it prevent any choice in that area of housing for the future?
    Mr. Gould: I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can support the right to buy in respect of one group of landlords but deny it in respect of another. As to whether it is right or proper to deter the private landlord, I have no objection whatever to the private sector providing accommodation for rent to those who wish to rent at a market price. However, for the reasons that I gave earlier, the notion that the private landlord can provide housing for those who need social housing—those who cannot pay the market rent—is completely misplaced. If the hon. Gentleman continues to hold that view, that takes us a long way towards unravelling the mystery, which perhaps is not much of a mystery, of why the Government's housing policy is in such disarray and disaster.
    Housing provision is not a difficult issue.
    Mr. Douglas French: Is that it?
    Mr. Gould: It is an issue that is often clouded and made more difficult by putting political labels on it. We should accept that the private sector can help, but that it cannot do everything.
    Mr. Hugo Summerson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: No. Let me complete this point.
    There is a role for the public sector and for housing associations as well as for the private sector. We should accept that the market can fix the price of some but by no means all property either for rent or for sale. We should accept that there is and will remain a substantial need for social housing at non-market prices. We should accept that individual preference rather than political prejudice should determine the form of tenure and that, apart from the pattern of subsidy and the restrictions placed on the rights of tenants even for individuals, at different times and in different circumstances during their lives they will want to choose different forms of tenure. We should make that choice as easy and real as possible.
    We should recognise that the housing problem affects not only the homeless and those in inadequate housing, but the operation of our economy. In many parts of the economy inadequate housing affects labour mobility and makes it more difficult to attract essential public sector workers such as teachers, nurses, bus drivers, train drivers and so on.
    Unless we get to grips with the problem we shall be doing a disservice to the homeless and fatally handicapping our economy and our society. No Government can claim to have served the country well if a minority of its most vulnerable citizens cannot find decent housing. No Government can claim success if the number of homeless continues to grow, as it does. Therefore, I hope that the Minister for Housing and Planning will not claim success on behalf of the
    928
    Government but will seriously address an issue of great importance and pressing urgency which is a growing blot on the Government's 11-year record.
    8 pm
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Spicer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "congratulates the Government on the success of its housing policies, which have extended the benefits of owner-occupation to two-thirds of all households, achieved better value for money from over £6 billion a year of public expenditure, increasingly focused this assistance on those most in need of it, and greatly widened freedom of choice for tenants in the public and private rented sectors."
    The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) began his speech with a reference to the facts and so will I. He referred in particular to statutory homelessness. I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong, but I think that I heard him say that there were 500,000 statutory homeless. Last year 132,000 people were accepted into statutory homelessness.
    Mr. Gould: With respect to the Minister, he may be confusing the number of households with the number of individuals. Shelter is very clear that it is permissible and indeed proper to multiply the number of households by a figure of just over three to produce the number of individuals who are homeless. I was referring to the number of individuals.
    Mr. Spicer: The one fact about the 132,000 households accepted into statutory homelessness that the hon. Gentleman failed to mention is that they were provided with homes.
    Mr. Gould: Let me put it on record for the sake of those who are trying to follow the debate that the Minister has got off to a most unfortunate start. On the central question of the statistics that tell us the extent of homelessness in Britain—the numbers accepted by local authorities as officially homeless—the Minister simply does not understand his own figures.
    Mr. Spicer: I understand the figures perfectly well. I also understand that those 132,000 households were found homes. Of course, we must consider how many people are in temporary accommodation. I totally accept that 40,000 people—not 500,000 people or millions of people as we hear from Opposition Members and their supporters outside the House—are in temporary accommodation and that 12,000 people are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I agree that that is 12,000 too many. That is why we are spending £250 million directed specifically at helping those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Between 1,000 and a maximum of 3,000 people are sleeping rough on the streets of London and about 2,000 people are sleeping rough outside the metropolis. I concede that there are also a number of people sharing houses and flats unwillingly. The House is addressing itself to the reasons behind those facts.
    The hon. Member for Dagenham implied that not many new houses have been built since the Government took office. In the past 10 years 1.6 million new houses have been built—additions to the housing stock—while the population of the country has risen by less than 1 million. The number of houses per head of population has risen quite considerably in the past 10 years. So why is there such pressure?
    Mr. Rooker: That is pathetic.
    Mr. Spicer: It is not pathetic to argue that the housing stock per head of population has risen considerably, when an essential element of the Opposition's argument is that the housing stock appears to have deteriorated.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Spicer: I shall give way in a moment.
    When one asks why there is pressure on housing in Britain and throughout the western world, the answer is extremely clear, although the hon. Member for Dagenham skirted around it. There are new social circumstances, particularly as, sadly, many families are breaking up. It is a phenomenon in the western world and cannot be ignored. Whereas in the past a family required one house, now in some cases a family requires two, three or even four houses. Undoubtedly, as a result of families breaking up throughout the western world if the hon. Member for Dagenham has visited other countries he will have found out for himself—there is a growing social change that is creating pressure on housing.
    Mr. Rooker: I noticed the ease with which the Minister moved from numbers of homeless households to discussing population. Of course, the population has increased by only 1 million, but the Minister should be examining household formation. Once in a while a Minister has to make up his mind about whether the Government plan to bring in more restrictive divorce laws. Families have always broken up. Until the late 1960s the law did not prevent families from breaking up but people were forced to continue living together and were unable to start new lives. Will the Tory Government accept modern reality? They will have to make sure that there are more houses or introduce more restrictive divorce laws. Those are the only alternatives to the present difficulties.
    Mr. Spicer: I was simply going through the facts. There are increasing numbers of break-ups in families and that is putting pressure on the housing market. Of course, the Government have to respond to that pressure. I shall explain to the House precisely what we propose to do. It will not be the same menu as that of the Labour party; I shall come to that in a few moments.
    Undoubtedly, there is a need for massive public spending, and that is happening. We are spending £3 billion subsidising the housing revenue accounts of local authorities. Of £3 billion of capital allocations, more than £1 billion is currently being spent on housing associations through the Housing Corporation. I should tell the hon. Member for Dagenham, in direct reply to the question he asked in his speech, that we are confident that, for a variety of reasons, output will rise to 40,000 in the next two years. That is a considerable amount of subsidised building.
    Mr. Gould: The Minister has given us an important answer. That figure, if it is to be believed, is most encouraging. How soon does the Minister envisage that the Housing Corporation, which has had to put a stop to housing association new investment for the time being, will overcome that problem and resume normal business? My conversations with those involved suggest that there is no early prospect of that happening, which would mean a substantial reduction in the forecast to which the Minister refers.
    Mr. Spicer: Labour spokesmen completely ignore the reason why there are reschedulings of allocation at the moment. Completions have speeded up and are happening at a much faster rate than was originally planned. That is good news for people being housed, but of course we have to bring the process under cash control. Completions are coming through at different times under the old and new allocation procedures, but the rate of completion is being maintained, so I have given the hon. Gentleman the reply for which he asked.
    A massive amount is spent—this is often ignored by the Labour party—on subsidised housing. There are two principles by which we operate those subsidies. First, we target them on those who need them most. That clearly has implications for our attitude to rents and to housing benefit and support, which we want to be channelled through the ring-fencing mechanism to those who need it.
    Secondly, by changing the emphasis through the housing associations and the Housing Corporation we shall attract more private finance. We estimate that three quarters of all new build by the housing associations will attract private finance. Therefore, the taxpayer will get better value for money than with local authority finance.
    Mr. Clive Soley: The Minister has carelessly thrown out figures on the public sector. Will he address the dispute without the Conservative party? Both sides agree that public investment in housing has been cut from 7 per cent. about 10 years ago to 1.5 per cent. That is a pretty dramatic cut. The Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils, the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association and many Conservative councillors say that the Government have cut too much in housing, hence the problems in west Oxfordshire that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) referred to. What is the Government's position? Are they saying that the ADC and the LBA are wrong or right? If they are saying that they are right, where will the additional funds—estimated by the ADC to be between £35 billion and £50 billion—come from?
    Mr. Spicer: The Government's massive spending programme must be considered in the context of other policies. We intend to continue with the galvanisation of the private sector, by which we shall ensure increased home ownership.
    I am pleased that the Labour party has apologised to the country for the mistake that it made in opposing the right to buy. One wonders whether there are more apologies to come for further mistakes. We are long-suffering about the Labour party, but I thank it for apologising to us and to the rest of the country for being wrong about the right to buy. As it presumably now knows, there are enormous benefits in people owning their home, given the sense of pride and independence that flows from it.
    We have raised the percentage of home ownership from under 60 per cent. to almost 70 per cent. That must be good.
    Mr. Gould rose—
    Mr. Spicer: I shall continue, otherwise other hon. Members will not be able to speak. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) can reply to my remarks at the end of the debate.

    931
    We shall ensure that access to home ownership stretches to those who are on lower incomes. That is one of the reasons why we are considering ideas such as rent to mortgage, extending shared ownership arrangements and part equity. I agree with the hon. Member for Dagenham that under a sound and balanced housing policy there must be a thriving rented market. That is why we intend to revitalise the private rented sector.[Interruption.] Opposition Members look askance, but I shall return to the private rented sector.
    As a part of our panoply of policies to meet some of the pressures on the housing market, we are considering planning procedures and intend to introduce a Bill to make them much more efficient, in the interests not only of development and housing but of maintaining the countryside and environment. We want to achieve a balance as efficiently as possible. The hon. Member for Dagenham nodded his head when I mentioned the possibility of a planning Bill. I hope that that means that we shall receive the Opposition's co-operation on it.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend undertake to consult hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, about the planning legislation? Conservative Members have considerable experience of planning disputes. We do not wish to see lots more housing or other development on green-field sites in our constituencies.
    Mr. Spicer: New planning legislation will ensure that the balance between development and the preservation of the environment is maintained.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) earlier mentioned the national scandal of the 750,000 empty houses. It is a priority of the Government to ensure that those houses are properly used. My hon. Friend rightly said that 100,000 of those empty houses are in the possession of councils.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Labour councils.
    Mr. Spicer: Yes, mainly Labour councils. Those housing authorities should be putting those empty houses to good purpose. We intend, when considering subsidies, to take into account how local authorities use their local housing stock, and we certainly will not subsidise empty council houses. We shall assume that they are earning rent when we allocate subsidies.
    I agree that we must address the problem of the 600,000 empty houses in the private sector. Overwhelmingly, what lies behind that figure is hostility, which has built up for many years, towards the landlord and the private rented market. That does not exist in other similar countries. In the United States, the private rented share of the market is over 30 per cent.; in France, which is similar, it is over 30 per cent.; and in Germany it is over 40 per cent., but here it is about 7 per cent., although as recently as 1950 it was 50 per cent., and at the turn of the century it was 90 per cent.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister accept that the private rented sector does not provide the accommodation that is desperately needed? I looked at the advertisements in today's Evening Standard. It is true that there are places to let, but there are no flats for less than £140 a week. The people who can afford that are able to own their own home
    932
    and to obtain a mortgage. What use are those advertisements to the people who simply cannot afford to pay £100, or in some cases more than £200, a week in rent?
    Mr. Spicer: In a moment, we shall find that the hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. The collapse of the private rented market is especially tragic for single people who have traditionally depended on it for housing. There are signs that the Housing Act 1988 is bringing life back into private renting. I want to speed up that process considerably.
    I want, therefore, to announce a six-point plan for reinstating the private rented sector and for giving self-confidence back to the private landlord. First, we shall give the widest possible publicity to the provisions of the Housing Act 1988. It was a well-balanced piece of legislation which introduced tough measures against unscrupulous landlords who bullied their tenants while giving new rights to landlords to set market rents and to repossess their properties. We shall, in the near future, be publishing a easy-to-read booklet on the new rights that have been given to landlords.
    Secondly, as from next April, we shall be speeding up the legal procedures by which disputes about rent between landlords and tenants are settled. Thirdly, we shall be discussing with building societies and finance houses any remaining reservations that they may have about the letting of property in which they have an interest. Fourthly, we shall be discussing with housing associations how they can help on a fee-earning basis with the management problems associated with letting property. Those are sometimes perceived to be especially acute by elderly landlords. Fifthly, we shall maintain the pace of our new lodgers initiative, which is making it much easier for people to rent out rooms in their homes. Sixthly, in the context of our single homeless initiative, we shall focus attention—
    Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Spicer: No, I shall not give way.
    In the context of our single homeless initiative, we shall focus attention especially on the better use of space above shops. That will be done with the assistance of the greater help provided by the new renovation grants regime as applied to landlords. As I said, there are signs of life already returning to the private rented sector and this plan will speed up the process.
    However, one major problem remains—the blight placed on private rented housing by the Labour party. According to the published document, Labour would once again intervene in fixing rents.
    Mr. John P. Smith: Read it out.
    Mr. Spicer: I certainly will read it out. It is good stuff and it makes good reading. On page 26, under the heading "Tenants", the document says:
    "Labour will ensure that rents are set at levels which people can afford."
    Labour also intends to sequester properties. The document says:
    "We are also looking at ways of extending the right to buy to private tenants who have rented for many years from non-resident business landlords."
    I shall not read the whole document as those sentences stand for themselves.

    933
    The measures of sequestration and of the reintroduction of a form of rent control would probably be enough in themselves to kill off the private rented sector. However, in this matter as in others, it is the secret manifesto that worries one most. The hon. Member for Dagenham has sounded reasonable and balanced, and he has used words such as "flexible" and "pragmatic". However, that is one public face of the present Labour party. Another public face is revealed by a document that I have here, which has been circulated by the Labour research department at Labour headquarters. It contains several proposals. On tenure, the document says:
    "All tenants and licensees of non-resident landlords will have the right to full security of tenure…But Labour will go beyond simply restoring succession rights to the pre-1989 position; we will extend them in both the public and private sectors. Any partner of a tenant should have the right to succeed to the tenancy on the tenant's death…If the tenant has no partner, any person who has lived as part of the tenant's household for six months should have succession rights…Labour believes a minimum of two successions should be offered. This would allow, for example, one partner to succeed the other, and, in turn, for one of their children to succeed them."
    So much for tenure.
    Mr. Rooker: What is wrong with that?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Spicer: On rent controls, the document says:
    "The disastrous deregulation of housing association and private rents will be ended by Labour. Rents will, once again, be set independently of the landlord."
    In other words, there will be fixed rents.
    On the allocation of tenancies, the document says:
    "all non-resident landlords should be obliged to observe the principle of equal opportunities in the allocation of housing on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, age and disability."
    On the right to buy, the document says:
    "Labour's aim is to extend the principle of the Right to Buy to many private tenants currently denied that right."
    There may be doubt about what the Labour party really believes. I suspect that there is considerable confusion and doubt in the mind of the hon. Member for Dagenham. In a recent interview in a magazine called "Roof", which is published by Shelter—not exactly a passionate supporter of the Government—the editor questioned him on some specific issues. The editor asked the hon. Gentleman what the Labour definition of affordable rent will be. The editor writes:
    "Gould is coy. 'I don't suppose we'll be putting figures on that, no. We are, I stress, committed to rents people can afford."'
    The editor then asks:
    "'can we expect Labour to define an affordable rent in the manifesto itself?' Gould laughs: 'I think that's unlikely.'"
    The poor old editor tries again and asks:
    "'Does Labour have a housing goal?' 'Not in any very specific sense.'"
    All that would be funny if it were not rather worrying. We have had a demonstration today of the way in which the hon. Member for Dagenham sounds plausible, flexible and pragmatic—whatever word he may want to use at present. A better example is the submerged part of the iceberg, which is extremely worrying. I do not know what Labour will publish in the near future, or what its official position will be at the next general election. I suspect that Labour will try to hide most of this stuff before the election. However, even its published pronouncements on the private rented sector are blighting the market. That restricts housing, especially for the single homeless. At the
    934
    same time that the Labour party has the brass neck to table the motion tonight, it is preventing the development of the traditional form of housing for single people. That is outrageous.
    Mr. Gould: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister's flow. Is he saying that private landlords are now convinced of the imminence of a Labour Government? Is that his view as well?
    Mr. Spicer: Of course not. The consolation prize in all this is that Labour will never get into power. The Labour party is running around the country saying in public how pragmatic it is and how it wishes to match the private with the public sector. It is apologising to the Government for being wrong about the right to buy and saying that it is thinking again about the role of the housing associations. But in the bowels of its engine room, it is churning out consultation papers that represent traditional socialism of the very left kind. That is a strange proposition for the country to be faced with. On the one hand, the Labour party is covering the cracks and, on the other, a fully fledged socialist document is being prepared in its back room.
    Mr. Soley: Speaking from the engine room, I should like to draw to the Minister's attention the fact that over the past six months—there has certainly been a dramatic increase in the past few months—I have had numerous interviews with consultants and private landlords. They agree with my analysis of the decline of the private sector, which they also say has hardly anything to do with the rent Acts and everything to do with the way in which we subsidise housing in Britain. More important, a group of major landlords has gone away to work on proposals that would give private tenants the right to buy. I am pleased about that, because we shall take the good landlords with us. The Tory party can keep the Rachmans.
    Mr. Spicer: Methinks the hon. Gentleman protests too much. He is clearly on the defensive, and rightly so because the Labour party is in a very bad position. The Opposition are hitting hardest single people—in particular the single homeless—who have depended traditionally on the private rented sector to rent rooms. Yet, at the same time, the Labour party introduces motions such as the motion that we are debating tonight.
    For our part, we accept that there are new housing pressures, which have been brought on in Britain and throughout the western world by rapidly changing social conditions—in particular, by the tragic breakdown of many family ties. But in so far as it is a housing problem, we are treating it with urgency. We are spending vast sums of public money as effectively as we can. We are further galvanising the private sector in respect of home ownership and renting. Most immediately, we are ensuring that we make better use of almost three quarters of a million empty houses. The radical and urgent manner in which we are addressing those matters makes nonsense of the Opposition's motion.
    8.32 pm
    Mr. Jeff Rooker: I found the Minister's speech profoundly depressing. That is especially sad as this is the first housing debate that I have attended since he has been in post. There were several crucial issues regarding the housing crisis on which he did not see fit to

    935
    touch. I shall come to some of them in a moment. I do not want to speak for too long as this is a short debate, but I want to make a couple of constituency points and a couple of policy points.
    The housing crisis is not evenly spread throughout the country. Everyone realises that. In the north, the condition of the stock is the overwhelming contributor to the crisis, whereas in the south it is the sheer shortage of stock. In the midlands, we are piggy in the middle. We suffer from poor quality housing and a shortage of stock, but not to the extremes that are experienced in the north and south. That means that we are left out; we do not make the headlines. Nevertheless, the extent and nature of the housing crisis in the midlands is such that, were we talking about London, it would merit headline space. That point is not made clear in our general housing policy. It is not made clear in the media and it is ignored by those with London-centred attitudes.
    I shall refer in a moment to the Housing Corporation, but I want first to refer to Birmingham, part of which I represent. In recent years, we have lost out badly in the housing allocation. We have a massive amount of system-built housing to replace. That housing needs to be cleared; it cannot be renovated. The Boswell houses and the 900 Boot houses in my constituency cannot be salvaged. They will have to be replaced with a variety of mixed tenure housing of varying density and with different financial arrangements. That was par for the course to the Labour party when I was on the Front Bench, and it remains par for the course now. We do not have the financial wherewithal to provide the public money to pull in the private capital that we need to make those changes. That is why I think that the Government have gone too far.
    Let me give an example. In the housing needs index and stress area review undertaken by the Housing Corporation, Birmingham lost out more than any other city or district in England. By 1992–93, the Housing Corporation's programme will be worth £1.7 billion—double what it was two or three years ago. By then, Birmingham will be losing out to the tune of £20 million a year because of the changes in the housing needs index and the stress area factors: the city will have lost 1.3 percentage points in that index. The Minister frowns, but he can check those figures and he will find that they are accurate. We shall lose £20 million a year after taking the stress area factors into account.
    We must bear in mind the fact that that loss is on top of Birmingham's ever-declining housing investment programme allocation. The Minister talks for all the world as though the housing investment allocations and the housing investment programme are public subsidy. They are not. They merely give the city permission to borrow money, on which the council will have to pay market interest rates. The housing investment allocation is not money doled out to Birmingham city council by the Department of the Environment.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: It is money that the city council is permitted to borrow and on which the interest charged is fully subsidised.
    Mr. Rooker: It may be fully subsidised over a 60-year period, but Birmingham is not getting the billions of
    936
    pounds worth of handouts of which the Minister talks. He spoke of the capital allocation, not the interest subsidy, and one must consider the two things separately. The HIP allocation for Birmingham is not money given to Birmingham by the Government. The Government are merely giving Birmingham permission to borrow. As I said, that makes matters even worse because, over the years, our allocation has been cut and it is planned to cut it even further. We are supposed to be the country's second city, yet on the Z scores of the census index we have the largest single concentrated area of deprivation in the country. I am not talking down my city—we have to make a realistic case for the bids—but if similar circumstances applied in London, they would be headline news.
    We do not have a cardboard city in Birmingham yet, but it is around the corner. Virtually every hostel in the city is almost full every night. It would take only a slight change now and we would have a cardboard city. A slight shift would also mean families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. To its credit, Birmingham city council has never yet placed a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It ill behoves the Minister to castigate the council on the number of empty dwellings, which is less than the national average—less than 2 per cent. There will always be empty properties. Heaven knows, I have criticised Labour and Tory-controlled councils alike for having an excessive number of empty properties which could be available for letting. But in a country with about 20 million dwellings and with millions of people moving around, we shall always have empty dwellings. It stands to reason. Every dwelling cannot be full every night. I understand that, according to the professionals, we need about 4 per cent., and, by and large, that is the private sector figure. The local authority average is only 2.3 per cent. We need 4 per cent. to keep the system going so that people have the chance to move. As I said, Birmingham city council has never yet put a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but we are close to it and to cardboard city.
    Boosting the private landlord, as the Minister did in his speech, is not the answer. Being someone else's landlord is not an acceptable way to earn a living. That is a bald, stark statement, but it is not an attack on decent, caring private landlords. I probably should have said "being someone's exploitative landlord". That is the difference between the Opposition and the Tories. We genuinely want a partnership with the private sector—in tenure and money—but not an exploitative private sector. We genuinely want variety and change in finance and tenure, but we will not set up one section of society financially to exploit another.
    The Minister talked about opening rooms above shops. The Tories have been talking about that for the past 11 years, but they have done nothing about it, save in one or two areas in which there was some heritage or historical aspect or some extra funny-money funding that they could find to assist. They have not seriously tackled the problem in 11 years. It is no good trotting out that policy now in the twilight of the Government, because it will not wash.
    Let me deal briefly with two other points. One relates to the Housing Corporation and the mess that it has got itself into.
    Mr. George Howarth: The Government have got it into it.
    Mr. Rooker: The Government have got the Housing Corporation into a mess, with the result that people will be homeless for longer than they would otherwise have been. On 13 December last, the Public Accounts Committee took evidence from the chief executive of the Housing Corporation and the permanent secretary of the Department of the Environment. Question No. 584 on page 15, which was not asked by me, on the Housing Corporation's plans and the housing aspects of the Department of the Environment, states:
    "Next year you are going to get even more money. Will you be able to cope physically with the expansion of monies that is involved? I am not talking about labour and materials; I am talking about physically getting the money out to the housing associations who depend on you."
    The chief executive of the Housing Corporation, David Edmonds, replied:
    "I think so. I have great confidence that the work we have done over the last three or four years in putting into place some really quite sophisticated systems…We are a very highly computerised organisation."
    He said further:
    "We have a record system and a recording system and an ability to turn round paper which is very much greatly enhanced…We have…new financial systems, internal controls and checks…the volume of our work next year will be easily absorbable by the Housing Corporation."
    Mr. George Howarth: What happened?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend asks, "What happened?". Why have I and other hon. Members for some months been on the receiving end of the most desperate pleas from housing associations that did everything that they were asked to do to get ready for the new system? They would have been the first to be on the receiving end of complaints from Ministers if they had not been ready for the new regime, but they were ready. They told the Housing Corporation that they were ready. One assumes that the Housing Corporation told the Government that they were ready. The Public Accounts Committee has not yet reported on that matter. I must assume that the assurances that were given to the Public Accounts Committee last November about the strength and sophistication of financial forecasting have been totally shot to pieces and exposed as false in the past few months. The Housing Corporation—perhaps with the Government's hand on it—has failed to meet its duties and responsibilities of financial management and control.
    The end result is that building firms will shed labour and homeless people will not get homes. I give one example, and I make no apology for choosing it, from the city of Birmingham. Birmingham Friendship housing association wants to build four five-person houses on a site in Sparkbrook. It has forged a package deal with a local builder who owns the site. The scheme, just under £300,000, is in the draft Housing Corporation 1990–91 programme, but, like many other housing associations, Birmingham Friendship does not know whether it will get an allocation for work this year. Meanwhile, the builder, who has held his price for the scheme since last year, is anxious to get on with the work. A small scheme, nevertheless, sums up the hardships and disappointments suffered on the ground because of the cash crisis. Homes for local Asian families will be lost. Work in an area of high unemployment will be lost to a firm of multi-ethnic builders which has held its costs for a year, waiting on the promise that it was in the draft Housing Corporation programme.
    938
    That is just one example—four houses for five families—and it can be repeated in virtually every urban area in the country. It is all because of financial mismanagement on the part of the Housing Corporation because the Government either did not listen or took no account of the information that they received. I emphasise that that is happening in every urban area in the country.
    One word that I did not hear fall from the Minister's lips was "rural". Not once did he refer to the problems of rural dwellers and the housing crisis. It is no good his pointing to the Secretary of State for the Environment, who must be one of the most disappointed Secretaries of State ever to see successive Ministers of State come and go in his own Department. If he is to refer to rural areas, that is fine. My remark was not meant personally. I have great respect for the Under-Secretary of State. He has been badly treated by the Prime Minister.
    I now raise a couple of issues about rural problems. I make no apology for that. I am an urban dweller and an urban representative, but someone must make the case for rural dwellers Tory—Members do not do it. The problem is constantly left to Opposition Members.
    My record is quite good. I had an Adjournment debate on the problems of rural communities. If the Minister's minders want to look it up, it was on 5 April of this year and is reported at column 1394 of Hansard. I raised the whole gamut of the problems of rural dwellers. I referred to the difficulties of housing and gave some examples, but at column 1399 the Minister talked about increasing investment in rural areas through housing associations and referred to the programme, which had been announced, of schemes for communities with fewer than 1,000 people. He referred also to providing low-cost homes. He said that, when the scheme was in place, it would provide 1,500 homes for rent in small villages and 350 homes a year for local sales. He talked about a scheme of repurchasing former shared-ownership dwellings when the occupiers move on.
    What has happened to that scheme? I understand that it has not been possible to put the scheme together in a way in which, according to lawyers, it will work. I should like an update on what has happened to the scheme to provide more low-cost, low-rent and affordable homes in rural areas. The Government made great play of the scheme when it was announced. When will bricks be placed on the mortar and when will the houses come into being?
    I referred also to the remarks of the chairman of the Rural Development Commission, Lord Vinson, who is certainly not a supporter of our party—he is not a member of it. He said, and I agreed, that, on average, we need only a handful of homes in every sizeable village, but they must be affordable homes.
    When I was the Opposition spokesman on housing, I suggested geographically rounding off communities. Like most other people, I do not want urban sprawl, and I do not want to destroy the countryside. I do not regard the countryside as a jigsaw puzzle or the lid on a chocolate box, which classy marketeers tell us it is all about. That is not the reality of life in rural areas when youngsters are forced to move away from villages and small towns and away from their families and jobs because they cannot possibly afford the massive prices for very small dwellings because of the dislocation of prices in rural areas. That problem must be met. I do not see action on the ground.

    939
    On 5 April, the Minister made it clear to me that work was in hand. I still do not see the difficulty, and if the Minister introduces a planning Bill he will get my support.
    Smaller developments in smaller villages and towns can be achieved—there is much academic work to prove that. One would not face the problem of Foxley Wood and the like, although there may be occasions when new small towns should be developed.
    I believe that the concept that I have outlined is sustainable politically and financially. Unless something like that is developed, the problems of rural dwellers will get even worse. Ministers must come to terms with that because they have ignored the problem of rural dwellers for too long.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I let the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) get away with it, but I now appeal for brevity. As so many hon. Members wish to speak, voluntary restraint would be helpful.
    8.50 pm
    Mr. Robin Squire: It is unfortunate in a debate lasting just two and a half hours that some one and a half hours has been taken up by contributions by the Front Benches. My comment does not, however, reflect on the content of those speeches. Accordingly, I shall try to set an example by being brief.
    I declare at the outset that, as all the House knows, I have been a board member of Shelter since 1983. That fact is occasionally used by each side of the House in support of their argument and I assume on that basis that they are fairly balanced. I should also declare, as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, that I am director of a group of companies that rent out properties.
    There is a seductive glamour about the use of capital receipts and it was especially prevalent when I was wearing my local government hat. The Government's stance has been attacked, but, in truth, the issue is simple. If one believes that housing needs broadly approximate to the arising of capital housing receipts, one has an argument. I believe that there is virtually no connection between housing needs and the arising of receipts. Therefore, some system akin to that used now by the Government for allocating permission to borrow to local authorities with lower receipts is essential. That practice would be followed by any Government—no post-war Government have introduced controls on capital borrowing.
    There is understandable dismay on both sides of the Chamber at the sight of people living rough in our major cities. The Daily Telegraph was right when it said in June:
    "In a civilised society it is unacceptable to have people sleeping on the streets because they have nowhere to go."
    Similar scenes are repeated in other western countries, but that does not reduce our concern, although it may temper the more extreme political comments made. The Minister and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) set out some of the circumstances and social background to the problem. I judge that it is the responsibility of Government, local authorities and the various agencies connected with them to deal with this problem. Other than personal choice, there should be no reason for people to live rough in the streets or under cardboard.
    940
    The Government have launched a sustained and welcome series of initiatives. Tonight my hon. Friend outlined another six, but time does not allow me to comment on them in detail. One initiative relates to people with surplus property or rooms who do not want to be involved in what they see as the palaver of renting and engaging tenants. The initiative will enable those people to engage housing associations to do it for them. Those associations will guarantee them a rate of return. Anything that encourages such people is welcome. All the initiatives are welcome, though overdue, and form part of the solution for which we seek.
    I also welcome—I would, wouldn't I?—the £2 million initiative announced a few months ago by my hon. Friend the Minister. That initiative will enable the development of a nationwide framework of advice centres, essentially run by Shelter and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—NACAB. That initiative wisely draws on Shelter's knowledge and expertise and it is designed to encourage young people, where possible, to remain in their local area rather than to drift into the big cities, with all the attendant difficulties that that causes.
    Tonight little mention has been made of the problem of the mentally handicapped. Many have now been released into the community, but in some instances they are inadequate, unable to house themselves and perhaps institutionalised. I am aware that the Department of Health will launch an initiative on that in the near future. However, the problems of the mentally ill are extremely pressing as they form a significant part of those who are currently homeless. We owe it to them to announce that initiative as soon as possible.
    The hon. Member for Dagenham is one of the acceptable faces of the Labour party. His acceptance of guilt and past ideological sins was touching, but had he studied the faces behind him, let alone left the Chamber and spoken to many Labour party councillors, he would have discovered a less than equivalent atonement.
    The Labour party and those who run the large council housing empires have welcomed the advent of housing associations in their much enhanced role with all the enthusiasm of people eating sheep's eyes for the first time. When the Labour party considers the rest of the private-rented sector, it does not like or understand it. The Labour party has forgotten that every extra right for a tenant is an extra responsibility or loss to a putative landlord.
    I agree with the Minister that the Labour party wants to turn the clock back because it is wedded to the public sector and the belief that it knows better. I do not know why, as the housing record of far too many Labour authorities is too depressing whether judged on the number of properties empty, the size of rent arrears or their practice of opposing by every reasonable legal way people wanting to exercise their right to buy. I cannot believe that that record can act as an example to the Labour party as, whichever way one looks at it, the picture is grim.
    Last week there was a fascinating editorial in The Sunday Times on a wide range of issues of which housing was but a part. That editorial was not uncritical of the Government and the gist of it was that more public spending was not the solution to most of our problems. It noted:
    "Overall spending on public services was 15 per cent. higher in 1989–90 than it was during the last year of the last

    941
    Labour government. So much for the 'vicious cuts of the brutal Thatcher regime' … The idea that Britain can be cleansed of public squalor by spending more money on public services is a widely believed nonsense. What nearly every public service needs is not more money, but more competition."
    Nothing would increase the standard of rented property more than to have several would-be landlords clamouring for one tenant—that has been demonstrated in other areas of necessity such as food and clothing. Instead the landlord has been frightened away by the fear of a possible future Labour Government—not lessened by tonight's contributions. All housing reforms should be judged on the acid test: will they increase the supply of rented property efficiently? The article concluded:
    "At least the government realises what needs to be done. Labour prefers the soft option of simply promising to spend much more on monopoly public services, which on present evidence most often makes them worse."
    For those and other reasons, I oppose the Labour motion.
    8.58 pm
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The Government may well claim that never have so many people owned their own houses, and that that is, of course, because of Government policies. But they must also claim that never have so many people been homeless, sleeping rough on the streets, in derelict buildings, in substandard lodgings, hostels or bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is also a direct result of Government policy. There is no doubt that in the past 10 years there has been a sharp increase in the number of homeless, well above any expected trend. A report commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree memorial trust, "Homeless in Britain", shows that every day an average 1,000 households apply to local councils for help and that during the past 10 years, more than 1 million households have been registered as homeless by local authorities.
    The problem is no longer a phenomenon of our largest cities. People are sleeping on our streets, in unused buildings, temporary accommodation and other unsuitable places right across this land of ours. My own area of Southport, in Sefton, north-west England, has a homeless problem, which has been growing for the past few years as the local authority finds its hands tied with restrictions on housing finance, and social services departments find it increasingly difficult, because of their restricted resources, to assist people who are homeless through no fault of their own. Such people have been turned out of hospitals and other institutions as a result of the Government's policy of closing down such homes without providing an alternative means of care or an alternative place to live.
    Such short-term measures as that announced by the Minister for Housing and Planning on 22 June to provide £15 million for additional subsidies and subsidised accommodation for the single homeless, may give some small relief. However, I fear that it may create more problems than it will solve. Until we recognise the underlying causes of homelessness and instigate a programme to combat them, the long-term prospects for Britain's homeless are bleak.
    Another problem that I fear such short-term measures may create is to put pressure on the police force to use the Vagrancy Act 1824 and other laws to move people off the streets. To give people who are already down and out a criminal record as well will do little to enhance their prospects of finding permanent housing. If there is any
    942
    form of compulsion attached to the programme, it is likely to be defeated before it gets off the ground. Young people may rebel against it, particularly if they can be compelled to enter an institutionalised system, of which many of them have had experience and are trying to avoid.
    There will also be a problem finding buildings with long-term leases at a reasonable cost. That will not be an easy task in the south-east. There will be problems in finding the staff and volunteers to run such centres. Many of the young people on our streets are vulnerable. What safeguards will there be to ensure that someone placed in a position of trust can be trusted? I fear that short-term measures will serve only to paper over the cracks in time for the general election. Once the young people who sleep on our streets are safely hidden in hostels and dormatories, the issue of Britain's homeless will be put on the back burner.
    Those are the problems that arise from short-term measures, but I must not spend any more time on that subject because it will deter from the main argument, which is to identify solutions for the causes of homelessness. There is no dispute—or should not be—that the single, most important cause of homelessness is the lack of affordable housing units. The blame for that can be laid directly at the feet of the Government. Due to the Government's policy to reduce public spending, their dislike of local government and their utter contempt for anything that might be seen as public service, the provision of social services and social housing by local government has been virtually destroyed.
    The right-to-buy policy is not, in itself, a mistake, and the principle behind it is to be welcomed. Encouragement should be given to the voluntary and, in some cases, private sector to increase their contribution to the provision of housing, particularly affordable housing units. What is wrong is the way in which the Government have approached and administered that policy. The Government have failed to recognise—or perhaps chosen to ignore—the fact that in any society there will always be a need for social housing and housing at affordable rents and prices.
    The right-to-buy programme, when coupled with restrictions on the use of capital receipts, has resulted in a critical shortage of such housing. In 1979, the number of new council houses built was 79,009. In 1989, that figure dropped to a mere 14,925. At the same time, the numbers on waiting lists requiring accommodation had increased from 741,000 in 1983 to 1,268,000 in 1988. That is the scale of the problem. The Government's attempts to move the emphasis of the provision of social housing to the voluntary and private sectors have failed, because they do not understand the nature of the matter with which they are dealing, and because they have not enabled the individual to acquire the means to obtain access to affordable housing.
    The pressure on housing associations to take up the slack, accompanied by a reduction in central Government funds, has meant that they have had to bridge the gap between public and private sector funding through the raising of rents. In effect, they have had to move up market. The purpose of housing associations was originally to provide for the more vulnerable groups—those on low incomes, and the elderly. However, Government pressure has forced them into the business of catering for the conventional household and those more able to pay, rather than those in need. Consequently,

    943
    access to permanent affordable housing for the traditional clients of housing associations has been further reduced. The sorry saga surrounding the administration and funding of the Housing Corporation is now undermining confidence in housing associations in general, and provision of all types of homes by that process is consequently under threat.
    Women have possibly been the hardest hit by current housing policy. I recommend to the Government—and to all parties—the excellent Shelter publication, "Women Losing Out", which points out that housing policies are based on assumptions about the family, and about women's role within families. The policy is designed on the assumption that the nuclear family is the norm, whereas it accounts for only 28 per cent. of households. One-parent families with one young child represent 40 per cent. of the homeless. More than 50,000 one-parent households in Britain become homeless in a year, according to the Joseph Rowntree report. In an era that promotes home ownership at the expense of public housing, women's housing options have been drastically reduced. Their traditionally low incomes and employment prospects create vast inequalities in access to housing between men and women.
    The Government's housing policy is now based on the ability to pay rather than on need. The housing Acts of 1988 and 1989 have increased the difficulties of those who are unable to buy. They have reduced security of tenure, introduced higher rents and reduced benefits, owing to the system of assessment of what it is reasonable to pay rather than what the tenant is paying for. Despite all their efforts, the Government have failed to attract the private sector back to rented accommodation. The measures about which we have heard tonight will not affect that either. The private sector still accounts for only 10 per cent. of rented provision, and much of that is to students and single professionals rather than to families.
    I was interested to read in the Observer last Sunday that, owing to the high cost of living in the south and south-east, northern universities are expecting 50,000 extra students in September and landlords are already preparing their welcome with plans to increase rents by 15 to 20 per cent. and an insistence on 12-month contracts, although the academic year is only 32 weeks long. Students and some other young people increasingly find that they are in a no-win situation, with rents payable in advance. For students whose grants are payable term by term and for young people on social security which is paid in arrears, the chance of finding a permanent roof over their head is slim.
    The housing crisis in Britain will get worse as high mortgage rates and ever-increasing rents push people into arrears. In 1979 there were 2,530 repossessions; in 1989, there were 13,780. That figure is bound to climb, as will the number of evictions from rented property.
    I am intrigued to know how the Government intend to square the conflict in their advice. Perhaps the Minister will answer that question. As inflation bites and unemployment rises, their philosophy demands that they encourage young and old alike to get on their bike and look for a job. As the housing crisis deepens and homelessness is rampant, the Government's advice appears to be to stay put, as the pavements of London and other large cities are not paved with gold. Indeed, they are
    944
    more likely to be paved with Britain's homeless. Because of the housing crisis in rural and urban areas alike, such advice is useless.
    What can we do about the problem? We must start from the premise that the country believes that the Government have a duty to ensure that everyone has access to affordable housing. I urge the Government to start towards achieving that aim by removing many of the restrictions that they have placed on local authorities. The top priority must be the release of capital receipts to enable local authorities to replenish stock, by providing houses themselves, by allowing housing associations to cater for the more traditional client, or through partnership with the private sector.
    Another priority is to bring existing stock up to standard. Where necessary, there should be powers to purchase homes or to carry out repairs to empty private sector homes whose owners have refused to bring them up to a habitable standard. It is a tragedy and a sin that so many properties are empty. In May 1988 there were 23,000 such homes in the public sector, of which only 4,100 were available for rent. According to the Minister for Housing and Planning in an article in the Municipal Journal on 15 June, there were 600,000 vacant properties in the private sector.
    I should like to see the Housing Corporation retained, at least in principle, and it should be given more funds. I should welcome changes to the way in which we define "homeless" and changes to the social security system to prevent the policy working against the young and the single homeless and especially against women who, because of our present system, remain trapped in unbearable situations that are often dangerous.
    We need to change the housing benefit system so that it reflects the true cost of rents. That could be combined with the introduction of housing cost relief, a policy advocated by my party in our policy document "Housing, a time for Action", and it would apply to home buyers and people who rent. Affordable housing for all is more than the provision of bricks and mortar. Among other things, it is about the economy, our tax system, our communities, planning and the environment. Our policy document contains innovative ideas for the provision of decent housing. I commend it to the Minister and to Conservative Members.
    9.11 pm
    Sir Charles Irving: Many hon. Members have spoken about the release of capital receipts, and I think that the Minister also mentioned it. I hope that he will be able to assure us that that matter has a high priority. At a time when the nation has a housing crisis it is utterly ridiculous to sit on millions of pounds that could be put to good use. The money was raised by local authorities on the understanding that they would be able to reinvest it. That has not happened and the freezing of the funds is causing considerable distress. The money is there for a purpose for which it is not being used.
    I wish to speak about the people who are at the bottom of the pile. I have the pleasure of being chairman of Stonham housing association. Most hon. Members attend their surgeries on Saturday mornings. At one time that was a fairly relaxed affair. However, every surgery that I attend becomes harder and more distressing. People come to me with the seemingly insoluble problem of having nowhere

    945
    to go. I am sure that all hon. Members have met such people in their surgeries. Women about to go into hospital to have a baby do not have the slightest idea where they will go when they come out. What greater stress could one impose upon a person?
    In general, the Stonham housing association picks up the debris of the nation, those who are at the bottom of the pile. We provide accommodation for about 10,500 people a day and we provide for all those whom Christians in every street sympathise about but do not want to do anything to help.
    I have been in the House for some years, and in housing debate after housing debate I have heard Ministers from both parties say we should be doing various things. For example, they have said that they will ensure that houses belonging to the services—the armed forces and the police—are brought into occupation, as we do not need so many empty houses. I am sorry to say that nothing much has happened.
    I hope that the thoughts that the Minister shared with us tonight will bring about some fundamental changes. Unless they do, organisations such as Stonham, the Salvation Army and many others that take care of the sad people in the community will close.
    My organisation is satisfied that our finances will just about get us through another year. But unless there is some improvement in the complicated and nonsensical bureaucracy that has crept into the housing system, we expect that many organisations will have to close because there will be no money.
    In London there are 75,000 single homeless people, and there is cardboard city. One does not have to go far from here to see the homeless. When I am on my way home I find old ladies sleeping in the bushes just down the road. It is sickening, and no hon. Member could find any funny feature in it, as it is horrifying.
    The problem is not entirely caused by lack of money; we have to care about what happens to these people. If the various types of empty accommodation that hon. Members from both sides of the House have mentioned were used, we would not have a housing list, We would not have the misery that exists at present. We would not have people shuddering because a hostel might be put next door to them, and they are worried that it would not be attractive for their street, or that it might affect the value of their property.
    Even in my constituency, in Cheltenham, there are many empty properties. I am not making a political point, but the town is under the control of the Liberals. People come to my advice bureau and tell me that they walk round the town and see empty houses and flats owned by the local authority.
    Local authorities have much to answer for. They are so dilatory about carrying out the repairs and maintenance which would enable properties to be occupied that absurd situations arise. Young people with three children are put on the top floor of a 10-storey block. The mix of people in such blocks of flats sometimes causes indescribable trouble. Anti-social behaviour between neighbours increases week by week and sadly it often ends up with someone going to prison.
    A lot can be done without the investment of vast sums of money, because we have already allocated millions of pounds for housing which could be better invested than it has been in the past.
    946
    Stonham, other similar organisations and thousands of voluntary workers give their time to nurse the mentally ill, who would otherwise go to prison because the hospitals that used to accommodate them are no longer available. All those people are being looked after by volunteers and a splendid professional team which has a right to expect to be paid. Unless we and my hon. Friend the Minister can find some better way of caring for people and paying the bill, there will be nowhere for even the sick to go.
    9.19 pm
    Mr Dennis Turner: When the history of the 1980s comes to be written, one of the Government's real and unforgivable failures will be their lack of a comprehensive and cohesive housing policy. That failure has condemned millions or our citizens to live in inadequate homes and thousands to be without accommodation altogether.
    Almost immediately upon taking office, the Government began to cut the housing improvement programme which the Labour Government had developed extensively in the 1970s and which raised to modern standards the amenities of many hundreds of inter-war council houses. Pre-1919 terraced housing, with outside toilets and sub-standard kitchens and bathrooms, cried out for improvement and major internal and external repairs were needed to prevent them from falling down.
    The Government's response has been to drip feed that sector with small and completely unrealistic funds, leading to the outrageous situation in the 1990s of much decrepit and unhygienic housing in all our major towns and cities. Had the level of funding in real terms under the previous Labour Government been continued, many of those houses would now have been improved and many thousands of families would be living in more pleasant and environmentally acceptable conditions.
    Equally worrying is the way in which the Government have, at every opportunity, sought to weaken and frustrate the role of public housing authorities in planning and servicing local housing provision within their communities. All manner of devices have been invented in order to remove local government from that important social policy area of human need.
    Legislation has directed powers and finance to housing associations through the Housing Corporation with all the attendant difficulties and demarcation problems. There is great pressure on some housing associations to take on more responsibility in housing than they are capable of dealing with.
    The Labour party recognises that housing associations have a positive role to play, but they should work in partnership with local government, the special needs housing sector and the important and emerging co-operative housing sector.
    Much more devious has been the Government's promotion of the private sector. Insurance and property development companies have been encouraged to move into the private housing sector and to buy up housing estates and parcels of council houses, all complete with sitting tenants, in order to deprive local authorities of their historic and accepted housing role.
    The Government have been unable to resist the attractive prospect of giving their friends in the City major capital gains through long-term property values and the ability to make huge financial gains by imposing massive

    947
    rent increases on the poor tenants involved. High powered propaganda accompanied the Government's ideological separation from fairness and common sense. Thank goodness council tenants in Britain have dispatched that crazy notion to the dustbin of history by voting overwhelmingly against housing action trusts for their estates.
    Once again, there is an absence of compassion in the Government's treatment of the thousands of elderly and handicapped citizens who are condemned to live their lives in accommodation wholly unsuited to their special needs. Bungalows and specially adapted accommodation for the elderly and the handicapped are at a premium in almost all areas. In my locality, it was recorded recently that about 2,500 elderly and disabled people were competing for the 50 bungalows available for letting. On that basis, many will die without having benefited from the well-being that such accommodation can bestow.
    In addition, there is the misery and degradation of homelessness for many thousands of people in the Prime Minister's caring society; the uphill struggle for millions of people trying to meet record mortgage and rent payments; and, as we are now witnessing, the collapse of the private housing sector. In this debate, we are again presented with a classic picture of Tory indifference in the midst of irrefutable evidence of a major social need in housing which continues to go unmet.
    9.27 pm
    Mr. Timothy Raison: Unlike the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), I believe that the Government have had considerable housing achievements to their credit during the past decade. The outstanding achievement has been the enormous stimulus to owner-occupation through the introduction of the right to buy, but in other respects also our housing stock is clearly better. It is interesting to note that, even during the past few years, there has been a marked improvement in the quality of local authority housing, certainly in my constituency. That is largely a product of the fact that capital receipts could not be spent on new building—or only a limited amount—and as a result a great deal of money has been available for improving council stock, and there have been substantial improvements.
    The focus of the debate is, rightly, not on owner-occupation, but on the problems for those who cannot afford to buy houses and therefore have to look for low-cost rented housing. That is now the real priority in housing policy, and I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will accept that. As we have heard from a number of hon. Members, the problem has been made worse by the increase in family breakdowns and the increased number of one-parent families. I do not share the view that that is a trend about which nothing can be done. However, I recognise that it is putting pressure on local authority and low-cost housing.
    Aylesbury Vale, in my constituency—and I am happy to talk about this after what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said—spans both rural and urban housing. There has been a steady rate of
    948
    council building until recently, and currently there is a genuine waiting list that can be measured in hundreds, certainly not in thousands.
    I am concerned that there may be real trouble ahead. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving) said about what was happening in his advice bureau. I would not phrase it as dramatically as he did, but I am aware of an increasing pressure from less-well-off people who are trying to find somewhere to live. Constituencies such as mine will be in significant trouble during the next decade or two unless further action is taken because council building will virtually come to an end. It has almost no housing investment programme allocation in the current year, although it had and still has a fairly steady rate of building. It appears that, by next year, only about 16 buildings will be erected by the council within the Aylesbury Vale area. We are disappointed that we have no allocation for the kind of equity sharing programmes that, in principle, have much to commend them.
    The sharp drop in council building would be fine if we could be confident that the increased demand would be taken up by housing association construction. Local authorities in my constituency have been active in pursuing that option, and Chiltern local authority has successfully converted the whole of its housing stock to a housing association. In Aylesbury, where the pressure is greater, we have encouraged housing associations, and they have shown interest—recognising that even fairly affluent places such as Buckinghamshire have housing needs.
    However, when it comes to the crunch, associations find it difficult to build the houses that local authorities cannot provide. That partly has to do with the drying up of Housing Corporation funding. No doubt that is a problem brought about by its success—and I accept the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister in that respect—but the difficulty remains that it takes time for housing associations that move into an area where there has been very little general purpose association activity to get off the mark.
    If the Government are to rely on the Housing Corporation as the main instrument of providing low-cost housing, it is important to my constituency and others that resources are made available to the Housing Corporation for it to do its job. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary winds up he will say more about that aspect than did my hon. Friend the Minister.
    The private rented sector has also featured in this debate. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister about new means of encouraging the private rented sector. It is difficult in areas like mine to do a great deal very rapidly because they do not have large numbers of Victorian houses available for conversion into private rented housing. That is not the nature of property in my constituency, and it is a problem elsewhere also.
    Can new construction for private renting be encouraged? I do not share the horror of some Opposition Members of private money being invested in housing and making a profit. That is a perfectly desirable activity, and I am all for encouraging it. There was certainly some evidence of ambivalence among Opposition Members on that issue. The real problem is providing an adequate economic return on the investment necessary to develop low-cost private rented housing.

    949
    We need social housing and to give backing to the Housing Corporation, but I still believe that there is scope for new council housing. One of its merits is that it provides an avenue into owner-occupation in a way that housing association property does not. Many people in my constituency have moved on from renting new local authority housing to buying those properties, and have turned them into good owner-occupied houses. It would be a pity if that process were to end.
    The question of council rents has not featured greatly in today's debate. Clearly they should be reasonable. It is true that they are backed, by and large, by a fairly generous housing benefit system, but it was a mistake to press for a £4.50 rent increase in areas such as mine in April. That was not really necessary, and it is particularly unfortunate that it coincided with the introduction of the community charge and higher water charges. I hope that when next year the question of the assumed rent increases expected by the Department of the Environment arises, my hon. Friend the Minister will do all that he can to contain them within very reasonable limits.
    Although there is an underlying assumption that rents in the council sector should move more towards market levels, which has an element of wisdom, many people in constituencies such as mine, which are fairly prosperous, nevertheless do not have higher incomes than their counterparts in the north of England or other areas, where the cost of housing is deemed to be lower. If someone happens to work in the health service or in local government on relatively low pay, the pay is exactly the same as it is for someone who works in Lancashire, Northumberland or elsewhere. It is not reasonable to expect people on the same level of pay in other parts of the country to pay higher local authority council rents.
    Housing for the less-well-off is of considerable importance. It is important politically. I am sure that my hon. Friends are aware of that. It is also important for the well-being of our people. I hope that we can bring to its conclusion the drive, energy and success that we have shown in tackling the question of owner-occupation.
    9.35 pm
    Mr. David Trimble: Initially I was reluctant to speak in this debate because the motion, with its references to the Housing Act 1988 and to urban and rural areas in Britain, seemed more a Great Britain than a United Kingdom motion. After I made my maiden speech, one Conservative Member said to me that he hoped that I would speak in United Kingdom debates and not limit myself to Northern Ireland matters. However, if I am to contribute to United Kingdom debates, United Kingdom debates must be held.
    The motion refers mainly to the Housing Act 1988. I have heard rumours that that Act may be extended shortly to Northern Ireland. That would be worth examining. I welcome the extension of home ownership, which has been one of the chief achievements of the Government. I am also glad that they realise that the extension of home ownership will go only so far and that it is also necessary to maintain the rented sector, both public and private. The public sector should not be limited.
    We need to expand and help the private rented sector. The chief measure in the 1988 Act was to bring rents up to market levels in the hope that such rents would increase supply. As I said to the Minister the other week, the
    950
    experience at home is quite the opposite. We have had no rent control on new-build properties for 30 years but there has not been a significant increase in the supply. It could be argued that market rents should be introduced independently because it is slightly unfair to expect the private landlord to subsidise people and we should not deprive them of the income that their property would otherwise command. However, moving to market rents is not enough to solve the problem. We must consider other matters.
    Obviously, an increase in supply is desirable. I was glad to hear that changes will be made on the planning side and that planning controls will be relaxed. That should not be a matter of rushing off into green field sites to build. One should look to urban areas where much land could be made available. Moreover, planning difficulties are not always the fault of public corporations and local authorities. It is often the fault of the planning authorities, which take far too long to arrive at decisions. I hope that the Minister will tackle that matter.
    Several hon. Members mentioned empty housing. I noted with interest that the Minister hinted at financial penalties for public authorities which have empty houses on their hands. I did not hear him suggest any equivalent financial penalty when private property remains empty. Perhaps he will think about that. Such a penalty might go some way to increasing supply. However, an increase in supply may not be sufficient. Even with an increased supply, some people will not be able to enter the market. We must consider ways of assisting people into the market. The watchword must be that we must subsidise people, not property. I should like to see a much broader approach to helping people to enter the market. Together with some increase on the supply side, that might bring housing within people's range.
    Within the Minister's six-point plan to tackle those problems, I noted his reference to speeding up legal procedures. I hope that that will not deprive people of their rights to proceedings in court. The existing procedures for getting orders for possession are fair and should not be changed. However, the enforcement of orders that have been granted needs to be examined as delays occur far too often.
    Because of lack of time, I shall curtail my comments, but I should like to make a couple of points about the change of landlord provisions in the 1988 Act. Let me sound a warning against the extension of any of those procedures to Northern Ireland as that would open up considerable dangers. Paramilitary groups might apply to acquire public authority estates, and one could not be sure that the Northern Ireland Office would be sufficiently astute to catch them out and stop them. Other bodies such as insurance companies and building societies might seek to take over estates. The danger is that they would be softer targets than the public authorities for pressure from paramilitary groups, although the record of the Housing Executive is pretty bad. But that is another matter.
    Housing associations make a valuable contribution and have done a considerable amount to increase the supply of housing. They provide an alternative to public authority housing and they should be encouraged, as competition is a good thing. The housing associations are mostly controlled by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive—the public authority to which they should be providing an alternative. With the best will in the world, the Housing Executive often hampers those authorities, although it is

    951
    not consciously hostile to them, so a different regime is required, and had time permitted perhaps I would have elaborated on that.
    9.41 pm
    Mr. Clive Soley: The Government are charged with incompetence in their housing policy and with a callous disregard for the welfare of the people of Britain. It is not true that the debate concerns only the rented sector, as the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said. It is very much about the lack of affordable accommodation to rent or for sale in rural and urban areas. Let the Government make no mistake about it: if they simply try to mop up some of the homelessness in London by providing a few extra night shelters, they will find that the pot continues to fill up, not least from areas such as Aylesbury.
    The growing pressure on housing in rural areas is forcing people out of those areas to the seaside towns and other cities. They move into temporary accommodation, often holiday lets, and become homeless when the accommodation is required.
    The desperate folly of the Government's policy was to attempt to end council housing without putting anything in its place. I understand that the Government do not like council housing. I think that they are wrong, as do the people who occupy council housing. The people who desperately want to get out of the private sector also think they are wrong. That is why Tory and Labour Members speak to far more people asking for a council house or a housing association house than wishing to move into the private sector.
    The right hon. Member for Aylesbury was totally and utterly wrong to say that the housing stock is improving. It is decaying fast. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he will not take it from me, I implore him to ask the Association of District Councils. According to that Conservative-controlled organisation, between £35 billion and £50 billion is needed in housing investment. It is said that the housing stock needs to last for 1,000 years if we are to avoid further decline. Previously the figure was 200 years, and that worries the housing experts. The Government's analysis is desperately and seriously wrong.
    Several times, the Minister and Conservative Members said that they want to revive the private rented sector. I do not object to that; as long as there are good landlords, I am not fussed. However, the Minister, with his pathetic list of six things, which included issuing documents, is trying to revive a dead parrot. The reason why it is dead is nothing to do with the rent Acts but everything to do with housing finance. That is why, to their credit, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who was previously the Secretary of State for the Environment and is not normally regarded as a logical man, wanted to end mortgage income tax relief. They wanted to end the subsidy to the buying sector because they knew that either the subsidy to the rented sector had to be increased to make market rents affordable or the subsidy to those who were buying had to be stopped.
    Labour Members argue that until the Government reform housing finance they cannot get away from the fact that the housing purchase sector and the rented sector
    952
    must be subsidised. No matter how much the Conservative party wants to get rid of mortgage income tax relief to revive the rented sector, it will not succeed until it makes it almost impossible for increasing numbers of people to buy, even if interest rates come down significantly. That is why house purchase is beyond the reach of between 50 and 60 per cent. of families in southern England. Until they address and understand that problem, it will only get worse.
    Much of the thinking of the Tory party can be gleaned from the press releases issued by the Minister. He said:
    "The Government are determined that there should be no excuse for sleeping-out on the streets."
    The image is of thousands of people tucked up nice and warm in their beds at night thinking, "Isn't it a nuisance; the Government will not give me an excuse to sleep on the streets." People do not want to sleep on the streets. The Government may try to turn these people into scapegoats and to portray them as wanting to sleep on the streets, but why is it that in all western countries, except in those that follow housing policies similar to ours, such as the United States, the problem is nowhere near as severe, and in most cases does not exist?
    As I have told the Minister, the big difference between today and 1979 is that when I was a probation officer in the worst areas of London around King's Cross, if a homeless person said to me "I want accommodation", I could obtain it for him, whereas today I could not. People must queue for cardboard boxes. That shows the success of the Tory party's housing policy. [Interruption.] It is true and I can prove it to Conservative Members. There is a queue also for bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and some people have been in such accommodation for two or three years.
    The Tory party promised that local authorities would be able to use their capital receipts to invest in housing, but that was not allowed. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving) was absolutely right: local authorities could use that money well. It is a tragedy that they are not being allowed to do so.
    What do the Government intend to do about the crisis in the Housing Corporation? They said:
    "It is proposed that in future an increasing proportion of new development by housing associations should be funded by a mixture of grant and private finance. Not only will this make the available public resources stretch further but the injection of market disciplines will itself lead to greater efficiency and make associations more independent and more responsible for the quality and effectiveness of their investment decisions and the competence of their management."
    I can only echo the Conservative chair of the housing committee in Plymouth: if local authorities had behaved as the Housing Corporation has behaved, they would be drummed out.
    The problem is the Government's problem, and we know that the figures in the Department of the Environment's White Paper on public expenditure plans are wrong and misleading. I want to know from the Minister not wild guesses or his invention of 40,000 houses but what the approvals will be for 1990–91 to 1992–93.
    We need to know whether the Minister is prepared to see the Housing Corporation being examined again by the Public Accounts Committee. Anyone who knows anything about the matter knows that the Public Accounts Committee was deeply worried about the Housing Corporation and knows that its report, which will be out soon, will be of no comfort to the corporation. The

    953
    tragedy is that the Government, not the Housing Corporation, are truly responsible because the Government created the scheme.
    The Government say, once again, that they will punish local authorities for keeping properties empty. I am opposed to properties, whether public or private, being kept empty. However, we know that, on average, 2.1 per cent of local authority stock, 3.1 per cent. of housing association stock and 4.5 per cent. of private sector stock is empty. No less than 18 per cent. of Government property is empty. Much of it is in London and includes police officers' houses, prison officers' houses and Ministry of Defence houses, which have been empty for up to 10 years. Will the Government penalise themselves for keeping literally thousands of houses empty? They will not. The Minister may look at his feet and then gaze up at the ceiling; he is responsible for those empty properties. If he penalises local authorities which, on the whole, are good, all he will do is to aggravate the problem.
    The Minister should say what the Labour party says. Where we have examples of bad landlordism, whether by councils, by housing associations or by the Government, we should use one of the other sectors to get those houses into use. We shall say to the private sector what I have been saying to it, successfully, for a long time. There are successful partnerships, but if the Minister believes that he will encourage the letting of flats above shops simply by making it easier to get people out again, he is wrong. The person who has a shop needs the confidence of knowing that if he has a bad tenant who, for example, ruins his stock pouring water through the ceiling, he can get him out, not in six months, but the next day. There is only one way in which to do that without throwing people on to the street and that is to use lease-hack. If the Government would release some of the controls on lease-back, one could achieve that.
    The Opposition object to the way in which the Government have squeezed the private rented sector out of existence. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is right to say that in Northern Ireland 25 per cent. of the rented stock was private in 1957; now it is only 5 per cent. Yet no one has threatened the reintroduction of rent controls in Northern Ireland. The Government's plans do not add up to a sensible policy, as anyone who knows anything about housing knows. If one wants to bring areas into use, one should use sensible lease-back schemes and begin to reform housing finance. One could then deliver the policies that this country needs.
    We cannot continue with a disgrace that is unique to the western world, with the exception of the United States. We have teenage children—I emphasise the word "children" —begging in our streets. It is wrong and we know that it is wrong. It is unnecessary and comes about as a result of an incompetent Government who do not know one end of the housing market from the other.
    9.52 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): By now, the Opposition must be regretting that they decided to debate the issue of housing today. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) treated us to a low-key contribution even by his standards. It was free from
    954
    ideology, but it was also free from ideas. It was seductively bland and, as one of my hon. Friends quipped, no cliche was left untouched.
    By contrast, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning responded with a devastating critique of—[Interruption.] He did. He made a devastating critique of Labour's hidden manifesto. The Opposition know that they have been found out, which is why they resort to derisive laughter. My hon. Friend showed how the Labour party's basic hostility to the private rented sector had not changed one iota. Only those hon. Members who were in the Chamber witnessed the derision and contempt that my hon. Friend's ideas to promote the private sector received from the Opposition.
    Shortly after my hon. Friend sat down, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) revealed in his own words the prejudice that we know that the Labour party still has. The hon. Gentleman said that being somebody else's landlord was not an acceptable way of earning a living. If it is acceptable to make a profit out of producing and supplying food and clothing, why is not it acceptable to make a profit out of supplying housing? If it is acceptable to earn a living providing rented housing in Germany or France, why is not it acceptable in this country?
    Mr. George Howarth: Before the Minister goes too far with that argument, may I ask him whether there is one aspect of the Housing Act 1988 that he would claim has been successful?
    Mr. Chope: Certainly, there has been a lot of success under the Housing Act 1988. Take tenants' choice, for example. Tenants' choice has shaken to the core the complacency of Labour housing authorities. As a result, even the worst Labour housing authorities now realise that, because there is a choice, they must buck up their standards, otherwise tenants will opt out.
    The Conservative party believes in freeing up the market. We believe in supply side measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) called for more competition and showed decisively how more competition is needed, rather than more control and restriction, for which the Opposition argue.
    We believe that supply side measures will bring more empty properties back into use. That is true not just in the private sector, but in the public sector, where the introduction of the ring-fenced housing revenue account is already having an impact. Tenants of inefficient councils throughout the country now realise that they will have to pay more in rent or suffer lower standards of service if their council landlords cannot turn round their properties more quickly and make better use of their housing stock.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving) made an impassioned plea for more of the proceeds of sales to be released for use by the councils. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the local authorities' outstanding debt is about £40 billion. That is a massive debt burden. We think that it is reasonable that, if a council sells an asset, it should use part of the proceeds of the sale to pay back some of its debt. My hon. Friend's own council, Cheltenham, had outstanding debts worth £54 million at 31 March 1989. That is a substantial sum and it is reasonable that, if the council sells some of its assets, it should use some of the proceeds of the sale to repay part of its debt.

    955
    It is the Labour party's policy to borrow and borrow and to saddle future generations with massive burdens. That policy has been referred to again this evening by Opposition Members. It is the policy of Conservative Members to encourage the sale of surplus assets and allow part of those proceeds to be reinvested.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that, even in areas such as Aylesbury Vale, families had problems in trying to find housing. I know that that is true. But it is fair to say that in the first quarter of this year only three families in Aylesbury Vale were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. In Cheltenham, there were no families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and no one in a hostel. The relative housing needs of those areas have to be compared with the much greater housing needs of the inner cities. Having said that, I should point out that the Housing Corporation's special rural programme is not affected by any legal problem—as the hon. Member for Perry Barr suggested—and, as we know, that programme will provide 1,500 new units per annum for rent and 350 for sale, to be concentrated in villages with a population of less than 1,000. That programme is being brought into effect as we speak. There are still some detailed legal arrangements to be sorted out, but there is no fundamental problem.
    The debate has shown that the Opposition are still clinging to the failed socialist culture of the 1960s and 1970s. They are in favour of curbing the market, stifling enterprise and undermining initiative. This month's copy of "Roof" has a swingeing attack on Labour's housing policies. Albeit reluctantly and with disappointment, "Roof" accepts that the Government and Opposition Members—
    Mr. Allen McKay 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 217, Noes 280.

    Division No. 281]

    [7.10 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Caborn, Richard

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Alton, David

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Anderson, Donald

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Canavan, Dennis

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Carr, Michael

    Ashton, Joe

    Cartwright, John

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Clay, Bob

    Beith, A. J.

    Clelland, David

    Bell, Stuart

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cohen, Harry

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

    Coleman, Donald

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Blair, Tony

    Corbett, Robin

    Blunkett, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Boateng, Paul

    Cousins, Jim

    Boyes, Roland

    Cox, Tom

    Bradley, Keith

    Crowther, Stan

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Cryer, Bob

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Cummings, John

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Buckley, George J.

    Cunningham, Dr John

    915

    Dalyell, Tam

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Darling, Alistair

    Marek, Dr John

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Dewar, Donald

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Dixon, Don

    Martlew, Eric

    Dobson, Frank

    Maxton, John

    Doran, Frank

    Meacher, Michael

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Meale, Alan

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Michael, Alun

    Eastham, Ken

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Faulds, Andrew

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Fearn, Ronald

    Morley, Elliot

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Flannery, Martin

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Flynn, Paul

    Mullin, Chris

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Murphy, Paul

    Foster, Derek

    Nellist, Dave

    Foulkes, George

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Fraser, John

    O'Brien, William

    Fyfe, Maria

    O'Neill, Martin

    Galbraith, Sam

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Galloway, George

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Parry, Robert

    George, Bruce

    Patchett, Terry

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Prescott, John

    Gould, Bryan

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Graham, Thomas

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Radice, Giles

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Randall, Stuart

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Redmond, Martin

    Grocott, Bruce

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Reid, Dr John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Richardson, Jo

    Haynes, Frank

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Rogers, Allan

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Rooker, Jeff

    Henderson, Doug

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Salmond, Alex

    Home Robertson, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Hood, Jimmy

    Sheerman, Barry

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Howells, Geraint

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hoyle, Doug

    Short, Clare

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

    Illsley, Eric

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

    Janner, Greville

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Snape, Peter

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Soley, Clive

    Kennedy, Charles

    Spearing, Nigel

    Kilfedder, James

    Stott, Roger

    Lambie, David

    Strang, Gavin

    Lamond, James

    Straw, Jack

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Leighton, Ron

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Trimble, David

    Lewis, Terry

    Turner, Dennis

    Litherland, Robert

    Vaz, Keith

    Livsey, Richard

    Wallace, James

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Wareing, Robert N.

    McAllion, John

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    McCartney, Ian

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    McFall, John

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    McKelvey, William

    Wilson, Brian

    McLeish, Henry

    Winnick, David

    McNamara, Kevin

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    McWilliam, John

    Worthington, Tony

    916

    Wray, Jimmy

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Mr. Martyn Jones and

    Mrs. Llin Golding.

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Alexander, Richard

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Evennett, David

    Allason, Rupert

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Fallon, Michael

    Amess, David

    Favell, Tony

    Amos, Alan

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Ashby, David

    Forman, Nigel

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Atkins, Robert

    Forth, Eric

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Baldry, Tony

    Franks, Cecil

    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

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Gorst, John

    Boswell, Tim

    Gow, Ian

    Bottomley, Peter

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bowis, John

    Gregory, Conal

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Ground, Patrick

    Brazier, Julian

    Grylls, Michael

    Bright, Graham

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

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

    Hague, William

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Hannam, John

    Buck, Sir Antony

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

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Burns, Simon

    Harris, David

    Burt, Alistair

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Butcher, John

    Hayes, Jerry

    Butterfill, John

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hayward, Robert

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Cash, William

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Hind, Kenneth

    Chope, Christopher

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Churchill, Mr

    Hordern, Sir Peter

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

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Conway, Derek

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Cormack, Patrick

    Irvine, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Cran, James

    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

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Key, Robert

    Dover, Den

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Dunn, Bob

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Durant, Tony

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    917

    Knowles, Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Knox, David

    Paice, James

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Lang, Ian

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Pawsey, James

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Lightbown, David

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Lilley, Peter

    Portillo, Michael

    Lord, Michael

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Raffan, Keith

    McCrindle, Robert

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Redwood, John

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Maclean, David

    Riddick, Graham

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Madel, David

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Marlow, Tony

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Rost, Peter

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Mates, Michael

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Ryder, Richard

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Mills, Iain

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Shelton, Sir William

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Moate, Roger

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Shersby, Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mudd, David

    Squire, Robin

    Neale, Gerrard

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Needham, Richard

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Steen, Anthony

    Neubert, Michael

    Stern, Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Stevens, Lewis

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Norris, Steve

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Stokes, Sir John

    918

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Sumberg, David

    Warren, Kenneth

    Summerson, Hugo

    Watts, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wells, Bowen

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Whitney, Ray

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Wilkinson, John

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Wilshire, David

    Thorne, Neil

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Thurnham, Peter

    Wolfson, Mark

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Wood, Timothy

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Trippier, David

    Yeo, Tim

    Trotter, Neville

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Walden, George

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Mr. Irvine Patrick.

    Waller, Gary

    Division No. 282]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bradley, Keith

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Allen, Graham

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Alton, David

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Anderson, Donald

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Buckley, George J.

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Caborn, Richard

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Callaghan, Jim

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Ashton, Joe

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Beckett, Margaret

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Beith, A. J.

    Carr, Michael

    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

    Coleman, Donald

    Boyes, Roland

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    956

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Corbett, Robin

    McAllion, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Cousins, Jim

    McCartney, Ian

    Cox, Tom

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Crowther, Stan

    McFall, John

    Cryer, Bob

    McKelvey, William

    Cummings, John

    McLeish, Henry

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    McNamara, Kevin

    Cunningham, Dr John

    McWilliam, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Darling, Alistair

    Marek, Dr John

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Dewar, Donald

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Dixon, Don

    Martlew, Eric

    Dobson, Frank

    Maxton, John

    Doran, Frank

    Meacher, Michael

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Meale, Alan

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Michael, Alun

    Eastham, Ken

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Faulds, Andrew

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Fearn, Ronald

    Morley, Elliot

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Fisher, Mark

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Flannery, Martin

    Mullin, Chris

    Flynn, Paul

    Murphy, Paul

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Nellist, Dave

    Foster, Derek

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Foulkes, George

    O'Brien, William

    Fraser, John

    O'Neill, Martin

    Fyfe, Maria

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Galloway, George

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Parry, Robert

    George, Bruce

    Patchett, Terry

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Prescott, John

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Gould, Bryan

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Graham, Thomas

    Radice, Giles

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Randall, Stuart

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Redmond, Martin

    Grocott, Bruce

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Reid, Dr John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Richardson, Jo

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Rogers, Allan

    Henderson, Doug

    Rooker, Jeff

    Hinchliffe, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Home Robertson, John

    Salmond, Alex

    Hood, Jimmy

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Howells, Geraint

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Hoyle, Doug

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Short, Clare

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

    Illsley, Eric

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

    Janner, Greville

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Snape, Peter

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Soley, Clive

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Lambie, David

    Stott, Roger

    Lamond, James

    Strang, Gavin

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Straw, Jack

    Leighton, Ron

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Lewis, Terry

    Turner, Dennis

    Litherland, Robert

    Vaz, Keith

    Livingstone, Ken

    Wallace, James

    Livsey, Richard

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Wareing, Robert N.

    957

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Worthington, Tony

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wilson, Brian

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Winnick, David

    Mr. Allen McKay.

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dover, Den

    Alexander, Richard

    Dunn, Bob

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Durant, Tony

    Allason, Rupert

    Dykes, Hugh

    Amess, David

    Eggar, Tim

    Amos, Alan

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Arbuthnot, James

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Evennett, David

    Ashby, David

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fallon, Michael

    Atkins, Robert

    Favell, Tony

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Baldry, Tony

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forman, Nigel

    Bellingham, Henry

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Forth, Eric

    Benyon, W.

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Franks, Cecil

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    French, Douglas

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Fry, Peter

    Boswell, Tim

    Gale, Roger

    Bottomley, Peter

    Gardiner, George

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Gill, Christopher

    Bowis, John

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Brazier, Julian

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bright, Graham

    Gow, Ian

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

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Gregory, Conal

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Burns, Simon

    Ground, Patrick

    Burt, Alistair

    Grylls, Michael

    Butcher, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Butterfill, John

    Hague, William

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Cash, William

    Hannam, John

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

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

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Harris, David

    Chope, Christopher

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Churchill, Mr

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

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

    Hayward, Robert

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Colvin, Michael

    Hind, Kenneth

    Conway, Derek

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Cormack, Patrick

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Couchman, James

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

    Cran, James

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

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

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Day, Stephen

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Devlin, Tim

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Dicks, Terry

    Irvine, Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jack, Michael

    958

    Jackson, Robert

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Janman, Tim

    Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rost, Peter

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Ryder, Richard

    Key, Robert

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Kilfedder, James

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Knowles, Michael

    Shelton, Sir William

    Knox, David

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lang, Ian

    Shersby, Michael

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Lightbown, David

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Lilley, Peter

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Squire, Robin

    Lord, Michael

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Steen, Anthony

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Stern, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stevens, Lewis

    Madel, David

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Marlow, Tony

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Mates, Michael

    Stokes, Sir John

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Sumberg, David

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Summerson, Hugo

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mills, Iain

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Moate, Roger

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Thorne, Neil

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Thurnham, Peter

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Trippier, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Trotter, Neville

    Mudd, David

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Neale, Gerrard

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Needham, Richard

    Walden, George

    Nelson, Anthony

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Neubert, Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Norris, Steve

    Watts, John

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Wells, Bowen

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Paice, James

    Whitney, Ray

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Pawsey, James

    Wilkinson, John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Wilshire, David

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Portillo, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wood, Timothy

    Raffan, Keith

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Yeo, Tim

    Redwood, John

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Riddick, Graham

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Mr. Nicholas Baker and

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Mr. Irvine Patnick.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates the Government on the success of its housing policies, which have extended the benefits of owner-occupation to two-thirds of all households, achieved better value for money from over £6 billion a year of public expenditure, increasingly focused this assistance on the most in need of it, and greatly widened freedom of choice for tenants in the public and private rented sectors.

    Student Loans
    10.14 pm
    Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave notice of this point of order to Mr. Deputy Speaker, who I thought would be in the Chair. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990, which we are due to discuss now, were originally laid before the House on 13 June, but were subsequently withdrawn and had to be relaid and redrafted on 25 June, following advice by counsel to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Committee has produced a helpful note for the benefit of all hon. Members, which is available in the Vote Office. At the end it says:
    "Oral evidence from the Department of Education and Science is printed in the Minutes of Evidence of 26th June 1990."
    That oral evidence is important for the purpose of ascertaining why the regulations were laid in their original form, and why they were subsequently changed. After two inquiries, the Vote Office told me that the evidence was not available to hon. Members in printed form. Is it acceptable for hon. Members to debate those matters without the evidence of the Committee before us?
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I remind the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—and you, Sir—that when in this Session—through no personal fault—the House has not had relevant papers, whether on the Floor of the House or upstairs in Committee, you or your colleagues have held that that offends the best procedures of the House, and on occasions have allowed the debate to be delayed until the papers are in front of us. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether Ministers and the House authorities can be asked whether this matter can be put back until later in the week.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are to have a debate about these matters; I am here to explain about the regulations, and I do not believe that it is necessary for the House to have the minutes of evidence given by my officials. It is perfectly feasible for the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to press any point that he wishes with me, and I shall answer it.
    Mr. Straw: With respect to the Under-Secretary of State, that is not good enough. The Joint Committee made its decisions in the light of oral evidence from officials at the Department of Education and Science. Moreover, in its notes to the House it said that oral evidence from the Department of Education and Science is printed—not "is going to be printed"—in the minutes of evidence of 26 June. Nevertheless, it is not available to the House. The Joint Committee evidently thought that it would be available before the regulations were considered by the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes): it is unacceptable for the House to be expected to consider the matter in this way, and, with respect, there is no reason why the matter should not be deferred until the minutes are available.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be sensible for us to proceed. Let us hear what the Minister has to say about the matter. Before I can hear a dilatory motion of this kind, we should hear what the Minister has got to say.
    Mr. Straw: With respect, Mr. Speaker, my point is one for you, as protector of the rights of hon. Members in respect of the Executive. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments said that those minutes were printed—not "going to be printed". However, they have not been printed. I do not know, and, with great respect, neither does the Secretary of State, whether the evidence given by his officials to the Joint Committee on an occasion when he was not present is relevant to the proceedings of the House. Only the minutes can tell us, but we do not have them before us. Why can you, Mr. Speaker, not suggest to the Government that the debate be deferred until we have the minutes before us?
    Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: I was not aware that the minutes were not available. The aim of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was that the minutes should be available to the House. The Committee took evidence from representatives from the Department of Education and Science specifically because one instrument was laid and withdrawn that was badly wrong on a number of counts. We wanted the House to have the information from the evidence that we arranged to have printed and published for the use and convenience of the House. It is not the Committee's fault of course, but I apologise to the House because the Committee intended to provide the information in the knowledge that the debate was to take place this evening.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before debating these important regulations it is vital to have some insight into the thoughts of the officials. The regulations deal with officialdom and bureaucracy. If we do not have the officials' views in a manner that is acceptable to the House, surely the usual channels should be allowed to discuss the matter so that we can meet when the information is available. I hope that that suggestion meets with the approval of all hon. Members.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. When these regulations came before the other place last week they were not in a form that enabled them to be debated. Proceedings were adjourned until the relevant papers in properly printed form came before the other place. I realise that the other place is not in your domain and that, like hon. Members, you are independent of the other place. However, I hope that what I have said will encourage you to the view that it would be proper for all the relevant papers to be before us. In other cases in the recent past you and your colleagues have said that we should have such documents.
    Mr. Jackson: I understand why hon. Members are making a fuss. The officials who went to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments were speaking on my responsibility. I am here to take part in the debate and answer questions on these matters. The hon. Member for
    962
    Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is a member of the Committee and knows that the argument being developed is fictitious.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has suggested that I raised an entirely false point. I was informing the House that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments carried out the instructions contained in the Standing Order of the House. That Standing Order charged us to give an opportunity to the Department of Education and Science before reporting anything to the House. At short notice, the Committee went out of its way to allow officials to give evidence if they chose to do so. We did that as a service to the House and not in any way to raise fractious points. The Minister is wrong. The Committee, which contained hon. Members from all parts of the House, was doing the job that the House entrusted to it. I have no idea why the evidence is not available. It was not the intention of the Committee that it should not be available. The evidence given by officials to the Committee was recorded in the usual way and was expected to be printed as a service. That is in line with the Standing Order, which is an instruction to the Committee to provide that service to the House in order to illuminate the debate.
    Mr. Speaker: The problem is that I am not certain who is responsible for the document, which states:
    "The oral evidence from the Department of Education and Science is printed in the minutes of evidence of the 26th of June."
    If the Government are responsible for providing this information, then that evidence should be available, but I am not certain whose responsibility it is.
    Mr. Straw: My understanding is that the House is responsible for printing the minutes. I assume that that is the case because the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments is a Committee of the House. There is always great anxiety about issues relating to delegated legislation. That is because of the great power that is in the hands of the Executive to legislate under powers given in principal Acts. For that reason the Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is Chairman, was charged with clear duties to ensure that regulations brought before the House were consistent with the principal Act. In this case, counsel advised the Committee that in three important respects the regulations were not consistent with the principal Act. The regulations were then changed.
    The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South made clear, assumed that the minutes of evidence, including evidence given by officials, would be brought before the House. The Under-Secretary may explain away the changes, but that is not good enough. We need to know the evidence of the officials who, on the whole, possess greater detail than the junior Minister, about why the regulations were defective in three important respects—one of which affects Scottish law—and why they were subsequently changed.
    As it is the responsibility of the House to have the minutes before the Chamber, I respectfully suggest that it is your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to say that the debate cannot proceed until we have them.
    Mr. Speaker: If the House does not have the full information, it puts it in a difficulty. Has the Minister anything to say on the matter?
    Mr. Jackson: This is a matter for the House authorities. When the House has the opportunity to see the evidence, I think that it will wonder whether it was worth making an issue of it. If the House feels that it would like to see this information, I should be perfectly willing to postpone the matter until it has seen it. That will give the House authorities an opportunity to circulate the information, as is their responsibility.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that what the Minister has suggested is the right course to take. I shall suspend the House again today for five minutes because it is unfair if the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who has the Adjournment debate, is not present for it. The House will resume at half-past 10 o'clock for the Adjournment debate.
    10.25 pm
    Sitting suspended.
    On resuming—

    Over-the-horizon Radar
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
    10.33 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am somewhat surprised to be addressing the House an hour and a half earlier than I thought that I would be. I have had to run to the Chamber from the other side of the Norman Shaw building in order to do so. However, I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the House on a matter of such importance to my constituents.
    I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement for all the work that he has done to assist me in the past few months, ensuring that my constituents have all the information that they need to make the right decision in the coming planning process.
    It is always difficult for a Member of Parliament, on a major planning application affecting his constituency, to say that he will not make any decision on the issue until he has seen all the evidence. There is always a danger that one could be accused of calling for something in someone else's backyard but not in one's own.
    It is important that I set out the criteria on which I shall judge the application when we have seen all the evidence. An issue that concerns national defence should be one on which people make a decision based, first and foremost, on the best interests of the nation. This application will stand or fall on whether it is of such national importance that it overrides local interests. All of us, wherever we may be, have a duty to our country to ensure that, if a matter is of overriding interest to the nation, it is not opposed for simply selfish local reasons.
    I begin with the question of national defence and set a number of parameters within which I shall judge the planning application. First, is it the only site suitable for the radar installation? The Ministry of Defence says that 166 sites were examined before it decided on St. David's. From a parliamentary answer yesterday, I gather that none of those 166 sites were not in MOD ownership. That suggests that the first criterion of the MOD is whether it owns the site, and that it did not consider other sites, not in its ownership, that might have been suitable.
    Secondly, we must ask whether, if the installation goes ahead, there is any other means by which similar radar cover could be provided. Could it be done by continuous use of aircraft carrying radar to survey the area that would be covered by the installation at St. David's? I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend's reply to that.
    Thirdly, in a period of lessening east-west tension, we must question whether there is a need for such a radar installation. I shall be interested to hear whether, in the light of improving relations with the Soviet Union, there is now a need for this defence installation. That will be of great importance to my constituents in coming months when they assess the importance of the application. Those are the questions to which my constituents will want answers.
    The second issue of great importance to my constituents is whether the radar will cause health problems for those living in the area. I cannot pretend to be an expert on the scientific arguments put forward by both sides of the debate. We have 50 years' experience of the use of radar throughout the world, so it is strange that there are now arguments that radar is dangerous to health

    965
    —that the electromagnetic waves can cause cancer and other illnesses. I do not know whether that is true, but if the independent environmental assessment that has been set up by the MOD to consider the health issue should report any danger to my constituents, there must not be any further debate, any further discussion of the planning issues, any further consideration of the planning application: the MOD must at once withdraw the application. The overriding concern of all hon. Members must be for the health of our constituents—
    Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Bennett: I shall not give way.
    Mr. Rogers: On this point?
    Mr. Bennett: No. This is a half-hour Adjournment debate for a Back-Bench Member of Parliament representing his constituency. It is not a matter on which a Labour Front-Bench spokesman should intervene. The Opposition have all the time in the world; I have only half an hour of valuable Back-Bench time to raise this important matter.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): I will not give way either.
    Mr. Bennett: If the health of my constituents is in danger, the MOD must withdraw the application. I set that as the overriding priority in judging the planning application. So we have the defence grounds and the question of health.
    I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to an article published in Nature only last month, indicating a continuing debate on the issue and that it will be important both to consider the consultants' report and to examine closely any new evidence on the effect of electromagnetic waves on the human body.
    The third issue of great importance, and one against which I shall also be judging the application, is the effect on the local environment. It is important to consider the proposed siting of the radar installation, in one of the most beautiful national parks in the country.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I attempted to intervene earlier because I understood that this is an Adjournment debate. As I see it, there is a cosy relationship between the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order.
    Mr. Rogers: No—I want to finish making my point.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Rogers: I have not finished.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have the hon. Member's point of order.
    Mr. Rogers: I have not yet put it.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have the hon. Member's point of order.
    Mr. Rogers: I have not finished.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat. I have his point of order.
    Mr. Rogers: How can you have my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I have not made it?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Rogers: I am sorry, but there is a cosy relationship between the hon. Member for Pembroke, the Minister, and yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Rogers: I am not prepared to enter into that cosy relationship. I want to contribute to the debate.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Rogers: You have not heard my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have the hon. Member's point of order, and I ask him to resume his seat.
    Mr. Rogers: No, you have not.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have the hon. Member's point of order. It is the duty of the Chair to protect the Back-Bench Member whose Adjournment debate it is. It is also the duty of the Minister to be present to answer the debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will realise, on reflection, that no other hon. Member can intervene in an Adjournment debate unless that has the agreement of the hon. Member whose Adjournment debate it is and of the Minister. It is evident to me that the hon. Member for Rhondda does not have that agreement. Therefore, I cannot call him.
    Mr. Bennett: It is quite appalling that I should be interrupted during a very valuable—
    Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I tried to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke earlier, I accepted it when he refused to give way. That was not a problem. However, at the same time the Minister said to me from a sedentary position, "You might as well go home, because we are not going to allow the Labour Front Bench to interfere in this." If that is the view of a member of the Government, what is the point of the debate? I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is an empty charade. A Conservative Member who is under great pressure in his constituency wants to bring his argument to the House, and he now has an answer from the Minister. The Minister has stated his position in the debate. I object to that, and I want the protection of the Chair.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I made it clear to the hon. Member that it is the duty of the Chair to protect what is a highly-prized right for a Back-Bencher in any part of the House to raise a matter on the Adjournment of the House and to hear the Minister's reply. It is also the duty of the Chair to ensure that no other hon. Member intervenes unless there is agreement. On this occasion, it is clear that there is no such agreement. I remind the House that valuable time is being taken up in the Adjournment debate.
    Mr. Bennett: I regret that, on a matter that is of grave importance to my constituents, the Labour Front-Bench spokesman sought, without asking me, to intervene in a

    967
    debate that matters to my constituents and to take valuable time out of a half-hour debate which Back-Bench Members find so hard to obtain.
    My constituents are rightly worried that the large numbers of people who visit the national park each year as tourists—about 300,000 people come to Pembrokeshire each year—may be driven away by the unsightly installation of 135 ft high radio masts on one of the most beautiful spots on the Pembrokeshire coast only one and a half to two miles from the historic city of St. David's.
    Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is in favour of it.
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman should either listen or get out. He should not attempt to interrupt the rights of a Back-Bench Member on an issue important to my constituents.
    Several questions remain to be asked about the effect on the environment if the installation is erected. The noise of the wind whistling through the pylons, the lights on the pylons that would be necessary for aircraft navigation, and the security lighting which will be put around the installation will disrupt the beauty of the environment in this particularly important part of the Pembrokeshire national park. The effect on tourism would be horrific.
    I have had almost as many letters from non-constituents as from my constituents complaining about the application and the effect that it will have on the environment. People say that it will drive them away from holidaying, as they have done year after year, in that spot.
    The environment will be an important issue. I welcome the fact that the Ministry of Defence has not only asked one set of consultants to examine the health issue but set up a second consultants' inquiry to consider the impact on the environment. I shall examine carefully the report of the consultants on the environmental impact on that part of my constituency. I have told my constituents that it will be difficult for the Ministry of Defence to convince me and the national park planning committee that the impact on the environment of such an installation will be acceptable.
    Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman does not care.
    Mr. Bennett: One of the important issues that must be taken into account is the view that people have about St. David's. St. David is the patron saint of Wales. The cathedral, which goes back to the 7th century AD, is seen as a monument of national heritage, a sacred place to which the patron saint has drawn pilgrimages for well over 1,000 years. People feel strongly about such an installation being put in place on that part of the pilgrims' route, close to the cathedral.
    Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is in favour of it.
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman keeps shouting and interrupting. I have made it clear to my constituents that I shall not come to a decision on the application until all the evidence is in. However, I believe that my constituents have every right to put their views, whether I agree with them or not. I am neutral until I have seen all the evidence. They have the right to have their views recorded in the House. My hon. Friend the Minister of State must be quite clear—he already is, but the message must be reinforced—about what their views are. These views must be put on the record. I am appalled that an official spokesman of the
    968
    Labour party should attempt to disrupt a Back-Bench Member's right to put forward his constituency views. It is an absolute disgrace.
    I now come to the planning issues. First, my hon. Friend the Minister made it clear in a public meeting at St. David's on 10 May that he would not use Crown immunity to override the decisions arrived at by the national park committee or the Secretary of State for Wales, if the committee went to appeal. If the national park comes out against the application, will the Ministry of Defence consider appealing to the Secretary of State for Wales? If it does, will the Secretary of State for Wales make his decision on the planning appeal on the grounds purely of environmental and planning issues, or will he be required to take into account national defence issues and any other applications made by the Ministry of Defence?
    My constituents want the answer to that question. Perhaps because it is a matter affecting the Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement cannot give that answer. I therefore ask that he should write to me with it if he cannot give it tonight.
    My constituents feel strongly about the issue and are concerned that it is not enough just to say that there will be Crown immunity; they are also concerned that the Secretary of State for Wales may have to override the normal planning procedures and to give an answer based on defence considerations and not normal planning grounds.
    It is important further to consider whether there are alternatives on national defence grounds that could be examined in greater depth. I have on a number of occasions—
    Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Greg Knight: This is disgraceful.
    Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) says that this is disgraceful. It is hypocritical of him to say that, given that he recently sabotaged an Adjournment debate.
    The hon. Member for Pembroke—I think that he comes from Hampstead—said that a planning procedure had to be gone through. He is deliberately misleading the House—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for the Chair?
    Mr. Rogers: The point of order is that the hon. Gentleman is deliberately misleading the House. This is not, despite what the hon. Gentleman is saying, subject to the normal planning procedures.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must strongly deprecate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I expect him, from the Opposition Front Bench, to set an example and to assist the Chair. He is not doing so at the moment, and I greatly regret it.
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is speaking nonsense. This matter will be considered by the Pembrokeshire coast national park committee in September. The Ministry of Defence has set in train assessment procedures. The national park committee will make its decision on the basis of the planning applications before it. If the Ministry of Defence loses the planning application, it can appeal to the Secretary of State. It also

    969
    has the right to claim Crown immunity, but we have the guarantee given by my hon. Friend the Minister before 700 people in St. David's city hall on 10 May that he will not use Crown immunity.
    I cannot understand the nonsense being spoken by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). It is a pity that Labour Members have wandered in here, knowing nothing about the issue and obviously after a good meal, to interrupt a Back Bencher's speech. Their ignorant remarks show that they are trying to disrupt a Back Bencher's speech on an important constituency issue. I want to draw my remarks to a close because I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is waiting to reply and my constituents and I want to hear his comments.
    I shall finish by raising the issue of what is called the peace dividend. I have told my constituents that, first and foremost, it is important to consider the issue on national defence grounds, but it is right for my constituents to ask whether, in an era of glasnost and when tensions are lessening, we need this radar cover, whether it must be provided like this and whether there are other places where it can be provided. We are entitled to an answer to that.
    If the application fails, the Ministry should consider whether it needs to retain the site. It owns about 560,000 acres of land on 3,000 sites. This site has remained empty since the second world war. It is used now and again as an emergency landing strip for RAF Brawdy. I have the gravest reservations and concerns about the application, but I shall not make a final decision until the evidence is before us from the environment assessment study. We should then ask that the Ministry of Defence gives up the site so that it can be returned to farming and be used for the benefit of the local community. It will then not remain sterile, as it has been for the past 45 years.
    I regret that this important subject for my constituents has been interrupted by boorish and ill-mannered interventions from the Opposition. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's reply to this important debate.
    10.54 pm
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): I listened with great attention to the lucid explanation of the case by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). I also listened with attention to the periodic interruptions from Opposition Members. We naturally welcome their presence in an Adjournment debate. They would give added flavour and quality to the debate if they conducted themselves properly. They seemed to be criticising my hon. Friend on the rather dodgy ground that he lived in Hampstead. However, that locality is a hot bed of socialist-inclined, chattering classes and I should have thought that the less said about that, the better. That is also the case with the domiciles of the leader and deputy leader of the Labour party. I am not sure of their addresses, but we know that the places where they eat, whether they are eating five-course meals or take-away curries, are not located in their constituencies.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To show the level of information of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), I must tell the House that, although I was born in Hampstead, I have not lived there for 36 years. His information on that is as out of date as his information on everything else.
    Mr. Clark: Labour Members tend to be Hampstead-obsessed at present.
    Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member for Pembroke ( Mr. Bennett) does not live in his constituency.
    Mr. Bennett: Yes, I do.
    Mr. Rogers: Rubbish.
    Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Rhondda to call me a liar? What he said is untrue. I live in Llanddewi Velfrey in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman has said a direct lie and I ask him to withdraw it.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are getting too many points of order. If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) used an unparliamentary word, I am sure that he would wish to withdraw it.
    Mr. Rogers: I said "Rubbish". I withdraw that.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Clark: That is very gracious of the hon. Gentleman.
    I want to place on record in this place the undertakings that I have already given—to which my hon. Friend drew attention and which I readily confirm—during my visit to St. David's on 10 May. The first concerns the public health implications of the proposed installation. Contrary to several alarmist reports that have circulated in the press and elsewhere, we believe that there will be no hazard to members of the public outside the boundaries of the site from the electromagnetic radiation that it would emit. We are, however, well aware of the widespread public concern on the issue and we have ensured that the health aspects will receive especially close attention in the environmental impact assessment.
    The Robens institute at Surrey university, a well-known and impartial authority on the subject, has been retained specifically to carry out the necessary studies. If, contrary to our expectations, the assessment revealed that there might be a hazard to public health from the proposed installation at St. David's, we should not proceed.
    My second undertaking concerns the planning process. As I have made clear to my hon. Friend, the Ministry is committed to following the normal planning procedures on this issue. There is no precedent for my Ministry to plead Crown immunity if planning authorities object to our proposals once we have embarked on the planning process and I have no intention that we should set such a precedent in this case. I am glad to put both those assurances on record in this place, although, as my hon. Friend has said, I made them at a public meeting in his constituency.
    I have had much correspondence on this subject, not only with my hon. Friend, but with others. I have today considered 140 questions in the House from him and from other hon. Members. However, I want to set out the background to the Ministry's proposals. They start with the continuing requirement, which is endorsed widely by all parties, to maintain the air and sea defences of this country. Of all our defence commitments, the direct defence of these islands is the last capability that we should seek to run down. In maintaining that capability, we need in particular to keep up, and if possible improve, our ability to provide early warning of any military activity in the large expanse of the Norwegian sea to the north of the United Kingdom. At present, our main means of

    971
    providing such cover is by airborne early warning, supplemented by ship-borne and shore-based microwave radar, although those are of comparatively short range.
    Even when our present AEW aircraft are replaced by the new fleet of Boeing Sentry aircraft, it will be time consuming and expensive to use them to give full coverage to the air defence regions of the north. In some circumstances, that could actually be regarded as provocative. Such circumstances do not attach to a purely static radar system on one's own territory.
    For some time, the principle of over-the-horizon radar has offered in theory a solution to the problem of maintaining wide-area, long-range cover of the region. The idea of over-the-horizon radar is simple: radio waves of the right frequency can be made to refract from the ionosphere, which is the layer of atmosphere 200 miles up, to points well beyond the visible horizon. Those that bounce back off a target are refracted back to a receiver, which can detect position, course and speed.
    For some time, we have been engaged in joint studies with the United States, aimed at determining whether the system could look northward from the United Kingdom. The Americans have already installed working systems in Virginia and Alaska, but looking southward.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: We are all familiar with the stories abut the Woodpecker system from Russia; we have heard about it for many years. But with even a modest knowledge of geography, one is puzzled about why the system should be situated in Pembrokeshire rather than on the east coast. What sites were considered and what alternative sites did the Ministry have in mind?
    Mr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had not consumed so much time in somewhat ill-mannered protests, I might have been able to deal with those details in my speech. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the
    972
    whole question of the location of the site has been very carefully considered; it is a function of range and of the area that has to be covered. One does not start getting an image until one has a gap of approximately 400 to 500 miles between the transmitter and the area that one is intending to cover. That is why the system must be situated on a particular latitude. The problem is that the further north one goes, the less reliable the ionosphere becomes, and auroral noise effects could be significant.
    Studies alone could not show whether the system would work in British latitudes. Only a full-scale trial can demonstrate that one way or another. We have therefore reached an agreement in principle, following on from our joint studies, that the United States will provide a fully working system for trial in this country.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Clark: No. I am afraid that I cannot give way. We have very little time and I have already given way to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
    We shall find and prepare sites for the transmitter and receiver facilities and the running costs of the trial and all the information coming out of it will be shared. We also agree in principle that, if the trial is successful, we will then consider whether to retain the system as an operational facility. I emphasise the words "in principle". The agreement was subject to appropriate national approvals being granted in our case, and that includes not only the necessary finance but the necessary planning permissions. The proviso was written into the memorandum of understanding between our two Governments signed on 20 April, a copy of which I have placed in the Library.
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Romania
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to aid to Romania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It remains our policy that long-term economic aid, but not humanitarian aid, to Romania is conditional on a genuine commitment to democracy and economic freedom in Romania. The conditions for aid to be released have not yet been met.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Zimbabwean authorities regarding the recent murder in Harare of Mr. Brian Angel, a United Kingdom citizen.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have expressed our concern about Mr. Angel's death to the Zimbabwe Government both in Zimbabwe and, most recently, in London on 22 June 1990 when the permament secretary of the Zimbabwe Ministry of Foreign Affairs called on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We have called for a full investigation and understand that this is under way. We expect to be informed of the outcome.

  South Africa
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the South African Government on their responsibility for Namibian debt.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The pre-independence debt question is a matter for resolution between the Governments of Namibia and South Africa and discussions have already begun. Both Governments are aware of our hope that early solutions satisfactory to both sides will be found to this and other aspects of their future economic relations.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the content of the 28 April letter to him from the Soviet Foreign Minister; what was his response; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Mr. Shevardnadze's letter proposed a ban on all nuclear weapons from Baltic waters, airspace and the sea bed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' reply made clear that, while we agreed on the importance of maintaining stability in northern Europe, we did not believe that a nuclear-free Baltic would contribute to the security of that region.

  Rights of the Child
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has yet set a timetable for the verification of the UN convention on the rights of the child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 9 May column 176.

  Namibia
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what timetable he has been given by the South African Government for their withdrawal from and control of Walvis bay in Namibia in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 432.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The future of Walvis bay is a matter for negotiation between the Governments of Namibia and South Africa. We hope that an early solution satisfactory to both sides can be found.

  Angola
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent talks in Portugal between the two sides in the Angolan civil war.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We welcome the Portuguese initiative in bringing the MPLA Government of Angola and UNITA together for talks. We are encouraged by the signs that some progress has been made towards resolving differences. We urge the two sides to continue to work for an early ceasefire and a lasting political settlement.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Maude
  The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 16 and 17 July. Ministers will discuss how to carry forward work on institutional reform on the basis of the agenda approved by the Dublin European Council. Ministers will also have a short discussion of economic and monetary union and possibly of presidency plans for the social action plan. They will hold an orientation debate on development co-operation. Ministers will discuss assistance to central and eastern Europe against the background of political and economic reform, and will review Community relations with Romania. The Council will further discuss the Commission's proposals on developing the Community's relations with Yugoslavia. It may also again discuss proposals for strengthening EC relations with the Mediterranean countries in general. Discussion is also expected on EC aid to Chile and Colombia, Namibia's application for accession to the Lomé convention and the Communities' position on the forthcoming Paris conference on least-developed countries. The Council will discuss the GATT Uruguay round and will look forward to the Trade Negotiation Committee in Geneva the following week. It is possible that Ministers will discuss EC/EFTA relations, and will
  483
  consider whether or not to call a Youth Council later in the year. The Council will discuss preparations for a meeting of the EC/Malta Association Council which will take place in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council. It is expected that the Maltese Foreign Minister will present Malta's application for EC membership.

  The Internal Market Council will meet on 17 July. We expect discussion of a number of measures relevant to the completion of the single market. The "utilities directive" liberalising public procurement in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors is close to adoption, but may not be ready for adoption at the Council. The last IMC of the Irish presidency completed consideration of a number of outstanding items: hence the current agenda is thinner than usual.

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 23 July. On 8 May 1990, the Commission published its technical proposals for VAT, mutual assistance and intra-trade statistics based on the agreements reached at ECOFIN at the end of 1989. The Council will have an initial discussion of these proposals. There will be a discussion of the state of preparations for the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 23 and 24 July and may discuss the welfare of pigs and calves, reform of the dried grape regime, non-food uses of agricultural products, aromatised wines, organic production, pathogens in feedingstuffs and poultry and hatching eggs.

  The Budget Council will meet on 26 or 27 July to consider the 1991 preliminary draft budget submitted by the Commission.

ENERGY

  National Power
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is able to make an announcement about the chairmanship of National Power.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I am delighted to announce the appointment of Sir Trevor Holdsworth as chairman of National Power. Sir Trevor retired as chairman of GKN plc in 1988 and was president of the CBI from 1988 to 1990. He is chairman of British Satellite Broadcasting and Allied Colloids Group plc and deputy chairman of Prudential Assurance plc.

  Nuclear Electric
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what month he expects Nuclear Electric plc to publish its annual accounts.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 2 July,Official Report, column 432.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether he will review the appointment of Kleinwort Benson as his merchant banking advisers on the privatisation of the electricity supply industry of England and Wales;
  484
  (2) what action he proposes to take to extend the range of merchant banking advice he has available to him on the privatisation of the electricity industry of England and Wales.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am entirely satisfied with the role Kleinwort Benson is performing as merchant banking advisers on the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he expects to ask the chairman of Nuclear Electric to carry out a further review of the progress on the Sizewell B nuclear power station in 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  Nuclear Electric will continue to review regularly progress at Sizewell B.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the need for new electricity generating capacity requiring to be completed in England and Wales in the 1990–1998 period(a) assuming the completion of Sizewell B nuclear power station and (b) assuming that it is not completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The need for new capacity by 1998 is uncertain and will depend upon a number of factors including the future demand for electricity and commercial judgments on the economic life of existing plant. These are matters for the industry.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will exempt public electricity suppliers from paying the non-fossil fuel levy in respect of all the costs of Sizewell B nuclear power station incurred after his letter to the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) of 26 June.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates were made of the level of the non-fossil fuel levy in 1994, 1995 and 1996 in the event of the cancellation of Sizewell B nuclear power station.

  Mr. Baldry
  The effect on the fossil fuel levy of the cancellation of Sizewell B would depend on the closure dates and performance of Nuclear Electric's other stations.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what independent financial advice he took on the comparison between the economics of combined cycle gas turbine stations and the completion of Sizewell B described in his letter of 26 June to the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark).

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department undertook the analysis using the best available information.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what comparisons he has made of the costs and benefits of expenditure on(a) Sizewell B nuclear power station and (b) research and development on the UKAEA safe integral reactor and other advanced nuclear power station designs;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on the environment of expenditure of £990 million on (a) Sizewell B nuclear power station and (b) energy efficiency and conservation.
  485
  Mr. Baldry
  The assessment of the case for continuing with the construction of Sizewell B concentrated on economic grounds, although it also took into account environmental and other considerations. We perceive a need for new generating capacity in the mid-1990s, taking into account the potential for greater energy efficiency. The case for completing Sizewell B must therefore be assessed against the economics of alternative forms of generation, available for immediate construction. It is not likely that an alternative design of nuclear plant could be brought into operation within the time scale required.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to carry out a further review of the economics of the Sizewell B nuclear power station when it is(a) 50 per cent. complete and (b) 66 per cent. complete.

  Mr. Baldry
  We will continue to monitor closely the costs of Sizewell B through six-monthly progress reports which Nuclear Electric will continue to provide to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Any further economic analysis of Sizewell B will be carried out as necessary.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Brixton Prison
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prison officers in Brixton prison and (b) prisoners committed suicide in Brixton prison last year.

  Mr. Mellor
  Three prison officers employed at Brixton prison committed suicide in 1989. Eight inmates died by their own hand in the same year. At the coroners' inquests verdicts of suicide were returned in two cases; other verdicts were returned in the remaining cases.

  Race Relations
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to make a decision about the application from Staffordshire county council for section 11 funding for bilingual assistant posts.

  Mr. John Patten
  The application was received on 28 March and is currently under consideration. A decision will be taken as soon as possible.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) political asylum and (b) variation of leave to remain in the United Kingdom have been received in each quarter since 1 January 1988; how many have been (i) granted, (ii) refused and (iii) await decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: The available information is given in the tables.
  486

  Table A: Applications for refugee status, or variation of leave to remain in the United Kingdom, made during the period 1 January 1988 to 31 March 1990, by quarter.

  Applications for refugee status

  Applications for variation of leave2

  1988

  Quarter 1

  1,327

  77,200

  Quarter 2

  1,197

  73,700

  Quarter 3

  1,361

  74,500

  Quarter 4

  1,378

  71,000

  1989

  Quarter 1

  12,275

  64,800

  Quarter 2

  15,645

  59,900

  Quarter 3

  13,025

  70,200

  Quarter 4

  13,380

  72,900

  1990

  Quarter 1

  12,450

  72,100

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Includes referred entry clearance applications, and enquiries submitted by letter, as well as variation of leave cases. Includes both general and Eastern European immigration casework.

  Table B: Decisions made during the period 1 January 1988 to 31 March 1990 on applications for refugee status, or for variation of leave

  Refugee cases

  Variation of leave cases

  Grants

  112,475

  2 3 4420,545

  Refusals

  1,615

  3 430,005

  Cases outstanding as at 31 March 1990

  516,272

  5 627,968

  1 Grants of refugee status or of exceptional leave.

  2 Grants of extensions or of settlement.

  3 Includes both general and Eastern immigration casework

  4 Does not include decisions on referred entry clearance applicationa, or enquiries submitted by letter.

  5 This figure is a total of all work outstanding in the Refugee Unit.

  6 Includes referred entry clearance applications as well as variation of leave cases. The figure comprises 26,359 general immigration cases and 1,609 Eastern Europe.

  Multi-faith Education
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been spent by the Commission for Racial Equality in the last five years in promoting multi-faith education.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: The quantifiable cost of this work over the last five years is £12,850, being the net cost of three publications designed to convey factual information about different religions.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Higher Education
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the numbers due to enter higher education in October 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  Our latest projection indicates that, at over 208,000 the number of home students entering full-time higher education this autumn will be more than 4 per cent. above last year's record level.

  Further Education, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list the capital allocations for further education for the Isle of Wight for the last two years; and if he will tabulate the projects to which the sums apply;

  (2) if he will list the allocations for the Isle of Wight college of art and technology for (a) a residential block, (b) a short-course teaching block, (c) minor works and (d) equipment.

  Mr. Jackson
  Annual capital guidelines to the Isle of Wight authority for the college of art and technology for 1990–91 were as follows:

  £

  a. Residential Block

  200,000

  b. Teaching Block

  155,000

  c. Minor Works

  20,000

  d. Equipment

  22,000

  For 1988–89, a total of £40,000 was allocated for further education equipment. There were no capital allocations for further education in 1989–90.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research is being undertaken at his instigation by the Medical Research Council to establish any possible connections between Alzheimer's disease and human spongiform encephalopathies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Under the terms of its royal charter, it is for the council itself to decide what research to undertake. The council is not currently undertaking research into a possible connection between Alzheimer's disease and human spongiform encephalopathies. Until now there has been no scientific evidence to suggest that there is any possible link between these two diseases which show separate and distinct neuropathologies. The council is always willing to consider soundly based proposals for research.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the reply to the letter of 21 June from the head teacher at Beaufort Street county primary, junior mixed and infants school, Liverpool.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The following is the text of the Department's reply:

  Dear Mrs. Redmond

  Thank you for your letter of 21 June 1990 to the Secretary of State.

  You have in your letter raised some very important issues. I understand that after nineteen years at Beaufort County Primary School you will be retiring with mixed feelings.

  The Secretary of State wrote recently to all head teachers stressing his appreciation for the hard work teachers are undertaking in our schools. He has made clear on many other occasions that the teaching profession deserves gratitude, recognition and respect for its professionalism and the commitment shown to pupils. Ministers value that commitment very highly indeed.

  I hardly need to tell you that teaching remains a very attractive career for many people. You may know that about
  488
  25,000 people enter or re-enter the profession each year. Despite what we are sometimes led to believe, wastage is generally low. The latest data indicate that less than 1% of teachers leave for other paid employment.

  The Government's proposals for local authority current spending in 1990/91 allow for almost £15 billion to be spent on education. That is 9.6percnt; higher than the comparable total for this year. Within the £15 billion total, specific grants of over £180 million will be available under the Education Support Grants programme and the LEA Training Grant Scheme to help implement the education reforms. Given effective management, the total should be sufficient to allow good progress to be made in getting the reforms into place. It allows for LEAs and schools to give more priority to spending on key areas of books and equipment, repairs and maintenance compared with the levels of spending assumed for this year.

  The vast majority of teachers support the aims of the National Curriculum, which is founded on current best practice. Its introduction together with other education reforms does place extra demands on teachers, and the Government has responded to pleas that further reforms might overstrain teachers' goodwill and commitment. The intention is to ensure that the reforms are implemented at a reasonable pace, while retaining the momentum already gained.

  You express particular concern about children with special educational needs (SEN) in relation to the National Curriculum. The Government believes that all children, including those with SEN should follow the National Curriculum to the maximum extent possible. The levels of attainment within the National Curriculum are being flexibly designed so that almost all pupils, including those with special educational needs, will be able to show what they have achieved and, more importantly, what progress they have made over time. Up until now too many pupils have had limited educational opportunities, and that includes children with SEN. Their curricula have often lacked breadth and balance and they have not been challenged into achieving their full potential. The Government firmly believes that the National Curriculum will lever up standards in education and benefit children including those with special educational needs.

  Maintained schools are under a duty to offer the National Curriculum to all their pupils unless exceptions are made in accordance with the relevant Sections of the Education Reform Act (ERA). Some children with SEN, such as those referred to at the end of your letter, may have a statement of their special educational needs drawn up in accordance with the Education Act 1981. That Act rejects the concept of labelling pupils and concentrates instead on identifying individual pupils' needs and ensuring that those needs are met. In future each statement will be able to specify how the National Curriculum is to apply to the individual pupil. A statement can modify or disapply the National Curriculum requirements, and where appropriate offer an individual programme of study. However, where exceptions are made, maintained schools are still under duty to ensure that the curricula they offer pupils are balanced and broadly based, in accordance with the requirements of Section 1 of the ERA.

  The quality of your own commitment to teaching and the development of your pupils is very clear from your letter. We too are dedicated to the well being of education and to giving the best support we can to teachers. Important changes are taking place, particularly with the introduction of the National Curriculum and Local Management of Schools, and I would ask you to have faith that those who will be working in and on behalf of education after you have retired will carry forward the best values and build upon the best practices of teachers in your generation.

  Yours sincerely

  G. A. HOLLEY

  Schools 2 Branch

  City Technology Colleges
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) in respect of each city technology college, what amount of annual per capita
  489
  grant he has agreed to pay for the financial year beginning in September; what unit of cost per pupil has been used in calculating the amount of annual per capita grant; how this cost has been determined; and what enhancement of annual per capita grant has been allowed under the terms of paragraph 11 of the model funding agreement;

  (2) in respect of each city technology college, what amount of earmarked annual grant he has agreed to pay in the financial year beginning in September; and for what purpose each element of earmarked annual grant has been approved.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The level of recurrent expenditure for city technology colleges for the academic year beginning this September has not yet been agreed.

  Birmingham City Action Team
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what actions he has undertaken in the past six months in support of the Birmingham city action team and the east Birmingham task force.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As a member of a team of Ministers with responsibility for oversight of city action teams and inner-city task forces in various parts of England, I became sponsor Minister for the Birmingham city action team and the east Birmingham task force late last year. I have sought to encourage co-operation between business, local authorities, the voluntary sector and local people. In this capacity, since the beginning of this year I have visited Birmingham seven times, meeting a variety of local groups and visiting local projects.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  India
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether United Kingdom Government aid will be given to support any development of the Rihard II power generation project in northern India.

  Mrs. Chalker
  At the request of the Government of India, the Department of Trade and Industry has nominated a main contractor for the second stage of the power station. An offer of aid has been made subject to appraisal of the project.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Company Reports
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reports other than reports prepared under the Companies Acts may be required under clause 78(2) of the Finance Bill 1990.

  Mr. Lilley
  The proposed tax return for companies under pay and file, which has been developed in consultation with bodies representing businesses and the legal and accountancy professions, requires companies to provide a copy of their full accounts prepared under the Companies Act, which will include the directors' and auditor's reports, with the return. Insurance companies will also be required to provide a copy of the report made to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under part II of the Insurance Companies Act 1982.

  House Purchase
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend the provisions of subsection (6) of section 354 of the Taxes Act 1988 in order to provide that interest eligible for relief on bridging finance for house purchases is extended beyond the initial 12-month period of relief as of right and not discretion.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: None. I am not aware of any need for a change in the present rules.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: No document falls due for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with their duties under the Act, Departments are obliged to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which Departments may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: My right hon. Friend's Departments comply with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with PRO inspecting officers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what systems he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: The Treasury does not record each document generated. Papers are collected on to files which are given specific titles. These files are then registered on to a records management computer system. These practices are in accordance with the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967. Each file bears the classification of the highest classified document enclosed in each file.

  Pensions
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the effects of the level of inflation on pensions.
  491
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have maintained their commitment to increase the state retirement pension fully in line with prices, as measured by the retail prices index.

WALES

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest figure for the number of national health service hospitals in Wales seeking self-governing trust status.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department has so far received no applications for self-governing status, but has received one formal expression of interest from Pembrokeshire health authority.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to establish the headquarters of the Countryside Council for Wales in Aberystwyth, Ceredigion; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have decided that the headquarters of the Countryside Council for Wales will be at Plas Penrhos, Ffordd Penrhos, Bangor, which is currently the Nature Conservancy Council's headquarters for Wales. The present buildings can accommodate most of the new headquarters staff although some additional accommodation may be needed later. It will probably be necessary to relocate the north Wales regional office of the Nature Conservancy Council which at present shares the headquarters buildings; the precise location will depend on the availability of suitable alternative accommodation but it is envisaged that it will be in, or within daily travelling distance of Bangor.

  We have received representations for the headquarters to be situated at a number of other locations in Wales which we have considered very carefully. However, on balance we have chosen Bangor mainly because suitable accommodation requiring the minimum of adaptation is immediately available and it will reduce staff inconvenience and relocation costs to a minimum.

  Crown Buildings, Cathays Park
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the Export Credits Guarantee Department insurance services group to vacate the New Crown building, Cathays park, Cardiff.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I expect the new company which is to be formed from the insurance services group of ECGD to move from the New Crown building, Cathays park as soon as alternative accommodation can be found; this is not expected to be for some time after incorporation of the company as a new building is likely to be necessary.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the energy efficiency of the Crown buildings, Cathays park.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A consulting engineer was commissioned by the Property Services Agency to produce an energy survey report on the Crown buildings in Cathays 492
  park. My Department and Property Holdings—Department of the Environment—are now considering the consultant's recommendations.

  Quarrying
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will call in the application by Pioneer Aggregates to extend Aberduna quarry, Maeshafn, Llanferres, Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No. On present information, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales sees no reason why an application of this nature, which does not appear to raise planning issues of more than local importance, should not be decided by Clwyd county council.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now pursue an appeal against the quashing of an enforcement notice relating to the activities of Messrs. F. G. Whitley and Co. in respect of the quarry Moel Findeg, Maeshafn, Llanferres, Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No. The notice was quashed by my right hon. Friend in accordance with the ruling given by the High Court and he has no present jurisdiction in the matter. He understands however that Clwyd county council is pursuing the case to the Court of Appeal.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest figure for the number of confirmed cases of BSE in(a) the east midlands and (b) Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following is the information:

  County

  Confirmed cases

  Warwickshire

  159

  Northamptonshire

  115

  Nottinghamshire

  83

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of holdings which have had at least one case of BSE in the last two years, by county, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information for Great Britain for the two years from 30 June 1988 to 29 June 1990 is as follows:

  County

  Holdings

  Bedfordshire

  15

  Cambridge

  22

  Essex

  32

  Hertfordshire

  40

  Lincolnshire

  58

  Norfolk

  96

  Northamptonshire

  64

  Suffolk

  66

  Cheshire

  208

  Derbyshire

  119

  Hertfordshire and Worcestershire

  161

  Lancashire

  191

  Leicestershire

  156

  493

  County

  Holdings

  Manchester

  8

  Merseyside

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  48

  Shropshire

  199

  Staffordshire

  164

  West Midlands

  11

  Avon

  150

  Cornwall

  569

  Devon

  849

  Dorset

  482

  Gloucestershire

  207

  Somerset

  578

  Wiltshire

  394

  Clwyd

  103

  Dyfed

  362

  Glamorgan Mid

  16

  Glamorgan South

  18

  Glamorgan West

  5

  Gwent

  72

  Warwick

  85

  Cleveland

  11

  Cumbria

  194

  Durham

  43

  Humberside

  46

  Northumberland

  32

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  Yorkshire North

  327

  Yorkshire South

  30

  Yorkshire West

  43

  Berkshire

  43

  Buckinghamshire

  54

  Hampshire

  217

  Isle of Wight

  33

  Kent

  110

  London

  4

  Oxon

  104

  Surrey

  69

  Sussex East

  96

  Sussex West

  145

  Borders

  11

  Central

  17

  Dumfries

  69

  Fife

  19

  Grampian

  82

  Highland

  20

  Lothian

  10

  Orkney

  7

  Shetland

  1

  Strathclyde

  112

  Tayside

  25

  Gwynedd

  38

  Powys

  116

  Silver Foxes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many silver fox farms there are in the United Kingdom; and whether there is a feral population of silver foxes.

  Mr. Maclean
  Farmers do not need licences to keep silver foxes and we do not collect this information. There is no evidence of feral silver foxes in the United Kingdom.

  Agricultural Dwellings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what action he takes to ensure the independence of his Department's assessment of the financial viability of proposals for agricultural workers' dwellings; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action he takes to ensure that his Department's independent advice to local authorities on proposals for
  494
  agricultural dwellings is not compromised by the commercial advice given by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Local authorities receive advice on the rehousing of agricultural workers from agricultural dwellings house advisory committees—ADHACs. These consist of an independent chairman and one representative each of employers and employees. These representatives must be unconnected with the case. The role of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service is confined to the provision to ADHACs of a factual account of the agricultural enterprise in question. ADHACs are entitled to seek alternative sources of information on this point if they so wish.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Marchioness
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) if he will bring charges under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, section 30, in connection with the collision between the Bowbelle and the Marchioness on 20 August 1989;

  (2) if he will bring manslaughter charges against any of the parties involved in the collision between the Bowbelle and the Marchioness on 20 August 1989;

  (3) if he will bring charges under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, section 31, in connection with the collision between the Bowbelle and the Marchioness on 20 August 1989.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions announced on 26 April 1990 that the master of the Bowbelle was to be prosecuted for an offence contrary to section 27 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 as substituted by section 32 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The charge alleges that he failed properly to discharge a duty, namely to ensure that a proper lookout was kept by all available means, to such an extent as to be likely to cause the loss or destruction of, or serious damage to, another ship or the death of, or serious injury to, another person.

  Those proceedings are now pending at Bow Street magistrates court. The Director of Public Prosecutions does not envisage any further charges.

PRIME MINISTER

  National Health Service
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the progress of preparations on the Government's proposed changes in the financing of the national health service.

  The Prime Minister
  Royal Assent for the National Health Service and Community Care Act was received on 29 June. Preparations for implementation of the new financial arrangements are proceeding well.

  Bootle
  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to visit Bootle.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  European Community Summit
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the recent European Community summit of Heads of Government held at the conclusion of the Irish presidency; and if she will list the principal conclusions.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made to the House on 28 June.

  USSR (Financial Aid)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has recently held discussions with Chancellor Kohl and other European Community Government leaders concerning the subject of the provision of financial aid to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Aid to the Soviet Union was discussed at the Dublin European Council. I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 28 June.

  Metrocentre, Gateshead
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next proposes to make a visit to the Metrocentre at Gateshead, Tyne and Wear.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Retirement Pensions
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent decision by the House of Lords in the case of James v. Eastleigh borough council, she will introduce amending legislation to provide equal age eligibility between men and women for the state retirement pension.

  The Prime Minister
  The James case was concerned with concessions to people by reference to their age. It has no effect on the law on social security and, therefore, there is no need to amend that law in the light of this judgment.

  Film Studio, Rainham
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage proposals by MCA to build a film studio complex in Rainham, Essex.

  The Prime Minister
  I have met Mr. Lew Wasserman, chairman of MCA Inc. A number of Government Departments and agencies have had discussions with the company about its proposals.

  IRA
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Prime Minister whether any representations were made to Her Majesty's Government by the Government of Australia about Irish terrorism following the murder of two Australian tourists by the IRA operating in Holland.

  The Prime Minister
  No such representations have been made.

  Engagements
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Chief Anyaoku, the new Secretary General of the Commonwealth. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Chinese ambassador. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

  Environment and Health
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by the Government to implement the European charter on environment and health; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The European charter on environment and health consists in the main of a broad statement of principles and priorities for the protection of the environment and health. Government policy is already fully consistent with these principles and we are active in all the priority areas listed in the charter. We will be publishing a full statement of our policies for the environment in a White Paper later this year. As to the specific proposals in the charter for further international action, my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, indicated at the Frankfurt conference that the United Kingdom stood ready to discuss these through existing international machinery. A copy of his speech is in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground (Bridges)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bridges which traverse the London underground network have failed the BD21/84 guidelines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand from London Underground Ltd. that, as of 26 June 1990, 59 structures carrying highways over its network have failed the criteria of BD21/84.

  In all these cases it has notified the highway authorities concerned so that necessary measures can be taken to maintain traffic and safeguard the public.

  Strengthening work is in hand on six structures and temporary measures are either in force or being investigated for the rest.

  Cycle Lanes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his most up-to-date estimate of the additional cost to public funds of incorporating a cycle lane on the second Severn bridge.

  Mr. Atkins
  The most recent estimate, provided in 1988, put the cost of incorporating a cycle lane in the second Severn bridge at almost £10 million.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding cycle lanes on the second Severn crossing.
  497
  Mr. Atkins
  Representations have been received from cycling organisations, including Cyclebag and the Cyclists Touring Club, requesting that the second Severn crossing include provision for cyclists.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will incorporate a cycle lane in the second Severn road bridge.

  Mr. Atkins
  No, it is not the intention that a cycle lane should be incorporated in the second Severn road bridge.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the decision to omit a cycle lane from the design of the second Severn bridge was made.

  Mr. Atkins
  When tenders were invited in spring 1989 for the design and construction of a second Severn crossing, my Department suggested to tenderers that they should consider incorporating cycling facilities, although it was not a firm requirement that such facilities should be provided. None of the tenderers put forward proposals for a cycle lane on the new crossing.

  Newbury Bypass
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he anticipates he will be in a position to announce jointly with the Secretary of State for the Environment the decision on the route to be adopted for the Newbury bypass on the A34.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment hope to be able to make an announcement soon following the public inquiry into the A34 Newbury bypass.

  Railway Services
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with British Rail about improvements to existing rail links from the south coast to the north and Scotland.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. This is a commercial matter for British Rail.

  East Usk Sidings
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to respond to the petition by residents of Newport, Gwent, against British Rail's operations at East Usk sidings, presented by the hon. Member for Newport, East on 18 June.

  Mr. Freeman
  The matters raised in the petition are for British Rail and the local authority to resolve. I understand that BR has had discussions with local residents and Newport borough council and plans to take remedial measures to alleviate the disturbance caused by its operations at East Usk sidings.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now make an ex-gratia payment to the families of the people who died when the MV Derbyshire sank.
  498
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have no plans to make an ex-gratia payment to the dependants of those who were lost in the MV Derbyshire tragedy.

  Private Aircraft
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total number of air hours flown in United Kingdom airspace for the last three years for which figures are available by(a) commercial and (b) private aircraft.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The figures are not available in precisely the form requested, but the most likely numbers are given in the table.

  The commercial aircraft figures relate to aircraft of more than 2,300 kg mass. The private aircraft figures are for United Kingdom-registered aircraft only, but for all flying including that flown outside United Kingdom airspace.

  Commercial

  Private

  1987

  606,000

  800,000

  1988

  655,000

  876,000

  1989

  706,000

  991,000

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many private pilots are currently registered in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Civil Aviation Authority has issued 55,135 private aeroplane licences and 2,203 private helicopter licences. However, the CAA has no knowledge of how many of these licence holders are currently exercising the privileges of the licences.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents for each of the last three years have involved aircraft flown by private pilots.

  Mr. Atkins
  Not all accident reports indicate the type of licence held by the pilot. A flight which is clearly a private flight may well be flown by the holder of a commercial licence and conversely many private aircraft are registered in the public transport category so that they can be flown on payment by, for example, other club private pilots. Taking these points into consideration, the safety data analysis unit of the CAA believes that the following table represents the accidents involving pilots with private or student licences.

  Accidents involving United Kingdom registered aircraft flown by pilots with private or student licences

  Fatal accidents

  Total accidents

  1987

  19

  137

  1988

  11

  165

  1989

  11

  203

  Accidents to foreign registered aircraft in United Kingdom airspace flown by private licence holders

  1987

  2

  3

  1988

  1

  2

  1989

  1

  1

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ban the transport of nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel on roll-on, roll-off passenger ferries; and if he will make a statement.
  499
  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: No. I am satisfied with the safety arrangements for such transport, which is permitted within the conditions prescribed in the international maritime dangerous goods code.

  Rail Industry (Injuries)
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway staff have been killed or suffered major injuries for the period 1979–83 and 1984–88; and what they represent as a proportion per 1,000 railway staff employed.

  Mr. Parkinson
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 May 1990, c. 294]: In the period 1984–88, 98 staff died and 979 suffered major injuries, totalling 1,077. The average number of staff employed during that period was 181,200. The proportion of deaths and major injuries to 1,000 employed was 5.94.

  In the period 1979–83, 153 railway staff died and 1,613 suffered major injuries, totalling 1,766. The average number of staff employed during that period was 228,200. The proportion of deaths and major injuries to 1,000 employed was 7.74.

  In the period 1974–78, 209 railway staff died and 3,023 suffered major injuries, totalling 3,232. The average number of staff employed during that period was 246,400. The proportion of deaths and major injuries to 1,000 employed was 13.1.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Physical Laboratory
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the establishment of the National Physical Laboratory as an executive agency.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am establishing the National Physical Laboratory—NPL—and an executive agency with effect from 3 July. The NPL is the eighth executive agency to be established within the DTI. Nearly 50 per cent. of the Department's staff are now working in agencies.

  Establishing the NPL as an executive agency will assist it to improve further the quality and cost effectiveness of its services. The primary measure of the NPL's performance will be its ability to satisfy its customers in terms of value for money and the quality of its work whilst fully covering its costs. I am also setting the NPL quality of service and efficiency targets as follows:
  to improve to 90 per cent. by 1994–95 the percentage of calibrations completed within six weeks;
  to complete at least 95 per cent. of contract research investigations on time over the period 1990–91 to 1994–95;
  to increase by at least 3 per cent. the number of research milestones achieved annually per scientist over the period 1990–91 to 1994–95;
  to reduce the cost of administrative support so that by 1994–95 it represents no more than 20 per cent. of NPL's full economic cost;
  to increase the proportion of staff time attributed to programme-related work by 5 per cent. over the period 1990–91 to 1994–95;
  to reduce the cost of NPL per member of project staff by 2 per cent. per annum over the period 1990–91 to 1994–95; and
  to secure a combination of output efficiency and cost reduction measures which, taken together, represent a
  500
  requirement on NPL to improve its overall efficiency by more than 2 per cent. a year over the period 1990–91 to 1994–95.

DEFENCE

  Parachute Training
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South on 9 May,Official Report, column 137, how many of the 97 cases of injury and death of parachute trainees at RAF Brize Norton in 1989 were related to ill health; how many had seen a medical officer prior to the incident; and of these, how many were certified unfit to continue with immediate training.

  Mr. Neubert
  There were no cases of injury or death at No. 1 parachute training school which were related to ill health. It is not known how many had seen a medical officer prior to the incident; medical records for those attending parachute training at RAF Brize Norton are returned to the trainees unit for regular soldiers and to general practitioners for territorials at the end of the course. If trainees were certified as unfit to continue immediate training they would not parachute again until cleared by the medical officer.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there was an outbreak of sickness and diarrhoea at the RAF Brize Norton parachute training camp during the first two weeks of August 1989.

  Mr. Neubert
  No. On a station the size of RAF Brize Norton, with upwards of 7,000 personnel, sickness and diarrhoea are endemic.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training is given to parachute instructors so that they will recognise concussion or other forms of illness which could impair the safety of parachute trainees; and what first aid training is given.

  Mr. Neubert
  All NCO parachute jumping instructors are required to obtain a first aid certificate during basic training as a physical training instructor; this includes recognition of some forms of concussion. There is no training given in the recognition of any forms of illness as the trainees have immediate access to fully qualified medical officers the moment they feel unwell. During all forms of parachute training there is a fully qualified medical attendant and ambulance available at all times. There is always an individual responsibility to report sick if the trainee considers he is unfit to continue training. Queen's regulations demand this for all services.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many parachute trainees at RAF Brize Norton reported to a medical officer and were categorised as requiring 48 hours or more withdrawal from the course in 1989.

  Mr. Neubert
  Fifty-seven.

  Army Personnel (Summer Camps)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps will be taken to ensure that the safety of Army personnel attending summer camps can be secured, in the
  501
  light of information provided by his Department to Messrs Deansway Catering of Worcester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Appropriate measures are taken to provide adequate security, in the light of the threat, to all personnel attending summer camps run by the Army. In the case of those units on which information was provided by Deansway Catering Company Ltd., steps have already been taken to alert the relevant districts and units on the need to be particularly vigilant.

  Oil Pollution, Aquila
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cause of the recent leak of oil from his Department's site at Aquila on to adjoining land; what steps have been taken to remove the pollution caused; on how many previous occasions similar incidents have occurred; what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Extensive investigations made by my Department have not revealed any recent leakage of oil from the MOD Aquila site. It appears that the source of the recent pollution was outside the MOD site and that oil was introduced into one of the drains which run underneath the site. Two minor incidents involving oil spillage have occurred on the Aquila site, in February 1988 and June 1989. In each case immediate action was taken to limit and repair any damage.

ENVIRONMENT

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the operation of the drinking water inspectorate; and if he will make a statement.

  Housebuilding Starts and Completions

  (Thousands)

  Starts

  Completions

  1988

  1989

  Per cent. change

  1988

  1989

  Per cent. change

  North

  10.3

  9.8

  -4

  8.6

  9.7

  +13

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  17.9

  15.9

  -11

  16.9

  14.4

  -15

  East Midlands

  21.7

  16.8

  -23

  19.9

  15.9

  -20

  East Anglia

  16.5

  11.4

  -31

  13.2

  13.7

  +3

  South East:

  London

  15.4

  13.7

  -11

  12.5

  12.9

  +4

  Rest of South East

  63.7

  41.9

  -34

  55.5

  47.9

  -14

  South West

  30.2

  19.2

  -36

  23.7

  21.0

  -11

  West Midlands

  19.1

  15.6

  -19

  17.6

  14.2

  -19

  North West

  18.7

  18.0

  -4

  18.5

  16.3

  -12

  England

  213.4

  162.3

  -24

  186.3

  166.0

  -11

  In 1988 private enterprise housebuilding was at its highest since 1973. Because of the need to raise interest rates to keep down inflation the fall during 1989 and early 1990 is not surprising. Interest rates will remain at current levels as long as is necessary to defeat inflation.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons currently in use which are greenhouse gases.
  502
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The drinking water inspectorate was established on 2 January 1990. Its principal tasks will be to check that the quality of public water supplies complies with legal requirements and that water companies are carrying out improvement programmes to which they are committed by undertakings under section 20 of the Water Act 1989. Before the end of the year, the inspectorate will make an inspection of each of the 39 water companies. It will publish a report upon its first year of operations, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Housing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the number of housing starts and completions in the Northern region in each quarter of 1988 and 1989 and the first quarter of the current year.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Latest available figures for the Northern region show 2,027 dwelling starts reported in the fourth quarter 1989, and 2,428 in the first quarter of 1990. Corresponding figures for dwellings completed were 2,837 and 1,996, respectively. The latest quarterly figures for 1988 up to the third quarter of 1989 appear in table 1.3 of "Housing and Construction Statistics, Part 1, No. 40", which is in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the number of housing starts and completions in each standard region in 1988 and 1989, together with the percentage change between 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The latest available figures for all housebuilding, private and public, are as follows:

  Mr. Trippier
  HCFC 22 is an important transitional substance to replace CFC 12. Its global warming potential (GWP) is about a fifth of CFC 12. Other new chemicals are being developed which are also greenhouse gases but with a fraction of the GWP of the CFCs they are to replace.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in respect of the use of HFC 134A as an alternative to chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Trippier
  HFC 134A is an environmentally acceptable alternative to CFC12—it has no ozone
  503
  depletion potential and its global warming potential is less than a sixth that of CFC12. The Government expect industry to use substitutes in a way which ensures minimum emission to atmosphere.

  Mink
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number and distribution of feral mink in Great Britain.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department maintains no records of numbers or distribution of feral mink.

  Pavements
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statutory requirements and regulations concerning the minimum and maximum heights of pavements local authorities are required to observe.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 29 June 1990]: The law on highways is a matter for the Department of Transport, but I understand that there are no such statutory requirements.

  Joint Committee for Nature Conservation
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether the proposed joint committee for nature conservation will assume responsibility for the peatland resource survey currently being undertaken by the Nature Conservancy Council;

  (2) whether the proposed joint committee for nature conservation will have a responsibility for establishing the criteria for identifying and safeguarding blanket and raised peatland bogs of national or international importance.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 29 June 1990]: The main duties and responsibilities of the joint committee were set out in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on 23 November 1989, Official Report, columns 16–17. The committee will be responsible for establishing guidelines to assist the county councils in designating sites of special scientific interest and sites of national or international importance for nature conservation. Proposals for the detailed programme of work to be undertaken or overseen by the committee are currently being drawn up in consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council and the other Government Departments involved.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans the Government have to reconsider their position on phase-out targets, for chemicals that destroy the ozone layer, before the forthcoming Montreal protocol renegotiations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement made in the House by the Secretary of State yesterday.

  Sewage Discharges
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his oral answer of 27 June,Official Report, columns 309–10, whether his undertaking that new outfalls will be designed to be fully treated includes schemes which are currently at the planning stage.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My officials wrote on 7 June to the National Rivers Authority to explain how the policy announced on 5 March by my right hon. Friend, at column 452, would be applied. A copy of this letter has been placed in the Library.

  This makes it clear that discharges to estuaries must receive secondary treatment where the dry weather flow exceeds 1,500 cu m a day. The outfall at Lavernock will therefore be designed to discharge sewage which has received secondary treatment.

  Crown Buildings, Cathays Park
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the requirement for modern air conditioning in the(a) Crown building and (b) New Crown building, Cathays park.

  Mr. Chope
  (a) The Crown building at Cathays park has no air conditioning except for one small computer room in the basement. There has been no assessment of the requirement for air conditioning in the remainder of this listed building.

  (b) The New Crown building was built with air conditioning throughout. Following an assessment of the additional requirements of modern information technology, the system is currently being enhanced.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the application of combined heat and power to the future energy requirements of the Crown buildings complex, Cathays park, Cardiff.

  Mr. Chope
  No assessment has been made of the application of combined heat and power to Cathays park. Such an assessment would normally be appropriate when the existing plant became due for renewal.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will fund further research into the use of Mundic in the construction industry.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Tyneside Enterprise Zone
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his replies given to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central on 7 June,Official Report, column 688, and 20 June, Official Report, column 566, what was the sum added to the revenue support grant for England 1990–91 in respect of business rates otherwise payable in (a) the Newcastle and (b) the Gateshead portions of the Tyneside enterprise zone.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 27 June 1990]: A total of £81 million was added to the revenue support grant for

  505
  England in 1990–91 as being broadly equivalent to the amount of rates that would have been paid in 1990–91 but for the exemption from rating of properties in enterprise zones. No part of this figure is specifically attributed to any individual enterprise zone. As all business rates are gathered into a central pool and then paid out to authorities on the basis of their relevant populations an authority containing an enterprise zone would not lose income as a result. Any difference between authorities in the amount which they need to spend to provide a standard level of service at average efficiency is measured in their standard spending assessments and is provided for in their RSG.

  Tourist Resorts
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider specific grants for capital projects to tourist resort local authorities.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 27 June 1990]: My Department has no plans to make such grants. I understand that the English tourist board is the agency through which taxpayers' money is made available for tourism in England.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the expected magnitude of the liquidated damages that the Property Services Agency will recover from the main contractor at the RAF St. Mawgan site in relation to the building of nine hardened aircraft shelters.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: The extent of liquidated damages, if any, cannot be assessed until the contract is complete.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which company is supplying the main door drive units at RAF St. Mawgan; and whether extensive prototype tests have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: The units were supplied by NEUERO Industrieanlage Technik of Melle, West Germany. Prototype tests were carried out several years ago before NEUERO units were used for similar projects at other RAF stations, where the units are operating satisfactorily.

  Consultancy

  Subject

  Outcome

  1980–81

  Beecom (NI) Ltd.

  Monitoring the implementation of productivity/bonus schemes

  Systems implemented

  1981–82

  Beecom (NI) Ltd.

  Monitoring the implementation of productivity/bonus schemes

  Systems implemented

  1982–83

  Beecom (NI) Ltd.

  Monitoring the implementation of productivity/bonus schemes

  Systems implemented

  1983–84

  Beecom (NI) Ltd.

  Monitoring the implementation of productivity/bonus schemes

  Systems implemented

  506
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the site welding diary at RAF St. Mawgan recognised by the Property Services Agency in its contract specification.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: There is no specific requirement for a "site welding diary" in the specification. The clerk of works' diaries recording the labour on site and areas of work in hand on each day are commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many representations he has received complaining about the quality of Property Services Agency overseeing of the steel-work element used in Government-funded contracts;

  (2) if he will place in the Library the detailed criteria used by the Property Services Agency when choosing specialist sub-contractors.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: It is the responsibility of a main contractor to deliver a project in accordance with the contract specification, including dealing with any problems relating to products incorporated in the design. No project in which Cimolai has been involved has included defective products when handed over to the PSA. Representations have been received about problems arising between Cimolai and its sub-contractors, but these have not related to the quality of PSA oversight. In considering the choice of sub-contractors (whether selected by the main contractor or nominated by the PSA) PSA has regard to a firm's expertise and experience in the field of work concerned and previous performance, and to its resources and financial stability.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the studies conducted inside his Department by management consultants over the last 10 years, naming the consultancy, the cost, the subject and the outcome in each instance.

  Mr. Cope
  With the exception of the cost, which consider would be a breach of commercial confidentiality, the information is as follows:
  507

  Consultancy

  Subject

  Outcome

  1984–85

  Beecom (NI) Ltd.

  Monitoring the implementation of productivity/bonus schemes

  Systems implemented

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  Development of an Equal Opportunities Monitoring System

  System developed

  1985–86

  Beecom (NI) Ltd.

  Monitoring the implementation of productivity/bonus schemes

  Systems implemented

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells (now Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte)

  Development of an improved Management Information System

  Introduction of an improved Management Information System

  Gilpin Black Associates

  Developing input/output measures for individual assignment teams

  Improved means of measuring performance

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  Development of an Equal Opportunities Monitoring System

  System developed

  1986–87

  Beecom (NI) Ltd.

  Monitoring the implementation of productivity/bonus schemes

  Systems implemented

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates (NI) Ltd.

  Castlenavan Quarry, (DOE owned). Advising the Department on accounting procedures appropriate to a quarrying operation

  Majority of recommendations accepted and implemented

  Design of Bookkeeping system for Government Accounts Branch

  System introduced

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells

  Financial Management Survey in two of the Education and Library Boards

  Recommendations translated into Action Plans for implementation

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  Development of an Equal Opportunities Monitoring System

  System Developed

  Purchasing Index (UK) Ltd.

  Assistance with establishment and developing Central Unit of Purchasing

  Unit established and operational

  Touche Ross

  Review of current Management Information Systems within the Standard Capital Grants Scheme

  Of the 16 recommendations made, three were rejected because they were already in place, eight referred to variations on current practice and the remaining five were implemented

  PA Management Consultants

  Report on shift and complementing study (Fresh Start)

  Report commissioned aid with Fresh Start. Proposals were ultimately rejected

  1987–88

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates

  Awareness and effectiveness of the Standard Capital Grants Scheme

  The report showed that the Capital Grants Scheme was not cost effective and did not provide good value for public money. It was decided to end the scheme as from 31 March 1988 and re-target resources more effectively

  Financial Management Survey in other three Education and Library Boards

  Recommendations translated into Action Plans for implementation

  Deloitte Haskins Sells

  Financial Management Survey in two of the Education and Library Boards

  Recommendations translated into Action Plans for implementation

  Diane Bailey Associates

  To provide training for Senior Management in the introduction of the new Staff Appraisal System

  Staff Appraisal System successfully implemented

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  Development of an Equal Opportunities Monitoring System

  System developed

  PA Management Consultants

  Development of Organisation Development Programme

  Implemented Organisation Development Programme

  Miss D. M. Phillips

  Legislative and functional review of the Department's Historic Monuments and Buildings Branch

  Recommendations partially accepted

  Purchasing Index (UK) Ltd

  Development of permanent arrangements following Central Unit of Purchasing and the monitoring of oil buying for Northern Ireland public sector

  Agreement to establish Government Purchasing Service

  A. A. Wright

  Development of car leasing scheme

  Savings across Northern Ireland public sector

  1988–89

  BIS-Beecom International Ltd.

  To prepare incentive bonus schemes to improve the efficiency of the directly employed labour in the Department's Water Service

  Incentive bonus schemes being introduced

  508 509

  C. Dermot Boylan

  Northern Ireland share of Whitehall investigation into works contracts

  Lectures to project sponsor

  Capita Ltd.

  Presenting Market Testing Seminar

  Presentation

  CIPFA Services Ltd.

  Engaged by DOE's Water Service to undertake a purchasing study

  Recommendations partially implemented

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates (NI) Ltd.

  Review of privatization options on vehicle inspection

  Recommendations partially implemented

  Evaluation of tenders for sewer and mobile plant maintenance in the DOE's Water Service

  Implemented

  W. Halcrow

  Efficiency Study of the DOE's Environmental Protection Division

  Conclusions still under consideration

  PA Management Consultants

  Typing Services

  Recommended that typing service should conduct an organisational Development (OD) Programme

  Development of OD Programme

  Recommendation implemented Organisation Development Programme

  Miss D. M. Phillips

  Legislative and functional review of the Department's Historic Monuments and Buildings Branch

  Recommendations partially accepted

  Policy Research Institute

  Evaluation of the Belfast Action Teams (1–6)

  Ongoing

  Purchasing Index Ltd.

  Monitoring of oil-buying for Northern Ireland public sector

  Oil buying monitoring

  1989–90

  BIS-Beecom International Ltd.

  to prepare incentive bonus schemes to improve the efficiency of the directly employed labour in the DOE's Works Service

  Incentive bonus schemes being introduced

  Business and Economic Initiative

  Market Testing Computer Bureau

  In house bid prepared

  Capita

  To lead the market testing exercise of the TC Stores which service the Training Centre Network

  Ongoing—for completion in 1990

  Coopers and Lybrand Associations (NI) Ltd.

  Financial Management Survey in other three Education and Library Boards

  Recommendations translated into Action Plans for implementation

  Review of privatization options for vehicle inspection

  Recommendations partially implemented

  Evaluation of tenders for sewer maintenance and repairs in the DOE's Water Service

  Implemented

  Evaluation of the Belfast Action Teams (7–8)

  Ongoing

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Market Testing Computer Bureau

  Used to support decision to move towards formal tender action

  Gilpin Black Associates

  Advice to Training Centre network on means to achieve registration of Ballymena TC for British Standard 5750 (Quality Assurance Level)

  Ongoing—for completion in 1990

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  Development of an Equal Opportunities Monitoring System

  System Developed

  MMM Consultancy Ltd.

  Review of Transport and Mobile Plant in the Department of the Environment

  Recommendations under consideration

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Engaged by the DOE's Roads Service to undertake efficiency study at Castlenavan Quarry

  Majority of recommendations accepted and being implemented

  Price Waterhouse

  Review of Departmental investment arrangements

  Recommendations being considered

  Purchasing Index (UK) Ltd.

  Monitoring of oil-buying for Northern Ireland public sector

  Oil buying monitoring

  J. C. Stott

  1. Effect of Government purchasing on smaller firms in the single European Market

  Government purchasing service developing arrangements for accreditation of suppliers, improve vetting, better information, better links with EC

  2. Development of public purchasing system

  J. W. Struthers

  Crown car lease hire scheme

  Scheme implemented

  WDR Taggart

  Feasibility of contracting out grounds maintenance of country parks

  The study concluded that very limited savings could be achieved

  Medical Director, Home Office

  Report on Workings of Prison Medical Services for MMRD Report

  MMRD Report on Prison Medical Services

  Psychological Services for Kent

  Psychological tests for new recruits

  Advice on recruitment by using psychological tests analysis. As a result the Northern Ireland Prison Service was able to eliminate a number of unsuitable candidates

  510

  Kidney Disease
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of renal units in the Province; and what is the number of persons receiving kidney dialysis.

  Mr. Needham
  There is one regional renal unit in the Province together with a satellite renal dialysis unit in Omagh. At present 145 persons are receiving kidney dialysis.

  Gas Pipeline
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will commission a study of the feasibility of installing a branch gas pipeline to Northern Ireland from the gas pipeline crossing the Irish sea from Morecambe bay.

  Mr. Needham
  The possibility of using natural gas for electricity generation in Northern Ireland is currently being examined. It is too early to speculate on the likely route of any gas interconnector from Great Britain.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the proportion of the Northern Ireland population aged(a) under 10 years, (b) under 15 years, (c) under 20 years, (d) under 25 years, (e) under 35 years, (f) over 60 years, (g) over 65 years and (h) over 80 years.

  Period Ending

  Public Funding £

  Source

  31 December 1978

  140,953

  Department of Manpower Services

  31 December 1979

  272,624

  Department of Manpower Services

  31 December 1980

  393,890

  Department of Manpower Services

  7,500

  Historical Buildings Council (Department of the Environment)

  16,161

  European Social Fund

  3 December 1981

  387,960

  Department of Manpower Services

  5,000

  Historical Buildings Council (Department of the Environment)

  31 December 1982

  585,565

  Department of Manpower Services

  31 March 1983

  179,810

  Department of Economic Development

  31 March 1984

  670,728

  Department of Economic Development

  31 March 1985

  807,898

  Department of Economic Development

  31 March 1986

  815,437

  Department of Economic Development

  31 March 1987

  986,000

  Department of Economic Development

  31 March 1988

  975,081

  Department of Economic Development

  31 March 1989

  1,148,980

  Department of Economic Development

  31 March 1990

  1,301,134

  Department of Economic Development

  The purpose of this funding was to provide training and work experience for the development of young people in the Londonderry area.

  The Derry youth and community workshop has not been investigated by either the Fair Employment Agency or the Fair Employment Commission. The latter determines its own investigation policy.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many permanent employees the Inner City Trust, Londonderry has; and how many are(a) Protestants, (b) Roman Catholics and (c) others; whether the Fair Employment Agency or its successor carried out any investigation into this body or is any investigation contemplated.
  512
  Mr. Needham
  The latest available information taken from the 1989 mid-year population estimates is as follows:

  Per cent.

  Under 10 years

  17.0

  Under 15 years

  24.9

  Under 20 years

  33.5

  Under 25 years

  42.2

  Under 35 years

  56.7

  Over 60 years

  16.5

  Over 65 years

  12.3

  Over 80 years

  2.5

  Derry Youth and Community Workshop
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show, for each year since it was set up, the sums paid from public funds to the Derry youth and community workshop; which body provided funds and for what amounts; for what purposes they were granted and used; and whether the Fair Employment Agency or its successor has carried out or is considering an investigation into this body.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested on the sums paid from public funds is set out in the table:

  Mr. Needham
  When registered by the Fair Employment Commission on 6 February 1990 the Londonderry Inner City Trust had 150 employees. The Fair Employment Commission is not releasing information on community composition from individual monitoring returns at present.

  Neither the Fair Employment Commission nor the former Fair Employment Agency has conducted investigations into this body.

  Health Centres
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show (a) each health centre in the council areas of (i) Londonderry, (ii) Limavady and (iii) Strabane, (b) the number of employees at each such centre, (c) the number who are male and female and (d) the number of

  513
  (1) males and (2) females who are (x) Roman Catholics, (y) Protestants and (z) others and if he will indicate how many shown as others were born or educated in (A) Great Britain, (B) the Irish Republic and (C) elsewhere.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 June 1990]: The Western health and social services board has made its return to the Fair Employment Commission as required by the fair employment legislation. The information requested by the hon. Gentleman is not required by the fair employment legislation, is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Elderly People
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has made to the European Commission communication on aging (COM(90)80 FINAL).

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health today.

  Table 1 All retired households

  Average percentage2 income derived from:

  Original income3

  Retirement pension and supplementary benefit4

  Housing benefit

  Gross income5

  Quintile

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  £

  Lowest

  10

  80

  8

  47.50

  2

  14

  64

  21

  63.70

  3

  22

  61

  12

  80.50

  4

  35

  52

  6

  109.80

  Highest

  75

  23

  0

  254.80

  Overall

  47

  44

  6

  111.20

  1 Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  2 Percentage figures may not sum to one hundred as Social Security benefits, other than those listed are not included.

  3 Original income consists of all gross income less all income from benefits.

  4 It is not possible to accurately identify the state retirement pension and supplementary benefit separately from the Family Expenditure Survey.

  5 £s per week at 1987 prices.

  Table 2: Single retired households

  Average percentage income derived from:

  Original income per cent.

  Retirement pension and supplementary benefit per cent.

  Housing benefit per cent.

  Gross income

  Quintile

  Lowest

  7

  85

  6

  44.00

  2

  13

  71

  14

  55.80

  3

  13

  62

  22

  64.90

  4

  26

  51

  17

  77.10

  Highest

  71

  23

  3

  167.50

  Overall

  39

  48

  10

  81.90

  Table 3: Single male retired households

  Average percentage income derived from:

  Original income per cent.

  Retirement pension and supplementary benefit per cent.

  Housing benefit per cent.

  Gross income

  Quintile

  Lowest

  5

  87

  7

  47.00

  2

  16

  70

  13

  59.80

  3

  18

  60

  20

  69.40

  4

  37

  47

  9

  87.40

  Blind People
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many blind people receive the disability premium.

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

  Retired Households (Income)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, on the basis of data in the family expenditure survey for 1987, he will state the average percentage income of(a) all retired households, (b) single retired households, (c) retired one-man households and (d) retired one-woman households; in each case in all five quintile groupings, which is derived from (i) original income, (ii) contributory retirement pension, (iii) supplementary benefit and (iv) housing benefit; and what is the total average income of each group in each quintile.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is set out in the tables1.
  515

  Average percentage income derived from:

  Original income per cent.

  Retirement pension and supplementary benefit per cent.

  Housing benefit per cent.

  Gross income

  Highest

  77

  20

  1

  204.50

  Overall

  46

  44

  7

  93.50

  Table 4: Single female retired households

  Average percentage income derived from:

  Original income per cent.

  Retirement pension and supplementary benefit per cent.

  Housing benefit per cent.

  Gross income

  Quintile

  Lowest

  7

  85

  6

  43.40

  2

  13

  71

  15

  54.80

  3

  13

  63

  23

  64.00

  4

  23

  52

  19

  74.70

  Highest

  68

  24

  3

  156.90

  Overall

  36

  49

  11

  78.80

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those receiving assistance from the independent living fund are(a) in part-time employment or (b) in full-time employment.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on the employment status of the fund's beneficiaries is not available. However, I understand from the fund that only a small number of beneficiaries is working full or part-time.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what directions have been given by his Department to local social security offices with regard to the publication of local statistics on the numbers of claimants in residential care or nursing homes in receipt of income support payments.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Statistics which show the characteristics of income support recipients are not generally made available from individual local offices but collated and published centrally in a way consistent with uniformity, the reliability of the data concerned and economical practice. Following recent requests to local offices for information of varying scope and detail about people in homes, local offices have been advised not to respond but to refer them if necessary to headquarters for consideration. Responses to all the referrals so far received have been made.

SCOTLAND

  Rents to Mortgages
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if a survey has been conducted of the average incomes of individuals or families who have made inquiries or applications for participation in the rents to mortgages scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes conducted a postal survey in April 1990 of 118 applicants for rents to mortgages. Details of income levels of those 516
  who responded are given in the tables. A further, larger survey is being undertaken, the results of which are expected to be available this autumn.

  Table 1

  Net Weekly Income of Applicant

  Number

  Percentage

  Under £50

  1

  1.5

  £51–100

  5

  7.7

  £101–150

  32

  48.4

  £151–200

  20

  30.3

  £201–250

  6

  9.1

  £251–300

  0

  0.0

  Over £301

  2

  3.0

  Table 2

  Net Weekly Household Income

  Number

  Percentage

  £51–100

  2

  3.0

  £101–150

  21

  31.3

  £151–200

  24

  35.8

  £201–250

  11

  16.4

  £251–300

  3

  4.5

  £301–400

  4

  6.0

  Over £401

  2

  3.0

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average cost of a home purchased under the rents into mortgages scheme; what is the average discount expected on each home; and what is the geographical spread of inquiries/applications for participation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The data available are as yet insufficient to provide a meaningful average house value under the rents to mortgages (RTM) scheme. Scottish Homes' initial estimate of house prices, based on experience of right-to-buy sales indicates a market value of houses sold under RTM of £26,000 in the current year.

  Scottish Homes' survey of early applicants suggests that the average discount entitlement in RTM house sales will be 31 per cent.

  Inquiries and applications in respect of the RTM scheme have been received from all areas of Scotland but in particular from Lothians and Borders, Renfrew and Inverclyde, Glasgow and central Scotland.
  517
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of Scottish Homes' rents into mortgages scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Early experience of the rents to mortgages trial scheme is encouraging. More than 1,000 inquiries have been received from eligible tenants, with 154 applications in process and three sales having been completed.

  The scheme is being closely monitored. Any modification or extension to the scheme which seems desirable in the light of experience will be introduced as soon as practicable.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from tenants' groups in Scotland regarding the extension of Scottish Homes' rents into mortgages scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Inquiries have been received from individual tenants about a possible extension to the scheme but no such representations have been submitted by tenant groups.

  Protection of Birds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those areas of special protection for birds as well as those Ramsar sites and areas with dual designation for the protection of birds.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The sites designated in Scotland thus far are:

  Special Protection Areas

  Rhum

  Priest Island

  Laggan Peninsula

  Firth of Forth Islands

  Abernethy Forest

  Handa Island

  Ailsa Craig

  Ramsar

  Loch an Duin

  Combined Special Protection Areas and Ramsar Sites

  Loch Druidbeg

  Loch of Skene

  Loch Gye

  Gruinart Flats

  Glean Na Muice Duibhe (Duich Moss)

  Bridgend Flats

  Gladhouse Reservoir

  Din-Moss-Hoselaw Loch

  Fala Flow

  Glac na Criche

  Feur Lochairn

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide extra funds to local authorities to enable them to build more sheltered housing complexes; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: Resources for housing capital expenditure in 1990–91 were allocated to local authorities in March on the basis of their relative housing needs and with reference to their capital programmes and housing plans. It is for local authorities to determine their own priorities for use of these allocations in the light of local circumstances, including the need for sheltered housing projects if this is seen as a priority in their area.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has received from the Nature Conservancy Council on the designation of extensive sites of special scientific interest as a means of protecting the natural environment in Caithness and Sutherland; and what response he has made.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: The Nature Conservancy Council provided advice on the need to protect peatland areas of international significance in Caithness and Sutherland in its two publications: "Birds, Bogs and Forestry" and "The Flow Country". The council also gave detailed evidence to the Highland regional council working party on land use strategy in Caithness and Sutherland and set out a two-stage notification programme of SSSIs. The working party report listed the areas of actual and potential SSSI and recommended an indicative forestry strategy. My right hon. and learned Friend endorsed that report and in his announcement of 21 March 1989 encouraged the relevant public agencies to use it as a framework for land use change.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will take to ensure that the recommendations of the Highland regional council working party report on land use strategy are followed by the Nature Conservancy Council in its proposed descriptions of sites of special scientific interest in Caithness and Sutherland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: The Nature Conservancy Council was one of the bodies which gave unanimous support to the report produced by the Highland regional council on land use strategy in Caithness and Sutherland. I have no evidence to suggest that any of these bodies, including the Nature Conservancy Council, have taken any action contrary to the indicative forestry strategy recommended in the report and endorsed by my right hon. and learned Friend on 21 March 1989.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that the 20,000 hectares of land in Caithness identified by the Highland regional council working party report on land use strategy as possible forestry area contained in stage 1 SSSI proposals are retained as a reservoir of plantable land eligible for assistance within the woodland grant scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: The Highland regional council working party report provides a framework within which relevant public agencies can exercise their statutory duties, whether in approving an application for grant under the woodland grant scheme or notifying an area as an SSSI. The total amount of land in the possible and preferable forestry areas, taking account of the whole of NCC's actual and intended notification programme, is greater than the area of land required to establish a viable forestry industry.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide additional funds to Scottish local authorities to enable them to increase respite care provision for carers of profoundly mentally handicapped persons; and if he will make a statement.
  519
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: It is for local authorities to decide on the allocation of funds to particular services for which they may be responsible. The revenue support grant settlements in recent years will have enabled local authorities to increase their support for carers of handicapped persons where this was deemed a priority.

  A1 (Dual Carriageway)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to incorporate a new Haddington bypass to his plans to extend the Al dual carriageway from Tranent to Haddington; and if he will make a statement on the timetable for this project.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Following the routes south of Edinburgh report on public consultation and the Government's decisions published in April, consultants are to be appointed to assess the feasibility of the various dualling options between Bankton (near Tranent) and Dunbar. The Government have concluded that the dualling of the section between Bankton and Haddington should be brought forward in the shorter term.

  It is intended that the terminal point for the dualling to Haddington will be to the west of the town and it is envisaged that a new junction will be constructed at this location to cater for the very substantial flow to Haddington itself. It is estimated the total flow on the Al will drop by one third at this point. At Haddington, several options will be available for the route of a dual carriageway and these will have to be considered so that a robust decision can be taken on the precise junction location west of the town. For this reason, the first report to be submitted under the feasibility study will include recommendations for both the section from Bankton to Haddington and the Haddington bypass. This report is programmed for completion by summer 1991, and it is not possible to give specific details on the termination of the initial dualling and the phasing of the bypass until the detailed engineering and economic evaluations are concluded. However, it is the intention to complete the necessary preparatory work to allow a start of the dualling by the mid-1990s.

  RENAVAL Programme
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received a response from the European Commission concerning the eligibility of Strathclyde region under the terms of the RENAVAL programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 29 June 1990]: The Commission has not yet informed us of its decision on the eligibility application submitted in May 1989 on behalf of the shipbuilding areas of Strathclyde. On receipt of a favourable decision a programme of measures will be prepared and submitted to the Commission for approval.

EMPLOYMENT

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to encourage tourist agencies, airlines and the Civil Aviation Authority 520
  to work together to stimulate new tourist trade by promoting new British destinations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The British Tourist Authority and the regional tourist boards are actively engaged with all interested parties in developing and promoting the tourism industry in all regions of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage the tourist market from Japan to Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The British Tourist Authority already actively promotes the United Kingdom as a tourist destination to the Japanese. In addition the BTA has established the "Britain Welcomes Japan" group under the chairmanship of Countess Spencer. This group is looking at ways of encouraging more tourism from this vitally important market, particularly by highlighting the steps the tourism industry needs to take to make Britain more attractive to Japanese visitors. An action plan with recommendations for the industry will be produced shortly.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to encourage air travel tourists to use regional entry points, rather than London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The British Tourist Authority promotes the advantages and benefits of using regional airports to foreign visitors and airlines. This is particularly important if we are to encourage overseas visitors to the regions and thereby spread the economic benefits that tourism brings.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect that the decline in the number of young travellers between the ages of 16 to 24 years as a proportion of all incoming tourists will have on the tourist market.

  Mr. Nicholls
  International passenger survey figures show that the number of young travellers between the ages of 16 to 24 years has remained broadly constant over the three years from 1986 to 1988, at about 17 per cent. of all visitors.

  One of the key objectives of the European year of tourism is to encourage travel by younger people. It is recognised that the young traveller of today is the mature tourist of tomorrow.

  The British Tourist Authority, through its promotion of the United Kingdom, encourages a broad spectrum of age groups to visit this country.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department has any plans to further increase investment in the British Tourist Authority from next April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The British Tourist Authority will receive grant in aid amounting to £27.7 million in 1990–91, an increase of over 11 per cent. compared to 1989–90. Funding in subsequent years will be considered in the light of the Government's overall public expenditure plans.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy on encouraging airport and other tourist-related staff to learn European languages; and if he will make a statement.
  521
  Mr. Nicholls
  It is very important that all employees in the tourism industry should be encouraged to learn foreign languages. Foreign language competencies are an important element of the skills they need to welcome overseas visitors to this country. This is fully recognised in the British Tourist Authority's recent report "Lost for Words-Language Skills in the British Tourism Industry" and in its related European tourist year language campaign.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage other British cities to follow Birmingham's worldwide promotion scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The British Tourist Authority has been actively involved in the "Birmingham Invites You" overseas marketing campaign. A number of other cities have undertaken joint promotions overseas with BTA and the authority is always happy to consider proposals. I would welcome similar initiatives by British cities and recommend they make use of BTA's expertise in promoting Britain abroad.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to increase the accessibility of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for the European tourist.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The British Tourist Authority is keen to spread tourists throughout Britain and widely promotes the attractions of the country worldwide.

  The British Tourist Authority continually assesses transport links between all areas of the United Kingdom and points of entry, making appropriate representations to the responsible Government Departments, and potential transport operators.

  Employment Credit
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the various employment credit schemes apart from action credit which his Department has been involved with since 1979; the areas where the schemes have run; and for how long.

  Mr. Eggar
  During the consideration of the action credit pilots, my Department was aware of a small number of "employment credit" schemes in various parts of the country. Officials were not involved with the schemes except to the extent of gaining some information about the way in which they were run and establishing that they complied with social security rules.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, columns 435–36, what proportion of the Health and Safety Executive factory inspectorate's resources each year is spent on the identification and inspection of unregistered workplaces.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Resources devoted to identifying and inspecting unregistered workplaces vary but between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989 the Health and Safety Executive's factory inspectorate spent 6.5 per cent. of its resources on this work.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply of 24 April,Official
  522
  Report, column 170, if he will give details of the cases prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive which resulted in suspended custodial sentences; and what criteria were used by the Health and Safety Executive in deciding to prosecute.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: Two suspended custodial sentences have been imposed. Both followed prosecutions for failing to comply with a prohibition notice.

  In 1985 the managing director of an asbestos stripping company was prosecuted for failing to comply with a prohibition notice. He received fines and costs totalling £7,500 and a 28-day suspended sentence.

  In 1987 a director of another asbestos stripping company received two suspended sentences of nine months to run consecutively, for contravening a prohibition notice.

  The Health and Safety Executive will generally institute criminal proceedings in cases where the offence is of a flagrant, wilful or reckless nature which either has, or could have, resulted in serious injury.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in relation to local initiatives by Health and Safety Executive areas which have concentrated on premises within a particular geographical area or sector of economic activity, what proportion of premises inspected have been found to be unregistered with the Health and Safety Executive.

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

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information the Health and Safety Executive's SHIELD database records about the registration of factory premises under section 137 of the Factories Act 1961; whether the information is available on the basis of Health and Safety Executive area by year; and at what cost in terms of person hours and computer time the information is compiled.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's SHIELD database has the facility to record the following information upon receipt of a notice of occupation under section 137 of the Factories Act:

  Establishment keyname

  Full name and address

  Postcode

  Local authority code

  Main economic activity code

  Number employed

  Telephone number

  Enforcing authority area

  Health and Safety Executive area

  Date record opened

  Ownership code

  Information on the registration of factory premises under section 137 of the Factories Act 1961 by Health and Safety Executive area and the cost in terms of person hours and computer time is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate by area the Health and Safety Executive has made of the approximate proportion of factory premises that are not registered with the Health
  523
  and Safety Executive; and what approximate proportion of the factory work force is believed to work in unregistered premises.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive has made no estimate of the number or proportion of unregistered factory premises or the number of employees who work in such premises.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give(a) the number of prosecutions and (b) the average fine under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 for each year from 1983 to 1989 inclusive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the exact format requested in the question. However, the table shows the numbers of informations laid, the number of convictions and the average fine made under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 since they came into force on 1 August 1984.

  Prosecution action taken under Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 by the HSE's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates 1984 to 1988–89

  Date of hearing

  Number of informations laid

  Convictions

  Average fine on conviction £

  1984

  5

  2

  500

  1985

  82

  73

  423

  19861

  15

  7

  293

  1986–872

  45

  40

  350

  1987–882

  35

  30

  328

  1988–893

  14

  13

  217

  1 1st quarter of year 1 January-31 March.

  2 Year commencing 1 April

  3 Provisional.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were(a) the numbers of prosecutions and (b) the average fine under the Asbestos Products (Safety) Regulations 1985 for each year from 1985 to 1989 inclusive.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  According to the returns made by the enforcement authorities, the number of prosecutions and the fines paid for breaching the Asbestos Products (Safety) Regulations 1985, which came into force on 1 January 1986, as amended by the Asbestos Products (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1987, were as follows:

  Year

  Cases

  Fine £

  1986

  Nil

  —

  1987

  1

  3,000

  1988

  1

  500

  1989

  Nil

  —

  The regulations have been largely effective in eliminating the use of asbestos in consumer products, and I am not aware of any general problem.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of prosecutions resulting from a fatality within the construction industry for each year from 1974 to 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  524
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Health and Safety Executive field inspectors were(a) appointed, (b) resigned and (c) retired for each year from 1974 to 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 24 April at column 172.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the date and location by borough of the deaths of construction workers in the London area between the dates of 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information for the year commencing 1 April 1988 is shown in the table. Data for subsequent years are not yet available. An analysis of fatal injuries by local authority district could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Fatal Injuries1 to employed persons occurring in the construction industry in the Greater London area, 1988–892

  Date of accident

  No. of fatal injuries

  Employees

  Self employed

  April 1988

  1

  —

  May 1988

  —

  —

  June 1988

  —

  —

  July 1988

  —

  —

  August 1988

  3

  1

  September 1988

  —

  1

  October 1988

  4

  —

  November 1988

  3

  1

  December 1988

  3

  1

  January 1989

  2

  1

  February 1989

  2

  2

  March 1989

  1

  —

  Total

  19

  7

  1Fatal injuries reported to HSE's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR).

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give(a) the number of prosecutions and (b) the average fine for offences under the Asbestos Regulations for each year from 1974 to 1989 inclusive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the exact format requested in the question. However, the table shows the numbers of informations laid, convictions and the average fine made under the Asbestos Regulations 1969 from 1974 to 1988–89, and the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 which revoked the 1969 regulations from 1 March 1988.

  Prosecutions taken under the 1969 Asbestos Regulations and under the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 by the HSE's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates3

  Date of hearing

  Number of informations laid

  Convictions

  Average fine on conviction £

  1974

  45

  39

  —1

  1975

  32

  22

  79

  1976

  33

  23

  48

  1977

  94

  87

  265

  1978

  39

  36

  84

  1979

  16

  7

  23

  1980

  18

  16

  217

  1981

  11

  8

  150

  1982

  17

  16

  325

  1983

  60

  55

  257

  1984

  69

  55

  347

  525

  Date of hearing

  Number of informations laid

  Convictions

  Average fine on conviction £

  1985

  30

  25

  482

  19864

  7

  7

  647

  1986–875

  20

  14

  414

  1987–885

  14

  8

  256

  1988–895

  5

  4

  313

  Asbestos Regulations

  1988–892 5

  19

  19

  474

  The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations

  1 Not available.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Prosecution action taken by the HSE's Factory Inspectorate only for the years 1974–82.

  4 1st quarter of year 1 January to 31 March.

  5 Year commencing 1 April.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Health and Safety Executive has any plans to follow up the construction site blitzes; and whether an evaluation has been made of the effect of blitzes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has no plans to mount another national construction site safety blitz campaign.

  The HSE published a summary of the blitz campaign in a free magazine-style report entitled "Build Safety"—130,000 copies of which were distributed.

  The HSE's evaluation of the campaign concluded that it was a success and as a result, smaller-scale local campaigns have since been undertaken in various parts of the country.

  Enforcement notices issued under the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980 by the Health and Safety Executive's factory and agricultural inspectorates: 1981 to 1988–89

  Year

  Improvement notices

  Prohibitions served

  Number of informations laid

  Convictions

  Average fine on conviction £

  1981

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  23

  5

  2

  2

  500

  1983

  26

  5

  8

  8

  313

  1984

  40

  11

  9

  9

  150

  1985

  37

  11

  26

  24

  563

  21986

  9

  2

  2

  2

  100

  31986–87

  41

  9

  16

  12

  135

  31987–88

  36

  6

  8

  7

  457

  1 31988–89

  34

  3

  10

  7

  507

  1 Provisional

  2 1st quarter of year, 1 January to 31 March.

  3 Year commencing 1 April.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many licences were(a) issued and (b) withdrawn for each year from 1983 to 1989 under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table gives the number of licenses issued, renewed and revoked under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 by calendar year since they came into effect on 1 August 1984.
  526
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide an estimate of the proportion of(a) construction sites that are registered and (b) minor and major injuries that were reported to the Health and Safety Executive for 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not possible to provide an estimate of the proportion of construction sites which are registered with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE does not have information on the total number of sites which exist as notification is required only where work is expected to last for six weeks or more.

  All fatal injuries in the course of construction activity are reported to the enforcement authorities. The proportion of other reportable injuries which are not reported is not known. It is estimated that non-reporting of such injuries for employees in all sectors is of the order of 50 per cent. Although there is no firm evidence that the problem is more acute in particular sectors there are indications which suggest the degree of under-reporting in the construction industry may be significantly higher.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is(a) the number of fines, (b) the average fine and (c) the number of (i) improvement and (ii) prohibition notices issued under the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980 for each of the years 1980 to 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available. However, the following table shows the number of improvement notices, prohibitions served, informations laid, convictions and the average fine per conviction made under the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980 since they came into force on 18 August 1981.

  Number of licences issued, renewed and revoked under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

  Year

  Number of licences

  New Issues

  Renewals

  Revocations

  1984

  1,313

  —

  —

  1985

  571

  1,017

  1

  1986

  328

  608

  2

  1987

  239

  250

  2

  1988

  163

  919

  1

  1989

  122

  361

  4

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Stretford, 24 April,Official Report, column 174, for each of the years 1974 to 1989, inclusive, if he will give (a)

  527
  the number of Health and Safety Executive prosecutions passed to the Crown prosecution service for consideration and (b) the results of the prosecutions that were passed on.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Records are not kept of Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecutions passed to the Crown prosecution service for its consideration. Most health and safety prosecutions are undertaken by HSE inspectors.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the fatalities of construction workers which led to prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act; under which section of the Act the prosecutions were taken; which of these prosecutions were against individual directors, managers or other employees, rather than against the company itself; and which of the deaths are still under investigation by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate for 1988 and 1989 the number of claimants without paid jobs who (i) had not looked for work in the last week, (ii) had not looked for a job in the last four weeks, (iii) were not available for work within the next two weeks, (iv) were in categories (i) and (iii) and (v) were in categories (ii) and (iii) and in each case, were(a) looking after family/home, (b) long-term sick or disabled, (c) believed no jobs available, (d) retired, (e) studying and (f) other.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information cannot be extracted from standard tabulations and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed claimants in each month since 23 February have been(a) issued with warning letters for not actively seeking work, (b) had their claims referred to an adjudicating officer for not actively seeking work, (c) had their claims (i) allowed and (ii) disallowed, (d) where the claim has been disallowed, the numbers who were (i) successful or (ii) unsuccessful in

  Claimants (Aged 18 and Over) Not in Employment, Spring 1989

  Great Britain, thousand

  (i) would not like work

  (ii) would like work but not available in next two weeks

  (iii) would like work, available but not looked for work in the last four weeks

  All Persons (100 per cent.)

  130 per cent.

  90 per cent.

  110 per cent.

  —looking after family/home

  32

  14

  13

  —long term sick/disabled

  18

  11

  9

  —retired

  14

  1

  2

  —did not want/need work

  14

  1

  1

  —believes no jobs available

  2

  1

  31

  —studying

  2

  2

  1

  —awaiting a job

  1

  2

  1

  —not yet started looking

  1

  1

  2

  —other/no reason

  1

  64

  35

  1 not requested.

  2 less than 10,000.

  Notes: Figures are individually rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  The reconciliation of the claimant count with the claimant figures obtained from the 1989 LFS has been affected by an improvement
  528
  claiming reduced income support, (e) where an adjudication decision is pending, the numbers who have been (i) successful, and (ii) unsuccessful in claiming reduced income support and (f) have been referred to an adjudication officer for refusing employment; how many of those in (f) have had their benefit disqualified; and if he will provide the figures for Great Britain, each region, and area adjudication sections in London.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: The Employment Service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Gentleman to parts (a), (b), (c) and (f). Parts (d) and (e) are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment using the labour force survey 1989, if he will estimate the number of claimants unemployed who would like work, were available for it and had sought it in the last four weeks, or were waiting to start a new job.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information from the 1989 labour force survey indicates that there were 1,270,000 claimants without a paid job who were available for work, and had sought it in the last four weeks, or were waiting to start a job already obtained.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate, using the labour force survey 1989, the number of claimants unemployed who (i) would not like work and of these, the percentages with(a) care responsibilities, (b) long-term sick, disabled, (c) retired, (d) did not want or need work, (e) believed no jobs available and (f) studying, (ii) would like work but are not available in the next two weeks and, of these, the percentages (a) with care responsibilities, (b) long-term sick or disabled, (c) studying, (d) awaiting a job, (e) other and (iii) would like work and are available but have not sought work in the last four weeks, and the percentages (a) with care responsibilities, (b) thought no jobs available, (c) long-term sick or disabled, (d) not yet started to look, (e) retired and (f) other.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Available estimates from the preliminary results of the 1989 labour force survey are shown in the table:
  529
  in the design of the questionnaire and also by the change in benefit regulations for under 18 year olds in September 1988. As a result, the reconciliation has been restricted to claimants aged 18 and over.

  Source: Derived with reference to both the claimant count and the 1989 Labour Force Survey results.

  Training, St. Helens
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report (a) the number of 18 to 25-year-olds registered as unemployed in St. Helens over the past two years, (b) the proportion of male to female unemployment in the 18 to 25-year-old group, (c) the number of people in this age bracket on ET schemes, in St. Helens and nationally, (d) the average duration of unemployment for each year in the 18 to 25-year-old age group in St. Helens and (e) the number of YTS trainees both nationally and in St. Helens, and the proportion of these trainees who find jobs with the company or training agency at the completion of their training.

  (a) Unadjusted unemployment aged 18 to 24 years in the St. Helens Local Authority District

  Male

  Proportion of total percentage

  Female

  Proportion of total percentage

  Total

  1988

  April

  2,376

  69.0

  1,067

  31.0

  3,443

  July

  2,249

  69.3

  998

  30.7

  3,247

  October

  2,157

  68.2

  1,004

  31.8

  3,161

  1989

  January

  2,183

  70.2

  925

  29.8

  3,108

  April

  2,024

  70.6

  844

  29.4

  2,868

  July

  1,844

  69.0

  827

  31.0

  2,671

  October

  1,788

  67.0

  881

  33.0

  2,669

  1990

  January

  1,818

  69.1

  812

  30.9

  2,630

  April

  1,733

  69.5

  762

  30.5

  2,495

  (b) The median duration of unemployment (in weeks) in the St. Helens Local Authority District for claimants aged 18–24 years.

  (weeks)

  Male

  Median1 female

  Total

  1988

  April

  35.0

  30.5

  33.4

  July

  33.6

  27.9

  31.8

  October

  25.8

  17.2

  23.4

  1989

  January

  24.0

  20.6

  22.8

  April

  28.3

  24.9

  27.1

  July

  28.5

  19.9

  25.4

  October

  24.4

  14.5

  21.2

  1990

  January

  23.3

  18.2

  21.4

  April

  25.2

  20.7

  23.7

  1 The Median duration of unemployment is the length of time spent unemployed, which is exceeded by 50 per cent, of the unemployed.

  Note:—Comparisons are slightly affected by the September 1988 change in benefit regulations for under 18 year olds.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for what reason his Department has not yet submitted the operational programmes to the European Commission concerning United Kingdom European social fund objectives 3 and 4 operational programmes; and if he will make a statement.
  530
  Mr. Nicholls
  Unemployment by age is produced quarterly. The following two tables give the extent of the available information and show for the unemployed aged 18 to 24 years(a) the numbers in the St. Helens local authority district together with proportions of male and female unemployment and (b) the median duration of unemployment.

  The information requested about employment training is not available.

  At 31 March 1990, there were about 359,000 young people undertaking YTS training in Great Britain. The latest information shows that 66.7 per cent. of all YTS leavers go into a job within three months of leaving and very nearly half of these remain with the same employer. Corresponding figures for St. Helens are not available.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department submitted the revised ESF operational programmes for objectives 3 and 4 to the European Commission on 15 June.

  Pop Concerts
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to receive the Health and Safety Executive's report by the working party on new guidelines at pop and rock concerts.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is hoped that a first draft of the Health and Safety Executive's guidance on pop concerts and similar events will be available for consultation in early autumn 1990.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any representations from professional football clubs about the future number of youth training places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have had no direct representations from professional football clubs about the future number of youth training places. The Professional Footballers Association, which is the national managing agent for youth training in football, has recently signed a contract to deliver youth training in 1990–91.
  531
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the numbers of youth training places allocated to each professional football club for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The information requested is commercial in confidence.

HEALTH

  Health Authority Chairpersons
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the salary levels of health authority chairpersons.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the salary levels of health authority chairpersons.

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the salary levels of health authority chairpersons.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the salary levels of health authority chairpersons.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received a few letters, but we believe that health authority chairmen carry heavy responsibilities and that the increases recently announced put their remunerations on a more realistic basis.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many expressions of interest in the formation of self-governing hospital trusts have so far been received.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many expressions of interest have been made for hospitals opting out of existing arrangements within the national health service.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last had discussions with the chairman of the Mersey region health authority; if the opting-out of hospitals on Merseyside was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making in setting up national health service trusts.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications for hospitals which choose to become national health service hospital trusts.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress regarding self-governing trusts for hospitals.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many expressions of interest in the formation of self-governing hospital trusts have so far been received.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many expressions of interest in the formation of self-governing hospital trusts have so far been received.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence of the views of community health councils regarding the formation of self-governing hospital trusts is available to his Department.
  532
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence of the views of community health councils regarding the formation of self-governing hospital trusts is available to his Department.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence of the views of community health councils regarding the formation of self-governing hospital trusts is available to his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) and the hon. Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), for Wigan (Mr. Stott), for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for Southport (Mr. Fearn) earlier today.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether national health service trusts will have access to all his Department's guidance; and if they will be required to follow it.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  All current and future guidance to the national health service will be made available to national health service trusts. It will be for trusts as it is for health authorities to determine the extent to which they follow it. They will be expected to ensure that they take full account of all legal obligations, requirements of statutory bodies, hazard or safety notices, advice relating to patients, public or staff safety, personal privacy and patient confidentiality. The national health service and Community Care Act gives the Secretary of State for Health reserve powers to direct trusts to follow particular guidance should this be necessary.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional funds he proposes to make available to hospitals considering trust status to undertake public consultation with local communities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The relevant regional health authorities will be charged with carrying out public consultation on applications for national health service trust status. We are making available additional funds of £500,000 to be used for consultation on first wave applications for trust status.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make it his policy to refuse any application for self-governing status for Guy's hospital.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no intention of prejudging any potential application for national health service trust status.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's latest information on the total expenditure incurred to date on preparation for self-governing hospital trusts.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's latest information on the total expenditure incurred so far on preparation for self-governing hospital trusts.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's latest information on the total expenditure incurred so far on preparation for self-governing hospital trusts.
  533
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have made no estimate of the cost of preparing applications for trust status.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in Leicestershire have applied for trust status to date.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been issued by his Department regarding public consultation prior to the formation of self-governing hospital trusts.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been issued by his Department regarding public consultation prior to the formation of self-governing hospital trusts.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been issued by his Department regarding public consultation prior to the formation of self-governing hospital trusts.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce the machinery of consultations that he intends to implement before hospitals can become self-governing trusts.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been issued by his Department regarding public consultation prior to the formation of self-governing hospital trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department issued guidance to NHS managers on procedures for consultation on applications for NHS trust status yesterday. Copies of this guidance have been placed in the Library.

  Children Act
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress made towards the implementation of the Children Act.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are consulting on the regulations and guidance necessary to implement the Act in October 1991. New rules of court will be drafted for consultation in the autumn. A comprehensive training and dissemination programme is under way.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to meet representatives of national health service junior doctors to discuss their terms and conditions of service.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to reduce the hours worked by junior doctors in the national health service.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to reduce the hours worked by junior doctors in the national health service.

  Sir Robert McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the working party investigating the conditions of junior hospital doctors.
  534
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to reduce the hours worked by junior doctors in the national health service.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to reduce the hours worked by junior doctors in the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) and for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) earlier today.

  NHS Inflation
  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate for national health service inflation for the remainder of the current financial year.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate for national health service inflation for the remainder of the current financial year.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) earlier today.

  Community Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations have been received from local authorities regarding the costs of implementing the Government's proposals on community care.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations have been received from local authorities regarding he costs of implementing the Government's proposals on community care.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what communications have been received from local authorities regarding the costs of implementing the Government's proposals on community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) earlier today.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received from local authorities regarding earmarked grants for community care.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received from local authorities regarding earmarked grants for community care.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received from local authorities regarding earmarked grants for community care.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received from local authorities regarding earmarked grants for community care.
  535
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has received many representations in correspondence and at regular meetings with local authority associations about all aspects of community care finance, including earmarked grants.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the proposed implementation date for the Government's proposals on community care.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the proposed implementation date for the Government's proposals on community care.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the proposed implementation date for the Government's proposals on community care.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the proposed implementation date for the Government's proposals on community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The proposed implementation date for the community care proposals is 1 April 1991.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on his plans for community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received many representations both in correspondence and at regular meetings with organisations concerned with our plans for community care.

  NHS Patients
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of in-patients being treated by the national health service.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in total are being treated by the national health service annually.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patients are being treated each year by the national health service.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of patients being treated annually by the national health service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest available information is contained in a statistical bulletin "NHS hospital activity statistics for England 1979–1988/89" reference 2/1/90, copies of which have been placed in the statistics section of the Library.

  Child Care
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's estimate of the number of statutory child care cases currently unsupervised because of the shortage of local authority social workers.

  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's estimate of the number of statutory child care cases currently unsupervised because of the shortage of local authority social workers.
  536
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's estimate of the number of statutory child care cases currently unsupervised because of the shortage of local authority social workers.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's estimate of the number of statutory child care cases currently unsupervised because of the shortage of local authority social workers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally. The regional offices of the social services inspectorate will continue to monitor the situation within their areas.

  Patient Care
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to promote the quality of care for patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) on 5 June at column 584.

  NHS Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the pay and conditions of nurses and midwives employed by the national health service since 1979.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the pay and conditions of nurses and midwives in the national health service since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Pay for nursing and midwifery staff has risen by an average of 43 per cent. in real terms since 1979.

  In 1983 the Government established an independent pay review body to recommend levels of pay for nursing and midwifery staff. All seven review body reports have been accepted in full, with staging in three cases.

  Hours of work were reduced from 40 to 37½ a week during 1980–81 without loss of pay. This was equivalent to a 6.5 per cent. increase in pay.

  New clinical and education grading structures were introduced in 1988 and 1989 respectively which provide better and more flexible career opportunities for those staff engaged in clinical and teaching practice. A new pay structure for senior nurse managers has recently been agreed in the nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council.

  Community Charge Capping
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by his Department of the implications of community charge capping for local authority social service provision.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by his Department of the implications of community charge capping for local authority social service provision.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by his Department of the implications of community charge capping for local authority social service provision.
  537
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by his Department of the implications of community charge capping for local authority social service provision.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The charge capping which, if the House approves, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to set, represents his view of what is reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the authorities concerned. It will be for each of the authorities to decide how to restrain their excessive budgets to within the level of the cap.

  Social Workers (Recruitment)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to meet representatives of local authorities to discuss recruitment of social workers.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to meet representatives of local authorities to discuss recruitment of social workers.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to meet representatives of local authorities to discuss recruitment of social workers.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to meet representatives of local authorities to discuss recruitment of social workers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have regular meetings with local authority associations when they can raise this matter if they wish.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Government support is presently given to the study of sudden infant death syndrome; what plans he has to increase it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry have jointly accepted the responsibility for examining the claim that chemical emissions from cot mattresses may be a contributory factor in sudden infant death syndrome. The Department of Health has requested the Medical Research Council (MRC) to commission a critical review of the research literature on sudden infant death syndrome.

  The MRC is the main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom. The MRC receives its grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science. In 1988–89, the latest financial year for which figures are available, the MRC spent approximately £62,000 on research into sudden infant death syndrome. In the same year, the MRC spent a further £310,000 on other research which may contribute in part to an understanding of sudden infant death syndrome.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on the appointment of a paediatric pathologist for each regional health authority to support cot death research.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information from regional health authority short-term plans for 1990–91 submitted last February shows that there is at least one paediatric 538
  pathologist in post in 10 regions: in two others there are vacant posts which are being advertised and in each of the remaining two regions the health authorities plan to introduce a funded post by April 1991.

  Regional Health Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on funding for regional health authorities in 1990–91.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on 1 May at column 523.

  District Health Authorities (Deficits)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's current projection for the number of district health authorities that will be in deficit at the end of the financial year.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's current projection for the number of district health authorities that will be in deficit at the end of the financial year.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's current projection for the number of district health authorities that will be in deficit at the end of the financial year.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's current projection for the number of district health authorities that will be in deficit at the end of the financial year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The national health service management executive is engaged in continuing discussions with regional health authorities. It is not yet possible to identify the number of district health authorities that will have an underlying deficit in 1990–91.

  Oakham Hospitals (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he is now in a position to announce a date for the proposed visit to hospitals in Oakham, Rutland, of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell).

  Mr. Dorrell
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  District Health Authorities (Financial Year)
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when is the beginning of the financial year for district health authorities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The answer is 1 April.

  Disabled People (Legislation)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has completed his discussions with the local authority associations on sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of his
  539
  consultations on implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will now implement sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in consultation with local authorities on implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer my hon. Friends and the right hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 28 June at column 309.

  Premature Deaths (Bootle)
  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to combat the high incidence of premature deaths in Bootle caused by lung cancer and heart disease.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As the responsibility for health promotion and disease prevention services in Bootle is primarily for the health authority locally, the hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of South Sefton health authority for details.

  Local Authority Homes (Transfer)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by his Department of the implications of the transfer of local authority homes into the independent sector.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The White Paper "Caring for People" made it clear that the Government see the future development of community care, including residential care, taking place in partnership between the private, voluntary and statutory sectors. Local authorities will continue to have a valuable role to play in provision. The transfer of some local authority homes to the independent sector may, however, provide more choice for users and also more competition between providers, leading to better value for money and a more cost-effective service.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding speech therapists in west Norfolk.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a few letters on the subject.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the real terms increase in health expenditure since June 1987.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Expenditure information is available only for financial years. Planned expenditure for the NHS (England) in 1990–91 is £23.5 billion. This will mean a real terms increase since 1987–88 of 9.7 per cent.

  Patient Services (Collaboration)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of collaboration between the national health service and the private sector on services to patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The independent health sector performs some 510,000 operations and treats 900,000 out-patients each year. It also provides 68,000 nursing home beds, mainly for long-stay elderly patients. This represents a significant additional input to national health care.

  The Government's White Paper "Working for Patients" encourages increased collaboration with the independent sector. It is frequently mutually beneficial to share expensive resources, and there are numerous examples of NHS and independent units collaborating in the use of buildings, high-technology equipment, support services and key manpower. Such joint ventures increase the options available to NHS managers as well as to patients, and release or generate resources in the NHS for further improvement in health services for all. The independent sector also makes a useful contribution in helping to reduce waiting times.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what examples there are of partnerships between the national health service and the private sector currently operating.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A number of successful and cost-effective joint ventures are operating between the health service and independent sector which release NHS resources for further improvement to health services for all. Some examples are shown in the table.

  Health Authority

  Provider

  Nature of service

  Central Manchester

  Nuffield Hospitals

  Eye surgery

  Coventry

  Bioplan

  Day surgery and Endoscopy

  National Hospital for Nervous Diseases Special Health Authority

  BUPA

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanner

  West Lambeth

  Churchill Clinic

  ENT surgery

  West Midlands Region

  AMI Priory Hospital Birmingham

  Lithotripsy

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on collaboration between the national health service and the private sector.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) on 1 May at column 517.

  GP Lists
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the size of the average general practitioner's list.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on 20 February at column 717.

  Sports Injuries
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to increase research and training into the treatment of sports injuries.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to do so.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have been closed within the Trent region during the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The following table gives the numbers of hospitals/facilities which we are aware were approved for total closure in the last five years in the Trent region.

  Hospital/facilities closed

  Hospital/facilities opened

  In-patients treated

  Out-patients treated

  Calendar year

  Financial year

  1989

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  9

  1988–89

  9

  626,101

  3,335,852

  1987

  4

  1987–88

  8

  612,890

  3,343,899

  1986

  7

  1986

  7

  592,398

  3,400,645

  1985

  1

  1985

  8

  578,370

  3,300,193

  It is important to bear it in mind that closures are often balanced by new facilities or other reprovision and that the closure figures in themselves do not necessarily reflect any reduction in overall service provision.

  Northwick Park Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has held discussions with interested parties recently on the future of Northwick Park hospital.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr Hughes) on 9 March at column 898, a steering group has been established to look at the implications of the proposed closure of the clinical research centre at Northwick Park hospital. The steering group is chaired by the Department of Health and has representatives from the health service and the Medical Research Council. The steering group will be making its first report to Ministers in the near future.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any proposals to commission a further survey into the impact of eyetest charges.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to do so.
  542
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further evidence has been made available to his Department regarding the effects of the introduction of charges on the number of eyesight checks undertaken.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further evidence has been made available to his Department regarding the effects of the introduction of charges on the numbers of eyesight checks undertaken.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received no new independent evidence on sight test demand since the publication of the independent NOP report earlier this month.

  NHS Reforms
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement as to preparations for his reforms of the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Royal Assent to the National Health Service and Community Care Act was received on 29 June. Preparations for implementation of the reforms from 1 April 1991 are proceeding according to plan.

  Out-patient Services
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any changes will be made to out-patient services as a result of the proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Out-patient departments, like others, will benefit from the emphasis on improved quality of care and efficiency in the delivery of services.

  Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage change in the number of hospital doctors in the national health service since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of hospital doctors in the national health service in England has risen from 39,859 at 30 September 1979 to 45,574 at 30 September 1988, an increase of 14 per cent.

  These figures include permanent paid and honorary staff.

  Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next proposes to visit the new ward block now under construction at the Royal Victoria infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no plans at present to visit the new ward block under construction at the Royal Victoria infirmary. I understand that he lay the foundation stone for the ward block, which at a cost of £30 million represents the Northern region's largest capital project to date, in October 1988.

  Preventive Health Care
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage preventive health care for older people.
  543
  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government fund the Health Education Authority, which is committed to the promotion of good health in old age and ensure that all its relevant programmes address the health education needs of elderly people. In addition, the Department funds a number of voluntary organisations under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, which in various ways promote the physical and mental well-being of the elderly.

  Carers
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be in a position to respond to the recommendations of the Social Services Select Committee report on carers.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be in a position to respond to the recommendations of the Social Services Select Committee report on carers.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be in a position to respond to the recommendations of the Social Services Select Committee report on carers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In accordance with the accepted convention that responses should not be issued while Parliament is in recess we will publish our response when Parliament reconvenes in the autumn.

  Residential and Nursing Care
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to increase the beds which will be needed in the residential and nursing care sectors for older people by the year 2000.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Our policy is to ensure diversity and choice in the provision of high quality services. Residential care may be directly provided by local authorities or secured through arrangements with the independent sector where this offers the best way of meeting care needs.

  The provision of continuous residential health care is a responsibility of the health service. The overall level and type of provision are matters for individual health authorities to decide in the light of local circumstances and patients' needs.

  General Practitioner Contracts
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has recently received on the new form of contract for general practitioners.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since 1 April we have received some 700 letters concerned with the general practitioners' new contract.

  Hip and Knee Replacements
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the growth in numbers of hip replacement and knee replacement operations carried out in national health service hospitals over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  From 1979 to 1989 the number of hip replacement operations performed annually rose from 29,500 to 45,600, an increase of 55 per cent. Information on the number of knee replacement operations carried out in 1988–89 is not yet available, but preliminary figures indicate that there were around 10,000 compared with 3,100 in 1979—an increase of 200 per cent.

  Health Authority Mergers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is being made to ensure fair and reasonable representation by constituent authorities on new health authorities when two or more are merged.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Proposals for health authorities to merge will be considered only where there is a compelling case for change. The non-executive members of any new authority which is formed as the result of a merger will be chosen solely on the basis of the individual contribution they can make to the new authority and not to represent the interests of any particular section of the population or area. Nevertheless, non-executive members will usually have some connection with the area served by the new authority and an understanding of the needs and issues of the whole district.

  Mental Handicap Services
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to introduce a specific grant earmarked for mental handicap services.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to introduce a specific grant earmarked for mental handicap services.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to introduce a specific grant earmarked for mental handicap services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) earlier today.

  Chiropractice
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about his policy towards the report of the Medical Research Council which recommends that chiropractice should be introduced into the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  While we have noted the report with interest, there are no plans to introduce chiropractice into the NHS.

  Consultants
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of the appointment of the 100 additional consultants, announced in the White Paper "Working for Patients" will be.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) on 27 February at columns 125–26. Once all 100 new consultants are in post, the annual cost of the scheme will be about £37 million.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the future of the chiropody profession.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The only representations we have received concerning recognition of qualifications by the chiropody board are those made in my hon. Friend's recent letters. I have agreed to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue and my office will be contacting him shortly to arrange this.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend the terms of reference for the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The terms of reference of the committee were agreed by the Government and the tobacco industry as part of the voluntary agreement on tobacco products' advertising and promotion, and health warnings. We are satisfied that the current terms of reference allow the committee effectively to fulfil its role.

  Kevin Keary Trust
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide financial assistance to the Kevin Keary Trust.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received no request for financial assistance from the Kevin Keary Trust direct. I suggest that the trust should consider approaching the local health authority in the first instance.

  Greater Manchester Hospitals
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about staffing levels in hospitals in Greater Manchester and care of the elderly.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Staffing levels in hospitals and, in particular, the care of elderly people in Greater Manchester is a matter for the local health authorities, taking account of all the guidance and good practice available.

  The North Western regional health authority has, in particular, issued guidance in a document entitled "Standards for Nursing Services", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those hospitals taking part in the national pilot scheme for information management and technology training; what are the terms of reference; when the pilot scheme will finish; when he expects to publish the results; and if he will indicate which of those hospitals taking part in the scheme have expressed an interest in trust status.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The National Health Service Training Authority (NHSTA) has responsibility for management of a joint Department of Health/NHSTA information management and technology (IMT) training strategy for England and Wales. There are at present two national pilot schemes in progress.

  Project 05. This aims to identify IMT training needs and to produce open learning materials to meet these. The first stage of the pilot project should finish by October 1990 with the learning materials published shortly afterwards.

  The sites involved are:

  Barnsley District General Hospital

  Bronglais Hospital Aberystwyth

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary1

  George Eliot Hospital Nuneaton

  Glenfield General Hospital Leicester

  Hope Hospital Salford

  Leighton Hospital Crewe1

  Northern General Hospital Sheffield1

  Riverside District Health Authority (Charing Cross and Westminster Hospitals, District Family and Community Services and Mental Health Units)

  St. Bartholomews Hospital London1

  1 Have expressed an interest in trust status.

  Project 027 This pilot relates to district health authorities rather than to individual hospitals. It aims to set up the infrastructure for the delivery of IMT training. The pilot scheme is due to run from August 1990 to February 1991 with the results published shortly afterwards.

  The district health authorities involved are:

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  Leicestershire

  Macclesfield

  Plymouth

  Portsmouth

  South-East Kent

  West Dorset

  York

  and one district chosen and financed by the Welsh Office yet to be decided.

  The following interests in trust status have been expressed within the participating districts:

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly: Cornwall Mental Handicap Services, Cornwall Community Services, West Cornwall Acute Services.

  Leicestershire: None.

  Macclesfield: Community and Mental Handicap Services, District General Hospital Acute Services, Mental Health Services.

  Plymouth: Acute Services.

  Portsmouth: None.

  South-East Kent: William Harvey and Buckland Hospital, District Community Services.

  West Dorset: Acute Services, Mental Health Services, Community and General Services.

  York: None.

  Total Quality Management Initiative
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals that are taking part in the national pilot scheme for the total quality management initiative; when the pilot scheme will finish; when he expects to publish the results; and if he will indicate which of those hospitals taking part in the scheme have expressed an interest in trust status.
  547
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of £500,000 was made available in 1989–90 from central funds to assist 17 district health authorities implement total quality management. Funds for 1990–91 projects will be allocated shortly. Many of the existing projects have applied for continued funding, reflecting the long-term nature of implementation.

  A first evaluation of the projects will commence this autumn. It is expected that early findings will be made available to the NHS next year.

  Expressions of interest in trust status do not necessarily correspond with district-led initiatives on total quality management. Details of hospitals which have taken part in the scheme and also shown an interest in trust status are as follows:

  Demonstration districts

  Expressions of interest

  Doncaster

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and the Montague Hospital

  Waltham Forest

  Waltham Forest (whole District)

  Worthing

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals

  Merton and Sutton

  St. Helier and Sutton Hospitals

  East Berkshire

  East Berkshire Mental Handicap Unit

  Mid Staffordshire

  Mid Staffs Mental Health Unit

  Mid Staffs Community Unit

  Liverpool

  Liverpool Community Heath Services

  Liverpool Dental Hospital

  Liverpool Mental Health Services

  Liverpool Obstetrics and Gynaecology Services

  Broadgreen Hospital

  Royal Liverpool Hospital

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital

  West Dorset

  West Dorset Community Services

  West Dorset General Hospital (Acute Services)

  West Dorset Mental Health Services

  Northallerton

  Nil

  York

  Nil

  South West Herts

  Nil

  Canterbury and Thanet

  Nil

  Milton Keynes

  Nil

  Cheltenham

  Nil

  South East Staffordshire

  Nil

  Trafford

  Nil

  Winchester

  Nil

  Worthing

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals

  Merton and Sutton

  St. Helier and Sutton Hospitals

  East Berkshire

  East Berkshire Mental Handicap Unit

  Mid Staffordshire

  Mid Staffordshire Mental Health Unit

  Mid Staffordshire Community Unit

  Liverpool

  Liverpool Community Health Services

  Liverpool Dental Hospital

  Liverpool Mental Health Services

  Liverpool Obstetrics and Gynaecology Services

  Broadgreen Hospital

  Royal Liverpool Hospital

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital

  548
  West Dorset

  West Dorset Community Services

  West Dorset General Hospital (Acute Services)

  West Dorset Mental Health Services

  York

  Nil

  Northallerton

  South West Hertfordshire

  Canterbury and Thanet

  Milton Keynes

  Cheltenham

  South East Staffordshire

  Trafford

  Winchester

  Elderly People
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has made to the European Commission communication on aging (COM(90)80 FINAL).

  Mr. Dorrell
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State presented an explanatory memorandum to Parliament on 29 June, copies of which are available in the Library and the Vote Office. We have made it clear that while we support the spirit of the communication, we believe that a number of the proposals are best considered in the context of national arrangements.

  Weil's Disease
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what forms of protection are available in the United Kingdom against Weil's disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Although leptospirosis is a rare occupational disease, recently there has been increased public concern about the possible risk associated with water sports such as canoeing.

  Advice on protection is aimed primarily at prevention. Clubs, local authorities and water companies provide water sports enthusiasts with a leaflet giving advice on how to reduce the risk of infection by taking simple precautions. Open wounds should be covered with waterproof dressing and injuries sustained during the activity should be washed thoroughly and a waterproof dressing applied. If symptoms develop, no matter how minor, medical opinion should be sought.

  A vaccine is available in Japan, but it is not generally effective against the strains of the disease found in this country.

  Lassa Fever
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of Lassa fever have been identified within the United Kingdom for each year since 1982.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Three cases have been identified in the United Kingdom during the period 1982–1989. One case occurred in 1982, one in 1984 and a third in 1985.

  New Medical Practitioners
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has, by region, on the numbers and percentages of all newly registered medical practitioners entering(a) the hospital sector and (b) general practice, in each year since 1987.
  549
  Mrs, Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ethnic Minority Employees
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information he has on the numbers of ethnic minority people employed in the(a) family practitioner committees and (b) community health service;

  (2) what information he has on (a) the number and (b) the grades of ethnic minority people employed in management in the national health service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  The number of places in residential care homes for mentally handicapped people as at 31 March

  1979

  1988

  Staffed

  Unstaffed

  Total

  Staffed

  Unstaffed

  Total

  Regional health authority

  Local authority

  Voluntary

  Private

  Local authority

  Local authority

  Voluntary

  Private

  Local authority

  Northern

  675

  90

  0

  51

  816

  1,021

  157

  120

  224

  1,522

  Yorkshire

  839

  13

  4

  33

  889

  1,265

  199

  383

  326

  2,173

  Trent

  932

  134

  42

  96

  1,204

  1,195

  310

  568

  410

  2,483

  East Anglia

  308

  127

  227

  66

  728

  351

  164

  678

  242

  1,435

  North West Thames

  760

  121

  0

  64

  945

  1,162

  452

  35

  197

  1,846

  North East Thames

  750

  95

  66

  29

  940

  1,009

  349

  180

  158

  1,696

  South East Thames

  764

  321

  931

  53

  2,069

  745

  473

  1,047

  141

  2,406

  South West Thames

  465

  283

  84

  26

  858

  757

  504

  259

  60

  1,580

  Wessex

  634

  226

  86

  49

  995

  708

  281

  371

  72

  1,432

  Oxford

  513

  32

  0

  128

  673

  785

  303

  226

  179

  1,493

  South Western

  540

  242

  46

  74

  902

  789

  973

  1,213

  186

  3,161

  West Midlands

  1,189

  177

  80

  93

  1,539

  1,791

  638

  631

  235

  3,295

  Mersey

  774

  132

  75

  78

  1,059

  913

  311

  207

  176

  1,607

  North Western

  1,310

  127

  12

  88

  1,537

  1,487

  391

  217

  234

  2,329

  Total

  10,453

  2,120

  1,653

  928

  15,154

  13,978

  5,505

  6,135

  2,840

  28,458

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of places in homes for mentally ill people in 1979 and for the latest year for which figures are available in each of the 14 health regions.

  The number of places in residential care homes for mentally ill people as at 31 March

  1979

  1988

  Staffed

  Unstaffed

  Total

  Staffed

  Unstaffed

  Total

  Regional Health Authority

  Local authority

  Voluntary

  Private

  Local authority

  Local authority

  Voluntary

  Private

  Local authority

  Northern

  218

  0

  0

  81

  299

  189

  75

  152

  128

  544

  Yorkshire

  225

  7

  0

  45

  277

  289

  42

  370

  168

  869

  Trent

  211

  14

  60

  47

  332

  231

  33

  374

  175

  813

  East Anglia

  40

  53

  23

  79

  195

  32

  69

  233

  91

  425

  North West Thames

  288

  196

  0

  131

  615

  321

  236

  31

  184

  772

  North East Thames

  193

  121

  0

  112

  426

  169

  243

  142

  130

  684

  South East Thames

  182

  396

  391

  126

  1,095

  230

  364

  447

  223

  1,264

  South West Thames

  122

  240

  5

  101

  468

  170

  183

  238

  89

  680

  Wessex

  65

  174

  0

  100

  339

  63

  188

  133

  101

  485

  Oxford

  63

  31

  42

  44

  180

  118

  121

  82

  85

  406

  South Western

  79

  32

  12

  115

  238

  54

  52

  319

  142

  567

  West Midlands

  260

  49

  19

  167

  495

  308

  255

  286

  183

  1,032

  Mersey

  182

  47

  33

  47

  309

  188

  116

  87

  75

  466

  North Western

  182

  0

  70

  87

  339

  299

  89

  229

  121

  738

  TOTAL

  2,310

  1,360

  655

  1,282

  5,607

  2,661

  2,066

  3,123

  1,895

  9,745

  Perinatal Deaths
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of perinatal deaths per 1,000 births in 1979 and for the latest year for which figures are available in each of the 14 health regions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is shown in the table.

  Overseas Doctors Association
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times he has met the Overseas Doctors Association; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Ministers and officials meet the association from time to time to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of places in homes for mentally handicapped people in 1979 and for the latest year for which figures are available in each of the 14 health regions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is given in the table.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is given in the table.

  Perinatal mortality number and rate (per 1,000 total births) by Regional Health Authorities (RHAs) in England, 1979 and 19891

  Year

  Area

  1979

  19891

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  England and Wales

  9,432

  14·7

  5,751

  8·3

  England

  8,839

  14·6

  5,424

  8·3

  RHA

  Northern

  687

  16·4

  362

  9·2

  551

  Year

  Area

  1979

  19891

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Yorkshire

  775

  16·6

  423

  8·5

  Trent

  856

  14·6

  524

  8·5

  East Anglian

  311

  13·0

  174

  6·7

  North West Thames

  624

  13·2

  414

  8·3

  North East Thames

  675

  13·5

  468

  8·3

  South East Thames

  629

  14·1

  433

  8·4

  South West Thames

  467

  13·3

  274

  7·0

  Wessex

  425

  12·8

  317

  8·3

  Oxford

  371

  11·6

  258

  7·2

  South Western

  505

  13·3

  273

  6·7

  West Midlands

  1,155

  16·8

  712

  9·7

  Mersey

  506

  15·6

  270

  8·2

  North Western

  853

  15·9

  522

  9·2

  1 Provisional.

  Perinatal mortality: stillbirths, and deaths in the first week of life, rates per 1,000 live and still births.

  Cataract Operations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of cataract operations carried out in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available in each of the 14 health regions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health authorities in England reported the following figures for 1988–89. The figures for 1979 are extracted from the 1979 hospital in-patient inquiry.

  Estimated number of cataract operations by health region

  Region

  1 1979

  2 1988–89

  Northern

  3,400

  4,800

  Yorkshire

  2,900

  6,300

  Trent

  3,200

  6,900

  East Anglia

  1,600

  3,500

  North West Thames

  2,500

  6,300

  North East Thames

  2,200

  6,300

  South East Thames

  3,100

  6,100

  South West Thames

  2,100

  5,600

  Wessex

  2,500

  5,800

  Oxford

  1,700

  4,700

  South Western

  2,800

  5,500

  West Midlands

  3,000

  9,200

  Mersey

  1,600

  3,700

  North Western

  4,600

  7,000

  Board of Governors (1979 only)

  2,200

  1 Source: 1979 hospital in-patient inquiry

  2 Source: July 1989 planning statements—1988–89 outturn.

  Smoking
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will include nicotine tablets on a trial basis among the items available on general practitioners' prescriptions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Nicorette chewing gum. We do not intend to make this product available on NHS prescription as the advisory committee on borderline substances has consistently recommended that it has no therapeutic use in the treatment of disease.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce the chairman and deputy chairman of the new human fertilisation and embryology authority.
  552
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am pleased to announce that Professor Colin Campbell, vice-chancellor of Nottingham university and emeritus professor of jurisprudence at the Queen's university, Belfast and Lady Brittan JP, member of the Equal Opportunities Commission, have accepted appointment as respectively chairman and deputy chairman. As the human fertilisation and embryology authority cannot be set up until the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has received Royal Assent, their acceptance is on a provisional basis until then.

  The new authority will have a major task to prepare the way for operating the licensing and other powers for which the legislation provides and I think it right to make these appointments now so that this work can begin. The remaining membership of the authority will be announced later.

  In the period before the new authority assumes its full powers, probably in the summer of 1991, I very much hope that the interim licensing authority will continue to perform the functions for which it was set up in 1985 by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists with the same vigour and commitment as it has always shown.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of the total annual cost and the average annual cost of full-time posts in the National health service; and if he will break down the average cost for a full-time equivalent post into pay, national insurance superannuation, and other costs such as office space, heating, lighting etc·, for 1979–80 and each subsequent year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: Information on salaries and wages costs derived from annual accounts and manpower returns submitted to the Department for the financial years 1979–80 to 1988–89 (the latest available) is shown in the table.

  The format of the annual accounts of health authorities does not provide for office, other accommodation, heating, lighting and similar costs to be assigned between staff and patients. Similarly, comprehensive data to permit the derivation of annual figures for particular elements within the average total salaries and wages cost per whole-time equivalent are not available centrally.

  National Health Service (England)—Total salaries and wages costs £ Million (cash)

  Average total salaries and wages cost per whole time equivalent post1 £ (cash)

  1979–80

  3,971·8

  5,160

  1980–81

  5,217·1

  6,620

  1981–82

  5,706·7

  6,970

  1982–83

  6,068·7

  7,350

  1983–84

  6,405·4

  7,760

  1984–85

  6,753·1

  8,300

  1985–86

  7,100·0

  8,800

  1986–87

  7,628·5

  9,600

  1987–88

  8,353·7

  10,600

  1988–89

  9,409·1

  12,030

  1 Approximate.

  Sources: (a) Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities, special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, family practitioner committees, the Dental Estimates Board and the Prescription Pricing Authority. (b) Department of Health annual censuses of NHS medical and

  553
  non-medical manpower as at 30 September of each year.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are gross salaries and wages costs (including employers' national insurance and superannuation contributions) and relate to directly employed NHS staff. The costs of non-NHS staff (agency, etc), locums, and payments to contractors for family practitioner services are excluded.

  2. The whole time equivalent figures used are not adjusted for the reduction in nurses' working hours during 1980–81 and exclude certain special health authorities and other NHS bodies such as the Health Education Authority. The comparatively small total whole time equivalent figures for such authorities and bodies were not collected until 1987 and thus for comparability all relevant other data have been excluded.

  Average daily available beds1 and in-patient cases treated National Health Service hospitals: 1979 and 1988–89

  1979

  1988–89

  District health authority

  Average daily available beds

  In-patient cases treated

  In-patients per available bed

  Average daily available beds

  In-patient cases treated

  In-patients per available bed

  North West Thames RHA

  Barnet

  2,841

  33,616

  11·8

  2,114

  36,482

  17·3

  Harrow

  908

  24,082

  26·5

  802

  25,486

  31·8

  Hillingdon

  1,628

  38,926

  23·9

  1,184

  40,826

  34·5

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,208

  38,176

  31·6

  Ealing

  1,709

  11,443

  6·7

  1,299

  24,741

  19·0

  Riverside

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2,702

  51,066

  18·9

  Parkside

  3,681

  54,802

  14·9

  2,634

  52,548

  19·9

  North East Thames RHA

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  3,283

  44,180

  13·5

  2,562

  46,123

  18·0

  Hampstead

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,683

  26,601

  15·8

  Bloomsbury

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,912

  59,318

  31·0

  Islington

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  813

  29,541

  36·3

  City and Hackney

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,477

  37,322

  25·3

  Newham

  941

  20,471

  21·8

  785

  21,909

  27·9

  Tower Hamlets

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,196

  33,493

  28·0

  Enfield

  1,234

  20,528

  16·6

  977

  23,191

  23·7

  Haringey

  1,236

  37,693

  22·4

  799

  22,321

  27·9

  Redbridge

  1,655

  20,320

  12·3

  1,383

  20,485

  14·8

  Waltham Forest

  3,311

  32,753

  9·9

  2,120

  39,339

  18·6

  South East Thames RHA

  Bexley

  1,653

  16,601

  10·0

  1,108

  21,407

  19·3

  Greenwich

  1,777

  39,803

  22·4

  1,150

  34,554

  30·0

  Bromley

  2,591

  29,822

  11·5

  1,757

  28,508

  16·2

  West Lambeth

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,537

  32,736

  21·3

  Camberwell

  1,432

  35,266

  24·6

  1,147

  35,883

  31·3

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  2,336

  54,467

  23·3

  1,657

  54,154

  32·7

  South West Thames RHA

  Croydon

  3,192

  26,861

  8·4

  2,026

  34,969

  17·3

  Kingston and Esher

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,242

  24,189

  19·5

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  684

  16,739

  24·5

  Wandsworth

  2,871

  43,654

  15·2

  2,095

  41,757

  19·9

  Merton and Sutton

  2,687

  32,195

  12·0

  1,921

  36,691

  19·1

  Special Health Authorities

  The Hospitals for Sick Children

  571

  15,569

  30·1

  387

  15,921

  41·2

  The National Hospitals for Nervous Diseases

  357

  6,349

  17·8

  304

  5,794

  19·0

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  208

  9,050

  43·6

  143

  11,553

  80·7

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals

  472

  2,495

  5·3

  466

  2,666

  5·7

  The National Heart and Chest Hospitals

  603

  13,068

  21·7

  359

  17,627

  49·1

  The Royal Marsden Hospital

  361

  10,993

  30·5

  311

  11,027

  35·5

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  810

  25,666

  31·7

  The Eastman Dental Hospital

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  12

  687

  57·3

  Source: SH3 return 1979, KHO3 and SH3a returns 1988–89.

  1 Excluding neonatal cots on maternity units.

  n/a Comparable data not available due to NHS restructuring in 1979.

  In-patients, Greater London
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the average number of in-patient cases treated per available bed in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available for each of the health districts lying within the Greater London area.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Gynaecology and Obstetrics
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each district health authority within Greater London the most recent yearly totals for gynaecology and obstetric cases, expressed as(a) in-patient cases, (b) out-patient cases and (c) day cases.

  Hospital activity, health authorities wholly or partly within the old GLC area—1988–89 Obstetrics

  Ante-natal out patients

  Post-natal out patients

  Health authority

  In patient cases treated

  Day case admissions

  New att.1

  Re att.2

  New att.1

  Re att.2

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Barnet

  4,851

  0

  2,537

  13,288

  18

  582

  Harrow

  4,134

  0

  3,320

  18,018

  0

  384

  Hillingdon

  4,143

  0

  3,765

  13,657

  62

  207

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  5,133

  0

  4,340

  18,792

  0

  780

  Ealing

  2,597

  0

  2,204

  10,259

  0

  121

  Riverside

  3,371

  0

  2,825

  19,565

  2

  1,021

  Parkside

  5,547

  26

  3,477

  18,030

  641

  616

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Hampstead

  2,076

  0

  4,489

  9,485

  21

  477

  Bloomsbury

  4,685

  24

  3,050

  15,318

  0

  0

  Islington

  4,404

  1

  3,623

  21,844

  0

  802

  City and Hackney

  4,057

  132

  2,687

  18,410

  129

  481

  Newham

  5,473

  3

  3,886

  23,957

  0

  442

  Tower Hamlets

  4,127

  2

  3,197

  15,458

  25

  241

  Enfield

  3,389

  0

  3,367

  12,642

  74

  939

  Haringey

  3,810

  37

  2,272

  7,764

  138

  889

  Redbridge

  4,404

  0

  3,290

  18,944

  0

  856

  Waltham Forest

  5,807

  0

  4,038

  18,744

  0

  522

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Bexley

  5,065

  0

  3,652

  17,067

  200

  0

  Greenwich

  4,741

  234

  3,516

  9,619

  848

  0

  Bromley

  4,772

  3

  3,997

  14,411

  76

  464

  West Lambeth

  4,083

  0

  2,040

  9,874

  0

  0

  Camberwell

  5,083

  5

  4,205

  17,987

  128

  442

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  6,751

  0

  5,393

  30,151

  396

  0

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Croydon

  7,819

  47

  4,286

  15,524

  28

  543

  Kingston and Esher

  2,968

  88

  2,487

  12,144

  590

  0

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  1,664

  20

  992

  6,042

  0

  49

  Wandsworth

  4,442

  184

  2,640

  14,520

  363

  701

  Merton and Sutton

  4,914

  1

  3,812

  19,390

  0

  378

  Special Health Authorities

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's

  7,549

  1

  6,201

  57,500

  0

  0

  1 Attendances arising from referrals, principally from General Practitioners.

  2 Consultant initiated attendances.

  Sources: SH3a, KP70 and KHO9 returns.

  Hospital activity, Health Authorities wholly or partly within the old GLC area, 1988–89 Gynaecology

  Health Authority

  In-patient cases treated

  Day case admissions

  Out-patients

  New att.1

  Re att.2

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Barnet

  3,044

  1,416

  4,343

  7,885

  Harrow

  1,818

  347

  2,029

  6,038

  Hillingdon

  2,771

  891

  3,407

  5,262

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  4,631

  328

  4,405

  9,598

  Ealing

  2,014

  483

  2,026

  2,825

  Riverside

  3,681

  1,070

  5,998

  10,847

  Parkside

  4,990

  2,997

  5,014

  14,763

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Hampstead

  3,206

  548

  3,915

  8,053

  Bloomsbury

  5,713

  1,044

  9,262

  25,009

  Islington

  3,727

  845

  5,817

  10,923

  City and Hackney

  3,133

  1,837

  5,261

  8,474

  Newham

  2,150

  1,762

  3,781

  8,232

  Tower Hamlets

  2,729

  1,076

  4,533

  6,539

  Enfield

  2,207

  321

  2,310

  3,976

  Haringey

  2,332

  282

  1,863

  3,768

  556
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: The information requested is given in the tables.
  557

  Health Authority

  In-patient cases treated

  Day case admissions

  Out-patients

  New att.1

  Re att.2

  Redbridge

  1,768

  649

  2,210

  5,900

  Waltham Forest

  3,970

  137

  3,426

  9,750

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Bexley

  1,813

  621

  2,135

  4,359

  Greenwich

  3,914

  236

  3,510

  7,712

  Bromley

  2,213

  1,387

  4,232

  7,841

  West Lambeth

  2,307

  1,449

  3,399

  8,870

  Camberwell

  2,949

  986

  5,720

  12,921

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  4,054

  826

  5,165

  8,014

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Croydon

  4,210

  1,354

  3,855

  6,342

  Kingston and Esher

  2,362

  1,605

  2,464

  6,125

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  1,759

  397

  1,384

  3,343

  Wandsworth

  3,635

  1,752

  3,525

  10,394

  Merton and Sutton

  2,359

  898

  3,665

  6,720

  Special Health Authorities

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's

  4,022

  269

  4,992

  34,500

  1 Attendances arising from referrals, principally from General Practitioners.

  1 Consultant initiated attendances.

  Sources: SH3a, KP70 and KHO9 returns.

  National Health Service Manpower, Greater London
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each district health authority within Greater London the most recent manpower figures

  National Health Service nursing and midwifery, medical and dental and professional and technical staff in post for each district within Greater London as at 30 September 1988

  Whole-time equivalent1

  Districts within Regional Health Authorities

  Nursing and midwifery2

  Medical and dental3

  Professional and technical

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Barnet

  2,870

  180

  460

  Harrow

  1,430

  140

  350

  Hillingdon

  2,060

  190

  450

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  2,030

  150

  390

  Ealing

  1,760

  130

  270

  Parkside

  4,060

  460

  800

  Riverside

  3,750

  500

  1,000

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Hampstead

  2,120

  310

  600

  Bloomsbury

  3,210

  540

  1,040

  Islington

  1,510

  160

  340

  City and Hackney

  2,620

  360

  720

  Newham

  1,410

  140

  260

  Tower Hamlets

  2,390

  330

  610

  Enfield

  1,500

  100

  240

  Haringey

  1,350

  110

  310

  Redbridge

  1,520

  90

  210

  Waltham Forest

  2,660

  140

  380

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Bexley

  1,580

  90

  240

  Greenwich

  2,050

  180

  450

  Bromley

  2,180

  170

  370

  West Lambeth

  2,370

  340

  550

  Camberwell

  2,310

  350

  580

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  3,550

  530

  930

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Croydon

  2,300

  140

  410

  Kingston and Esher

  1,550

  110

  250

  Richmond and Twickenham

  1,260

  80

  290

  Wandsworth

  2,940

  400

  570

  Merton and Sutton

  2,590

  180

  520

  558
  expressed as whole-time equivalents for (a) nurses and midwives, (b) doctors and dentists and (c) professional and technical staff.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: The requested information is shown in the table. September 1988 are the latest available data broken down to this level of detail.
  559

  Whole-time equivalent1

  Districts within Regional Health Authorities

  Nursing and midwifery2

  Medical and dental3

  Professional and technical

  London Postgraduate Special Health Authorities

  4,910

  1,210

  1,500

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  2 Includes agency.

  3 Includes Permanent Paid, Honorary and Locum Staff. Excludes Consultants and Senior Registrars in Non-Teaching District Health Authorities and Senior Registrars in Teaching District Health Authorities. These staff have their contracts with the Regional Health Authority and are included with the Regional total. North West Thames Region excludes 80 (whole-time equivalents) Hospital consultants because of insufficient information.

  Source: Department of Health (SMI3) Annual Censuses of National Health Service Medical and Non-Medical Manpower.

  Listeria
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the number of cases of listeria for each of the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: The number of cases by month for the past 12 months of listeriosis, derived from reports to the communicable disease surveillance centre and to the division of microbiological reagents and quality control at the central public health laboratory, Colindale were as follows:

  Number

  1989

  June

  26

  July

  44

  August

  21

  September

  14

  October

  9

  November

  9

  December

  3

  1990

  January

  7

  February

  6

  March

  11

  April

  9

  May

  110

  1 Provisional figure.

  In the first quarter of 1990 there were 24 cases of listeriosis reported, compared with 67 in the corresponding period of 1989. In 1989 there was a decline in cases reported in the final two quarters of the year for the first time since surveillance began more than 20 years ago. Previously there has always been an increase in summer and autumn.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: No document falls due for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with
  560
  their duties under the Act, Departments are obliged to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which the Department may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: The Department complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with PRO inspecting officers.

  Departmental Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what system he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: The Department receives and generates many millions of documents in the course of its business, and it would be impracticable, and disproportionately costly, to record these individually. However, the vast majority are placed, with related documents, on registered files in accordance with well-established registry practices.

  Hospitals (Air Emissions)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that every precaution is taken in hospitals to prevent release of halons in the atmosphere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: The June 1990 issue of Health Service Estate, published by the Department, a copy of which is available in the Library, contained guidance on the problems and the safe use of chlorofluorocarbons and halons for building.

  Regional supplies officers have also been asked to seek alternatives to products which contain halons and CFCs. Further advice will be issued as necessary.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the need to protect the environment from the emission of dangerous substances used in hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: The effects produced by emissions from hospitals are well understood

  561
  throughout the national health service. Hospitals are required to comply with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the Clean Air Act. The removal of Crown immunity will require the national health service to comply with impending comprehensive legislation on environmental protection.

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the total fees paid to national health service dentists for work relating to dentures is 562
  related to the cost of laboratory work; and if such a specific percentage is taken into account by the dental rates study group in arriving at fee assessments.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: In the current scale of fees for national health service dental treatment, which came into effect on 1 October 1989, approximately 52 per cent. of the total fees available to dentists for the provision and fitting of dentures is attributable to dental laboratory work. The fee for each item of treatment involving laboratory work is, however, calculated separately by the dental rates study group, using a representative sample of current industry catalogues to indicate the cost of the laboratory work involved.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that arrangements have been made to visit the Immigration Appeals Tribunal and the District Probate Registry in Birmingham on Friday, 13th July. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday, 13th July

Dolphins and Porpoises: Conservation
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will initiate an international approach to the Japanese Government to propose reductions in the killing of dolphins and porpoises.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, any approach to the Japanese Government would be most effectively made within the relevant international fora. We have, for a long time, insisted that the convention of the International Whaling Commission, as drafted, offers a means to regulate catches of dolphins and porpoises. We shall once again press that view with like-minded countries within the International Whaling Commission at its meeting now talking place in the Netherlands.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that Japanese scientists, among others, have warned that one species of porpoise is threatened with extinction? Does he agree that extra international measures are now needed to protect marine mammals?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes. I am aware that the 1989 report of the IWC Scientific Committee, upon which Japanese scientists are represented, concluded that the 1988 take of Dall's porpoises was clearly unsustainable and that the catch should be urgently reduced to the level of previous years. Since then, we have received assurances from the Japanese that new regulations will reduce the number caught.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we recognise that Her Majesty's Government are committed, as we all are, to the protection of dolphins and porpoises. In those circumstances why are the Government blocking the EC proposal to ban drift nets? Secondly, what representations have Her
2010
Majesty's Government made to Japan unilaterally or with other countries, on the wholesale slaughter of cetaceans?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point about drift net fishing, we share the anxieties of environmentalists about large-scale drift net fishing practised by the Japanese in the South Pacific. Happily, the nations concerned were able to agree last year to a United Nations resolution which calls for an end to large-scale drift net fishing in the South Pacific by 30th June 1991, and, unless scientifically proved unnecessary, a global moratorium by 30th June 1992. The United Kingdom, with its EC partners, was able to play a major and constructive role in those discussions. On the noble Lord's point about making representations to the Japanese, my noble friend Lady Trumpington saw her Japanese counterpart only last week and raised that issue. We shall of course raise it during the course of the present conference in the Netherlands.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, if Her Majesty's Government stopped North Sea interceptory drift netting using nylon monofilament gill nets which kill porpoises indiscriminately, they would be able to approach the Japanese and the international conference without embarrassment?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall have to look into the point about drift net fishing in the North Sea to which the noble Lord refers. However, we are in any case in a good position to approach the Japanese without embarrassment.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their stance over porpoises. May I also thank them for the stand they are taking on Minke whales? Will they continue to resist the request of the Japanese and Norwegians to resume the catching of Minke whales? The Government are doing a good job and I congratulate them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Our views on commercial whaling are well known to the Japanese and have been reiterated in ministerial discussions, most recently in late June. Our delegation to the present IWC meeting will resist any suggestion that the present moratorium on whaling should be lifted.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, are there any proposals on the table for verification and enforcement under penalty?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I can answer my noble friend's question. We have consistently argued in the IWC and elsewhere that we are not opposed to scientific research whaling. However, we believe that specific programmes should only be undertaken when they can fully satisfy the IWC scientific committee. The Japanese programme did not do so. Equally valid scientific data could be collected by non-lethal means.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, in America public opinion has forced the tuna fishing industry to move over more and more to line fishing instead of net fishing because that does not trap the dolphins. Will Her Majesty's Government support that pressure as well as any other measures? Further, is it not the case that the Americans have also developed a kind of net that enables porpoises to escape? Should we not press that aspect as well?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly take into account what the noble Lord has said. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give a specific answer at the moment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the international conference in Holland to which my noble friend referred takes place this week. Will the Government support a deliberate ban on hunting porpoises and dolphins, as well as pressing for disincentives to catching them in ordinary fishery drift nets?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall ascertain whether that can be included in the representations that we make this week in the Netherlands.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, have the Government considered that if they agree to the proposal in the first Question, the Japanese may retaliate by mounting a great worldwide campaign to stop fox hunting in this country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that there is no comparison between the two. So far as I am aware, the fox is not an endangered species.

Baltic States and Tibet: Comparison
2.45 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the relationship between the USSR and the Baltic republics is comparable to that between China and Tibet.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the relationships are not comparable. The Government have never recognised the legality of the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union in 1940. Successive governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities there.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that the Baltic states themselves see their struggle for freedom as very similar to that of Tibet? Is he further aware of a letter that I have received from a Mr. Dainis Ivans, the first deputy chairman of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Latvia? He states:
"In my opinion the Tibetan situation is similar to that of Latvia … and the successful resolution of one could aid in the resolution of the other".
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, unfortunately I have not seen the letter to which my noble friend refers, but I suppose that is not surprising. As I said in my original Answer, we do not regard the two matters as comparable.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we support the Government's policy in general in relation to the two countries concerned. Can the noble Lord explain why the right honourable lady the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary refuse to see the Dalai Lama, a Nobel Prize winner, but are always prepared to see the Lithuanian Prime Minister?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have always recognised the Dalai Lama in his role as a distinguished spiritual leader. There is no question of preventing him from coming here; he is welcome at any time. However, he is regarded as a leader of a government in exile which is not recognised by any government and we have no dealings with it. Meetings with Ministers would therefore be open to misinterpretation. That policy is quite in line with the policy of our EC and G7 partners.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend give an undertaking that there will be no attempt to appease China over Tibet in order to gain its co-operation with regard to Hong Kong?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are not appeasing China at all in our policy as regards Tibet. We have to take into account our interests in Hong Kong when dealing with China, but that is a quite separate issue.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Lord does not regard the situation of Tibet as analogous to that of Lithuania. However, does he accept that Tibet has been occupied by China since 1949? That is even more recent than the Soviet Union's occupation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my understanding is that Tibet was brought under Chinese control during the Qing dynasty between 1644 and 1911. That goes back rather further than 1949.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that the situation changed radically in 1949? The policies pursued by the Chinese Government since then have been severe, verging on genocide.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we believe that dialogue between the Tibetans and Chinese offers the best hope of a solution to the problem. We have encouraged the Chinese Government to engage in a dialogue and we have also raised with the Chinese the question of human rights abuses in Tibet and throughout China.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept, in relation to the answer given to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the Minister has

2013
described the Chinese version of history which bears no relation to anyone else's version? Is the Minister aware that delegates from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia—three of the 40 countries attending the consultation on self-determination for Tibet in London this weekend—have all come specifically to support the Tibetan claim to self-determination? They therefore see the relationship which apparently escapes the Minister.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is up to them.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the position of the Dalai Lama is not wholly different from that of Mandela?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a different Question.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his right honourable friend the Prime Minister is on record as having said that the only reason that she is not receiving the Dalai Lama is for fear of offending the Chinese? She is taking that course not because he is the head of a refugee government but because she wishes to practise appeasement. Is the Minister aware that appeasement in this sense has never worked and will have no effect upon the Chinese? What recent protests have the Government made against the behaviour of China? Even that country's own government admits that Tibet is totally autonomous.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware of the comments which the noble Lord attributes to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. As I have said, we are not appeasing China by our policy. We have made representations to the Chinese about the human rights abuses in Tibet and throughout China. My honourable friend who is to visit China shortly will once again make those representations.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it was because of the appalling oppression by the Chinese in Tibet that the people of Hong Kong began to get extremely worried about our agreement to hand over Hong Kong to China? Therefore it is of the utmost importance to bear down upon Peking in the knowledge that the worse the Chinese behave in Tibet the worse their relations with Hong Kong will be.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we urge the Chinese to behave better as regards their own citizens, particularly in the context of the events of last June. If that were to happen, it would be a good way of restoring confidence in Hong Kong.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that Britain's interest in Tibet arises from the former existence of our Indian empire and that we have no possibility of affecting events there? The only powerful adjacent country is India. Is it not undesirable that we should raise hopes of self-determination in a people for whom we can, alas, do nothing?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is certainly true that when India obtained its independence in 1947 Her Majesty's Government relinquished all rights and responsibilities in Tibet as set out in the treaties between China and Tibet. The new government of India assumed those rights and responsibilities.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government need to be careful in their pronouncements vis-à-vis the relationship between the Baltic republics and the USSR because of the delicate relationship between Ireland, Scotland and Wales vis-à-vis the United Kingdom?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, having heard the speech of the noble Lord in the Hong Kong debate last Friday, I think it is unlikely that I would agree with much of what he has said.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, what facilities and friendly associations are being encouraged by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the large number of Tibetans, particularly Tibetan Buddhists, who are settled in this country, to perhaps give them some encouragement about ever returning to their homeland?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware of the problem which the noble Lord raised. However, I shall find out about it and write to him.

Inflation Rate
2.53 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present rate of inflation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the all-items RPI inflation rate was 9.7 per cent. in May. Underlying inflation, as measured by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments and the community charge, was 7 per cent.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figure he has just given, which was achieved—I do not know whether that is the right word—after 11 years of unbridled power, demonstrates more than anything else the sheer incompetence of this Government, particularly as they have stated so often that their main objective is to achieve low inflation? Is it not now evident that one result of high inflation and high interest rates is increasing unemployment? What are the Government doing to counteract that effect?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I find it strange that noble Lords opposite occasionally try to lecture us on economic management and on the inflation rate. The most recent increase in the rate of inflation is due to large increases in the community charge, which added 1 per cent. to the RPI inflation rate from April. As for unemployment, we have seen a record fall during the course of the past few years and we hope that that will continue.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not one of the factors that has helped to generate inflation the excessive wage demands which the Government have had to deal with? Will my noble friend confirm that Her Majesty's Government intend to be resolute in resisting those?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, pay is generally decided between managers and their employees. On the matter of government pay, we always insist on moderation and that pay settlements must be earned.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the Minister realise that he gave a very interesting answer just now? Is it the Government's policy to use underlying interest rates for the purposes of calculating when the time is right to join the exchange rate mechanism?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. We have always said that we would join the European monetary system when the time was right. We have continued to say that one of the conditions that must be met before we can join the mechanism is for us to have a lower inflation rate.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not a mistake to use Question Time for a general economic debate? Is not the purpose of oral Questions to obtain information?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, on the basis of getting a bit of information, in view of the recent speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to financial institutions is it now the intention to use some form of credit limitation to try to reduce inflation?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he should be extremely grateful for the instruction which we on this side of the House endeavour to give him from time to time? Is he further aware that for at least a quarter of the population on low incomes the inflation rate is not 9.7 per cent. but 11.3 per cent? Will he take that into account? It is the poor who pay.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am always delighted to listen to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. However, perhaps I may remind him that in August 1986 the inflation rate was nearly 27 per cent. That did not do very much to help the worst off in our society.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord further aware that his own Government shoved the rate of inflation up to 22 per cent. within 18 months of taking office?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that was largely caused by the state of the economy that was left to us by the party of the noble Lord.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in exchanging numbers in this way he may have gone slightly adrift? When he referred to 1986, he may have meant to say 1976.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I stand corrected. I meant August 1976, but that was a long time ago.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I would not presume to lecture the noble Lord on this Government's economic policy. Nevertheless, will he confirm that in spite of the Government's policy, which is to reduce demand and to reduce inflation, last month the retail sales figure went up by 1.4 per cent. as did borrowing for consumption? Does that not mean that the Government's policy is simply not working, will not work and will end in disaster?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. We still feel that inflation will come down to around 5 per cent. within the course of next year. We do not look just at retail sales figures but also at house prices and a whole host of other indexes.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, perfectly right in saying that one major factor in inflation is excessive wage demands? However, do not these wage demands start at the top? Will the Government come clean and say that they are opposed to 80 and 90 per cent. increases in salaries or wages, whoever claims them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have always made clear that pay in the private sector has to be decided between managers, directors, shareholders and employees. It is not for the Government to dictate wage increases.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that recent improvements in our balance of trade in manufactured products indicates that the Government's policy is working and that it is a very important factor in controlling inflation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there are certainly signs of a resurgence in exports.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of the answer the Minister gave me it is clear that the Government need lectures from someone. Is the noble Lord aware that the community charge, which he mentioned, was introduced by the Government? Is he also aware that the Government are responsible for increases in the price of electricity and water? It is true that unemployment has decreased in the last few years, but not in the last four months which were the subject of my Question. Will he now deal with that point?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the money raised by the community charge as compared with rates has increased by some 34 per cent. That has nothing to do with the Government and everything to do with local authorities. The noble Lord mentioned unemployment over the past four months. There has been a very slight increase in the number of unemployed. That is largely due to high wage settlements. We hope that there will be pay moderation—we have always argued for that—and that in the long term that will reduce unemployment.

Romania: Long-Term Aid Conditions
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What conditions they require to be fulfilled before giving economic aid to Romania.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we shall wish to see considerable progress towards democracy and economic freedom before considering long-term economic aid to Romania.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that generally encouraging reply and for the non-specific but important criteria that he indicated. Is my noble friend aware that the Americans have stipulated more specific criteria which they wish to see fulfilled before they give economic aid? Is he aware that those criteria include compensating opposition parties, particularly for the destruction of their buildings, the immediate release of students and political detainees, information concerning the location of three missing leaders—Mr. Leon, Mr. Dinca, and Mr. Munteanu—a guarantee of the freedom of the press and an assurance that vigilantes will not be used again as agents of brutal repression? Does my noble friend agree that those are useful criteria which might be borne in mind before assistance, other than humanitarian assistance, is given?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing those demands to our attention. We regard them as practical examples of the criteria which we have already laid down in concert with our partners. Those criteria are commitments to the rule of law, a multi-party system, respect for human rights, economic liberalisation and media freedom. It must be clear that as things stand in Romania not all of those criteria have been met.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I support in general what the noble Lord has just said. Is it nevertheless not the case that the Government are making contributions through multilateral channels; for example, the European Commission and the European Investment Bank?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware of any contributions that we have made through the EIB to Romania. I should be surprised if I found that that was the case. We have given humanitarian aid to Romania, both bilaterally and with our partners in the EC; but humanitarian aid is a different matter from economic aid.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, do we not owe a debt of gratitude to Members of this House who took the trouble to go to Eastern Europe to find out for themselves what was happening and to report back? Is it not true that at the moment 14 of the 15 items included in the declaration of human rights that we signed in 1951 are being flagrantly contravened by the Romanians? Should we not therefore stop further economic aid until the majority of those matters are put right?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have not started economic aid to Romania, as I outlined in my first Answer. I agree with my noble friend that we need to see those conditions met. We are grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox and others from this country for acting as independent observers at the election in Romania. Despite the election we have since seen some rather unpleasant scenes.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Government ensure that the withholding of economic aid does not prevent humane assistance? Is he aware that many people in Romania, including children, who have no responsibility for the nature of the government, are suffering great distress? Will he make sure that humane assistance is not held up while those other matters are settled?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have already made clear to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that humanitarian aid is a quite separate issue from long-term economic aid to which the Question refers. I agree with the noble Lord that Romania's needs are pressing. We have given over £6.5 million so far through the EC and bilaterally, and we have no intention of preventing more being given.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about an hour and that during that adjournment the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill will be taken.

Petition: Environmental Protection Bill
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from Wildlife Link and some 80 other organisations plus 22 prominent individual conservationists concerned with the protection of the environment which prays that this House will delete Part VII from the Environmental Protection Bill pending further discussion and consultation on the future arrangements for nature conservation and countryside protection in the context of the environment White Paper.
Petition presented.

Rights of Way Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, having been informed of the purport of the Rights of Way Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Kimball.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Nicol and the Labour Benches I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, on his success in piloting this useful Bill through your Lordships' House in such a short time.
The noble Lord and the House will recall that my noble friend Lady Nicol raised the question of who should be able to bring proceedings in default of the local authority. She was minded at that time to bring forward an amendment to enable local interest groups to take action. However, she was advised by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and by the Countryside Commission that the provisions of the Bill as it stands would allow any person or organisation to prosecute for encroachment of growing crops and that it is only in the successor to the ploughing offence that prosecution is reserved to local authorities and parish or community councils. In the light of that explanation and in the knowledge that the present provisions have gained wide support my noble friend was content not to table that amendment.
That and the very great interest shown by noble Lords at earlier stages of the Bill should demonstrate to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and to organisations outside the House, especially the Ramblers Association and millions of those to whom the Bill will be of benefit, that we in this House wish to see fair play for all. The noble Baroness has asked me to say that she feels—and I share the view—that the Bill provides much-needed clarification of the law on rights of way. It will be helpful to farmers as well as to walkers and we wish it a safe journey through its final stages.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Bill
3.10 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time. —(Lord Elton.)
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long but since the Second Reading debate on this Bill there has been an exchange of correspondence between myself and the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, in which I sought clarification on one point which did not seem clear to me when I read the Official Report of the debate. The point relates to a sentence in the noble Viscount's speech in which he referred to the situation that exists outside London. He stated that:
"the offence consists of a contravention of the terms, conditions or restrictions generally. Here, the increased penalties apply only
2020
where the terms, conditions or restrictions are contravened, including the limit on numbers".—[Official Report. 20/6/90; col. 1022.]
I felt that that statement was not quite clear. However, the noble Viscount confirmed to me by letter today that he indeed meant that the new increased penalties will apply,
"only where the terms, conditions, etc. of the licence which are contravened or not complied with include one which imposes a limit on the number of people who may be present at the entertainment".
I am grateful for that confirmation.
However, it appears to follow from the use of the word "generally", both in the Minister's Second Reading speech which I quoted and in his letter to me, that there can only be one offence in respect of a licence covering a specified entertainment. In other words, if more than one infringement of the terms, conditions or restrictions in the licence is held by the courts to have taken place, the maximum penalty—be it the existing maximum penalty or the new maximum penalty—can only be applied once and not for each of the specified infringements.
If that is the intention of Parliament it is not in practice what is being applied by the courts. Perhaps I may cite for example the case of Mr. Michael Eavis, the licensee of the annual Glastonbury Festival, who, in 1989, was fined a total of £14,900 for 12 specific infringements under his licence.
This point is obviously important to those of us who are professionally involved in staging musical events. I should be most grateful if the noble Viscount would make absolutely clear before the Bill goes for Royal Assent what is the intention of the law on this matter.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, I can tell the House that there should be only one fine for each offence, under paragraph 12(2) of Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, of which a person is convicted.
If a person is convicted of a single offence consisting of the breach of several terms, conditions or restrictions on a licence, there should be only one penalty: under the law as it stands at the moment, a fine of up to £2,000. If several terms or conditions are breached, the court may regard the offence as being more serious than if only one or two conditions have been breached. But, as I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, that will ultimately depend upon the circumstances of each individual case.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for answering a question which otherwise would have been addressed to me. Although I was responsible for acting for Her Majesty's Government in putting the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 on the statute book, my memory of it is somewhat rusty. However, I can confirm that the intention is that there should be only one offence regardless of the number of breaches committed under it. That is the intention of the Act as I recall it. I hope that that will set at rest the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Bill
3.17 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, on bringing forward what by any standard is a modest measure and for having spoken in such a persuasive manner. Noble Lords who were present at the earlier stages of the Bill will recall the assurance that he displayed in handling potentially difficult amendments. His handling of the Bill is much to the credit of himself and the promoters of the Bill. We are sure that it was done to the satisfaction of Sir Peter Emery, who sent the Bill here from another place. We congratulate the noble Viscount on his stewardship of the Bill while it has been before us in this House.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his kind remarks and to all those who supported the Bill. It is, as he said, a modest measure. We wish it a speedy passage on to the statute book and hope that it will be implemented at an early date.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moped, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Term and Quarter Days (Scotland) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill
3.19 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise].
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert:
("(i) furthering Scotland's economic and social development:
(ii) providing, maintaining and safeguarding employment.").
The noble Lord said: In our view this is one of the very important amendments to the Bill. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if perhaps I take longer than normal on it. The purpose of the amendment is to extend the functions of Scottish Enterprise to include a social remit similar to that available to Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
The social remit would be applied by Scottish Enterprise mainly in rural areas and would be subject to any directions given by the Secretary of State as to the exercise of its functions. While the establishment of a separate Highlands and Islands Enterprise shows some recognition that there are particular problems relating to remoteness and sparsity of population in that part of Scotland, the special problems of other parts of rural Scotland are not recognised.
In order for Scottish Enterprise and local enterprise companies to make an effective contribution to the reduction of rural disadvantage, they must be given a social remit similar to that available to Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The Minister will be aware that, when considering this issue at Committee stage in another place (recorded in Hansard 18th January at cols. 54–55), the Minister of State, Mr. Ian Lang, said:
"I make no apology for proposing a different remit for Highlands and Islands Enterprise. That reflects the differences between that region and the rest of Scotland. To give the same functions to both bodies would be easy but would ignore differences that are acknowledged by both sides of the Committee. The economic and social structure of the Highlands is more fragile. Sparsity of population and geographical remoteness mean that the balance between a community's success and failure is more delicate".
While the experience of the Highlands and Islands Development Board has shown the need for a social remit as a means of stimulating economic and social development, the problems experienced by many rural communities outwith the Highlands and Islands are similar in extent and diversity. Various studies have shown that deprivation is not concentrated in urban areas but is widespread throughout rural Scotland. Studies also indicate that the pattern of rural deprivation is diverse. The problems in rural areas are not solely unemployment problems. They include the availability of public and private services, low income, relatively high prices, limited employment opportunities, skill shortages, out-migration of young people and an ageing population. All these matters apply to rural areas in particular, not just to the Highlands and Islands.
The level of provision of rural services throughout Scotland was also the subject of a report by Mackay Consultants for the Scottish Consumer Council, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency. One of the main aims of the research was to see the changes in the provision

2023
of rural services since 1981. The study uses the same sample of 26 parishes which were surveyed in an earlier study published by the Scottish Consumer Council in 1982. The services covered include retail, education, health, social services, professional services and transport. The study presents the results for the 26 parishes in index form. Transport was excluded from this part of the survey.
The parishes with the lowest level of service provision, or which have experienced the largest reductions in provisions, are distributed across Scotland and are not concentrated in the Highlands and Islands. The parish with the lowest provision is Kinnaird in Tayside. There are other marked differences in places such as Rogart in the Highland division, Tyrie in the Grampian region, and Monymusk, also in Grampian. Overall, the rates of decline for different types of services covered in the study are not uniform. The largest reductions are recorded for public transport, education and retail. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the survey.
In another place the Minister of State said at Committee stage that Scottish Enterprise should not be burdened with a social role that would dilute concentration on its economic and environmental role. That is fair comment but I believe that it is rather simplistic when one is speaking of deeply rural areas. The effectiveness of the Scottish Development Agency in rural areas has been constrained because of its narrow economic and environmental remit. The experience of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Rural Development Commission in England, the Mid-Wales Development Agency and other rural development bodies is that the ability to provide social and community assistance complements their economic development powers and shows recognition of the interconnected nature of economic and social issues.
I consider therefore that the enhancement of Scottish Enterprise's functions to include a social remit would allow both Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies to adopt a more comprehensive approach to the development needs of rural communities. To allow Scottish Enterprise to be established without being at least able to deal with and consider a diversity of problems in rural areas would be to ignore the experience of rural development bodies elsewhere in Britain as well as in Europe and many other parts of the world.
We believe that the amendment is of vital importance. We hope that the Government will give some consideration to it. I trust that the Minister will consider it and be able to give us some hope. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I should like to support the amendment. I do not see why the Minister should not support it. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has covered the ground extremely thoroughly. There are areas such as the Angus Glens—which I know well—where the lack of social development inhibits any other form of development. We all know what that means. It involves the schools, the church, transport, and so on. Services such as the mail bus
2024
have been a great help. Much more could be done for certain areas of Scotland, not only in Angus but in the Cabrach and Aberdeenshire. It would be difficult to find a more desolate area in the Highlands than parts of the Cabrach.
I see no reason why the Government should not accept the amendment. After all, there is a remit to improve the environment. Sometimes that cannot be improved without considering the social side. I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister says. Perhaps we may question him further. However, it appears to be a sensible amendment which he could accept.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities was kind enough to speak with me about the amendment. It may have spoken to the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Mackie. It is a very interesting point. I can understand that the Government wish the present system to continue into the future for the sake of continuity and the good working of the system, and that the rather different remits for the two bodies should continue.
As was mentioned at Second Reading, there is an overlap of some functions. The Scottish Enterprise functions overlap with the Highlands and Islands Enterprise functions. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is absolutely right that there are problems in places such as the Angus Glens. Indeed, my noble friend knows well, I am sure, that there are problems in the Borders too, in Dumfries and Galloway. The question is how those will be dealt with.
Highlands and Islands Enterprise is a rather different animal from Scottish Enterprise. There is no question about that. They will continue to be different, with the training function added. It is important that the Minister tells us how problems can be dealt with in the more remote areas of the Borders, the south-west, Angus, Perthshire, and so on. We need to know that. Local authorities certainly have a role. They played a role in the Angus Glens, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, knows. If the Minister can tell us that, I shall be reasonably satisfied. If there is no such way, that is more of a problem.
Lord Hughes: I wish to support my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove on this very important amendment. The Minister of State in another place, when he argued against such action, seemed almost to be under the impression that outside the Highlands and Islands area conditions in the remainder of Scotland were such as existed only in the main parts of the central belt. But in parts of Scotland—the rural, remote parts—conditions are very similar to those which exist in the Highlands and Islands.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, is well qualified to speak on that point. He lives outside the central belt. I live in a small village with a population of less than 2,000. It is comparatively well provided for with services. We have our local school, two doctors with an assistant, a chemist's shop, two grocery shops and a police service. We

2025
depend on Crieff, which is slightly larger, for certain services. We depend on Stirling or Perth—each 24 to 25 miles away—for other services.
However, there are other villages within a 20-mile radius of where I live where the conditions are much nearer to those quoted by my noble friend for the parish of Kinnaird than for the village in which I live. I agree that the main task of Scottish Enterprise must be that stated in the Bill. But that cannot ignore the other conditions. If there is no remit to enable it to undertake in rural parts of Scotland tasks which approximate to what Highlands and Islands Enterprise will be able to do, it will not be able to carry out its task with complete success.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said that it was understandable that when the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency were set up they were given different remits. However, the Bill proposes to make changes to the functions that were carried out by those bodies. It does so in the light of experience gained since the bodies were set up decades ago. An additional change may be acceptance that much of the success of the Highlands and Islands Development Board rested on its capacity to take social conditions into account. Further success in the Highlands under the new body will depend on those functions being continued. I suggest most strongly that the success of Scottish Enterprise will be enhanced if it has a similar although secondary function to take account of social conditions.
3.30 p m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I apologise to my noble friend for being absent at the beginning of the debate. I was upstairs attending a meeting of great importance to Scotland concerning the Environmental Protection Bill which we shall debate tomorrow. I support the case which my noble friend presented. As my noble friend Lord Hughes said, when the subject was discussed in Committee in another place, Mr. Ian Lang, the Minister, said:
"Scottish Enterprise should not be burdened with a social role that would dilute concentration on its economic and environmental role".
There are two arguments. The first, as has been adduced already, is that other parts of Scotland are not unlike the Highlands in their remoteness. Therefore, it is inconceivable that the Highlands should be treated as a special case. The second is that Scottish Enterprise is a new body. I wish it every success but in order to ensure credibility and acceptability it should accept a social obligation. Of course, it has primarily an economic role; that is, an enterprise role within the economy. However, I have never regarded the social factor involved in operating an economic enterprise as being a burden on industry and it should not be neglected. I suggest that the Minister should respond to my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will have wide-ranging powers. But it would be a mistake to create either of them with remits to cover the whole of Scottish life. I shall elaborate on that in a moment.
2026
Primarily both are engines of economic development. They also have training and environmental functions because those relate closely to the economic development role. Members of the Committee will be aware of the new arrangements for training to which I shall also refer in a moment.
In addition, Highlands and Islands Enterprise will, like the Highlands and Islands Development Board before it, have a social remit. That is in recognition of the very different characteristics of the Highlands and Islands economy. In particular, I refer to the economy of the fragile areas of the Highlands and Islands. I know that they have special problems which are recognised furth of the United Kingdom; that is at European level.
I have listened carefully to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I have some sympathy with his anxieties, but the fact remains that lowland Scotland as a whole does not have the same kind of characteristics as the Highlands and Islands. In lowland Scotland as a whole economic and social life is not so closely linked as to be inseparable, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out. There are rural areas. yes, but there is not the extent or degree of sparsity of population and geographical remoteness which makes economic and community life inseparable in some parts of the Highlands and Islands. I say that is a question of degree and extent and that is where the difference of view arises.
I accept that there are parts of lowland Scotland which are akin in some respects to parts of the Highlands and Islands. Indeed, my part of the Borders could be an example. However, taken as a whole, I am satisfied that there is a more delicate balance between the growth and decline of the Highlands and Islands communities which does not apply to anything like the same extent in the lowlands.
I am not persuaded that, because the Government accept that Highlands and Islands Enterprise should have a social remit to complement its economic powers, we should also accept that Scottish Enterprise should have the same remit. The two areas are distinctively different and it is right that the two bodies should reflect that in their remits. A social remit for Highlands and Islands Enterprise is necessary to achieve the full economic potential of the area. But a social remit for Scottish Enterprise is not necessary for that reason and could well divert that body's attention from its prime role as an economic agency.
The Scottish Development Agency already plays an important role in rural Scotland outside the Highlands and Islands. Its wide range of activities includes advice and assistance to businesses, factory provision and environmental improvement. That will be continued under Scottish Enterprise. The policy framework that we shall set for the board of Scottish Enterprise will emphasise the importance of tackling the needs of rural as well as urban areas.
In any event, I am sure that the presence on the board of Mrs. Barbara Kelly of Rural Forum, and Sir David Nickson's background as a past chairman of the Countryside Commission for Scotland, will keep rural issues in front of the board of Scottish Enterprise. At the local level the local economic

2027
audits being undertaken by prospective local enterprise companies in their development phase will help to ensure that the needs and opportunities presented by rural areas are highlighted. Local enterprise companies will be expected to tackle training and business needs in all parts of their areas and will have the scope to devise specific initiatives to meet particular local needs.
During the course of our debate this afternoon there was a definite feeling that we should extend the social remit to south of the Highland line. However, perhaps Members of the Committee under-estimate what has already happened as a result of the involvement of the SDA which has played an important role in rural Scotland. It would be wrong to under-estimate the successes that it has had during its existence. Of course, we remember that the noble Lord's own government set up that agency.
I wish to make perfectly clear the fact that as long as any project to aid rural communities has any economic benefit—for instance, reducing local unemployment, increasing local skills or improving the local economy—Scottish Enterprise can assist. Mention was made of skill shortages. The reason for putting training under the Scottish Office into those new enterprise operations was in order to deal with that problem. In that respect the local enterprise companies come into their own. My noble friend Lady Carnegy will be pleased to hear that as regards the last local enterprise company—that for Tayside—my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place announced today that the embryo local enterprise company has been given the go ahead.
I wish to put a little more flesh on the bones and describe what happens in areas such as the Borders as regards the provision for social projects. Of course there is support for the local authorities be it through the RSG, Scottish Homes or health boards. However, one area which is perhaps overlooked is the support for voluntary organisations. That support comes mainly from the Scottish education department. I say to Members of the Committee opposite that it includes a local capital grant scheme to assist voluntary organisations and to provide new or expanded premises for educational, social and recreational purposes. That department pays 50 per cent. of the approved cost with the balance split between the regional council and the voluntary organisation. Expenditure by the SED in 1990–91 will be £1 million, 70 per cent. of which will go to projects in rural areas.
Perhaps I may take examples of that from my own area. There are several examples. There were SED contributions to five separate projects amounting to £62,000, the largest of those being to help the Lothian youth group in Jedburgh.
I have read the report to which the noble Lord referred and have read about the 26 parishes which he has instanced. By devolving powers to the local enterprise companies, we are coming a very long way towards resolving some of the problems which may exist in rural areas. For that reason, I must resist the amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: If you are running an enterprise, one of your prime duties is to look after the welfare of your employees. It would not be important if this matter had not been mentioned. However, if it is included for one part of Scotland and left out for the other, that is an obvious suggestion that money must not be spent on it. I find that quite insufferable. One of the prime purposes of developing economies is to raise the standard of living of the people who are living there. That is ordinarily regarded as a social convention.
Had the matter not been mentioned it would be taken for granted that social elements would be economically unavoidable. However, it has now been mentioned. It has been put on one side of the balance but not on the other. I find that very difficult. Is the Minister positively saying that the moment that the word "social" is used, the Secretary of State's refusal to advance money will become automatic? That is rather awkward. I know what my noble friend is saying. Some areas of Scotland are more socially convenient than the Highlands, but there are many areas in the Borders where life is fairly simple.
I must confess that although I understand the noble Lord's argument, unless it is a matter of pure economy, it is very difficult to follow.
Lord Howie of Troon: I was struck by the Minister's distinction between the Highlands and Lowlands. As he rightly says, they are different parts of the world. We know that remoteness exists in the Highlands but it must not be concluded from that that remoteness does not exist also in the Lowlands. The noble Earl who has just spoken indicated that. However, I ask the Minister to think of south Ayrshire and, for example, of small towns like Dalmellington, or Patna or of the road from Straiton south to Glen Trool. You cannot get much more remote that that, even in the Highlands. It is a remote and distant area to which this type of provision can reasonably be held to apply.
There is a tight central belt in Scotland which is highly populated and does not need this kind of assistance. We have all accepted that assistance is needed in the Highlands, but the Lowlands and Borders, which the Minister knows extremely well, suffer from similar although lesser disadvantages. The fact that the disadvantages are less should not cloud the fact that they are similar.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hughes: I was rather disappointed by what the Minister said, perhaps because of the contradictions. I almost gained the impression that he was speaking from briefs written by two different people supplemented by—as we are accustomed to expect from him—his own remarks, which were altogether apart from the brief.
I was disappointed because the Minister reiterated what his counterpart in another place said about Scottish Enterprise not being diverted from its main function by having such a remit. He then went on to point out what a competent body it will be with Sir David Nickson as its chairman and Ms. Kelly also on the board. If they will be so competent, why

2029
should the Minister be worried that they will be diverted from their main function by having another function?
The other contradiction was that in talking about what the Scottish Development Agency has done, whose function was mainly economic, he pointed out the extent to which it had carried out a social role. Therefore, in extending the SDA and the training side to Scottish Enterprise, why should the Government be afraid that this new body will exercise the dual functions less satisfactorily than has been the case until now?
I hope that when I read what the Minister said, I find that I am mistaken in those contradictions. However, at present I do not believe that I am.
The Earl of Perth: I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. He began by saying that it would be a mistake to apply the social angle to the whole of Scotland and that the Highlands and Islands are totally or recognisably different. He then went on to say that he recognised also that some parts of the country, which are not Highlands and Islands, were akin to them. If that is the case—and of course it is the case as many Members of the Committee have pointed out—will he consider the introduction of a clause which includes a social function but which should only apply if the Secretary of State for Scotland agrees?
It is quite clear that the Highlands and Islands stand on their own. However, if something like that was agreed to, there is a possibility that other areas could also receive the same social benefit as the Highlands and Islands. That provision would not apply to the whole of Scotland. It would only apply when the Secretary of State decided that it was right that it should do so.
I was impressed by the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. Once the social element is in one part, why is it left out in the other? However, I hope that the Minister will think again and that the Government will introduce a clause along the lines which I have suggested.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I omitted to make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and, indeed, to my noble friend the Minister. It seems to me that if this amendment is accepted—and I do not know if the noble Lord intends to divide the Committee—it would mean that Scottish Enterprise would be involving itself in the social development of Glasgow, Wester Hailes and other places which are at present beyond its remit. Wester Hailes, Whitfield and the GEAR scheme in Glasgow are helped as part of the former agency's remit. However, in the sense that we have been discussing this matter the social development of large cities would be included. Therefore, on that account, this amendment will not do. We have been discussing only rural areas and rural deprivation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble Baroness has mentioned an important point. Surely the SDA has already had a social remit in the urban situation. No one can say that the immense transformation brought about in the fortunes of the west, Glasgow
2030
and the central belt could have been achieved without cleaning up the environment. If that is not a social responsibility I do not know what is.
We are involved in semantics. The Minister, by extending the point and refusing to include the word "social" is creating suspicion in our minds that something sinister is involved. Everything else that he said shows that there is not. I believe that he should accept the amendment and the advice given to him by senior Peers on the Cross Benches.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am always interested to hear advice from Peers in all parts of the Chamber. I cannot accept the amendment but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that the environmental powers that exist for the Scottish Development Agency will be continued by Scottish Enterprise. The only difference is that in the Highlands and Islands Development Board area those powers are transferred to Highlands and Islands Enterprise from the Scottish Development Agency, which the Government felt was only right and proper.
I find it strange that my noble friend Lord Selkirk appears to think that I am forgetting about the social aspects of those who live outwith the Highland board area. That is far from the truth. The Committee must understand that it is important to motivate the economy of areas, wherever they are, and move it in the right direction. That is what the Scottish Development Agency has done. I tried to point out what was actually achieved by the social clause in the Highland board area as opposed to further south.
Perhaps I can point out to my noble friend that the powers which exist deal with special cases in the peripheral areas which have to be considered. A large part of the budget of the social remit of the Highlands and Islands Development Board goes to the peripheral areas of Argyll, Lochaber and also the outer isles. My noble friend will therefore understand that the projects we are discussing would not exist if there were not a social remit.
I pay tribute to the last Labour administration in 1965 that put the clause into the Bill. By the same token I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can have it both ways. It was his government that introduced the Scottish Development Agency and all its works. Obviously they saw the difficulties and differences that existed. If he thought I was contradicting myself, I am sorry. I hope I was not. I was trying to say that there were various ways of helping those south of the Highland line in the social remit, but that this did not come through the present Scottish Development Agency's powers and it should not come through the powers of the new Scottish Enterprise set-up.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, may be interested to know that the projected likely budget for Ayrshire when the local enterprise company becomes a reality, will be £29.1 million; that is not small beer.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister jumped up rather early, spurred on, I think by the breadth, extent and perhaps the weight of the

2031
arguments of those supporting the amendment. The Minister read out the help that can be given—I agree and accept what he says—by the Scottish Office for various social functions. One problem that arises is that so much is not written on the face of the bill and therefore has to be explained. We shall discover that when discussing the new towns.
The Minister did not say whether the rural executive unit, which is part of the SDA's existing establishment and which provides strategic guidance to local enterprise companies, promoting training throughout rural Scotland will remain in existence under Scottish Enterprise. Had he said that, we may have been better able to understand where the social help could be given. Social help under the SDA is not compulsory. The agency is able to examine schemes with care and decide whether or not they are necessary. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that projects like GEAR, and similar schemes in Edinburgh, were so big that the SDA was merely brought in as organiser. GEAR involved the Scottish Office, local authorities and the SDA, which came in with expertise. That is a different quality to what we are discussing. For instance, the Highlands and Islands Development Board gives development grants for village halls, sports, social and voluntary projects. That is different to knocking down some of the old industrial heartland of Scotland with the appalling housing conditions that existed in the GEAR area, and totally rebuilding it. They are quite different qualitative things.
I am sure that the Minister was not deliberately misleading when he spoke about the European Commission recognising the Highlands and islands as an objective. It also recognises the problems in parts of Dumfries and Galloway, so it is perhaps ahead of the Scottish Office in recognising that deprivation can exist in rural areas that are not necessarily above the Highland line.
This is such an important amendment that in order to give the Minister a chance to think about it and perhaps bring something back on Report, I must ask the opinion of the House.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 116.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Atholl, D.

Aylestone, L.

Carter, L.

Birk, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos. L.

Blease, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

David, B.

Bottomley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bristol, Bp.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ennals, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Ezra, L.

2032

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Mayhew, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Meston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Mishcon, L.

Molloy, L.

Grey, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Hanworth, V.

Nathan, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Northfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Perth, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Peston, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Phillips. B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hughes, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hunt, L.

Richard, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ross of Newport, L.

Jeger, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Seear, B.

Kintore, E.

Selkirk. E.

Kirkhill, L.

Serota, B.

Lawrence, L.

Shackleton, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shannon, E.

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stallard, L.

Stedman, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lockwood. B.

Tordoff, L.

Longford, E.

Tryon, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McCarthy, L.

Walston, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Whaddon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Allerton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Alport, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gridley, L.

Annaly, L.

Hailsham of Marylebone, L.

Arran, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Auckland, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Bessborough, E.

Holderness, L.

Blatch, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Boardman, L.

Hood, V.

Borthwick, L.

Hooper, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ironside, L.

Brave, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Joseph, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Keyes, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kimball, L.

Caldecote, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Leathers, V.

Carnock, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Long, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Craigavon, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Manton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Downshire, M.

Mersey, V.

Eccles, V.

Mountevans, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Effingham, E.

Munster, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nelson, E.

Elton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Norrie, L.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Flather, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Gainford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

2033

Polwarth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Porritt. L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Pym. L.

Quinton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Sudeley, L.

Reay, L.

Swansea. L.

Renton, L.

Swinton, E.

Renwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rodney, L.

Tranmire, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Trumpington, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ullswater, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sharples, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Wharton, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wise, L.

Strange, B.

Young, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.5 p.m.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Constitution and Proceedings etc. of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 33, line 23, leave out ("eight") and insert ("eleven").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we take Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 together. The purpose of the amendment is to increase the size of the boards of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise in order to allow greater scope for appointing members with areas of expertise outwith the purely private sector.
The functions of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will be greater than those of either the SDA or the HIDB if for no other reason than that they will become responsible for carrying out the duties of the Training Agency. In determining the size and composition of the boards it is therefore essential to have adequate scope for the membership to be drawn from a wide range of expertise. The expertise on the boards would be greatly enhanced if their size were increased as suggested in this group of amendments. This would provide an opportunity to appoint additional members with knowledge outwith the private sector with particular emphasis given to experience in the provision of training.
I am no believer in large unwieldy boards. I do not know how often the boards will meet or what the terms will be, but I have seen enough of large unwieldy boards to know that only a small number of members participate. However, even with the amendments we are still referring to small numbers. Some of these people will be important, and one must think of quorums, and so on. Therefore, although I do not believe in large boards a modest increase would give flexibility and the range of experience needed for the proper functioning of the boards.
I understand, for example, that the Highlands and Islands Enterprise board will not have a Gaelic
2034
speaker on it. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether that is true. If so, it represents a big gap in the composition of the board. Such a person may be necessary for a specific function. A slightly larger board—we are not asking for a large increase—would give the Secretary of State or (this is our particular concern) a future Secretary of State the necessary flexibility. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I share the distaste of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for large boards. The Secretary of State appears to be able to appoint whoever he wants on to the boards, so I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have a query on this amendment. Apart from the fact that small boards tend to be much easier to run, the noble Lord seemed to indicate—
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Will the noble Baroness speak a little louder or move nearer to the microphone? We are anxious to hear her.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I apologise to the noble Lord. It would be dreadful if he could not hear my words of wisdom! I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. what he meant by saying that there needed to be extra places on the boards for people with expertise in training. The people who know most about training are employers, who are responsible for training. Surely members will be appointed by virtue of the fact that they have knowledge of training, so that is one area where it is not necessary to add to the board.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I do not want to denigrate Scottish employers but I do not believe there are all that many Scottish employers whose efforts in regard to training is something they can be proud of. One or two employers traditionally have a wonderful record, but we need people from some of the colleges of education and the training schools. Those are the people we need with genuine experience of these matters. It is by no means confined to employers. One of our concerns is that the employers on the board will be looking for people to do the work that is required next week, and not next year or 10 years from now.
Lord Kirkhill: I am ambivalent about my noble friend's amendment. I have no strong feelings about it one way or the other. The question I wish to ask the Minister is this: did the Government give consideration to an uneven number of members such as five, seven or nine? Sometimes there is an advantage in having such numbers on a board.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I shall answer the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, first. The Government have done what he suggests. There are 11 members on the boards in each case. I share with the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Mackie of Benshie, their distaste of rather large boards. Perhaps that is why the Government, in coming to their conclusion on the appropriate size of the boards, decided upon the numbers that we now have.

2035
I should point out that the chief executive of each board, when he is so chosen, will be a full member of the board. That is a change. In making up the membership of the boards we have tried to have as wide a coverage as possible both geographically and also in terms of skill. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is right. One of the disadvantages on the present Highlands and Islands board is the fact that there is not a Gaelic speaker. Having said that, there is plenty of expertise, particularly from Dr. Jim Hunter who was secretary of the Scottish Crofters' Union. He is on the Highlands and Islands Enterprise board.
In respect of Highlands and Islands Enterprise personnel, there are many Gaelic speakers at the Inverness headquarters. However, I accept the noble Lord's strictures. Perhaps, in time, the situation will be rectified. What is important is that the boards are chosen on merit. Now that the names of those on each board have been made public, I believe that there is general acceptance that the expertise available is fairly widespread.
In the case of the Scottish Enterprise board the contribution that will undoubtedly come from the leader of Strathclyde Regional Council, Charles Gray, and from Gavin Laird, as far as the trade unions are concerned, will be most welcome. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that we could debate all day what should be the optimum size of a board. However, we decided what we considered to be the appropriate size. Again, I stress that I too believe that it is not so much the size of the board that matters but its effectiveness.
Lord Kirkhill: I wish to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden. I completely misread Schedule 1; so my intervention a few moments ago was irrelevant. It is only fair that I should say that to the Minister.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I also omitted to tell the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the board will meet once a month.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister said that we could argue about numbers all day. Once the boards begin operating we shall find out whether an amendment is required. Since this provision is in the schedule it may not be quite so difficult to amend it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Functions in relation to training for employment etc.]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 24, at beginning insert ("after consultation with such local authorities and other bodies as appear to it to have an interest,").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to require Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to consult with local authorities and other interested bodies in carrying out its functions in relation to training before submitting its proposals to the Secretary of State for approval. The effectiveness of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will be determined by their ability to achieve wide support for their activities.
A range of organisations will have a significant interest in the application of the training function both nationally and locally. Local authorities will have a particular interest, given their role as statutory providers of education and training. They provide nearly one-third of employment training places in Scotland as well as contributing to the youth training scheme. Voluntary organisations also play an important role as advocates of the interests of disadvantaged sections of the labour force such as the mentally ill, the mentally and physically handicapped, single parents and the very long-term unemployed.
Another organisation which has a significant interest is the trade union movement. The restriction on the size of the boards of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and the requirement for a two-thirds majority of business representation, make it essential that consultation with all interested bodies takes place before the training proposals are considered by the Secretary of State.
Once training proposals are fixed they are not easy to change. I am sure that an intelligent board will conduct wide consultation. We are not asking for anyone to have a veto. I am sure that there will be a wide consultation. It is worth reminding the relevant bodies that schemes cannot be set up without a consultation procedure. The schemes may be binding for a long time and in some cases the training may ossify unless there is consultation with some of the groups, particularly local education authorities, I have mentioned.
That is a factor which the Minister should look at fairly carefully. I hope he will not say that it will be looked at in any case, but that he will indicate that the provision for consultation is written on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I have much sympathy for what my noble friend Lord Carmichael said. However, at the same time I have some doubts about his amendment. In my view it is a little wide of the mark. We are talking about training and enterprise initiatives. It offers very wide scope if one speaks of all organisations,
"and other bodies as appear to it to have an interest".
I want these local enterprise bodies to be successful and enterprising. I support the idea that they should consult with local people and that they should be effective. However, to say,
"and other bodies as appear to it to have an interest"
might impede the enterprise function which these new bodies may have to undertake. Therefore, I shall welcome the Minister's response to the general thrust

2037
of my noble friend's submission. I would find some difficulty in supporting the amendment in its broad terms as indicated on the Marshalled List. Perhaps the Minister can give me the necessary assurance.
Lord Hughes: It is not very usual for one colleague to rise to correct another. I think that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe interprets the amendment a little wider than the amendment states. In the phrase,
"and other bodies as appear to it to have an interest"
"it" refers to the enterprise bodies. The amendment does not refer to,
"such bodies as appear to them to have an interest".
The bodies are required only to consult local authorities and any other bodies which they think appropriate.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Far be it from me to intervene between two Members of the Opposition on how to read their own amendment. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place indicated, we agree on the importance of consultation when appropriate. There is no question about teat. Where we differ, however, is on the mechanics. We do not see merit in a statutory provision in this matter. At Second Reading my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour made that point most ably.
As I indicated at Second Reading, the general character of the Bill is enabling rather than prescriptive so as to leave as much room as possible for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to decide for themselves what their detailed arrangements should be. The boards of both bodies will have clear responsibility for training, and it should be up to them to consult as they think best.
As Second Reading I also said that, although serving in individual capacities, it is worth bearing in mind that there are 39 people with local authority background on the boards of the prospective local enterprise companies. That does not include Tayside. I believe that there will be members of local authorities on that embryo board too. In addition, useful contributions at the centre will be made by Councillor Charles Gray in the case of Scottish Enterprise and Councillor Valerie MacIver in the case of Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked about the comparison between the Highlands and Island Enterprise area and Scottish Enterprise area. That provision, Clause 5(1)(b), was brought forward from the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965. There was no such provision in the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975. We saw merit in continuing the 1965 provision in the Bill essentially because of the social remit of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Social development in particular is so clearly tied to many local authority functions that it makes sense to require Highlands and Islands Enterprise to consult before submitting plans.
The noble Lord asked about training plans and said that he thought that they would last a long time. They will not. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and indeed the local enterprise
2038
companies will revise their plans each year. That is implicit.
The noble Lord asked about consultation by local enterprise companies. It is for local enterprise companies to consult other bodies as they think fit. But they will be expected to demonstrate that their plans for training address the needs of their areas. That is germane to the noble Lord's point about the number of people employed in local authorities. The principle of partnership is clearly set out in paragraph 5.7 of the handbook for local enterprise companies. It states:
"Local enterprise companies will have a key role to play in promoting effective partnerships to tackle problems and spread information and good practice … Local enterprise companies will be expected to work in partnership with local and other public authorities, local representatives of employer associations, local enterprise trusts, industry training organisations and others".
We are not far apart on the spirit of the amendment but I am afraid that I shall have to resist its inclusion on the face of the Bill in the terms stated.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister's answer is much what we expected. He is confined by the Bill as it is drafted. He said that Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will be expected to consult. The whole point is that they need not do so. That is what worries me. The noble Lord pointed out that the plans have to be looked at every year. But will training be long-term or short-term? That point was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I am sure that there must be a balance. The aim should be to give people enough training so that the area becomes established as a place for certain types of work.
The noble Lord's answer was much what we expected. At this stage we are not likely to be given a great deal more. I am grateful to him for clearing up certain points. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Further provision as regards functions of Scottish Enterprise]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 48, at end insert:
("( ) keep under review all matters relating to the economic development of Scotland;").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to give Scottish Enterprise the function of keeping under review all matters relating to the economic development of Scotland. A similar function is provided in Clause 5(1)(a) for Highlands and Islands Enterprise. By "Scottish Enterprise" I mean the Scottish Enterprise board itself.
The requirements for Highlands and Islands Enterprise to keep under review the economic development of the Highlands and Islands should apply equally to areas of operation of Scottish

2039
Enterprise as defined in Clause 21(3). We believe that it is appropriate to include this requirement as a further provision to the general function contained in Clause 1(a)(i) of furthering the development of the Scottish economy. The Minister mentioned a handbook entitled Towards Scottish Enterprise published in 1989. Perhaps I may be permitted to quote from it:
"Scottish Enterprise will provide a clear vision and direction to the design and delivery of enterprise, development, training, environmental objects and services in Scotland. Local enterprise companies will operate within a policy framework set by Scottish Enterprise. To secure greatest added value certain strategic functions and projects with Scotland-wide significance will be discharged by Scottish Enterprise direct or where appropriate in partnership with one or more local enterprise companies. But there will be extensive delegation to and freedom of action for local enterprise companies".
That is a sound strategy. I completely agree with the sentiment.
A similar statement is made in the introductory paragraph of the handbook concerning Highlands and Islands Enterprise. In order to ensure that Scottish Enterprise provides the strategic context for its own activities and the activities of its local enterprise companies, the Bill must include in Clause 4 the additional provision for keeping under review all matters relating to the economic development of Scotland. As in the case of Highlands and Islands Enterprise this function should not be delegated under Clause 9(1). We are asking that the spirit of the passage in the handbook which I read to the Committee should be set out on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I recognise that this amendment parallels the provision in Clause 5(1)(a) for Highlands and Islands Enterprise. That provision re-enacts Section 3(1)(a) of the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965. Such difficulties arise when one re-enacts measures in new legislation. It was included in the Bill in view of our widely welcomed commitment to give Highlands and Islands Enterprise all the existing powers of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. There was no such provision for the Scottish Development Agency in the 1975 Act. Nor has one been necessary. For the SDA to fulfil its remit to further the development of Scotland's economy it has had inevitably to take a close interest in all matters relating to the economic development of Scotland. The same will be true of Scottish Enterprise. I do not consider it necessary to add such a provision especially given the preamble of Clause 4(1), which would make such a function only permissive.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said in another place on 26th July last year that Scottish Enterprise will have a strong strategic role at its own hand. It will handle large and strategic projects itself and approve other projects above set delegated limits. It will develop and design programmes with an applicability across its area, handle marketing and promotion and handle inward investment attracted by Locate in Scotland. Again I think that the power which the noble Lord seeks is there so far as strategy is concerned and I hope that
2040
when he has read what I have said he may consider that his concerns are covered.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: The Minister was too quick for me. I was struggling to rise to my feet but he is spry, youthful and jaunty. In Clause 1 of the Bill we see that what is known as Scottish Enterprise has the function of furthering the development of Scotland's economy. We are all agreed that that is what it is for and we applaud that. It seems to me that Scottish Enterprise cannot further development without keeping under review all matters relating to the economic development of Scotland, and therefore my noble friend's amendment is essential in order to carry out the function under Clause 1(a)(i).
Lord Hughes: When I occupied the position which the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, now occupies, I frequently refused to accept the sort of brief which he has, which effectively says. "All the things which you want can be done. All the things which you want will be done", and then goes on to say, "But we shall not put it in the Bill". I invite the Minister of State to look back nearly 20 years. He will then find a number of occasions when the sort of amendment which he is now resisting was accepted by me. If everything is to be done, and it is a principle like this, it ought to be in the Bill to make matters absolutely clear.
That brings me to another point and I am not asking this jocularly. This seems to be such a reasonable amendment that I am tempted to ask, having regard to the fact that the Scottish Office is having a certain amount of local difficulties at the moment, from which we hope the Minister of State in this House is to certain extent insulated, whether it is his intention to accept any of the amendments on the Marshalled List, or has he come prepared to refuse every one of them? Otherwise we shall be wasting our time and the time of your Lordships' Committee other than getting on the record the way in which we think things ought to be done.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I know that the noble Lord fulfilled a very useful role at the Scottish Office in the past. I have no doubt that he has also had Bills to carry through this House. I would not for a moment prejudge what will happen in the course of any section of this Bill as it passes through your Lordships' House.
As to whether these matters are not considered important enough to debate, I find that suggestion very strange. They are important and I would be failing in my duty if I did not say that I take most seriously all amendments put forward and consider them on their merits. If the noble Lord thinks that I too do not question and question and question what is put before me in the Scottish Office he is sadly mistaken.
So far as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is concerned, as I have already said, Scottish Enterprise will inevitably have to take a close interest in all matters relating to economic development. All that I said—and the noble Lord helped me in pointing this out—was that I did not think it was necessary that we should have this amendment at all.
Lord Hughes: I am very grateful for what the Minister said about the extent to which he is prepared to disregard briefs and the fact that he is not going to prejudge the amendments. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. It will be interesting to see when we get to the end of the evening how many briefs show that he is merely saying what is already written on paper before him.
Lord Howie of Troon: I think that the Minister must have misheard me. I did not say that the amendment was unnecessary. I said that it was necessary.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I feel that I am in a no-man's land between two people who have been through the hallowed portals of old St. Andrew's House and new St. Andrew's House. I was never there, but I was in other departments and I have a wee idea of how they work. I have had Cabinet Ministers to whom it would have been rather difficult to go back and say, "I have lost this amendment". So we are all aware of what happens.
I was taking a note before my noble friend Lord Hughes spoke. It said, "It is going to be one of those nights." We have heard that it can be done and it will be done but there is no need to put it on the face of the Bill. We have had a few examples already and we are coming to some more. I know that there is always a draftsman who does not want to put things on to the face of the Bill because that ties people down. But our job is to tie people down. Therefore I make no apologies for urging that we put down these amendments. But there is no point in going further with this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 48, at end insert:
("( ) after consultation with such local authorities and other bodies as appear to it to have an interest, from time to time prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals (whether general or specific in character) for the economic development of Scotland or any part thereof;").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to require Scottish Enterprise to prepare and submit proposals for the economic development of Scotland to the Secretary of State following consultation with local authorities and other bodies. This is another requirement which applies to Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The requirement for Highlands and Islands Enterprise to submit proposals to the Secretary of State for the economic development of the area should apply to Scottish Enterprise.
In addition, there is no provision within the Bill which would require Scottish Enterprise to consult local authorities and other bodies. The success of Scottish Enterprise must depend upon the extent to which its plans and actions are complemented by the local authorities and other relevant bodies. Such consultation is provided for as regards proposals for the economic development of the Highlands and it
2042
is just as important for the successful economic development of the rest of Scotland.
I know that there are great differences in the Highlands, but when you get to the more populous areas you find that the scale of some of the developments can have a great impact upon a fairly wide area. Therefore I believe that there should be consultation, particularly with local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Hughes: I wish to support my noble friend in this amendment and to point out that it is very similar to what appears in the next clause in relation to Highlands and Islands Enterprise, with the necessary alterations; for instance, instead of "Highlands and Islands" in Clause 5, Clause 4 says "Scottish". Then one clause mentions "economic and social development" but "social development" is left out of the other. It just mentions "economic development".
I made my intervention about what the Minister might have in mind for the future having my eye on this amendment. If there is one amendment where the Minister ought not to have undue difficulty in accepting the principle it is this one, as it is so similar to what is in the Bill in the form that it has come from the other place. I know that the Minister emphasised the differences between the Highlands and Islands and the rest of Scotland.
I invite the Minister to consider the amendment. It is not completely right. It is defective to a certain extent, because it refers to:
"the economic development of Scotland or any part thereof".
The Highlands and Islands are part of Scotland, so it appears to give a remit to Scottish Enterprise to stray into the territory of the other organisation. That is not intended. It would be easy to word the amendment in such a way as to confine it to the area of Scottish Enterprise. I hope that the Minister will say that he is prepared to submit an alternative to this amendment in a proper form, but embodying the principle of this amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Hughes, have suggested that, as a provision is made for the Highlands and Islands in Clause 5(1)(b), it should also be made for Scottish Enterprise. That is where our views differ.
If that argument were taken to its logical conclusion, there would be no need to have a separate body for the Highlalnds and Islands, but we recognise that the circumstances of the Highlands and Islands must be given special consideration, as I have already said. The arrangements for Scottish Enterprise and for Highlands and Islands Enterprise need not nor should not follow an identical pattern. Because of the wider remit of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the different geographic and economic structure of the Highlands and Islands, the board may often find it useful to consult the local planning authority on major developments, or the regional council in its social work role where the social function of the Highlands board is involved.
The case of Scottish Enterprise is by no means the same as that of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, as

2043
was said earlier. There are not, although the noble Lord holds a slightly different view, the same geographic or economic characteristics in the Lowlands. Scottish Enterprise does not have a social remit. That is not to say that it will not consult local authorities and other bodies. One of the SDA's greatest strengths is its ability to work in partnership with such bodies. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would dispute that. That has happened without a provision of the kind now proposed.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, appreciates the fact that there are no government amendments down for debate at this stage of the Bill.
Lord Kirkhill: This gets Scottish Enterprise off on the wrong foot. Most major local authorities in Scotland are Labour controlled. Some of them are already suspicious of the inbuilt business bias which the new Scottish Enterprise board will tend to show. If the Government are serious about an act of entrepreneurial co-operation, it would advance the common good to accept my noble friend's amendment or a similar amendment. It is because the Government are not seen by the public in Scotland to do that—although the Government think that they do—that they fare so badly in opinion polls. Even if the matter is considered from the government angle, the noble Lord should make a move.
Lord Hughes: The Minister of State pointed out something that we must have noticed; namely, that there are no government amendments down to the Bill. I come back to what I said earlier and I hope that in due course I shall be proved wrong. The Minister's brief can be summed up in the following terms: "We want this Bill back without any change whatsoever".
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I have listened to the debate for some time. I understood the noble Lord opposite to say that he was under the impression that there was an inbuilt bias because of the businessmen on those boards. It is excellent if there are businessmen on those boards. I am on boards and am chairman of a public company. The amendments that I have heard all seem more or less the same. With due respect, the debate has been rather a waste of time. If any of the businesses or companies with which I am involved went on like this, the shareholders would be displeased. It is quite different with government matters because you have untold finance behind you, so it does not matter how much you spend or how much is thrown away. I hope that I have not gone on too long. I had to intervene because hearing all that repetition was too much.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The shareholders in Scotland have given their verdict on the management of the economy in Scotland fairly thoroughly over the past few years. I wonder whether the noble Viscount would accept their verdict as
2044
quickly as he would accept that of a board of directors. We could go into the importance of local authorities which, generally speaking, have a much longer term to consider, but I do not want to become involved in that too much.
Perhaps the Minister will look again at the issue. I do not want to press it to a Division, but I am hopeful that he will take it away and see whether there is anything that he can do. There is always the difficulty that we do not want to put something on the face of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will be able to do something, given the draftsmen at his disposal. I accept that my amendments are not perhaps as sophisticated as are required. However, the principle is perfectly justifiable, indeed essential. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Howie of Troon: I wish to intervene briefly with regard to Clause 4(1)(e) on page 4 of the Bill, which states that the body is entitled to:
"provide or adapt sites and provide, adapt, modernise or reconstruct premises".
Perhaps the Minister will explain how wide those powers are. For example, does the adaptation of sites include the provision of access roads, access bridges, pipelines, sewerage or water supplies? Does the term "premises" apply merely to buildings or does it include a variety of industrial structures, such as overhead cranes? I am not trying to trip up the Minister. I merely ask for information. Perhaps he will clarify for my benefit the extent of the provision for adaptation which is included in this part of the Bill.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The important words with regard to the point raised by the noble Lord are:
"reconstruct premises for industrial undertakings".
I should need to look closely at the terms of his query. I understand that in some cases roads will not fall into that category. However, I have been advised that Clause 4(6) allows for provision of means of access and other facilities. I thought that I would take a contrary view to that, but I am advised that the clause provides for that. I should like to consider other aspects of the noble Lord's question regarding equipment, and I shall write to him.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am satisfied with that reply.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Further provision as regards functions of Highlands and Islands Enterprise]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) in accordance with arrangements to be approved by the Secretary of State and to such extent as it considers appropriate erect buildings or other structures on land";).
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 10. These are technical amendments which the Minister may be willing to accept because I believe that they make the Bill clearer. The specific power to erect buildings contained in Section 5(1)(a) of the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965 has been omitted from the Highlands and Islands Enterprise powers, while under Clause 4(1)(e) Scottish Enterprise has such powers. Clause 4(5) authorises Scottish Enterprise to provide premises for a rent-free period. The amendments are designed to remove any doubt that the specific provisions for Scottish Enterprise are implied for Highlands and Islands Enterprise, as already exists in the Highlands and Islands (Development) Scotland Act 1965. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: As I understand it, the amendment is designed to give Highlands and Islands Enterprise a specific function of erecting buildings or other structures on land. The provisions of Clauses 4 and 5 reflect the styles of the 1975 and 1965 Acts respectively. In the 1975 Act the functions of the SDA were expressed in more detail than the more general terms of the functions given to the Highlands board in the 1965 Act. Much of the detailed wording in Clause 4 is as far as Highlands and Islands Enterprise is concerned subsumed within the wider wording of Clause 5(1)(b) and (c). I am advised that Clause 5 when read with Clause 8(1)(i) encompasses the erecting of buildings or other structures on land. That gives Highlands and Islands Enterprise the same powers as the Highlands board under the 1965 Act. The noble Lord thought that the Bill did not re-enact Section 5(1)(a) of the 1965 Act. In fact it does through the wording at Clauses 5(1)(c) and 8(1)(i) which relates to the carrying out of work on land. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that explanation and that his fears will be allayed.
Lord Hughes: I did not catch what the Minister said. What was the reference to Clause 8?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It was Clause 8(1)(i).
Lord Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister and my noble friend Lord Hughes obviously see the amendment, as I do, as a technical one. The Minister has gone through the Bill. I was unable to follow him but I am sure that what he said has been well checked. Between now and Report I may be able to lumber my own way through it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Delegation of certain functions and powers]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 17, line 30, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (1A) and").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 are taken as a group. The purpose of the amendments is to provide on the face of the Bill a requirement that Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise shall not delegate such functions and powers as are necessary to enable them to continue to carry out their strategic responsibilities.
Clause 19(2) states which powers and functions those bodies shall not delegate to local enterprise bodies. There is concern that the limits based on the power of Scottish Enterprise to delegate do not ensure that it will retain such functions and powers necessary to enable it to continue with its strategic responsibility. Our view is that Scottish Enterprise should maintain a strategic role by keeping under review the Scottish economy as a whole, by developing Scotland-wide industrial sectors and opportunities and by undertaking strategic development projects. In addition, Scottish Enterprise will need to augment its training expertise to enable it to develop an overview of Scottish training.
The importance of the central body's role was highlighted in the SDA's response to the White Paper Scottish Enterprise. Paragraph 14 states:
"We believe that the role of the central body is also fundamental both to our proposals and to the success of Scottish Enterprise … The mission for Scottish Enterprise overall is truly challenging: to promote the development of the Scottish economy to ensure business has access to the highly skilled workforce it needs and to make Scotland a better place in which to live and work. If that is to be achieved Scottish Enterprise and the ADCs must seek to achieve gains for Scotland as a whole: and resources need to he allocated with that objective in mind. This demands a clear remit and hard choices between priorities across Scotland".
The response also believes:
"Scottish Enterprise would also be responsible for: setting the cross Scotland policy framework within which the Area Development Companies would act; the design and development of projects and programmes particularly in industry and enterprise development with an applicability across Scotland; agreeing strategic and operating plans prepared by the Area Development Companies, providing the necessary resource and monitoring their performance; approval, oversight of and responsibility for major projects outwith the delegated authority of the ADCs; certain functional activities including major investments, the attraction of inward investment, marketing, and the design and implementation of major physical programmes requiring scarce expertise; secretariat, finance and staffing functions".
The importance of that strategic role has been emphasised by other organisations. The Scottish TUC put foward a powerful case. The Scottish Council for Development and Industry put forward a powerful case supporting the general tenor of what the amendments are trying to achieve. I hope that the Minister will have seen those responses. If the amendments do not make the points that he wishes to make, I hope that he will accept the spirit of them and agree to consider them. Perhaps he will word them in such a way to ensure that the spirit is accepted and that they can be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: These are important amendments. I should like to be assured that Highlands and Islands Enterprise as a whole will have an overall function and that matters will not depend entirely upon the local boards. In the Highlands I understand that there are about 10 boards. To ensure that all those boards are free of local prejudice and suspicion is difficult. Some board members may not desire a development which might cut across their own businesses. It is essential that Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise retain their overall strategic role. I should be interested in what the Minister has to say. He must know that the more we can bring the local population behind us the more we can do, but the overall direction of the strategy must come from the centre.
5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When I first saw the wording of the amendment, it seemed that in spirit at least it was important. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. However, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, went further than I had imagined was intended by the amendment. Undoubtedly, parts of the role of both bodies—Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise—must be retained centrally. They will have a strategic role. The intention, I thought, was that the functions that they should not delegate but should retain should appear on the face of the Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, suggested that the overview of the economy of Scotland—the whole strategy of how Scotland attracts industry and develops its economy—should be in the hands of these bodies. Surely, that is the job of the Scottish Office and the organisation which is specially set up to assist it. That is a Scottish Office affair. I do not believe that the electorate of Scotland would wish an unelected body to carry out that function. That is going too far.
What the two bodies wish to keep central to them is difficult to define. They will have to find out exactly how much they need to keep in their own hands. I see no danger at all of overall strategy being in the hands of local bodies. That would not work. I should not have thought that anyone would wish that. My fear is that not enough, rather than too much, will be delegated. On the whole, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, I do not feel able to support the amendment. I shall be interested in what my noble friend Lord Sanderson says.
Lord Howie of Troon: This clause concerns delegation of functions and powers. If I understand it correctly, it is probably a delegation of functions and powers to private enterprise organisations of one kind or another. Among matters, according to clause 19, that should not be delegated are,
"the functions of Scottish Enterprise, and of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, mentioned in section 2(2) of this Act".
The clause states that the two enterprises are obliged to submit proposals to the Secretary of State. Presumably, that obligation includes proposals in connection with the delegation of powers.
2048
Quite simply, I wonder whether this means that the enterprises submit proposals for delegation of powers and functions to the Secretary of State in an ad hoc manner as and when they are asked to delegate powers and functions. Or, as I prefer, is it intended that the delegation of functions and powers should be seen against some form of guidelines or general guidance to the board as to what it should or should not do?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that in policy terms there is little between us. We agree on the importance of a strong strategic role for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The attempts by honourable members in another place to amend what is now Clause 19 were technically defective. I have to tell the noble Lord that the proposed Clause 19(1A) is equally defective. The difficulty, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, mentioned, is one of definitions.
The amendments are flawed because the wording in statute must be capable of precise interpretation. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, has joined us: I am sure that he will be aware of this. How does one interpret the words "strategy responsibilities"? We could all come up with plausible—and different—definitions. What is the point of telling Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise not to delegate functions and powers which they need to exercise their "strategy responsibilities"? If they need to use such powers themselves they will of course do so. But the same powers in the Bill can be used for both strategic and local purposes. If, for example, Scottish Enterprise needs to use Clause 8(1)(a) relating to the making of grants or loans or Clause 8(1)(h) dealing with the acquisition of property, for a large strategic project, is it not also to be allowed to delegate the power to a local enterprise company to undertake smaller or medium-sized projects? That would be an absurd position. Indeed, Clause 19(3) puts it beyond doubt that the central bodies may continue to exercise a function or power even if that function or power has already been delegated to a local enterprise company for use at local level. The proposed new Clause 19(1A) is therefore both technically unsound and inappropriate.
I repeat that everyone is agreed on the importance of giving Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise a strong strategic role. That is essential if they are to build on the achievement of the existing bodies. It is a crucial part of the whole concept of integrating training and enterprise development support. I draw the noble Lord's attention to what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place on the matter on 26th July 1989.
We set out the respective responsibilities of Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies in a recent paper which I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and which is quite instructive. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, referred to when he asked what were the roles and whether they would be set down so that there was guidance.

2049
That is the case. I shall send the noble Lord a copy of the paper so that he can study it. It is quite detailed. We stand by the commitment given by my right honourable friend on 26th July in this regard.
I wish to look carefully to see whether there is a way whereby the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and those of the Government could be carried out in this case. I am sure that that will be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who perhaps thinks that I do not take much notice of what the various amendments that come forward might entail. I shall do that before the next stage of the Bill. I can give him no promises because we may come up against a brick wall again, as happened in another place.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that local enterprise companies may resent the Highlands and Islands Enterprise strategic roles. By the terms of their contracts with Highlands and Islands Enterprise they will be bound to have regard to the Highlands and Islands Enterprise overall strategic intentions. If they do not, I am afraid that they will have difficulty in getting their contracts accepted.
Lord Hughes: The noble Lord referred to what I said. I am glad that I made those remarks because it evoked the response from the Minister that when he gave that assurance he was not reading from a brief. I said that perhaps at an earlier stage he appeared to be reading from briefs which had been written by two different people, plus the words of a third—his own. I am glad that the comment was in his own words and not from the brief.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to look at this issue again. He is Probably right in saying that we are not all that far apart ideologically in this little part of the Bill. I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, was getting at. We are not trying to stifle enterprise at all, but we are slightly afraid that in an area one can get a particularly powerful tail that wags the dog and perhaps causes a great deal of damage. We have all had experience of that.
The Scottish Council for Development and Industry has stated in this regard:
"In addition to providing a research and resource centre for the local enterprise companies the central organisation would need to retain the capability to implement certain programmes directly from the centre. The experience and specialist resources required for certain activities could not be replicated economically throughout the local network".
I can envisage an aggressive local enterprise committee replicating some of the work that was going on because it became impatient, whereas it should discuss the situation rather than go off on its own. Such a local enterprise committee could take important intellectual resources with it. This matter opens up many possibilities. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an explanation that will reassure us on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Assistance from local authorities and development corporations in carrying out certain functions]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 18, line 10, leave out ("(d)") and insert (")(a)").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to allow local authorities to act as agents for Scottish Enterprise in providing or assisting in the provision of finance to persons who are carrying on or are intending to carry on industrial undertakings, and to persons who are establishing or carrying on industrial undertakings separately or for other persons or establishing or assisting in the establishment or growth of community enterprise or co-operative expertise.
In many areas of Scotland, particularly rural areas, local authorities are the leading providers of finance to small-scale, high-risk business enterprises which create badly needed new jobs and economic activities in depressed areas. Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council, for example launched a village shops assistance scheme in 1988 in co-operation with the Scottish Development Agency. The scheme is intended to support shopkeepers in isolated rural areas. It offers them grants of up to £2,500 for property improvement or equipment. It also offers them business counselling and marketing assistance, including the provision of shop signs. Those are all important functions which local authorities in co-operation with the SDA have carried out in different part of Scotland. I have given the example of Dumfries and Galloway.
Funding for the scheme comes from the regional council which meets the cost of items relating to property improvement and business counselling, and from the SDA which pays for a part-time village shops counsellor who is himself a local retailer. The scheme is an example of joint local authority/SDA involvement in business finance for the benefit of local communities.
Without the SDA input, the scheme would not be possible. The joint basis of the scheme also ensures there is no duplication of the efforts of the local authority and the SDA in assisting businesses. Many local authorities in Scotland already devote considerable resources to giving assistance to community and co-operative enterprises. Such assistance is of particular importance in creating much needed employment and services in some of Scotland's most disadvantaged communities. Given the wealth of experience available to local authorities, there is good reason to allow them to act as agents for Scottish Enterprise.
Finally, the exclusion relating to the establishment or the carrying on of business is extremely shortsighted and would seem to go against the Government's philosophy of encouraging local authorities to be commercially minded and businesslike. It would discourage innovative approaches to business support where local authorities are able to play a valuable role. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Clause 20(1)(a) simply reflects Section 19(1) of the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975. It will allow Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies to work with local authorities and new town development corporations in the exercise of certain functions, including promoting the growth of industry, providing sites and premises, and environmental improvement. But I see no advantage in extending those provisions.
First, as my honourable friend the Minister of State for industry and education made clear in another place, to use local authorities as agents for the provision of finance would fudge accountability for the funding and add another layer of bureaucracy. Also, the power to act as an agent is different from and far more restricted than the power to act under delegation. An agent can carry out only executive functions whereas delegation can also involve decision-making functions. So local authorities acting merely as agents would in any case not have the power to decide to whom finance should be provided. They would not therefore have a meaningful role to play.
Secondly, the Bill is not intended as a vehicle to adjust the economic development functions of local authorities. Those are unaffected. I emphasise that point. It remains open to local authorities, for example, to continue to assist community enterprises at their own hand or in partnership with Scottish Enterprise under their powers in Section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
Thirdly, as my honourable friend the Minister of State for industry and education also made clear in another place, the Widdicombe Report recommended that the Government should initiate a review of the proper role of local authorities in economic development. The Government broadly accepted this recommendation in their response to that report, the White Paper (Cmnd. 433) entitled The Conduct of Local Authority Business, issued in July 1988. Legislation was brought forward for England and Wales in Part III of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Local authority powers to take part in or carry out economic development in Scotland are still under review, as CoSLA is aware. I do not wish to pre-empt the outcome of that review. I hope that makes the situation clear in relation to the powers of local authorities which still exist. We have just lifted this part of the Bill out of the 1975 Act.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 23 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Winding up and dissolution of new town development corporations]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 26, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) A winding-up order shall provide that any local development company set up to own and manage assets of the former new town development corporations must have a board whose membership includes representations from each local authority within whose area that company is located.").
The noble Lord said: We now come to the new towns part of the Bill. Scotland always seems to be landed, if not with miscellaneous provisions, with two subjects which are not related in the same Bill. This part of the Bill has raised a great deal of interest, as I am sure the Minister is aware. It deals with the winding up of the new towns, and the purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure that a local community, through its elected representatives, is actively involved in its local development company. That would facilitate the private and the public sector working in partnership to attract investment and ensure continued development for the benefit of the whole community.
The benefits of economic development should accrue to the whole community. Measures to deal with economic development at local level need to be co-ordinated so as to permit a full contribution by all local organisations and local authorities. The private and public sectors should seek to co-operate and to work in partnership to facilitate investment and continued development to the benefit of the whole community. The Government should clarify how the arrangements proposed in the Bill will affect central government's representation on local development boards, the Government's proposed criteria for the assessment of management buy-out bids submitted by development corporation staff and any action that may be taken in relation to the possible failure of a management buy-out bid or of a management agency.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of all the arguments. New towns mean a lot to Scotland. Some of the well-established new towns have as much local pride as some of the oldest towns in the Highlands or the Borders. Therefore they will be watching this part of the Bill with interest. I hope that the Minister can either accept the amendment or reassure us that he will consider the points that have been raised. I beg to move.
Lord Hughes: This is the part of the Bill in which I have the greatest interest because of my past connection with new towns. I strongly support the amendment for reasons arising from that experience. When I became chairman of Glenrothes Development Corporation in 1960 the pattern was very similar to that found in new towns, whether in England or in Scotland. The relationships between an existing local authority and the new town was not always of the best because the local authority tended to regard the new town development corporation as carrying out functions which more properly should rest with the elected authority. From time to time there were differences between them. We were always accused of not being an elected body but a creature of the Secretary of State.

2053
That was in 1960, when I went to Glenrothes. Fifteen years later, in 1975, I became chairman of East Kilbride Development Corporation. The first thing that I noticed there was the tremendous change which had taken place in the interval. The jealousy between the town council and the development corporation no longer existed although there were differences from time to time. One of the main differences was one which the former Secretary of State, George Younger, emphasised. The new towns had no greater friend in the Government than George Younger as Secretary of State. That was made obvious when Mr. Heseltine was busily decimating the new towns in England and transferring them to the commission. Mr. Younger made Perfectly clear that he had no intention of following that example in Scotland.
One point that Mr. Younger made quite clear to the local authorities in the course of time was that in his view when it came to the winding up of a new town the houses would go to the local authority but the commercial and industrial assets would not be transferred to the local authority. That is what is happening now. However, there was and there continues to be a strong interest in the local authorities in the commercial and industrial developments because they know that the prosperity of their towns is tied up so much in those developments. Therefore it would be a great help if there were an obvious local authority connection in any development company that is set up. I hope therefore that the Minister will find it possible to look at the amendment favourably or, alternatively, bring forward a government substitute to carry out the purpose of the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord's experience goes back a long way and he has given tremendously distinguished service in the new towns. He is well known for that. My understanding of the story of the new towns is that their enormous success in Scotland has been due to the fact that they were not elected bodies but had chairmen fulfilling the role that the noble Lord occupied. That was what worked so well for the new towns. What the noble Lord said about the improvement in the relationship between new towns and local authorities is true. They came to live together in a way that they had been unable to earlier.
To suggest that the community will want to play a part in the running of the new organisations that may be created once the new towns are dissolved and will want to do so through their elected representatives is probably a misinterpretation of what people want. What they want is competence. They want the job done effectively. The people who live in the new towns, who will become the customers, will want the towns run in their interests without any political input.
I should have thought that what the amendment proposes is not the modern way and not what the people of Scotland are looking for in this instance. They want their local authorities to do certain things. Local authority councillors will be very much busier than they have ever been in the past as a result of the enormous new community care requirements
2054
that will become their responsibility. Although I can understand the motive behind the amendment I believe that it is a little out of date.
Lord Hughes: I do not want to interrupt the noble Baroness, but she has overlooked one point. The new town development corporations in Scotland each included at least two elected members of the local authority. That is still the position. There are still local authority members in new town corporations. We must accept that as regards the industrial and commercial enterprises the development companies will be the successors of the development corporations. If it worked with the development corporations I can see no reason why it would not work with the development companies.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I appreciate that there have been elected representatives on the new town corporations all along. They were there when the jealousy existed and they are still there now that there is less jealousy. I do not believe that they have affected the jealousy question.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: As we start this section of the Bill I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that I rise with some temerity in view of his experience of new towns and his distinguished record. I should like to pay tribute also to the work of all those who have made such a success of the new towns in Scotland. I thank him also for the generous words in which he spoke of the Secretary of State, George Younger, in that connection. It is relevant at this stage, as we start, to note what a success the new towns have been.
Only yesterday I was looking at some of the success stories. It is significant how many jobs have come to those new towns. Looking to the future of Scotland one realises that the young populations in those towns will make them even more attractive in the 1990s for a country in which the national labour force will contract most acutely in the 16 to 24 year-old age group. For example, Livingston will have a 60 per cent. growth in the number of 16 to 19 year-olds coming forward for employment. That makes my job, and no doubt in the past made the noble Lord's job, very much easier when trying to sell Scotland as a place for manufacturing industry. So I take his point.
The White Paper makes clear the Government's view that the most effective organisation to undertake economic development activities in the new towns after wind-up will be a private sector local development company. Such a company is likely to be a limited company with the normal share stucture, articles of association and a board of directors. I do not believe that it is necessary to impose on what will be a private sector company any statutory entitlement to have representatives for the local authorities.
Perhaps I may say straight away that if the local enterprise companies and the embryo boards that are being set up are any guide, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be very well met. Sensible companies might look very closely at those

2055
who have had experience in local authority work in the area as possible members of boards.
The establishment of the development companies does not exclude local authorities from participating in or supporting the activities of those companies—far from it—in much the same way as the new town development corporations and local authorities presently co-operate in joint projects. There are a number of ways in which that could be achieved. It could be done by, for example, a local development company and a local authority participating together to sponsor industrial and commercial projects or area development initiatives. Alternatively, the local authority could contract with the local development company to supply local business advisory and support services.
Those are just examples of the way in which local authorities can contribute to economic improvement in their areas with the assistance—I say that advisedly—of local development companies. These companies are not to be viewed as competitors with the local authorities but can very well be potential partners allowing the authorities to draw upon the experience and expertise of the private sector; and vice versa so far as may concern individuals from the local authority world.
In the light of those arguments, I hope that the Committee will accept that there are a number of ways in which local authorities will be both allowed and encouraged to participate in the activities of local development companies. I do not consider that it is necessary or desirable to put a statutory requirement on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will consider this approach as the best way forward for what we all intend, so that there is no hold-up in development in those areas where the new towns exist.
Lord Hughes: I was very interested in what the Minister had to say about this matter. He said that there would probably be a limited company with shareholders. Will the participation (about which he spoke more than once) that the local authority will be able to undertake include the district council being entitled, for example, to take up shares in the company?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: That is something—a district council as such being a shareholder—on which I would need to take advice. One would need to look at the formation of those companies which may wish to put in bids for the various local development companies that come into existence. Personally, I see no reason why it should not do so but I should like to check that point. The difficulty is that it is a local authority which would seek to become a shareholder in such an operation. I think that it may be possible, but I should not like to give the noble Lord an assurance without double checking.
Lord Hughes: That is fair enough. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to write to me when he knows the answer.
Lord Kirkhill: I wonder how the Minister would react were I to say to him that I take the view (which I expressed earlier) that the remarks he has just made are another example of one facet of the destruction of the community life of Scotland, which is a destruction of the essential fabric of the life of the people in Scotland. The idea that people will not have an inalienable representation on the new private limited company type board is another example of this Government's ideology running riot. It will be further confirmation of their appalling political record in Scotland.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The noble Lord is a little extreme in his views. I think he must look to the economy of his own area in Aberdeen and judge for himself as to whether the successful economy that the Government have brought to that area is doing well or badly at the present time. Frankly, I believe it is absolute nonsense to say that it is doing badly. It is doing extremely well.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: For the Government to take credit for the success of oil is a bit rich. We think that they have wasted the oil proceeds—some £100 billion of them. And with all that they have still managed such an economic record.
We are worried about the whole question of the new towns Bill. I am sure that the Minister has seen many articles written about this issue. There is one in the Glasgow Herald, a newspaper which does not lean toward the Labour Party, which asks:
"Will the new towns float off in a property flood?"
We do not know what will happen. We do not know how they will be sold off. We are unaware of the details. We are convinced that they will be sold off cheaply because the Government want to get rid of them. Everything that the Government have sold with, I think, the exception of BP has doubled or trebled in price within weeks or months on the stock market. Once the Government make up their mind to sell something, they get rid of it. Every single privatisation has been like that. One of our worries is that the good things will be removed and that this will become a type of asset stripping.
The article in the Herald quotes Douglas Harrison of the STUC. I could not do better than give the Committee his final remarks in that article. He says:
"Why disband something that works just because some loony in the Adam Smith Institute says that you should? It's crazy".
That is generally the feeling that we have. However, I am sure that we shall not have a great deal of comfort from the Government. We shall be very interested to know the details of management buy-outs or corporate buy-outs if they are possible or the sort of system we shall have for purchasing these new towns. It is all incredibly vague. However, rather than continue to speak on this subject I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 27, line 8, leave out from ("State") to end of line 11 and insert:

2057
("(3) In granting consent as provided for in subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State in relation to the disposal of property, rights or liabilities relating to housing, land to be developed for housing purposes, garages, tenants' meeting rooms or associated housing purposes shall require the development corporation to have consulted with—

(i) regional and district councils in which the new town is situated;

(ii) tenants or such bodies representing the tenants;

(iii) other associations directly affected who carry out functions or operate within the new town area:

(iv) any other bodies which appear to it to have an interest.

(4) This section shall come into force at the expiry of two months beginning on the day this Act is passed.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment ensures that consultation with local authorities and tenants takes place prior to the disposal of any houses or facilities linked to the houses, such as meeting rooms, garages, etc. It is important that tenants should be involved in the process of wind-up and that they should be assured of that at this stage.
I knew many tenants and families from the areas that I represented—the Woodside, Maryhill and Anderston areas—who went out to East Kilbride and Cumbernauld when it was considered to be a fairly remote area. They did not have decent transport, the roads were not made up and they had very few facilities. In a way, they were pioneers. To a very large extent it was their efforts which made those communities, gave them their being and produced the feeling of warmth which you meet when you enter many of the new towns, particularly in Scotland.
There is concern within local authorities and among tenants of development corporation houses that transfer of housing stock will take place without consultation with local authorities and other local interests. Housing is a most important aspect of people's lives. It is essential that they be involved in decisions about the future of the houses that they occupy. Although provision for consultation with tenants of new towns on wind-up is dealt with in the White Paper, it would ease the concern if it were incorporated in legislation.
The high profile of the New Town Tenants Forum indicates the concern of tenants about their future and demonstrates the fear that decisions will be taken without their direct input. The handling of the consultation paper, Maintaining the Momentum, where a large body of opinion was sought, including the views of the Scottish Wildlife Trust but excluding tenants and their organisations, has done nothing to alleviate the concern.
This amendment is to ensure that the involvement of tenants is enshrined within the statute. Residents' associations and community councils, as well as tenants, are concerned about the future of new town housing stock. For that reason statutory consultation should be promoted for those groups.
The position of local district councils must also be considered, bearing in mind that the White Paper refers to their possible involvement in the future of the housing stock. To be presented with a fait accomph on this matter is totally unacceptable and against the interests of the new towns and the district population alike. The expertise of the district councils coupled with that of the new towns could
2058
be made to operate in the best interests of the tenants. The amendment seeks to ensure that the right to be consulted is incorporated into legislation rather than simply left as a commitment in the White Paper.
Tenants may be under severe financial difficulties. They may have been anxious to obtain a house but may have spent many hours each day travelling back to their old community at first. They will now have built up a new community. Their wives and families were isolated for a long period until the community was built up. For such people now to be told that they have no rights and will not be consulted is quite disgraceful. I feel very strongly in moving the amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: The point that the noble Lord made is very true. I have received a number of letters on the subject. I should like to know what will happen. It is said that one can choose one's home or one's landlord. However, what will happen to local authority housing? I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will explain that. It will be a great relief to people to know that consideration has been given to this issue. People are worried about it. I shall be happy to know the Government's proposal in respect of local authority housing.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hughes: I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept the amendment or something similar. I have spoken of my experience in new towns. I also have long experience in local government. One of the biggest mistakes in housing made by local authorities was building enormous housing estates with a lack of facilities.
I became Lord Provost in 1954. At that time one of the issues for which we campaigned in the election and which enabled us to win the majority of seats in the council related to a scheme called the Fintry housing estate. I do not remember how many thousands of houses were on the estate. But the children in that development went to 15 different schools throughout the city because there was not a single school in the development. There were a few shops but some essential services were not available.
That was the main difference between the way housing was developed in cities in those earlier years and the way that it was developed in the new towns. In the new towns all the facilities were included. The schools were built, sometimes before even there were pupils. In the new towns the co-operation between the education authority and the development corporation was first-class. Industries grew. That was the main success of the new towns.
The important factor was that the co-operation of the tenants was sought by the local authorities. The facilities provided for the tenants such as are referred to in the amendment were possible because of close consultation between the development corporations and their tenants. That did not happen simply through the good will of members of the development corporation but because it was part of the function with which they were entrusted. They were not just building houses or factories. They were not just creating jobs. They were creating

2059
communities. They accepted that a community did not just mean houses, a school or a factory; it meant everyone working together.
It is important that that aspect should continue. Some provision along the lines of the amendment is necessary.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: In an earlier discussion we spoke of transferring assets from the new towns. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made very pertinent points. However we are now discussing an even more important matter—not the transfer of assets but of people's homes. It is a very intimate and important aspect of the life of the community.
Like other noble Lords I have had representations from the Scottish Local Authorities with New Towns and other bodies, including the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. They have expressed surprise that at the present time tenants may not transfer to district councils. The Government have been coy about whether tenants will be given the option of district council landlords after the winding up of a development corporation.
The Government have said that district council landlords have not been ruled out; but neither have they ruled them in. It would be helpful if the Minister were able to assure tenants of their rights of transfer. Apparently surveys that have been undertaken in this field indicate that there is a preference for transferring to local authorities. It would therefore be useful if district councils were among the landlord options after the winding-up procedure.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The drill on winding up can more appropriately be discussed with the next amendment. Perhaps my noble friend might glean more from that discussion than from this debate, which deals with consultation. My ministerial colleague in another place Ian Lang, has been most assiduous in his conduct of the consultation process and the development corporations have played a very full part in stimulating and fostering a constructive public debate on the issues in their communities. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is quite right: there has been considerable interest in housing.
However, perhaps I may answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on a previous amendment. He asked whether local authorities could be shareholders. The answer is, yes, they could be. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—since our discussion refers generally to new towns—no, public assets will not be sold off cheaply.
Lord Hughes: The Minister said that he would refer to housing. Are we discussing Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 together? I assumed that it was only Amendment No. 17.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We are discussing Amendment No. 17 only. Amendment No. 18 is a substantive one which I know that the noble Lord will wish to take separately. We are discussing how much consultation is going on, can go on or will go on.
2060
I know that the noble Lords' concern, which is shared by everyone, whatever their party affiliation, is to maintain the momentum of the towns through the period of transition. I insist that the period of translation is very long. That reflects the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, about George Younger's timescale for change. To undertake such transition effectively requires the participation and co-operation of everyone concerned. That is why in the White Paper and in a debate on a similar amendment in Committee in another place we made clear our wholehearted commitment to consultation as wind-up progresses. I understand that the development corporations readily consult with everyone concerned before advising their boards on appropriate action to be taken.
I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, accepts the sincerity and constancy of the Government's and the development corporations' position on the issue of consultation. I can today again give the assurance that those most involved in the winding-up process in the new towns, in particular the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish local authorities with new towns in their areas, will continue to be included in the consultation process.
At this stage I shall refer to a document which many Members of the Committee will have seen—The Choice is Yours. It provides patent evidence that the Government take the matter seriously. Six thousand copies of the document have been distributed to tenants and some 120 associations and federations have responded to it. It sets out clearly the options that the Government consider will be appropriate at wind-up. I shall ensure that all Members of the Committee who are interested in the subject receive a copy of the document if they have not done so already.
Given the depth to which we are prepared to go into the matter, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that we take the consultation process seriously, especially as regards the homes of the various tenants.
Lord Hughes: Can the Minister ensure that at least four Members on this side have copies of that document before the next stage of the Bill?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I shall ensure that all Members who have contributed to the debate receive copies of the document.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: That reply changes what I had intended to say, because I shall need to read the document. The Minister heard all Members on this side of the Committee speak of the importance that they attach to the selling of these assets. I wish that I had the Minister's confidence that they will be sold at a reasonable price. Whatever bricks and mortar are in the houses, they and other properties have been made acceptable by the work and the devotion of the people who built up the area.
A property agent in Scotland has said that industrial property is not high on the list of the

2061
average estate agent in Scotland. I have given away my notes, or I should have given the Minister the actual quotation. The agent believes that there will be a great deal of stripping of the best of the property. We do not know what will happen to the market in 10 years' time, but we are worried. We do not believe that the new towns consist only of bricks and mortar; they consist of a great deal more. I am sure that the Minister accepts that and I hope that those responsible for setting the prices and disposing of the property will also accept it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hughes: I have been passed a note referring to the Minister's comment that local authorities might become shareholders. I do not understand the note, which reads:
"Local authorities can be shareholders in local development companies but I understand this can only be done with the consent of the local development companies".
Until there are shareholders there cannot be a local development company either to give or withhold consent. Therefore, if the local authorities are entitled to obtain shares in the company they will be part of the local development company from the outset. Will the Minister examine the situation again?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Of course I shall. The noble Lord has an advantage over me because he does not have the note that I received.
Lord Hughes: Perhaps I should be happier if I had not received my note.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 27, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) In granting consent as provided for in subsection (2) above, but also in respect of the period from the date of commencement of this section, until the date of coming into force of the wind-up Order, the Secretary of State shall ensure that each tenant of any house owned by a development corporation, if that house may be transferred or disposed of to a new landlord, shall have the right to choose that the new landlord shall be one of the following bodies namely, the district council in which the new town is situated, Scottish Homes or such other body as may be approved for that purpose by Scottish Homes, provided that the tenant's choice of landlord is agreed by that body.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is crucial because it seeks to ensure that new town tenants are provided with the right to transfer their tenancy to the appropriate district council both at wind-up of the new town and during the interim period. At present, tenants are allowed to choose to transfer to a limited range of landlords, including Scottish Homes. It is important that the choice is extended to include district councils because that is the express wish of many new town tenants. The amendment is supported by the Scottish Consumer Council, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and the Institute of Housing.
To some extent it was satisfying to note that a commitment was given in the White Paper to the effect that no individual new town tenant would have to change landlord during the period before
2062
wind-up. Such a commitment is welcomed by tenants. However, it is regrettable that no such specific provision is made to ensure that their wishes are provided for on the wind-up of a new town. Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 granted all public sector tenants, including new town tenants, the right to choose a new landlord with effect from 1st April 1989. Regrettably, district councils are excluded from becoming receiving landlords under that legislation.
Independent surveys carried out early in 1989 by the district councils of East Kilbride, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, Cunninghame and West Lothian showed conclusively that the majority of new town tenants wished to have the choice of transferring their tenancy to the appropriate district council now and at the time of wind-up. The results of those surveys were confirmed by the findings of a survey carried out by Market Research Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Office. The results were published in November 1989 in The Future of Public Sector Housing in Scottish New Towns. The survey identified that in an unprompted response 65 per cent. of tenants would then choose the district council as their new landlord and 50 per cent. would make the same choice on the wind-up of the new towns. In both instances only 7 per cent. of tenants were in favour of Scottish Homes as a new landlord.
The most recent survey of tenants' opinions in the new town was taken in May 1990 by Market Research Scotland on behalf of the five district councils using exactly the same methodology as that used in the survey undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Office. I am sure that the main results of the latest survey, together with a comparison of those obtained in 1989, are available to the Minister. I shall not read them out in full. The survey clearly demonstrates that tenant awareness of the Government's housing proposals is high and has increased since 1989. Landlord preferences have become more focused, with higher a proportion of tenants wishing to choose their district councils both now and on wind-up. To deny such a substantial number of new town tenants the right to choose district councils as their new landlords would run contrary to the Government's stated objective of maximising the tenants' choice.
The White Paper, The Scottish New Towns, The Way Ahead, provides for those tenants who have not transferred to other landlords on wind-up to be transferred to Scottish Homes. However, as only 7 per cent. of tenants found it to be an acceptable choice of landlord, many tenants would find themselves transferred against their express wishes. Although the White Paper does not dismiss the possibility of district councils becoming receiving landlords, no statutory right exists in the Bill to permit tenants that right to choose.
This amendment, fully supported by the surveys carried out, seeks to provide new town tenants with full choice as a statutory right. It should be borne in mind that tenants transferring to district councils would retain the right of tenants' choice and could opt for an alternative landlord at a later date. That is because of legislation passed some time ago.
I find it difficult to express fully the results of the survey because I have them in tabulated form. I do not have the Minister's facility to answer Written Questions. I am sure that the Minister will accept that it is the overwhelming view that people should be given the opportunity to opt for a district council as their landlord. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic towards this amendment. I am sure he will realise that this matter is causing a great deal of anxiety throughout the new towns and in housing circles in Scotland. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Hughes: I support my noble friend. I have received representations on practically every conceivable aspect of this from the new towns in Scotland. The chairman of the Glenrothes residents' association telephoned me a week last Sunday to let me know that a very recent survey showed that 83 per cent. of those who replied wished to transfer to the district council. In Livingston, the chairmen of five different tenants' associations—they appear to be organised on a sort of ward basis there—have all written to say that they wish to have the right, among others, to transfer to the district council. The same applied in East Kilbride.
I looked at what the Minister said on Second Reading. He said:
"I should like to mention the fact that I was somewhat disappointed by the reaction of CoSLA when it referred to: 'the deliberate exclusion of district councils from the transfer options available to new town tenants despite the Government's stated commitment to giving tenants choice'. I find those words difficult to reconcile with the clear statement contained in paragraph 5.10 of the 1989 White Paper on Scottish new towns".
The Minister then goes on to quote exactly what is said in that White Paper. He adds:
"The Government have not changed their minds since publication of the White Paper. We remain committed to formal consultation with all the interested parties. We remain committed to the same list of potential recipients of development corporation housing as set out in the White Paper. For the sake of clarity, I will spell out again that list: it includes, housing associations, co-operatives, district councils and private or other landlords. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but it is such an important area and it is most important that we get it right before we reach the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. I wanted to make the position absolutely clear". [Official Report, 18/6/90; col. 719.]
The point is that the Minister is referring to what is said in the White Paper. Where does that appear in the Bill?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I have already spoken to this amendment. I did so when we discussed Amendment No. 17 and I have nothing to add. I apologise to the Committee and to the mover of the amendment for speaking to this amendment when we were discussing the disposal of assets. I can only add my voice and any persuasive powers which I have in support of this very reasonable amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said when he moved the amendment, this requires us to spend some time on the reply. I apologise in advance for taking slightly longer in replying than Members of the Committee
2064
may want. However, it is a very important area and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is right that on Second Reading I made the point, I hoped, abundantly clear.
The amendment focuses on the single issue which has been presented by the party of the noble Lord opposite as the main reason for resisting the passage of the Bill. The noble Lord's honourable friends in another place profess surprise at the Government's policy on housing transfer as set out in the 1989 White Paper. I, too, must admit to considerable surprise that an amendment has now been tabled which is identical to that which was considered in another place. However, this matter is very important and I want to go straight to how we envisage that progress will be made after enactment of the Bill.
The Government's whole approach to winding up the development corporation is designed to secure results consistent with our principal objective; namely, to maintain the momentum and to ensure that the new towns continue to make their key contribution to the Scottish economy and the community. We have talked already about the successes of the new towns and again I pay tribute to those who have been involved in their development. The Government set out a timetable for wind-up in the White Paper. That timetable was requested by consultees in response to the Green Paper published in 1988. That sets out a realistic and orderly framework which, significantly, has been accepted by all sides in the various debates which have taken place on the subject.
That timetable spans virtually an entire decade. The Government's view, expressed quite clearly at paragraph 5.10 of the White Paper, was that the appropriate time to consider transfer of remaining development corporation housing was towards the end of wind-up and that that should be carried out after thorough public consultation. We made our views very clear. We have achieved substantial success in house sales where the growing majority of new town residents are home owners.
We expect that the right to buy and voluntary sales over the next nine years will raise the present figures to two in every three being home owners. However, we are also concerned to offer greater choice to those who choose to continue to rent. To those who see no good need to change their landlord. I must say that they will not be able to continue to rent from their development corporation after dissolution. The clear majority of present tenants—72 per cent. in the recent SLANT survey—see wind-up as the right time to take a decision as to a future landlord. That has been the Government's position since the publication of the White Paper, and it remains their view.
We see no advantage in allowing tenants to transfer now to the district council. That would be directly counter to the Government's commitment to reducing the size of the public rented sector and would not give tenants the time to examine fully the other renting options on offer, particularly housing associations and tenant owned or managed co-operatives. I know very well the movements by various housing associations particularly in regard to the new towns.

2065
We on this side of the Committee are greatly encouraged by the recent SLANT survey, which found that people are more aware of the options on offer. Our leaflet, The Choice is Yours, to which I have referred, has undoubtedly helped levels of awareness. However, there is still some way to go in that area, as the SLANT survey shows. It is in the interests of tenants to make an informed choice at the appropriate time. SLANT seemed concerned with only one choice and it wants that to happen now at a time seen as inappropriate by the great majority of tenants in SLANT's own survey.
In the first three months of this financial year, the corporation has sold just under 900 houses of its stock. We now see housing associations actively participating in the new towns as economic success expands residents' interest in new types of housing tenancy. The trend to a smaller family size and the substantial numbers of young and single people seeking accommodation provide ready markets which housing associations are actively examining with some of the corporations.
I should refer to the pamphlet again. It is in the Library, but I shall ensure that Members of the Committee receive copies. I have highlighted one of the most critical parts of the document which has gone to tenants. It reads:
"Among the options the Government will consider [during wind-up] will be transfers to: housing associations, housing co-operatives, district councils [and] other landlords".
I do not know what the Government could do to spell out more clearly their intentions for the wind-up of the corporations.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether district councils would definitely be an option at the wind-up.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: As I quoted from the pamphlet:
"Among the options the Government will consider will be transfers to housing associations, housing co-operatives, district councils [and] other landlords".
Lord Hughes: The Minister says:
"Among the options the Government will consider".
Would it not have been better if the pamphlet had read, "Among the options which the Government will accept"? We know, particularly with this government, that consideration and decision are not always the same.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I must stand by the wording of the document and the information I have given to the Chamber on the matter.
Lord Hughes: Perhaps I could phrase my question another way. Does "consider" include "accept"?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: In consultation everything must be taken into account. The Government must then make up their mind: they may or may not accept a specific option. I cannot give the noble Lord further guidance, as he well knows.
Lord Hughes: Perhaps the Minister will give the assurance that the main consideration which the Government take into account in the options will be the option the tenant wants?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I made it perfectly clear that the tenants are the people who matter in this exercise. That is the reason we came forward with this document for circulation. That is why we spelt out clearly when decisions have to be made. The Government will of course take into account what the tenants want.
Lord Hughes: The Government may take into account what tenants want, but will they necessarily accept what the tenants want?
The Earl of Perth: I am a little confused. I understand at the moment that there is a 10-year period in which to operate. The key question that arises is what will happen at the end of those 10 years. I heard a quotation from a document which I look forward to receiving. However, as I understand it, there is no certainty that at that time, if tenants want to stay with the district council, they will be entitled to do so. Is that right?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We are dealing not with tenants of the district council but tenants of the new town corporations which are to be wound up. The tenants cannot stay with the corporation because it will be wound up.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: I may have phrased my question badly. Can we be satisfied that at the end of the 10 years, if the district councils disappeared, the tenants may stay with the new towns which take their place?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The noble Earl, Lord Perth, says that he is confused. He is not alone. We are all in a state of confusion. Not having a copy of the pamphlet does not help. I know that the Minister is usually very courteous. There must have been some slip-up in the distribution system.
The Minister must be aware that the trend is that people are becoming more aware. The more aware they become the more they would like, on wind-up of the new towns, to go to district councils. A large number would perhaps like to go to district councils now. That indicates a feeling that they do not trust anyone else. One assumes that for a while the district council will still have the option of selling. I do not believe the Minister's interpretation of up to two-thirds owner occupation would necessarily be greatly affected.
I can only withdraw the amendment, but we shall need to bring it back when we have carefully considered the Minister's response and read the pamphlet. I may be very simple or perhaps totally confused. But, at the wind-up, tenants will obviously be able to go to Scottish Homes. However, they could go to Scottish Homes as soon as the process starts, long before the actual wind-up. They could go at any time to Scottish Homes, or perhaps a private landlord, right up until wind-up and

2067
thereafter, or at the point of wind-up. At the very best interpretation of what the Minister said, they will only perhaps have the option of going to the district council of their choice when the corporation is wound up; and even that is not certain.
We shall need to wait until we read the Minister's speech. I am sure that he will also write to us. We will go through his remarks with a tooth-comb and perhaps bring something back at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It is important that the noble Lord should study between now and the next stage of the Bill the differences in housing needs of the various development corporations. They are all different, and different considerations will apply when it comes to wind-up.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I should like to ask the Minister just one question. Can he tell me what the English legislation says? I understand from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that in her area a ballot is taking place among tenants in the new town which is being wound up as to whether they wish to become tenants of the local authority, the district council, housing associations or otherwise. I wonder if there is any inconsistency in the legislation.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We prefer to deal with the Scottish situation as we are doing. We believe that that is the proper way to tackle the problem. I insist that the tenants have a prime interest in the whole affair. I should be misleading the Chamber if I did not say that the options contained in this famous document, which I shall circulate, are clearly spelt out. When the time comes the decision for the Government will be clear.
Lord Hughes: Did the Minister answer my question regarding where the White Paper commitment appeared in the Bill?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I did not answer that question because the commitment does not appear on the face of the Bill. There are very few clauses which deal with wind-up, but we are dealing with all the aspects of wind-up. I said that the commitment of the Government to the White Paper is absolute, and we shall carry through the whole operation of wind-up regarding housing in accordance with what is written in the White Paper.
Lord Hughes: I am sorry to sound like tweedledum and tweedledee but if the Government's commitment is absolute, what is the objection to having it in the Bill?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: As I understand it, the noble Lord's amendment is to transfer the whole of the development corporation housing to the local authority. As I understand it, that is the amendment with which we are now dealing.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I believe not. The amendment suggests that a tenant of a house owned by a development corporation,
"if that house may be transferred or disposed of to a new landlord, shall have the right to choose that the new landlord shall be one of the following bodies namely, the district council in which the new town is situated, Scottish Homes or such other body as may be approved for that purpose by Scottish Homes, provided that the tenant's choice of landlord is agreed by that body".
That is fairly clear.
I should dearly love to press this amendment to a Division but I do not know what the amendment will be changing because I have not completely understood the interpretation that the Minister has put on the Bill. Therefore, because of the difficulties involved I am inclined at this point to withdraw the amendment. However, before doing so I see that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is anxious to speak, and on housing he must be heard.
The Earl of Selkirk: I speak with great ignorance because I have not seen the White Paper. I did not realise its significance and I know that I have a duty to the Committee to read it carefully. However, perhaps I may ask one question. To whom is the development corporation going to transfer the habitations of the people in the corporation? The noble Lord has spoken about the success of the new towns. That is splendid. But nothing is more important for success than the good habitation of the inhabitants. We must know who is to have these properties, whether now or in the future. We all attach great importance to that.
Lord Hughes: I hope the Minister will reconsider this amendment; otherwise we must come back at the next stage of the Bill. He appears to be arguing against the amendment under the misapprehension that it relates to compulsory transfer to district councils. All that the amendment does is insist that the district councils are among the options available. If that is what is said in the document that the Minister has in front of him, I cannot see the objection to putting it in the Bill.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I refer my noble friend to what I said about the options that will be available prior to the ultimate winding up of these corporations. The options available which the Government will consider at the time, after consultation, for all those tenants in the corporations will be housing associations, housing co-operatives, district councils and other landlords. However, as has been clearly stated by the Government, if at the final wind-up there is any residue, those houses would have to be taken over by Scottish Homes. We very much hope that it will be a very small number indeed.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Having listened carefully to that final comment by the Minister the matter becomes even more confusing. There is no way out except to take the amendment back, read what the Minister said, re-read the appropriate parts of the White Paper and the pamphlet provided by the Minister and on the basis of that reconsider the

2069
whole matter and bring forward an amendment at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 28, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) At a date not later than two months before the date of dissolution of a development corporation, the Secretary of State shall nominate the relevant District Council to carry out the following functions:

(i) establish a single housing list (in this section a "housing list" means a list of applicants for rented housing held by housing associations, approved landlords. local authorities and Scottish Homes within a new town area, kept by a District Council in connection with the allocation of housing).

(ii) ensure, after annual consultation with the Secretary of State, relevant housing associations and other housing bodies, that a reasonable number of lets will be made available from each housing body to homeless people, to whom the local authority has a duty under section 31(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

( ) The Secretary of State, prior to consenting to any disposal of housing stock by any development corporation, shall require that the new landlord give written undertakings to comply with determinations made by the nominated body in terms of section 36D(5) above.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was put to me by Shelter and I am glad to move it because it deals with an extremely important part of housing policy—that is, the provision of housing for the homeless and the long list of people wishing to rent houses.
The amendment seeks to combine housing choice, efficient allocation according to need and the continuing provision of homeless accommodation which is presently allocated by the development corporation. The position has become gradually worse—in fact, not gradually but quickly—in the district council areas where the new towns are situated. In Glenrothes the number of homeless in 1983–4 was 225 and it is now 1,042—an increase of 363 per cent. In the West Lothian District Council (Livingstone) the figure has risen from 103 to 302, an increase of 193 per cent. The position is not so bad in Cumbernauld where it was 343 and is now 341. In Cunninghame District Council (Irvine) the figures are about the same. In East Kilbride the figure has increased by 68 per cent. Those are serious figures and action needs to be taken to ensure that we have a competent system of allocating housing to the homeless under a great number of new landlords and to ensure that whole matter does not go by default.
The amendment also seeks to enshrine the nomination rights of district councils in statute and to place a contractual obligation on any new landlord who is taking over property—on the last amendment, the Minister said that the options were many, with a large number of different bodies—to provide the district council with nomination rights to a number of places provided by the new landlords. This would ensure the continued provision of accommodation for the homeless—a provision that would be flexible to changing needs.
Homelessness is only one indicator of the importance of making statutory provision for those in the greatest housing need once the new towns are wound up. New town waiting lists also show a current high level of demand for rented housing, while the waiting lists of district councils in which the new towns are situated indicate similar high levels. I shall not read out the figures, but since 1981 they have increased by an average of about 100 per cent.
In the past development corporation housing has been allocated according to need rather than ability to pay. As the stocks of rented housing in new towns has diminished through the promotion of right-to-buy and rents-to-mortgage schemes it is essential that the remaining stock is allocated by social landlords to those in greatest need. Rather than have a separate waiting list for each landlord, a single list held by a nominated body would be an accurate indicator of housing need in an area and would allow for efficient allocation to those in greatest need.
In another place the Government replied that a single housing list would be an authoritarian imposition that would not work effectively in Scotland. In fact, it would be the only effective method of providing for the needs of people who wish to rent housing and who desperately need it; in other words, the homeless. Following the dissolution of the development corporations the nature of housing in the new towns will change. It is envisaged that rather than one single landlord a wide variety of landlords will take over development corporation stock. That will impede the hitherto efficient allocation of housing according to need, whether through the homelessness route or waiting list channels. The amendment simplifies the position and proposes a method of allocating housing. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord deals with an important point. However, perhaps he will consider looking at the community care provisions which by the time this Bill is enacted we hope will be well on the way and working smoothly. The regional council, which will be responsible for community care, will be considering all housing possibilities for the people who need it. Discussions will be carried out with the district councils and with Scottish Homes in regard to the housing they have available. I wonder whether much of that will overlap with this amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I dare say that it will. It looks as though the district council will have far fewer houses of its own to allocate. It is for that reason that Shelter has put forward the suggestion that it should handle the list of needed housing and allocate the homes owned by different landlords to the homeless. I think it is a straightforward matter. I know that there are snags and that there may be some overlapping. However, this amendment fulfils a need.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The noble Lord's honourable friend in another place, in moving her

2071
identical amendment, was concerned that housing should be allocated on the basis of need and that adequate provision should be made for the homeless and for single people. She also made reference to the problems of homelessness in new towns. She claimed that current levels of homelessness in the district council areas in which the new towns are situated are high.
I wish to deal with these points, to which the noble Lord referred when moving this amendment. I make it clear that the Scottish development corporations manage their stocks in a very professional way. Regular purges of their waiting lists are carried out to ensure that individuals do not suffer any delays in housing allocation by outdated information—a situation that is commonplace with district council waiting lists.
Applicants on waiting lists are accorded priority according to their needs. That is done using a points system which is essentially identical among all Scottish public sector landlords. That system recognises individual need on a spectrum from the urgent, medically-based need for a house fitted out in a particular way for a disabled person to that of 18 year-olds who still live with parents and who put their names on the lists as a matter of course.
In considering the capital buildings programme of the corporations, the Government look very carefully indeed at the prevailing level of demand and at the internal composition of that demand. They allocate resources accordingly. The Government have been concerned to ensure that East Kilbride Development Corporation, for instance, has substantial resources available in order to meet the high level of real housing demand. The internal composition of that demand shows numbers in high priority groups that give us cause for concern.
It is significant that in East Kilbride the council and the development corporation have voluntarily concluded to operate a shared housing list. That arrangement works very well. The list does not extend to housing associations or other landlords. It is our firm view that any such pooling of the housing waiting list should be made voluntarily. Our support for the concept in the White Paper was framed in that context.
The honourable lady in another place referred to the problems of homelessness in new towns. She made the claim that the current levels of homelessness in district council areas in which the new towns are situated are high and that the effect of failing to establish nomination rights after the new towns are dissolved will increase the misery and hardship of those on the waiting list.
The honourable Member for Livingston in another place also made a wholly erroneous claim about the number of houses kept vacant in the town to assist with housing key workers and that these houses could be used to house what he claimed were the many homeless in the town. I really must put the record straight. In Cumbernauld for the three years 1987–88, 1988–89, and 1989–90 there were successively 90, 90 and 107 homeless nominations
2072
provided by the development corporation, all of which were taken up. For the current year the agreed figure is 85.
In East Kilbride for those same years, 28, 37 and 37 homeless persons were found accommodation in development corporation housing. In Glenrothes for those same years, 116, 110 and 62 were accommodated. In Irvine over the same three years, three were accommodated. For these four corporations no request from the district councils was ever turned down. The district councils themselves have invariably expressed their gratitude to the development corporations for their constructive partnership in dealing with these matters.
In Livingston for those same years, 14, 76 and 23 nominations were made available and only 10, 23 and 9 were taken up. I suggest that that is hardly evidence of a surfeit of demand which was claimed to exist by the honourable Member whose constituency is part of that town.
The reality is that the development corporations that have less than one house in five in their areas, compared with the district councils' one in three, have made an honourable and constructive contribution to meeting the needs of the homeless. Their contribution is matched by the commitment given by this Government in the White Paper and in the debates on the Bill both here and elsewhere. We have pledged to consider the need to retain nomination rights to provide for the homeless when making large-scale disposals of development corporation housing to successor landlords. That commitment stands.
I am sorry that I have gone on at some length about this matter but it is essential that we get the record straight concerning the new towns and the corporations in this very difficult area of homelessness.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The Minister has underlined the need for consultation and also how usefully the district councils and the corporations have worked together. The development corporations will disappear and this amendment is to provide a system which is as good as the one that previously operated. That is the purpose of the amendment. By then the housing stock will be widely spread. The Minister gave very significant figures; namely, one in three houses for the district councils and one in five for the development corporations.
A great many of these houses will disappear. I trust and hope that the Minister's claim that the Bill will contain provisions for making future landlords allocate houses will become a reality. I shall study what he said. The figures I quoted were from surveys carried out by Shelter. I do not know about the figures given by the Member for Livingston. Shelter may exaggerate or take a more sympathetic view, which is its function, than the district councils when it comes to the hard fact of allocating a house. Nevertheless, the figures are significant in showing the trends in homelessness. No doubt I shall receive

2073
advice from other quarters on what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 20:
Page 28, line 51, at end insert:
(") At a date not later than dissolution a number of houses for allocation to the homeless, as may be agreed by the development corporation and the district council, and failing such agreement. as may be determined by the Secretary of State, shall be transferred to the district council in which district the new town is situated.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is quite close to that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, though there are some important differences between them. It would be trying for the Committee to go through my amendment just now. Perhaps it will be more profitable for me to read what the noble Lord said and what the Minister said in response and then return at Report stage with perhaps a joint amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. Therefore, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 20.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 28, line 51, at end insert:
("( ) The dissolution order referred to in subsection (1) above shall among other things require the transfer of any houses provided by the development corporation which are specially designed or adapted for the needs of persons of pensionable age or disabled persons who have been transferred to the district council of the district in which the houses are situated.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment also asks for housing to be allocated to the local authority on the wind up. The amendment is for people with special needs. The noble Lord will remember the problems that we had. I believe that we actually gained something when we were discussing a housing Bill a couple of years ago. The point we are concerned with is that the houses have been specially designed or adapted for persons of pensionable age and disabled people. We believe that the houses should be protected by being transferred to the district councils.
There appears to be some doubt about local authority nominations being accepted by a future landlord. As the statutory obligation to provide such housing ultimately falls on the appropriate district council, the amendment provides for the requisite number of houses to be transferred without condition to the local authority on the wind up of the new towns. The nomination rights will be incorporated in statute for all future special needs projects irrespective of the landlord.
In the White Paper the Government concluded that nomination rights only should pass to the district council either during the wind-up period or at dissolution. Given the uncertainty as to the future landlords of these houses, there is quite genuine and serious doubt as to whether nominations will always be accepted. Should such doubts materialise it would be necessary for the need to be met by district
2074
councils. That would create over-provision, the very concept that the Government are opposed to. From 1991 local authority social services departments will be responsible for answering the needs of individuals and developing a package of services to meet those needs. Those requirements are laid down in the National Health Service and Community Care Act.
The provision of suitable housing is fundamental in meeting the Government's objectives and leaves much greater scope for social services departments to work with district councils. Factors such as the growth in the numbers of elderly, the increasing numbers of mentally handicapped and mentally ill people being discharged from institutions, the number of disabled people requiring suitably adapted property and the range of problems which they are likely to face all point to an increasing role for district councils. Diminishing stock through the right-to-buy legislation could prevent district councils from fulfilling their function in special needs provision. From current trends it is unlikely that the existing housing associations will be able to meet the needs of those in this category.
There are shortfalls in all districts in the provision of specially adapted properties, supported accommodation and sheltered and amenity housing. Local authorities have been able to solve some problems by a more sensitive approach in the use of their housing stock. They have been able to do so by transferring under-occupying tenants to smaller accommodation, by converting properties and by increasing co-operation with the private sector. Nevertheless, demand is outstripping supply.
If district councils are to meet their obligations as laid down by the Government it is essential that the amendment should be placed on the face of the Bill. We have been through this argument before. It is sometimes necessary to spend large sums of money on adapting property for disabled people. We believe that those houses should be in the hands of district councils. In the National Health Service and Community Care Bill we gave them responsibility for looking after these people. The wording of the amendment may not be acceptable but the sentiment is exactly as we should like it. I hope that the Minister will agree. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The provision of special needs housing in the new towns is fundamentally important. The corporations have been making steady progress over the years in reducing their waiting lists by attracting the private sector and housing associations to participate in various schemes and building quality developments themselves, sometimes in partnership with the district councils concerned. The corporations continue to work actively with voluntary and charitable groups to provide housing and related day care and other facilities. I refer to the Red Cross housing development at Irvine which will open next spring and which will provide 40 units for the very disabled in Ayrshire. They will also continue to negotiate with the private sector and identify suitable sites which can be made available to prospective developers to provide special needs housing or

2075
sheltered housing for the elderly. Housing associations have recently expanded their activities in the new towns, particularly on special needs provision. The purchase of the Hillcrest development at Cumbernauld by Bield housing association is a good example of how housing associations' expertise in this area is being put to good use.
I do not see a good reason why all special needs housing should automatically transfer to a district council as a number of agencies are well able to undertake this kind of provision. However, as the noble Lord said, nomination rights for such housing will pass to the district councils at wind-up. That was made clear in the White Paper. Consideration will be given during the consultation on housing transfer towards the end of wind-up as to whether it would be appropriate for an element of special needs accommodation to transfer to the district councils at dissolution. That is as far as I can go. I cannot agree to the absolute requirement proposed by the amendment. The sentiment put forward in the amendment is acceptable to the Government. When the noble Lord looks at what I have said he will recognise that his sentiments and those of the Government are pretty well in line.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: We are not always convinced that the Government's sentiments are right. That is why we keep asking for amendments on the face of the Bill. I have no doubt about the noble Lord's sentiments and good intentions but he does not run everything. We shall study his statement with great care. We may refine our amendment to accommodate what he has suggested and return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill
6.46 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Causing or permitting child under 14 to ride on road without protective headgear]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a defence for him to prove—

(a) that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence; or

(b) that he had no reason to suspect that the child was under 14.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, some of us have been over this course twice and some only once. For the benefit of those noble Lords who have not been over it at all I shall explain the matter shortly.
Persons who keep riding establishments will be faced from time to time with situations similar to those which occupy the minds of licensees of public houses who have the familiar task of having to decide about a young person's age. This amendment is lifted bodily out of the Licensing Act 1988, with simply the substitution of the age of 14 for the age of 18.
From time to time a licensee is faced with a young person arriving at the door. He has to determine on such evidence as is available whether he is or is not over the age of 18. There is of course the physical appearance of the young person to go on; there is anything that he may say; whether he seems to be speaking the truth; whether there is an older person with him; and anything that the older person may say. Upon that evidence, which is perhaps somewhat scanty, the licensee has to make an on-the-spot decision. He is on something of a tightrope. On the one hand, he does not want to commit a criminal offence. But on the other hand, he does not want to exclude from his public house a young person who has just attained the right age and wishes to enjoy attending a public house. He makes a decision on the spot.
Licensees are responsible, experienced people and it is a familiar problem. I expect that the licensee gets it right nearly every time, but just occasionally, in the course of a long lifetime, he is bound to get it wrong. Parliament, having considered carefully the 1988 Licensing Act, has said that where the licensee gets it wrong, if he has acted with due diligence and done his best, he shall not automatically be guilty of a criminal offence. The defence shall be available to him and, of course, the onus is upon him to prove it. I hope that the riding establishment proprietor, being placed in very similar circumstances, will be allowed the same defence as is open to the licensee.
Parliament considered the Licensing Act a good deal more closely than Parliament has managed to give attention to this Private Member's Bill in covering rather limited activities. I do not think that Parliament favours creating statutory offences with strict liability and no defence available, however diligently the accused person has been behaving. You can only expect people to do their best and not make criminals of them if they make a mistake. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will accept that this is a proper amendment to go into the Bill. A similar amendment was very strongly supported on Report. I hope that we can have this defence in this Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am sorry but I do not think I can support the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in the amendment that he proposes, for two very good reasons. The first is that the words in the Bill to which the amendment applies firmly state,
"to cause or permit a child under the age of 14 years to ride"
without headgear. If a person causes or permits that to happen, he is not exercising all due diligence. If,

2077
on the other hand, he exercises all due diligence to avoid committing an offence, then he has not caused or permitted. Therefore ipso facto these words have to be somewhat surplus to requirements. On that basis alone, we ought not to accept the amendment.
As to the licensing laws, there is a world of difference between the bar of a pub and a pony club, riding stable and so on. The bartender is very hard-pressed, handing out drinks to all and sundry. I agree with the noble Lord that many young people can well be taken for being substantially older than they might be. But if the owner or the person in charge of a horse does not know a young person sufficiently well to have a fair idea of his or her age, then that person is not being very diligent and ought not to be in the business of lending or hiring out horses. In any event, if a young person wanted to ride any of my horses, I could not care tuppence whether he was 14, 15, 16 or any other age. I would say, "You wear a hat before you go riding." I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, to counter the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, I would briefly say that we do not yet carry identity cards in this country. It has been suggested for various classes of citizens from time to time, but we do not. It is therefore impossible to prove someone's age. If children take home a friend from school, what is one supposed to do? There may not be parents at the other end of the telephone. How much checking up are you supposed to do? If a child tells a lie, is that still no defence
If the amendment is refused then, because an absolute offence is created under this subsection, I should have thought that the person in charge of the horse at the time must be guilty of an offence, even if the child lied to that person about his age.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, we are talking about the safety of children. I should have thought it possible to produce some sort of identification that would prove their age without going to the length of carrying identification cards, a copy of a birth certificate or something of that nature. As my noble friend Lord Mountgarret said, we are not talking about a swig of cherry brandy in a pub, but about the danger to the life and brain of a child. It should be for the riding academy to ascertain whether the child is 14, or for the parent to establish that. I hope that the amendment will not be carried.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he seriously suggesting that every child who gees out riding should carry a birth certificate?
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I was simply saying that it was one possible method. I am not saying that it should be necessary every time they go out. There must be a way of establishing the age of a child.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, we need to take this matter very seriously. We are dealing
2078
with animals which have character and personality. Some can be very cantankerous, particularly Shetland ponies and children under 14 are unpredictable. On the whole, the riding community is very close-knit. You do not allow people to ride your horses unless you know that they are able and capable of riding, and unless you believe that they are sensible.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. I would not let my horse out of the stable with an absolute lunatic, unless I was certain that that person would keep a hat on his head and done up. It is absolutely wrong to break the Bill in the way that the noble Lord wants us to do. If we allow this, it will drive a coach and horses through the Bill and make it totally unworkable. I totally oppose the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, all the arguments against the amendment have been very clearly made on both sides of the House. I wish to add one small point. If we were to make this amendment, the next one, or the one after that, to the Bill, its chances of surviving in the Commons would be nil. I understand that the time allowed for the Bill is very limited, and that if we put forward arguable amendments of this kind it will be talked out in the other place. Therefore, we need to know that the amendment we are passing is absolutely essential. I do not believe that this amendment falls into that category.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, some of your Lordships may know that the Bill as printed on 8th January included a defence of due diligence. It was decided in another place to remove that clause as it was unnecessary. An attempt was made at some time to introduce an amendment with the same effect. It was not accepted, but the Minister responsible for roads and traffic agreed to re-examine it and to arrange for its reintroduction in your Lordships' House if necessary.
Present advice is that it is still quite unnecessary. Any adult who has exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence under the Bill cannot be convicted of causing or permitting. I hoped that I had explained why the words "cause or permit" are used in this Bill at the early stages. Clearly I must go over the same ground again in more detail, so that those noble Lords who still do not understand their significance have another chance to do so. I apologise to those noble Lords who already understand them; I hope that they will bear with me.
"Permitting" necessarily involves some mental requirement in relation to the child's use of the horse. A person does not cause or permit an action which it is out of his power to prevent. It was held in Grays Haulage & Co. Ltd. v. Arnold that a person cannot be convicted or committed on the basis that he has failed to take certain steps that he might have taken which would or might have prevented a driver of a vehicle from acting unlawfully. Thus, as in order to secure a conviction it would have to be shown that the person had caused or permitted a child to

2079
ride a horse knowing that he would be riding it on a road without the appropriate headgear, and as that could not be established merely by showing that sufficient action had not been taken to prevent it, I am advised that there was no room for that kind of defence.
Once a child is out of an adult's control and on a road and he decides to unfasten or take off his hat, he could not be said to be permitted to do so by an adult. It was also established in Newbury v. Davis that permission given subject to a condition which is unfulfilled is no permission at all. If a child is permitted to ride on a road provided that he wears his hat and disobeys, again he has not received permission to do so.
I cannot think of any other way to explain why this defence is unnecessary. Effectively the clause states that it is a valid defence to a charge of permitting a child to ride to prove that you did not permit it. My noble friend Lord Monson said at Report stage of his amendments in Committee that their central purpose was to protect from persecution parents, de facto guardians and owners of horses and ponies who are not parents or guardians in cases where children, in particular older children, had, for example, undone their chin staps without the older person's knowledge or consent. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has followed my speech sufficiently to see that no one can be convicted when the child has undone the chin strap without his or her knowledge or consent.
I should now like to address the second part of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is trying to put forward a similar defence to the one that he tried during the Committee stage. The noble Lord's parallel with the Licensing Act is inappropriate because the offence in that Act is absolute. If a child under 14 is in a bar, the licensee is guilty. It is therefore appropriate for the law to enshrine defences. This Bill does not create an absolute offence. The presence of a child riding hatless on a highway is not evidence that an offence has been committed. The offence has occurred only if the adult has caused or permitted the child to do so. Since "permit" is not absolute, a statutory defence is not needed. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, asked me specifically to make a considered reply if he were to put down this amendment on Third Reading. I am now prepared to do that.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, indicated, the arguments were gone over at some length both in another place and in the Department of Transport. The words "cause or permit" are very common in road traffic legislation, appearing, for example, in Sections 22, 27, 32, 42, 47, 53, 63, 71, 76, 87 and 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. They deal with offences concerning such diverse things as leaving vehicles in dangerous positions, control of dogs on roads, electrically-assisted pedal cycles, construction and use of vehicles, obligatory test and
2080
approval certificates, unfit or overloaded vehicles, fitting and supply of defective or unsuitable vehicle parts, driving licences and vehicle insurance. None has a due diligence defence as it is unnecessary. It is equally unnecessary in this Bill. I for one am not in favour of unnecessary clauses being inserted into legislation. If someone exercises due diligence to prevent an offence, he cannot be convicted of permitting it.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, does not want anyone to ride on the road without wearing protective headgear, whatever age. Most noble Lords would agree with that proposition. If the noble Viscount had put down an amendment to that effect, it might have been carried. I am sure that the noble Baroness does not want anyone to ride on the road without wearing a helmet. Does the noble Viscount want to say something?
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I simply wanted to say that I did that very thing at Committee stage.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, is not in favour of the amendment. She produced the familiar argument that, if the Bill has to go back to the Commons and be amended, it may be lost. However, I understand that it must go back to the Commons because I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, will shortly move an amendment which I expect she hopes will be carried. The Bill will then have to go back to another place and be considered again.
We then had a most learned discourse from the noble Baroness citing cases from the law reports, but the matter is very simple. If a riding stable permits a child who is under 14 to ride upon the road not wearing protective headgear, that is the offence in the Bill. There is no question about that. The defence which the licensee enjoys does not apply to that case. There is no need for a learned discourse about that. It is absolutely straightforward. If the child is under 14, whatever the riding establishment might think the child's age is, and is riding on the road without a helmet, the proprietor is guilty of an offence—an absolute offence to which there is no defence under the Bill.
That is not a satisfactory situation. The riding establishment should have the protection that the licensee has—that, if a mistake is made, in good faith, after due diligence, that should be a good defence. We do not want people made criminals who do their best to exercise all due diligence. Parliament does not like doing that kind of thing. We should take the opinion of the House on this matter.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert:
("(3) It is a defence to a charge of committing an offence under this section to prove—

(a) that the accused was owner of the horse.

2081

(b) that he neither had custody of nor was in possession of the horse immediately before the child rode it, and

(c) that he neither knew nor had reasonable grounds to believe that a child under the age of 14 years would ride the horse on a road without wearing protective headgear, of such description as may be specified in regulations, in such manner as may be so specified.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, with his great legal experience, warned the House of the undesirability of creating new absolute offences, a sentiment with which I most certainly agree. This amendment is different from his and rather more closely targeted upon a particular group which may be at risk—not of persecution, as my noble friend Lady Masham erroneously said—but of prosecution, although the two might go hand in hand.
Noble Lords will remember that at both Committee and Report stages we discussed the problem of what might be termed absentee owners who might face prosecution under the Bill even when they were 10, 100 or 1,000 miles away when the horse or pony in question was ridden. A considerable number of noble Lords felt that it was a great problem, including—and this is important to remember—noble Lords who were otherwise strongly in favour of the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Masham told us in Committee that parliamentary counsel had recommended the present wording,
"for the sake of clarity",
and,
"in order to avoid misunderstandings",
but, with respect, to include absentee owners as the Bill does obscures rather than clarifies and opens the way to misunderstanding rather than obviates it. At one of the earlier stages, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who I am sorry cannot be here tonight because he probably misjudged the time as many of us did, explained to us with his great experience of matters equestrian that the majority of ponies at pony camps are borrowed. He added:
"If the owner of the pony is liable for the safety of the child on that pony when the child and the pony are no longer in the owner's care, he or she will not lend the pony. As a result good children's ponies will be restricted to their original owners and other children will not have the chance to ride them … That would be sad. If I were the owner of a pony I would not send it elsewhere if I could be liable".—[Official Report, 20/6/90; col. 984.]
To some extent the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was speculating as to what other owners might do. He was speaking of his own experiences. Since then he has revealed to me, most significantly, that he has been told categorically by a number of owners that unless some safeguard is written into the Bill those owners will not longer lend their ponies or horses, to the great inconvenience of a large number of children.
My noble friend Lady Masham said:
"I do not think that, if he has done his best, the owner should be liable".—[Official Report, 20/6/90; col. 989.]
Those are admirable sentiments, but unless this protective amendment is agreed to, there is no guarantee that the owner who has done his best might not occasionally face prosecution. Hence this
2082
defence amendment, for which there are many precedents, from the Public Order Act 1936 to the Video Recordings Act 1984. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, speaking for the Government, told us:
"In the case in which the owner has given permission for his horse to be ridden in his absence … he must have had a reasonable expectation that the person to whom he gave permission would abide by the law".—[Official Report. 20/6/90; col. 9881]
The amendment makes it clear beyond doubt that provided the owner has that reasonable expectation he is in no danger of prosecution. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the amendment goes over the ground that we covered in Committee and on Report. It may be too much to hope that my arguments on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, have made my noble friend Lord Monson realise that this defence is also unnecessary because of the use of the words "cause or permit". Let me repeat what I said earlier. Permitting necessarily involves some mental requirement in relation to the child's use of the horse. A person does not cause or permit an action which it is out of his power to prevent, whether or not he has custody of his horse at the time.
If a horse owner does not know that a child has ridden the horse unprotected, he cannot be said to have permitted him to do so. My noble friends Lord Monson and Lord Erroll referred at earlier stages to the case of the lady whose premises were used for cannabis smoking without her knowledge (Sweet v. Parsley). In the light of what the courts have held about the word "permit" in that case and in the case of R. v. Salter, my advisers consider that horse owners whose horses are used by children without protective headgear properly worn cannot be convicted unless they knew that the horse was going to be so used.
I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Monson does not want to see someone who has done no wrong prosecuted. I do not want to see anyone prosecuted, because that would mean that a child had been put at risk or injured. No adult who has used his best endeavours to ensure that a child is protected or who has no knowledge of what the child is doing can be convicted, because it will be clear to the court that he has not given the child his permission to ride unprotected. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, my noble friend said that we were going over the same ground again. That is not correct because the amendment is more finely targeted; it is a compromise and it has many precedents. It avoids the defects of the amendments on the same basic subject that I moved at earlier stages. I am to some extent heartened by the legal advice that my noble friend has obtained from the department on the precise meaning of the word "permit": but the word is ambiguous. One can permit both actively and passively. I am not 100 per cent. certain that she or her advisers are necessarily right on this point.

2083
Furthermore, I am afraid that the noble Baroness has failed to address the problem which was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft: that many owners will be frightened off by the Bill as it stands, and have already indicated that they will no longer lend their horses or ponies unless an amendment such as the one I propose is included in the Bill. That of course is a problem for those with children under the age of 14. I no longer have. I was tempted to test the opinion of the House on this matter, but, as we tested the opinion of the House on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I can only beg leave to withdraw the amendment and hope that my noble friend's confidence that no one will be unjustly prosecuted is justifed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 22, leave out from ("includes") to end of line 23 and insert ("pony, mule, donkey or other equine animal").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I suggested on Report that I would introduce this amendment, which appeared to be acceptable to your Lordships. I hope that it still is. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for drawing my attention to the definition in the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975, which provides a neater and more comprehensive definition of "horse" than the previous definition, which was based on that in the Riding Establishments Act 1964. The new definition will also encompass zebras, as my noble friend Lord Monson wanted on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should like to make a couple of points about which I am afraid I have not warned the noble Baroness, because I have only just noticed them. First, I am not sure whether she means to leave out the word "any" in line 22 which she is doing. She did not refer to that change in her remarks. As proposed, the passage would read, "'horse' includes pony, mule", which is not the usual wording of such a clause.
Secondly, I am normally all in favour of replacing 15 words by six, but I wonder why the noble Baroness could not have gone the whole hog and merely said, "horse includes any equine animal". However, in view of the point made by my noble friend Lady Nicol and that to date the Bill is unamended and
2084
would therefore not have to return to the other place, as well as of the fact that the present wording is clear—people do not often ride zebras—I propose that it is far better to leave the wording as it stands at present.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I take a different line from that of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I congratulate my noble friend on her skill in finding such a neat solution to the potential problems that we discussed at Report stage. Assuming that the amendment is agreed to, no longer will children under 14 be permitted to ride zebras on a road without suitable headgear, any more than they will be permitted to ride hinnies, asses or foals on a road.
My noble friend and the Government clearly think that one cannot be too careful in this matter. If every conceivable contingency, however unlikely, is to be provided for, it is only logical that zebras should be included.
Lord Addington: My Lords, as we have discussed on previous stages of the Bill, it is right that we should have the widest possible definition of the animals concerned. Since the amendment specifies "equine animal" we have covered all the possibilities. We therefore believe that it is a good amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, about the word "any", the provision still makes sense without it. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg to move, That this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Clyde Port Authority Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and committed to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past seven o'clock.

  DEATH PENALTY: PROTOCOL TO HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION
  DEATH PENALTY: PROTOCOL TO HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION
  COMPUTER VIRUSES AS BATTLEFIELD WEAPONS
  COMPUTER VIRUSES AS BATTLEFIELD WEAPONS
  SEALS GROUP'S INQUIRY TO SCOTTISH OFFICE
  SEALS GROUP'S INQUIRY TO SCOTTISH OFFICE
  BANANAS: UK SINGLE MARKET ARRANGEMENTS
  BANANAS: UK SINGLE MARKET ARRANGEMENTS
  POTATO MARKETING BOARD
  POTATO MARKETING BOARD
  FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
  FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS