Sitting of 20 July 1990

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

Good Health
9.34 am
Mr. Roger Sims: I wish to call attention to the importance of promoting good health, and I beg to move,
That this House, noting that good health is to be valued and enjoyed, recommends the adoption of healthier lifestyles to help protect against major disabling and premature death causing conditions such as heart disease, stroke and cancer; and urges the National Health Service to increase its efforts to promote such good health, through increased use of preventive measures such as vaccination and immunisation, screening services and the widespread dissemination of advice and information.
This Session we have spent a good deal of time discussing the proposed reforms of the national health service. Inevitably, there has been a great deal of emphasis on the treatment of injury, illness and disease. This morning I am inviting the House to turn its attention to steps which can be taken to avoid the incidence of injury and particularly of illness and disease.
The concept of preventive medicine is not new. The House will recall that in 1978 the World Health Organisation in the declaration of Alma-Ata issued a challenge to the world under the heading:
"Health for all by the year 2000."
That involves a continuous programme of action. In 1985 the European office of the WHO defined 38 targets for the countries within its region. I have a copy of the booklet which summarises those 38 targets with me today, but the House will be relieved to learn that I do not intend to work my way through them all. Many of those targets concern aspects of preventive medicine.
The Government fully endorsed the principles underlying the "health for all" strategy, and issued a monitoring report covering the period 1985 to 1988. That report is available in the Library and I commend it to hon. Members as an impressive account of what has been done so far. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Health contributes to the debate, I hope that she will be able to assure us that there is a continuous programme aimed towards the targets of health of "Health for all by the year 2000", and tell us whether there are plans to issue another monitoring report to show what progress has been made.
I want to put two propositions to the House. The first is that each individual has a responsibility in deciding what to eat, what to drink, how to conduct his personal life—in short, to use the jargon, to determine his or her life style. The individual has a responsibility to use available knowledge to minimise the likelihood of disease and illness and to maximise good health. My second proposition is that it is a Government duty to introduce and to implement policies that will encourage healthier living and
1286
discourage harmful activities. The Government should issue advice and information as freely as possible so that people can make informed decisions.
I am not this morning—or, I hope, at any other time—preaching or advocating nannying. I am reconciled to the fact that I will be accused of both those things, and probably of trying to restrict the freedom of the individual. There is a certain amount of double thinking on these issues. If we tell people that smoking can kill them, that excessive alcohol is harmful or that too much fatty food is bad for them, they tell us that we are trying to interfere with their private lives. However, if salmonella or listeria come to light or a drug is found to be harmful, the Government are immediately criticised for not making more information available, for not taking action and for not taking action sooner.
Surely it is right, and the responsibility of Government, to alert people to the facts and to tell them the consequences of their actions. If people choose a life style that is harmful, that is up to them—it is a free country—as long as they know what they are doing and, of course, they are not causing harm to other people by their actions.
However, a healthy life style benefits the nation as a whole. Human misery apart, disease involves heavy cost in terms of the lost productivity of goods and services, and the cost of treatment. The cost to the national health service of treating smoking-related diseases, to take just one example, is £500 million per year. What could we do with that sort of money in the health service?
One way of promoting good health is through health checks. Some companies have schemes for their employees—we are fortunate in having a similar scheme in the House. In any event, an increasing number of doctors are now offering what my own general practitioner rather delightfully calls "MOTs". It is curious that we think it important that, after a certain age, cars should be regularly checked to ensure that they are roadworthy, but that we do not encourage such checks on their drivers. It is now the usual practice for GPs to carry out basic tests such as on blood pressure, when seeing patients, regardless of the reason for which the patient is attending the surgery.
This week I was interested to note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has issued for discussion the report of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee on blood cholesterol testing, which has examined the cost-effectiveness of opportunistic cholesterol testing. That means that, whenever the opportunity arises, such as when a patient visits a doctor, the patient should be tested for blood cholesterol. The report is interesting, and suggests that such opportunistic testing would be well worth while. I hope that that idea will be pursued.
The new doctors' contract encourages doctors to provide health clinics and to give patients free yearly check-ups. The contract obliges doctors to carry out such checks on the elderly. I find that admirable, although it is difficult to reconcile it with deterring people from having eye and teeth checks by charging them. I have demonstrated my views on that issue previously both in speeches and in my votes, and I shall not labour the point now, although I live in hope that Ministers will come to see the inconsistency of their policies on that.
The new contract also encourages child immunisations and cervical screening. The Government are developing programmes for both cervical and breast cancer screening. The patient's involvement is voluntary, but one cannot

1287
over-emphasise the importance of women over 20 taking advantage of the cervical cancer screening facilities which are becoming increasingly available, and of women over 50 taking advantage of the breast cancer screening facilities. However, when a women is tested, she should know the results within one month. That is the deadline that has been laid down by the Government. A delay of three months is simply unacceptable.
The House will recall that, last year, the Public Accounts Committee drew attention to coronary heart disease and urged improvements to the campaign to prevent it. The Committee made some telling comparisons between the costs of that campaign and the costs of treating the disease. In the context of coronary heart disease, the blood cholesterol report to which I have referred emphasises the importance of other factors, especially smoking and diet.
The House will not be surprised if I say a few words about smoking, which is the largest avoidable course of illness and premature death. It is estimated that 110,000 people each year die before their time through smoking and that 90 per cent. of the deaths from lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema are due to smoking. The evidence of the harm caused by tobacco products is overwhelming.
Happily, the incidence of smoking has declined, but as one third of the population still smoke, that proportion is still far too high. Especially worrying is the extent to which smoking is prevalent among young people, particularly girls. I commend the efforts of the organisation Parents Against Tobacco, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is much involved. That organisation concentrates on ensuring that the law that makes it illegal to supply children with cigarettes is enforced. If the tobacco companies can encourage children to smoke, the chances are that they will have customers for life. There is no doubt that, if tobacco were invented now, it would never be allowed on the market.
We must be realistic: it would not be practical to ban the sales of tobacco products completely. But what are the Government doing to try to reduce the extent of smoking? The Government spend £5 million per annum through the Health Education Authority and ASH on persuading people not to smoke. The tobacco industry spends £100 million per year trying to persuade people to smoke.
Why do the Government allow smoking advertisements? I grant that the present advertising is subject to controls, but how are those controls decided? We are told that they are decided by voluntary agreement, but that means that the Government and the industry sit around the table and have a cosy chat. The Department of Health officials say what restrictions they would like and the tobacco industry suggests the restrictions that it is prepared to wear, and a compromise is reached. That is not a voluntary agreement; it is negotiated agreement. The fact is that the Department of Health is party to a negotiated agreement about how to promote the sales of a product that we know to be deadly in its effect.
I should like a complete ban on tobacco advertising and its promotion, especially when that promotion is associated with sport, which seems particularly cynical. I favour far stricter controls on advertising. I was sad that the Government opposed the EEC directive on health
1288
warnings. A draft directive is now under discussion, which involves strict controls on advertising. Only two Community countries are now opposing the proposals—West Germany and the United Kingdom. Why is the United Kingdom opposing the terms of that directive?
The increase in the tax on tobacco products was welcome, and one hopes that it will be steadily maintained. There is no doubt that increasing the cost of cigarettes dissuades people from smoking. Incidentally, it is worth reflecting that, at present, 1p on a packet of 20 cigarettes brings in about £40 million. In the next Budget, how about increasing the cost of cigarettes by at least the rate of inflation plus that extra penny, and devoting that £40 million to health education? While we are about it, would it not be sensible to take cigarettes out of the retail prices index, because it is illogical to include them?
Meanwhile, I welcome the increased adoption of non-smoking areas and, in some cases, of complete non-smoking policies in workplaces, restaurants, pubs and public places and such recent prohibitions on the underground and suburban trains.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in commending the British Medical Association, which recently sent out an invitation to a large number of doctors to attend a reception? It said on the bottom, "Black tie, no smoking." Does he share my anxiety about the number of doctors in practice today who smoke?
Mr. Sims: Yes, I endorse both the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments, but particularly the latter one. Doctors do not set a good example.
The more organisations and places that have no-smoking policies, the better. I was delighted to learn that this week Air Canada decided to introduce a complete ban on smoking on all its flights.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Has my hon. Friend noticed that it is increasingly difficult for passengers who arrive comparatively late and check in perhaps only 40 or 50 minutes before take-off, to book a non-smoking seat? It seems that airlines are behind the public demand for smoking and non-smoking seats. Is not there a case for the Department of Health to suggest to Transport Ministers that they and their counterparts in other countries should discuss with airlines how airlines can keep ahead of the public demand instead of behind it and allocate more seats for non-smokers?
Mr. Sims: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Another interesting example is the London surburban trains on which I travel daily. The trains used to have three non-smoking carriages and the fourth was a smoking carriage. Increasingly, one found that the only carriage in which one could get a seat was in the smoking carriage because more and more people wanted to sit in the non-smoking one. Now British Rail has recognised the very point that my hon. Friend makes and the train is completely non-smoking. I have not received any letters of complaint and I have not heard that any have been written. The arrangement has been generally accepted. Such policies discourage smokers. That must in itself be good. It certainly makes life more pleasant and healthier for others. There is increasing evidence of the harm that can be done by inhaling other people's smoke—passive smoking, as it is called.

1289
I also mentioned diet. That can be more difficult. At times it is hard to distinguish between advice from experts and advice from eccentrics. Fashions change. Different reports come from different quarters and can cause confusion. At different times we have been told that butter and sugar are either good or bad for us. The latest advice this week is that we should all eat garlic. That is an interesting suggestion but an anti-social one.
The Government have their own advisory bodies on foodstuffs. Perhaps we should consider a way in which the definitive, authoritative recommendations on food matters can be given wider publicity. Some basic principles have been established. As a general rule, we should limit our consumption of fatty foods, sugar and salt and eat plenty of fibre. The House will be pleased to note that porridge has now been established as particularly good for us.
The Food Safety Bill now going through the House deals with the marketing of food products. It is important that we should know what we are eating and its quality. It is equally important that in legislation from the House or in EEC directives the restrictions are not such that they prevent producers from making legitimate claims for their products.
The House will be familiar with the "Look after your Heart" campaign, which recently celebrated its third anniversary. I was pleased that the booklet about the health service, which has been put through every door and has caused some controversey, on which I shall not comment, includes the "Look after your Heart" pamphlet. The pamphlet incorporates some particularly useful and easily read quick-reference guides on matters such as eating, exercise, alcohol, smoking and so on. I hope that it will be widely read. Perhaps even those who are not completely in accord with the Government's NHS reforms will realise the value of inserting the "Look after your Heart" campaign pamphlet in the booklet.
I mentioned alcohol a few moments ago. The booklet to which I referred reads:
"Drinking can be enjoyable and safe, as long as you don't overdo it. But too much alcohol can be bad for your heart and liver and cause problems at work, with family and friends."
Perhaps I should declare my interest. The House will be aware that I am parliamentary adviser to the Scotch Whisky Association. I can say with every confidence that the association would wholeheartedly endorse that advice.
Moderate consumption of wines and spirits does one no harm. Indeed, it may do one good. I am sure that I am not alone in occasionally enjoying a whisky at the end of a busy day. But there is no doubt that excess is harmful. I also enjoy a glass of beer from time to time. I am glad to see the increasing popularity of the low-alcohol beers and lagers, which I now find quite palatable. It is encouraging to see the extent to which young people drink low-alcohol drinks and soft drinks, particularly if one of a party intends to drive.
Dr. Kim Howells: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, increasingly, problems are surfacing among young people as a direct result of over-consumption of alcohol, often by people who are below the legal age to drink? Does he further agree that that is partly due to the continuing glamour and style of presentation of alcohol in advertisements? Young adults continue to believe that it is glamorous to drink hard drinks and that it makes them look like the glamorous people in advertisements. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the rules on alcohol advertising should be tightened?
Mr. Sims: Yes. Of course, spirits are not advertised on television. Some of the drinks that are advertised on television or elsewhere are given a certain aura and glamour, which is not appropriate. It is a pity that some young people are influenced by those advertisements. Young men in particular seem to think that it is manly to drink far more than is good for them. It does them no credit. It makes them rather disagreeable socially and does a great deal of harm to the health.
I wonder whether we should consider doing more to support youth clubs and other facilities. I am sure that one of the problems in some areas is that pubs are the only place for young people to go. Of course, when one goes to a pub one has a beer, then another and then another. That is something that we should examine.
We must accept that, sadly, some people become addicted to alcohol. I commend the work of the alcohol advisory services, such as my local one, which are often started by volunteers. They merit support from the district health authority, which mine receives, because their work is saving national health service expenditure. The issues surrounding alcohol have been addressed by the ministerial group on alcohol misuse. Perhaps when my hon. Friend the Minister speaks she can tell us a little about its present work.
Another factor in health promotion is exercise. All credit to some of our parliamentary colleagues who take part in the London marathon. It is a little beyond most of us. Within the precincts of the palace we have a gym, which is a valuable facility used by many members of staff. There are an increasing number of private gyms in places such as the City, which are well used. There is an argument for giving some sort of financial incentive to employers to provide gyms for their staff. The extent to which private gyms are used suggests that the facility would be much appreciated. Indeed, it would be in the interests not only of the staff, but of the company to keep its employees fit.
Jogging is a simple form of exercise that appeals to some. I enjoy a weekly swim. The problem there, as with several other sports, is the limited number of facilities and the expense of providing them. Some of the best sports facilities are in our schools. Although some schools make their facilities available to the community, others lock their doors evening after evening and throughout the weekend, which is a pity. With the introduction of local management of schools, some governors may consider making the facilities on the school premises more available to local people when they are not needed by the school. In that way they would make a contribution to the community and to community health. They could reasonably make a modest charge, which would add to school funds.
One of the themes of my motion and my remarks is the need for our fellow citizens to be well informed about health and how to promote their own good health. One source of advice is one's general practitioner and another is the local pharmacist. He or she is always ready and willing to play a part in promoting good health in the community and to give advice and information. Chemists are also a valuable means of disseminating a whole range of good material produced by organisations such as the Health Education Authority and the British Heart Foundation, whose pamphlets are reflective, well presented and readable. I am sure that hon. Members will be familiar with the publication "Pharmacy Healthcare".

1291
It is the report on a scheme to provide freely information on health care issues through community pharmacists. It has done well and is worth expanding.
Whatever steps are taken, injury, illness and disease will occur and sometimes unexpectedly, for example, an accident in the home or on the road or a heart attack. If someone who happens to be on the spot can render first aid, it may literally make the difference between life and death. The July issue of Which? carries an interesting article on first aid. It explains how easy it is for people to take a variety of courses in first aid. People should be encouraged to do so. Again, perhaps employers could give employees time off for a course to ensure that several people within the company are well trained and able to carry out first aid, should the need arise, as is happily the case in this building.
I have had some correspondence with my local director of education on the matter and I was rather surprised to learn that
"there is no statutory requirement for a First Aider to be present at Schools.".
He did go on to say:
"We do obviously feel that this is beneficial and we encourage both teaching and non-teaching staff to participate in the First Aid training."
I had asked him to what extent first aid training was available to pupils, to which his reply was:
"There is not a lot of time to encourage First Aid with pupils."
With the new curriculum, that is understandable, but I should have thought that it would be valuable if first aid training was made available to pupils immediately after school. I am sure that many youngsters would be interested in it. Certainly, St. John Ambulance or Red Cross would be happy to provide instructors.
I have taken the advantage of having won first place in the ballot of private Members' motions to address the House for longer than should normally choose. I am aware that even then, I have not touched on a whole range of issues that are relevant to health promotion. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome, for example, almost merits a debate on its own. On the whole, the Government have conducted a good campaign in an extremely sensitive area. Whatever they said or did, they were bound to be criticised.
I have not mentioned housing, which is relevant to health, or pollution. In the past day or two we have seen some of it and the figures show the frightening amount of pollution over London because of the present weather conditions. Family planning is an important part of health promotion. All those are relevant factors and perhaps later in the debate some of my hon. Friends will address themselves in greater detail to those topics.
Mr. Jessel: I have agreed with almost all of my hon. Friend's speech until now. Can he explain why family planning is relevant to health promotion? It is not a disease for a woman to give birth to a baby.
Mr. Sims: How long do we have? I should have thought that plenty of examples spring to mind, where the general standards of health of a family and its individual members are lower than they might have been, had the mother been able to take family planning advice and restrict her family. Any health visitor could answer my hon. Friend's question in great detail. He may well wish to pursue the point later.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I intervene so that we can have a woman's voice in this, as family planning generally concerns women more than men. Before we had family planning, the most frequent cause of death for women was from illegal abortions. Just one statistic is that 5,000 women a year died in that way. Dr. Marie Stopes and other pioneers introduced family planning because such deaths were the cause of misery and large families had difficulty raising their children. That is how the family planning movement began. For women, it is one of the most beneficial developments in preventive medicine that I can think of.
Mr. Sims: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which confirms my point that family planning is an aspect of health promotion. Other hon. Members may deal with that issue later in the debate.
I hope that I have demonstrated that, as I suggested in opening, there is much that the individual can do to enjoy a healthy life and to minimise calls on the national health service, that there is much that the Government are already doing, but that there is plenty of scope for them to do more. That is the message that I endeavour to convey in my motion, which I hope commends itself to the House.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: I agree with the statement:
"The best prescription for good health is decent housing, pure water and clean air—all of which need a government committed to good public services and high standards for the environment."
That is a quotation from the Labour party document entitled "Looking to the Future", which will be the basis of the policy of the next Labour Government. During my remarks I shall refer to some of the points made in that document.
The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) was right to refer to housing. I appreciate that he could not deal with the issue at length because, as he said, he has raised a many-sided subject and time is limited. But I wish to emphasise that many families are desperate because they are homeless. I refer not simply to the young homeless but to those who are statutorily homeless, people with children and pregnant women. It is impossible to be healthy and homeless. It is a contradiction in terms. Yet the capacity for local authorities and individuals to tackle the problem of homelessness is constrained at all points and made virtually impossible to resolve because of the squeeze on local government finances.
Many families suffer from overcrowding. Again, one cannot be healthy, physically or mentally, if one is living in overcrowded conditions. Many people's homes are in a bad state of repair. Repair and improvement grants have helped, but they have never been easy to obtain. They became even more difficult to use when the Conservatives removed tax relief from loans for improvements, which made it harder for people to make the necessary contribution to the cost of repairs, which they must make in addition to any grant that they obtain. It is impossible for people to be healthy if they are living in poor, and perhaps damp, conditions.
Let us not forget those whose homes are satisfactory but whose health is affected because they are stressed by the fact that the amount they must pay to live in their homes has increased almost beyond recognition through increased mortgage rates. In other words, even people who thought that they had solved their housing problems are facing difficulties and stress.

1293
There are so many facets to the subject that the hon. Member for Chislehurst has raised that it is difficult to know where to draw the boundaries. For example, I recall a discussion with a group of women members of my trade union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Although the discussion was about health, particularly women's health, it soon developed into a discussion of wages.
They decided that a major cause of ill health among them and their fellow workers was stress, caused mainly by the fact that they did not earn enough. Because they were working arid were also poor, they were suffering from the poverty of low income and the poverty of time. In other words, they were suffering both material deprivation and stress. Clearly, a discussion of health can easily develop into a discussion of low pay.
Coupled with the stress of low pay is stress caused by working conditions and employer attitudes. I have spoken previously in the House about the conditions of supermarket check-out operators, and I do not apologise for raising the issue again. I have observed that occupational health, injury and disease is usually regarded with the male stereotype in mind, and, for example, accidents in mines and on construction sites. But the health of many women workers doing ordinary jobs, such as supermarket check-out operators, is impaired because of their conditions and hours of work. They suffer back strain and repetitive strain injury from the sheer spread of the operation and the fact that employers are determined never to allow them a moment even to glance round. The supermarket owner allows his customers to build up into large queues rather than risk a check-out operator not having a queue waiting to be dealt with.
When I last raised this subject in the House I spoke of the time stress imposed on supermarket check-out operators. Even in a well-organised trade union shop, they may be expected to work to a norm of processing 20 items a minute. A target such as that is incredibly stressful, mentally and physically. It is positively bad for a person's health and the members of my trade union suffer, especially after doing that type of work for several years.
That state of affairs could be corrected by supermarket owners easing up on the speed, by offering more variety of work to the staff and by providing more reasonable working hours and better wages, enabling employees to take advantage of the better hours. A shop worker recently told me, "The employer thinks he owns you body and soul." People who are driven to feel like that may be prevented from enjoying a good state of health, mentally or physically.
I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Chislehurst said, particularly about smoking. Stressful conditions encourage people to smoke, in that they seek escape from stress by smoking. I myself believe that it adds to life's stresses, but that is not the way in which many people see it on a day-to-day basis, so they make a wrong decision and smoke. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that at least a part of the answer would be to ban advertising and sports sponsorship and promotion by tobacco companies. We do not simply need exhortation, and we certainly do not need to spend large quantities of taxpayers' money on a counter-advertising campaign. As a non-smoker, I resent my taxes going on counter-advertising when it would be easier, simpler and more effective simply to ban advertising in the first place. I agree with the hon. Member for Chislehurst about that.
1294
As long ago as 1986, in a Labour party document called "Women and Health", the Labour party committed itself to prohibiting the advertising of tobacco except at the point of sale. That is one item that receives some cross-party support. I guarantee to put pressure on the Labour Government, after the next general election, to stick to that pledge. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Chislehurst is trying to persuade the Conservative Government to have a similar policy—albeit unsuccessfully.
Child health is also adversely affected by poverty and bad housing. It is an uncomfortable fact that at present in our society people with children are relatively worse off than those without children—that applies whatever the level of income. I am not talking about the most poverty-stricken people, although their problems are the greatest. At all levels of income, having children makes people less well off than others with similar jobs and salaries.
Although I think that children bring a great deal of joy, the logic escapes me as to why children should be regarded as necessarily having to bring with them a poorer lifestyle, which affects not only parents, but the children themselves. It means that, in families with children everyone involved is relatively worse off than others from the same social background, without children.
I am pleased that, within its first year of Labour government, my party will increase child benefit at least to make up for its loss of value since 1987. It is disgraceful that increasing child benefit has not been a priority—indeed, it simply has not occurred; child benefit has been frozen. If we are really concerned about wanting children to live in healthy families, we must improve families' incomes. Child benefit is the way to do that throughout all levels of society. If anybody is worried that child benefit also helps the rich, we can increase taxation on the rich and get the money back that way. We should not destroy the universality of such a splendid benefit. I commend Conservative Members to pressurise their Government to lose no more time in restoring the level of child benefit. They should not leave it to Labour. We shall do it and so reap a great deal of credit. I shall be pleased about that, but I do not suppose that Conservative Members will be.
The provision of well woman centres is particularly important in the provision of health services generally. I call them "centres", not "clinics" because that is a less clinical, more welcoming name, which suggests a blurred edge to the function of such centres. That is important because women can be deterred from seeking medical help if their anxieties are vague or they are not sure that their complaint is a matter for the doctor. They might have a worry that is impinging on their health and could be helped by some other means, for example, other professional advice, or a self and mutual-help group. Well woman centres are important because they can serve that function, and the woman does not feel that she is "wasting the doctor's time"—a phrase that is often heard when people, especially women, are wondering whether they should go to the doctor, but fear that they might be wasting his or her time. Most doctors would probably agree that patients who worry about that are precisely the ones whom they would like to see and are least likely to waste their time. The provision of informal well woman centres, where women can go if they have worries that are

1295
vague and anxieties that straddle medical and other problems, is an excellent idea. There is no doubt that there is a huge demand for such centres from women.
As long ago as 1986, in our document "Women and Health", we talked about the promotion of well woman centres and made pledges to enable women to see women doctors. Such a policy could not be brought in overnight because there would have to be changes in training arrangements and in doctors' career structures to enable there to be large numbers of women doctors at all levels and in all specialties of the profession. That objective will need some work, but it is necessary because many women are deterred from seeking medical advice as they find it difficult to locate a woman doctor to see. That is intolerable.
It is also important for people to get a good start. I believe that preventive medicine begins even before conception. The Labour party "Women and Health" document states:
"Pre-conceptual advice, pregnancy testing and parent craft classes should be provided and ante-natal discussion groups and post-natal support groups encouraged by group practices of midwives based in the community."
Pre-conceptual advice and thought is one of the new, valuable advances in preventive medicine that should be encouraged, and we are pledged to do so.
The maternity care that the mother receives after conception, the birth and post-natal care also have a great effect on the start given to the baby and the family unit. We want such care to be greatly improved. It is wrong that women and babies should have unnecessary hurdles to overcome because they have had a bad start. The Opposition believe that more research is needed into post-natal depression. A baby cannot have a good start if it is born to a mother who becomes deeply clinically depressed as a result of the baby's birth. There is not half enough research into that problem. As with many factors affecting women, it is neglected.
The Opposition also believe that continuity of care should be provided for expectant mothers. Starting with anti-natal care, and carrying on through the birth into post-natal care, every women should have a midwife with whom she can identify. The midwife would have the opportunity to exercise her professional skills to the full because she could watch that woman's progress and the birth of her baby from the beginning of pregnancy to the end of the post-natal period. That would be a vast improvement on the present, hopelessly fragmented approach to maternity care.
I was somewhat disappointed that the hon. Member for Chislehurst did not mention the need for free eye and dental checks, which I know he supports—
Mr. Sims: But I did.
Mrs. Wise: In that case, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman: I must have missed it. So we agree. The Opposition find it a paradox that the Government claim to favour prevention, yet put a financial hurdle between people and two of the most proven preventive procedures. I should have thought that people face enough discouragement from consulting a dentist through their own fears. They do not need charges to make matters worse.
1296
My son is an optometrist, and a week or so ago he saw a lady who, he discovered, was suffering from a detached retina. He feared that it had been detached for some time. Detachment does not necessarily happen in one fell swoop, obvious to the patient. It can commence, then worsen. My son referred the woman for immediate hospital treatment, and I am pleased to say that she was operated on within a day—but the hospital did not have any great expectation that it could save her sight. So she was given expensive operative care, which the hospital is duty bound to carry out as long as there is any hope—but how much more sensible it would have been—and how much better a use of resources—if the woman had been seen several months earlier when her problem was only beginning. Then, the operation would have saved her sight.
The lady told the hospital that although she had been worried about her sight she had worried even more about her capacity to pay for an eye examination. It was the cost of the examination that had deterred her until her anxiety became so acute that she decided to seek advice. At that stage it was too late. That is tragic for her and it is a waste of the resources of the national health service. It is also distressing for the professionals who have to care for such patients. It upset my son that he had not had a chance to see her earlier and it undoubtedly upset the surgeons too. We should not burden our health professionals with extra stress of this sort. I look forward to the election of a Labour Government and the fulfilment of our commitment to restore free eye and dental checks.
A couple of days ago an interesting press release about the conditions in which food should be kept emerged from the Department of Health. The Government propose to introduce temperature controls to food retailing and delivery—a good step. I am sorry to have to criticise that good step, but I must do so because the Government are also acting as a brake on the speed of introduction of their own new controls. They are phasing in the temperature controls to ensure that retailers can bring their equipment up to standard. Fair enough, but the time scale is outrageous.
The first requirement is that from April 1991 food must be kept at no more than 8 deg C; so far so good. However, much perishable food should really be kept at 5 deg or less, as the Government acknowledge. They are laying regulations to that effect, but they will not come into force until April 1993. It is one thing to say that retailers need time to bring their equipment up to standard, but it is disgraceful to allow them nearly three years during which people, including pregnant women, may continue to eat food contaminated with listeria organisms, which can keep growing at 6, 7 or 8 deg.
I am sorry that the Government are spoiling their initiative that way. Of course retailers need time, but not three years. The application of technology and of money—there is plenty of that in the grocery trade—could ensure that the process is carried out in much less time, given the will to do so. I shall regard the Government as being directly to blame for cases of listeria that occur between now and 1993 because food is not kept below 5 deg. The Government know what should be done and are wilfully allowing too long in which to do it.
The Government's move is also an insult to large sections of the retail trade. If the equipment of some retailers is in such a bad state that it needs three years to bring it up to a scientifically reputable standard, I am appalled at the lack of thought that those retailers have

1297
given to food storage. However, I believe that the best retailers could meet a much tighter deadline, and it is unfair to them to allow their competitors to get away with inadequate food storage arrangements for close to another three years.
The reported figures of cases of listeria infection may represent only the tip of the iceberg. It is not an easy disease to diagnose or to trace back to its causes. But it is scientifically accepted that listeria organisms can grow under refrigeration, and that food must be stored at less than 5 deg C to protect us from this common organism. Precautionary action should certainly be taken before April 1993.
The promotion of good health is a many-sided subject. Of course people must make good personal decisions about their life style. It is sensible not to smoke; it is sensible to take exercise and to try to eat as healthy a diet as possible—although that is sometimes ruled out by a lack of income. But individual decisions in the matter, although important, are by no means the whole story—they are not even the main story. Without collective action and provision it is impossible for people to protect their health to the extent that we should all wish. In food storage, for example, we rely on Government regulations on retailing. We can make our own decisions in some ways; I have decided that I do not want to buy anything stored at more than 5 deg C, but how do I know it has been? I must make another decision—to cut out of my diet a whole range of foodstuffs that are perfectly healthy in themselves, provided that they have been stored properly. But I cannot make a personal decision that can cover that—just as we cannot make personal decisions that satisfy the housing needs of the population or ensure that we will all have adequate incomes. We rely on trade unions, employers and Governments to do those things.
The promotion of good health is the responsibility of all of us; however, it is especially the responsibility of the House and of Governments not only to encourage but to facilitate good health, through the provision of improved standards in all the areas that we are discussing this morning.
10.40 am
Sir George Young: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on both his choice of subject and his speech. The non-sermonising "Jimmy Young" note that he struck was exactly right. I also commend him on the large number of subjects that he managed to cover. As he hinted, his choice of subject is timely.
For much of this year, the health debate has revolved around the role and structure of the national health service and how it should respond to changing patterns of demand, changing types of illness, new treatments and changes in medical technology. This morning my hon. Friend has righly switched the spotlight away from the national health service, and back to the role that the individual must play in improving standards of health.
I strongly believe that we have reached the point of diminishing returns in trying to secure improvements in the nation's health through investment in traditional curative medicine. Of course we must maintain that investment, but the improvements in health that all hon.
1298
Members want to see are far more likely to result from changes in individual life styles than from an increase in throughput in our hospitals.
What does that mean to a party whose traditions might suggest that it should not intervene in individual life styles, and whose instincts might lead it to the view that, if people do not wear seat belts, or if they want to smoke, that is a matter for them and not a matter in which Government should intervene? I do not agree with that view. One does not have to be a socialist to appreciate that, if the resources available to the National Health Service are finite and if those finite resources are used to treat avoidable illnesses, there will be fewer resources left for unavoidable illnesses.
A consultant at St. George's hospital—before it moved from Hyde Park corner—summed up the position very well. He was about to operate on a patient who suffered from a serious but not acute illness, and who had a rare blood group. The consultant had assembled, with some difficulty, sufficient quantities of blood of that group to enable the operation to proceed. However, just before the patient was anaesthetised, there was an accident on Hyde Park corner and a motorist who was not wearing a seat belt was rushed into the hospital, critically ill. He had the same rare blood group as the consultant's patient; and, inevitably, the supplies were diverted towards the motorist and away from the patient.
That graphically illustrates the point that my neighbour's life style is of consequence to me. We live in an interdependent society, and when health care resources are rationed, we all have a stake in how they are spent.
I do not regard it as tenable for any party to claim that it should be neutral on the question of individual life styles. How a party then discharges its legitimate interest in individual life styles is another matter. An individual should be encouraged to make sensible decisions about his or her life, but it cannot be left to the marketplace, although many of my hon. Friends might like to do that.
Let us take the issue of smoking, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst. If it were left to the marketplace, the information that an individual received would be wholly one-sided, and any decision based simply on that information would inevitably be wrong. For an individual to reach a relevant decision about his life style, he must have all the relevant information. As the tobacco industry will not provide that information, inevitably the Government are drawn in. They can either do what was suggested by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) and simply ban the advertising of tobacco—with which suggestion I have some sympathy—or they can make available to the individual the contrary information, so that he has access to both sides of the equation before he reaches a view.
The same is true of the promotion of alcohol. The Government have a legitimate interest in ensuring that the information on which an individual bases his decision is well balanced. The notion that the Government should be neutral and stand back on those issues is not one that I can support.
The Government set the parameters for many of the decisions that are made. It is the Government who decide by whom alcohol should be consumed, at what age, where and at what times. The Government fix the price for both alcohol and tobacco: that is another reason for them to take a sensible and coherent approach to these issues.
As was implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst, this is not just a matter for the Department of

1299
Health. All Government Departments have a stake in many of the issues that he touched on. The Department of Trade and Industry may have a policy on helping firms that happen to manufacture tobacco to set themselves up to manufacture something else. How does that relate to the Department of Health's interest, which is perhaps aimed at reducing the consumption of tobacco? The Department of the Environment has a role to play in sports sponsorship, to which I shall return in a moment; the Treasury has an interest, in relation to its fiscal responsibility for setting the price.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst rightly prioritised some of the issues surrounding smoking when he drew attention to the 110,000 premature deaths that occur each year. This is the area where investment in health promotion can produce the best returns. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will draw on the reserves of good will that she has at her former Department—the Department of the Environment—to secure a passage in the White Paper on the environment about passive smoking.
For millions of people, pollution is not acid in rain, lead in petrol or the hole in the ozone layer; it is other people's smoke. If we as a Government are to be credible on the macro-issues we must be credible on the micro-issues, of which passive smoking is one.
People with asthma or chest complaints find that other people's smoke makes their condition worse. For millions of people it is an irritant. In the immortal words of Frank Sinatra, smoke gets in your eyes; but it also gets in your clothes and hair. I applaud Air Canada's decision—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst—to ban smoking on all transatlantic flights, but the White Paper should sketch out the Government's role in establishing space in public offices as non-smoking areas.
Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is right to praise Air Canada's policy. Will he join me in deploring the policy of Lufthansa, the German airline? One tends to find smokers on one side of the aisle and non-smokers on the other, effectively sitting alongside one another.
Sir George Young: That is a wholly unreasonable approach for any airline to adopt. I think it would be best not to book tickets with that airline, and I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me notice of which airlines to avoid.
The canteens in Government Departments would be nicer if non-smoking were established as the norm. The Government have a role to play in helping to promote a society where non-smoking is the norm, and where there is a presumption that a public area is somewhere one does not smoke. People should not have to wait for the no-smoking sign before knowing that they are in a no-smoking area. The whole debate has to be turned around now that non-smoking is the majority activity.
It also makes good business sense for pubs, restaurants and other areas of public entertainment to develop non-smoking areas, because that is what the majority of their customers want. I hope that the Government will look at a code of guidance for employers who want to know how to tackle these sensitive issues, especially where some employees want to smoke while others do not. There
1300
is now a threat, under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, from those who suffer from passive smoking. The Government have a role to play in this.
The hon. Member for Preston mentioned sports sponsorship. When the advertising of tobacco on television was banned, the tobacco industry, in a cynical move to get round the restrictions placed on it by Parliament, began sponsoring sport. It is sad that sport is as addicted to tobacco as many smokers. We have to do more to find alternative sponsors for some of the sports that get sponsorship from the tobacco industry. We also have to look carefully at the rules. If tobacco manufacturers want to sponsor sport, rather than using the brand names of cigarettes, they should use manufacturing names, which would weaken the association. It is cynical to link sport, which is essentially healthy, with smoking, which is essentially unhealthy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst mentioned the voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry and implied that discussions about it were cosy. When I conducted those negotiations, they were far from cosy. However, if the tobacco industry knows that the Government will not legislate, what it volunteers is the voluntary agreement, because the Government have no negotiating power. We should allow the House a free vote on the advertising of tobacco and sports sponsorship by the tobacco industry. The Government resolved libertarian issues such as the use of safety belts and crash helmets through a free vote on a Government Bill. I hope that, in the next Session, there will be a Bill with a provision that will allow a debate, such as this, that can end with a free vote on whether we should phase out the promotion of tobacco, save at the point of sale.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst spoke about the problem of doctors smoking, but the problem among health professionals is not so much with doctors, among whom the consumption is declining, as among nurses, among whom the incidence of smoking is high. I hope that the NHS can do a little more work on why it is that those who must be aware of the consequences of smoking, smoke disproportionately.
Mrs. Wise: Stress:
Sir George Young: It may be stress. I welcome the initiative of Parents Against Tobacco, which has valuable support not only from my hon. Friend the Minister but from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is endeavouring to shield children from the pressure to smoke until they have grown up and can take a rational decision of their own. Members of Parliament had a helpful meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who said that he was planning legislation to tighten up the regime that controls the sale of cigarettes to children. Perhaps the House of Commons can do something in this. It has always seemed crazy that the House should validate an activity of which, by and large, it disapproves by selling its own brand of cigarettes in the kiosk downstairs. I hope that the Services Committee will have another look at this to see whether we should validate this activity by putting the insignia of the House of Commons on cigarette packets.
Cycling has a role to play in promoting good health. There has been a substantial increase in cycling over the past 15 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst said that some activities are inaccessible, because the

1301
facilities are not there, but this argument does not apply to cycling. Some 90 per cent. of men and 67 per cent. of women can bicycle and there are now over 15 million bicycles in the United Kingdom—as many bicycles as cars.
A growing number of Members of Parliament use bicycles to get to and from their places of work. I claim some credit for this, because I established the House of Commons bicycle pool, way back in 1975, to promote this activity. I am not sure what happened in 1979, when this Administration came into office and I lost track of it. I think that it was privatised and that the assets were sold to the Members in accordance with the principles of that Administration.
Mrs. Wise: Will the hon. Gentleman mention the need for more cycle tracks?
Sir George Young: Yes, but there is no point in installing cycle tracks if all that happens is that motorists park in them, which is what tends to happen in London. I am all in favour of cycle tracks and routes through Royal Parks to make cycling more attractive and easier, but there has to be more observation of the cycle tracks once they have been painted, because otherwise the motorists assume that they are delineated places in which to park their cars. That is what has happened in the Uxbridge road in my constituency, where we have a cycle track that is no longer visible because of parked cars.
Cycling has great health benefits. It is a form of vigorous exercise in that, in the words of doctors, it is dynamic aerobic activity involving free movement of large muscle groups—larger in the case of some people than in others. Some interesting research was done by Dr. Tuxworth, who analysed 1,394 middle-aged factory workers. He discovered that cyclists in general enjoy a level of fitness equivalent to being five years younger, and for regular cyclists, the level of fitness was equivalent to being 10 years younger.
It is estimated that the training effect of cycling four mile each way to work at 12 mph is the same as 10 minutes wrestling, 30 minutes of squash, 50 minutes of singles tennis or 24 holes of golf. The effect is doubled if one increases the speed from 12 to 17 mph. Cycling has the advantage over jogging, swimming or some of the other activities mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst, in that it is easier to incorporate into one's daily routine without it being a time-wasting chore that eats into valuable time. For those who are worried about the constraints on cycling and who think that it rains all the time, I can say that, on average, it rains between 8 am and 9 am on 12 days in the year.
Dr. Kim Howells: I am not sure whether those figures refer to Wales. I am interested in the statistics that the hon. Gentleman has given us. However, given the dangers presented by traffic, especially in great cities such as London, could not cyclists be prematurely 20 or 30 years dead as a result of cycling on some of the busiest roads?
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is right. The statistics for cycling accidents are far too high—I think, about 300 deaths a year. However, when these cycling statistics are compared with those for other forms of transport, they are somewhat misleading in that cycling statistics include children, whereas motoring statistics do not. Once one isolates that and looks at adults on bicycles as opposed to adults in cars, the statistics are not so disadvantageous.
When one then allows for the fact that much of the motoring is on motorways, where the cyclist cannot go, and then looks at cycling in cities as against driving in cities, the statistics become more reassuring.
It is safer to bicycle from home to the station, take the train and then bicycle the other end than to drive a long way, so the bicycle, taken in conjunction with public transport, is safer than it may seem. However, as the hon. Gentleman emphasises, we must make cycling safer and reduce the constraints.
A combination of the NHS reforms that have just reached the statute book and the emphasis on the role of the individual given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst should ensure that we enter the next decade, at the beginning of the year 2000, a fitter, healthier and happier nation than the one that entered the 1990s.
10.59 am
Mr. Alex Carlile: As I lay in a hot bath this morning trying to unravel an episode of backache, as, a little later, I looked in a mirror—the credibility of which I doubted, and have done for some considerable time—and as I opened my post and looked at it with ever-wearying eyes, I reflected on the fact that perhaps hon. Members are not especially qualified to teach the nation what it should be doing about its state of health.
There can be few jobs that are as unhealthy as that of hon. Members—too much hot air and too many free meals are hardly a recipe for a healthy life. Indeed, I suspect that even those like the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir George Young)—
It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Britoil (Special Share)
Mr. Speaker: Statement—Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not usually the case that statements on a Friday must be exceptional, urgent, or agreed through the usual channels? It is not true that the making of a statement today has not been agreed through the usual channels? The statement is not urgent and it does not require any exceptional treatment.
Britoil is a Scottish company and the bulk of the people employed by it work in Scotland. Most people affected by the statement are Scottish. To have such a statement on a Friday in July makes it especially difficult for Scottish Members of Parliament. When the last statement on Britoil was made, no fewer than 15 Scottish Members of Parliament, of all parties, raised points. They are now being deprived of that opportunity by this shifty means of making a statement today.
Mr. Alan Williams rose—
Mr. Graham Allen rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with this matter. The Standing Order provides the opportunity for statements to be made at 11 o'clock. I am not informed of the contents and I have no idea whether they are urgent. However, it is perfectly in order for a statement to be made at this time on a Friday.
In relation to what was said by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I can say from experience that I very much hope that the business of the House can, in general, be arranged through the usual channels. We proceed in good order if there is the consent of both sides of the House.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your ruling. As it is virtually the last week before the recess, there will be no opportunity to debate the matter before October unless we can do so next week. Is it not true that virtually the only opportunity for debate next week would be the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill? Is it not also true that, because this statement is being made without notice, it is now too late for any hon. Member to table this matter for debate under the Consolidated Fund procedure?
Mr. Speaker: Of course, in addition to the Consolidated Fund—the ballot for which has already been held—there is a three-hour debate on the summer Adjournment motion on Monday. Furthermore, there is still time for the right hon. Gentleman, if he so wishes, to apply for a debate on the Adjournment on the last Thursday.
Mr. Allen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I very much hope that you have a long and relaxing recess. During that time, would you consider the way in which the Government, not only on this occasion, but on a number of occasions during recent weeks—this is becoming more and more evident to hon. Members on both sides—have sought to use the opportunity to gain television coverage to manipulate and extend the boundaries that hitherto were agreed by all sides? Would you consider how Parliament could recapture some of its lost time?
Mr. Speaker: There was an interesting debate last night on the televising of the House and since it is now agreed that the House will continue to be televised. I can now come clean and say that I think that it has been a considerable success. However it is not for me to speculate on how time is used when the cameras are on. Our Standing Orders allow the opportunity for statements to be made on a Friday, and Friday is of course, a working day.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week and the week before, there were discussions in the House, in which you were involved, about the way in which the House was being used, without the usual negotiations between the usual channels. You made a statement to the effect that the practice of using the House of Commons in that way was not good enough. The Government do not listen to your words. They think, "It doesn't matter now; a week or two has passed so we will do it again."
There comes a time when you, Mr. Speaker, must use some authority. Unfortunately, your recent words were not good enough, because the Government have decided to treat them with contempt. At some time, you must make it abundantly clear to the Government—especially as they are now using the opportunity of television—that this sort of business must stop. Never mind about Back Benchers, never mind about the Opposition—you must make that clear to the Government. You know that there are occasions when some hon. Members are present but others are not.
It is clear that those hon. Members whose constituencies are 300 or 400 miles away and who have an interest in this matter, face more difficulties than someone like me, whose constituency is only 150 miles away. I have always recognised the fact that some hon. Members, who are up in the Shetlands and elsewhere—[Laughter.]
Mr. James Wallace: The Outer Hebrides.
Mr. Skinner: Yes, and the Outer Hebrides. Some of our people actually live in Scotland. I suggest that you, Mr. Speaker, make it clear to the Leader of the House, no less, that this sort of business must stop, and follow that with a report to the House on Monday. The Government are railroading through the business and treating the Opposition, Back Benchers and yourself with contempt.
Mr. Speaker: Not at all. The hon. Gentleman is here regularly on a Friday and he well knows that it is a full working day in the House of Commons. However, undoubtedly it would have been for the convenience of hon. Members with Scottish constituencies if they had known that the statement was to be made this morning.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I can take any more points of order. What can I say about it?
Mr. Spearing: I shall explain that, Mr. Speaker.
Is it not true that, habitually, Ministers making statements, of whatever importance and with whatever agreement, preface their remarks with the words, "With permission"? Is it not also true that those words are nothing but a courtesy and that, in fact, they are empty of meaning? When I investigated, I discovered that not even

1305
you, Mr. Speaker, or the House has to give permission. Therefore, I suggest that it is inappropriate that it be sought.
I am a London Member, and I resent my Scottish colleagues being treated in this way. Should we not refer the question of statements to the Select Committee on Procedure? For the time being at least, should those words that are empty of meaning be not uttered by the Minister? He does not have the permission of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer that matter to the Procedure Committee, he should certainly do so.
11.7 am
The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): With permission, Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. In the light of what has been said, I am not sure that that is helpful.
Mr. Morrison: I should like to make a statement on the Britoil special share. A number of substantial benefits to Scotland and to the development of the United Kingdom's oil and gas resources have been secured as a result of BP's compliance with the assurances that it gave to the Government when it acquired Britoil in 1988.
The reserves of Britoil's producing fields have been upgraded by 67 million barrels, a 24.5 per cent. increase, and well over the 5 per cent. that was promised. The drilling rate on Britoil acreage increased significantly in 1988, and again in 1989, and this year is expected to be approximately double the 1988 level. British Petroleum has confirmed to me that its plans for drilling in 1990 are designed to secure that 87 wells are drilled on acreage held by BP or Britoil at the time of the acquisition, and that it is confident that £310 million will be spent. A further £30 million is being spent on exploration-related research and development.
British Petroleum is pressing ahead with the development of a number of major fields, including Miller and Amethyst, and has made detailed proposals for the development of Bruce. In Scotland, Glasgow has now been established as the head office for BP's upstream business throughout the whole of Europe. This year alone, BP Exploration will be spending approximately £1 billion, more than half its worldwide spending, on activities run mainly out of Scotland.
The numbers employed by BP Exploration in Glasgow and Aberdeen have risen significantly, mainly as a result of the enhancement of Glasgow's role. In addition, the expansion of Kinneil is expected to generate an extra 2,500 jobs and the Bruce project 500 jobs—all of them in Scotland. BP's commitment to Scotland has been underlined by its establishment of a Scottish advisory board chaired by the chairman of the BP group.
When BP gave the assurances, the Government undertook that after a period they would review, in the light of the way that they had operated, when the special rights preference share in Britoil should be redeemed.
BP has fully implemented the assurances, which have now been working satisfactorily for some time. They have also been the subject of an inquiry by the Select Committee on Energy.
1306
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are satisfied that BP has lived up to its word and that the Government's objectives in obtaining assurances have been met. I am therefore taking immediate steps to arrange for the special share to be redeemed.
Mr. Frank Dobson: As there were at least 10 references to Scotland in that statement, the protest by my hon. Friends and myself was entirely justified.
The statement is the last nail in the coffin of Britoil, which the Government privatised as an independent oil company and which used to be Scotland's largest publicly quoted company. When Britoil was originally put up for sale, the then Minister of State for Scotland, Mr. Hamish Gray, now Lord Gray, said that the arrangements that the Government had arrived at would contain effective safeguards for Britoil's independence. The golden share was a vital part of those arrangements. In 1988, Britoil was bought up by BP. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) said:
"The existence of the special share has enabled the Government to secure from BP these wide-ranging, valuable public assurances."—[Official Report, 25 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 150.]
Those assurances covered the amount of exploration and development work to be undertaken and the level of employment in Scotland to be provided by both companies, the sale of assets of former Britoil property, and the structure of the board.
The Minister told the House today that those assurances have been kept, but that is simply not true, He said:
"they have also been the subject of an inquiry by the Select Committee on Energy."
They have, but the Minister forgot to mention that the Select Committee recommended that the golden share should be retained for the time being. The Committee also said that it was not convinced that BP had acted in the spirit of the assurances given about employment in Scotland. It is simply not true that the assurances have been kept.
The Minister's carefully worded statement, obviously drafted by a first-rate Sir Humphrey, said:
"British Petroleum has confirmed to me that its plans for drilling in 1990 are designed to secure that 87 wells are drilled on acreage held by BP or Britoil at the time of the acquisition?".
Some of that acreage is no longer held by BP or Britoil but has been disposed of. How can the Minister accept an assurance from BP that it has kept its promise when the company is counting in assets that it no longer owns? That is a preposterous concept.
Will the Minister confirm that if the acreage sold off is excluded from the calculations, the expenditure commitment on exploration and on wells drilled has not been kept? Will he answer that specific question?
Will the Minister confirm also that BP's plans for work next year will mean that its activities will be cut by half., and that the Government's surrender of the golden share will allow the company to dispose of Britoil assets exactly as it wishes and to invest the proceeds abroad, rather than in North sea activities? Will the Minister confirm that both may happen if he gets rid of the golden share?
What are the tax implications of today's statement? Is it not true that BP will be able to shift assets around from

1307
one company in the group to another? BP itself calculates that this development will help to reduce its tax liability by between £75 million and £100 million this year. Is that counted in the current public expenditure round, or is it just another of the privatisation sweeteners that the Prime Minister seems happy to hand out?
The golden share existed to enforce the assurances that BP gave. They were given partly to the Scottish people, but they have not been honoured. Surrending the golden share will give BP an entirely free hand to do what it likes with Britoil's assets and staff. Frankly, for the Minister to give up the golden share at this moment is like throwing in the towel before he has even climbed into the ring. There should be much more resistance to the action that BP is covertly trying to take.
If the Minister does not know what BP is up to, he should resign for being incompetent. If he does know, he should resign for collaborating with it. His announcement will harm the ecnonomy, our efforts in the North sea, and the people of Scotland. It has one saving grace—it will also harm the Government.
Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and I are at variance about the reason why the golden share existed in the first place. If the hon. Gentleman examines the original wording on that subject, I think that he would find it impossible to use the share in the way that he wants, for intervening in the running of BP or Britoil, or both. I do not believe that it is right to intervene in any company. The North sea has prospered substantially since 1979, for the simple reason that we have allowed companies to get on with running their own businesses, rather than interfering.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that my statement was
"the last nail in the coffin of Britoil",
but that is utter rubbish. As my statement pointed out, there are now 500 more jobs than would have been the case in 1988. The hon. Gentleman also talked, perfectly fairly, about the acreage—
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: My hon. Friend can talk about whatever he wants.
Mr. Morrison: I agree with the hon. Lady.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the acreage that is now not owned or operated by BP. I can give him precise figures. Of the 87 wells to which I referred, 39 will be operated by BP, 28 will be partner-operated, 10 will be farm-outs, and 10 will be Oryx. The sale of some Britoil assets was carefully examined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and myself several months ago.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will be pleased to know that, where a well is not to be operated by BP, we have received a categorical assurance that the wells will be drilled—so that assurance has been honoured.
The hon. Gentleman referred to BP's tax situation. I have not paid any attention—on reflection, nor should I—to that aspect, because it is a matter for BP and the Inland Revenue. I considered carefully the letter that Sir Peter Walters, the then chairman of BP, wrote to Sir Peter Middleton, permanent secretary to the Treasury, to determine whether the company's assurances have been
1308
honoured. That was a long and detailed letter, and it was a tough negotiation at the time, and I assure the House that they have all been carried out.
Mr. John Hannam: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the targets set for the company two years ago were extremely tough and that all the Government's expectations have been exceeded? Is it not true that, in general, the North sea has seen tremendous success in its exploration and development over recent years?
Mr. Morrison: I can confirm that the targets set were tough. For example, in 1988 52 wells were drilled between BP and Britoil and that figure is now just under 90. I can also confirm that the level of activity in the North sea was, I am glad to say, of a high order. New investment is at an all-time record of £3.7 billion this year, and the exploration and appraisal of wells is of a high order. As a result, the number of jobs—good jobs, too—created in Scotland is much higher than two years ago, and I am delighted by the progress of the oil and gas sector of the Scottish coast and on the United Kingdom continental shelf.
Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the Minister will accept that there has been a number of job losses since the take-over of Britoil by BP, particularly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). There has also been a significant number of job losses in my constituency with the withdrawal of BP from its oil supply base at Lerwick, about which I have seen the Minister. Many people will wonder whether the golden share is worth anything at all when a Government who proclaimed the independence of Britoil when it was privatised and believe in competition were unable to use it to stop the takeover of Britain's largest independent company by one of the biggest companies in the United Kingdom as a whole.
In the Select Committee report there was a suggestion that BP had brought forward oil drilling into 1990. The Select Committee specifically recommended that his Department should monitor BP drilling in 1991 and beyond. What powers does he now have to take action if that level of drilling in 1991 and beyond falls far short of what would have been expected from the assurances given by BP at the outset of the take-over?
Mr. Morrison: I fully accept, as the hon. Gentleman said, that there have been some job losses. However, as I have said, there have been some job gains, and just over 500 is the net figure of the increase. I am sure that he will agree that the proper structure of the organisation—the way it balances its labour force and so on—is a matter for BP. The net figure has more than met the assurances.
The hon. Gentleman said that he does not believe that the special share was of any particular use. The letter written two years ago by Sir Peter Walters to Sir Peter Middleton giving the assurances demonstrated precisely what use it was. That would have been no good on paper if the assurances had not been met, and in practice they have been. The letter referred to the period "up to 1990". That is the period we have had to consider and monitor carefully. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have done so.
As for the future, BP will be able to operate in the North sea in the same way as any other international oil company and, if I may say so, it should be able to do so.

1309
It is because of the freedom of movement that so many major international oil companies, including BP in a big way, are pouring literally tens of millions of pounds into further exploration on the United Kingdom continental shelf and particularly the North sea. The interest I have found in the 12th and frontier rounds is of a high order and I suggest that that is because of the free market we operate. Those companies could just as easily put their money into Indonesia or offshore Brazil or Australia. They choose to come here because, subject to the licence and a tough safety regime, they are allowed to be free agents. We should welcome that.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is exceptionally good news for Scotland for investment, expansion and the long-term future of the oil industry? Does he agree that the Scottish Office and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for industry have played a part in achieving it? Can my right hon. Friend give a breakdown of jobs in the future? How many does he anticipate being in the headquarters in Glasgow and how many does he anticipate in the north-east, particularly around Aberdeen?
Mr. Morrison: I can certainly confirm that the discussions that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office and I have with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy about the North sea are perhaps not on a daily basis, but they are on a weekly basis. We could not work more closely together. I agree with my hon. Friend that the news for Scotland, as well as for the United Kingdom as a whole, is unadulteratedly good in terms of what is happening in the oil and gas sector and the knock-on effects that brings with it in terms of the supply company, the fabrication yards and so on.
I have with me the most up-to-date figures I have for the number of jobs in Glasgow and in Aberdeen, and I hope that it will be helpful to my hon. Friend. There will be 3,500 in Aberdeen, 1,155 in Glasgow and 880 in places such as Sullom Voe and elsewhere. In total that is 5,545. That is direct BP employment. There will be related jobs because of BP orders being given to the yards and so on.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I came in quite by chance just as the Minister was getting to his feet. It is a disgrace that this statement has been made this morning. It is far from the action of a decent and honourable Government to do such a thing, given that so many of my colleagues are in their constituencies in Scotland.
The offshore oil and gas industries have not made Scotland a land of milk and honey in terms of employment. My constituency has had a long and often not very happy relationship with Britoil. It will surely agree with the comment made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that job losses were suffered by constituents of mine who worked for Britoil. For many people in and around Glasgow who work for Britoil—the Britoil-BP company is chaired by a Greenockian, Sir Robin Duthie—the golden share was seen as a sort of insurance policy. It was seen as a guarantee that their interests would be cared for.
With regard to jobs, has BP given an assurance that orders for offshore structures will be placed with Scottish companies? There is still under-capacity in the offshore
1310
yards in Scotland, particularly at Scott Lithgow. The Minister has not played the game with people in Scotland today.
Mr. Morrison: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that it was a mistake to make a statement. In previous announcements about golden shares, there have been statements and written answers. I offered the Opposition a statement if that was what they preferred, because I realised that there was considerable interest. That is why I have come to the House to answer any questions that hon. Members may wish to put.
The hon. Gentleman said that the employees of Britoil in Glasgow lay much store with the special share. That is true. They thought it important at the time of the takeover that the assurance should be sought and given and should be adhered to. That is precisely what was happened. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, a week or so ago, BP announced that it was to form a Scottish advisory board under the chairmanship of the chairman of the BP group, with Sir Robin Duthie as the deputy chairman. I believe that I am right in saying—I will be corrected if I am wrong—that that advisory board has been welcomed. It was welcomed in an editorial in The Scotsman.
With regard to the terms of reference of the advisory board, the chairman of BP said:
"I believe it is important that decisions relating to our Scottish activities should get the benefit of sound advice from a Scottish perspective. The Advisory Board will achieve this and also help BP to meet its wider obligations to the Scottish community."
That is a strong and firm commitment to Scotland by the chairman of BP.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the level of United Kingdom content of services, including fabrication, for the North sea is just over 80 per cent. By any stretch of the imagination that is a lion's share, and we have achieved it because we happen to be more competitive, more professional and better than our international competitors. I would not expect any company operating in the North sea to give a categorical undertaking that it will always buy British. If I did expect that, I would frighten those companies away and they would not spend the hundreds of millions of pounds that they do spend on exploration and appraisal, and the 12th and frontier rounds would not be a great success.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to bear it in mind that this is a private Members' day. I will endeavour to call those hon. Members who are rising, but we should get back to private Member's motion in 10 minutes. I ask hon. Members to be brief.
Mr. Peter Rost: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the Select Committee on Energy very carefully considered BP's takeover of Britoil? The Select Committee took all the evidence, saw all the documents and concluded that the accusations that BP had not met its original agreements and commitments were totally unsubstantiated and quite contrary to the misleading statements made by the Opposition Front Bench Spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). As I am the only member of the Select Committee present in the Chamber today who worked on that report, I hope that my right hon. Friend

1311
the Minister will persuade the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to withdraw his quite misleading comments.
Mr. Morrison: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He will recall that I was a witness before the Committee. When the Committee had considered carefully what BP had to say and considered how the Department was monitoring the assurances, it reached the same conclusions as those drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost). I am afraid that I cannot make the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who speaks for the Opposition, withdraw his remarks. I am not responsible for him, no matter how wrong he may have got it in this case.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does not the Minister realise that the Government will be seen as cowardly and shifty for making this statement without warning on the last Friday before three months of parliamentary recess? Is not the impact of the Minister's comments today the fact that, having sold off an important national asset, he has now given away the last protection of the national interest? Will he spell out what the taxpayer will get in exchange for this surrender? Will he also give us a clue about the future? After the next reshuffle or election, which ex-Minister can we expect to see joining the board?
Mr. Morrison: I do not think that coming to the House and making a statement is either cowardly or covering up. I have allowed myself to be cross-questioned by Opposition Members. I cannot look into the crystal ball and say what benefits might accrue in future in terms of BP and its contribution to the economy. However, BP is wholly committeed to its investments in the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom Treasury benefits substantially from the company's success and the profits.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the golden share mechanism is a blunt instrument which has no part to play in the longer term structure of a company? Is it not surprising that Opposition Members have made no reference to the Opposition's oil policy? Does my right hon. Friend recall the busted flush or five-legged camel known as the British National Oil Corporation? Does he agree that, since 1979, the Government have freed the oil industry? My right hon. Friend's announcement today will continue to free the oil industry, and that is a great benefit to workers and taxpayers.
Mr. Morrison: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that in this case the special share had run to the end of its useful life. I have seen what one Opposition Front Bench spokesman has had to say about the Opposition's policy on oil and gas, and I quite understand why the Opposition now want to cover it up as fast as they can.
Mr. Skinner: Now that the golden share has been removed and any participation by the state has been lifted, will the Minister guarantee that no ex-Tory Minister, Cabinet or otherwise, will get a job on the board? Will he also give a categorical assurance as an ex-vice chairman of the Tory party that the Tory party will never collect funds from BP or any of its subsidiaries? Will he give us that guarantee?
Mr. Morrison: My answers to the hon. Gentleman are no and no. Of all people, the hon. Gentleman likes freedom and it would be wholly wrong for me—
Mr. Skinner: Are you going to moonlight?
Mr. Morrison: He likes freedom and it would be wholly wrong of me to restrict anybody from being asked or joining any particular board.
Mr. Spearing: Can the Minister give any reason why his statement could not have been made on Monday or any other day next week? Does he agree that, while statements and other actions in the House may be important, actions that go against general understandings are not acceptable unless there is very good reason for them? Is it not clear that, if the Government cannot properly give a square deal to the nation of Scotland, which is part of our United Kingdom and Union of nations, we cannot expect the Government to properly defend the interests of England, Scotland, Wales and Ulster in any wider union of nations that may be proposed?
Mr. Morrison: On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, outside of London and my constituency, I visit Scotland more than any other part of the country, and rightly so.
Mr. Dobson: You own part of it.
Mr. Morrison: No, my eldest brother does.
The contribution which the oil and gas sector makes to the Scottish economy is significant and we want that regime to continue in the way that I have outlined.
With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is not for me to meddle in matters of business management. Suffice it to say that I gather that there are a number of statements pending for next week and I thought that it was best, as I have said, to come to the House as soon as the decision had been made to be cross-questioned by whomsoever wished to put questions to me. I informed the Opposition last night.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Would not most independent analysts conclude that, with the sophistication of the international oil exploration markets, blocking mechanisms like the one we are discussing today have outlived their usefulness?
Is it not also rather depressing that some hon. Members according to the exchanges in the Chamber today do not seem to have learnt the lessons of the past 10 years? Large companies like the one that we are discussing really must be allowed to run their own affairs. Despite all the glitz and glitter of Labour party documents claiming that Labour has understood that, the Opposition clearly have not. They want to go back in history, interfere and return to the bad old days. My right hon. Friend's announcement today is very timely.
Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is 100 per cent. right. However much the Opposition protest, they would not for a second stop interfering in the activities of many oil companies operating off the Scottish coast. That would lead to much less investment in exploration and appraisal and that would lead to fewer jobs.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does not the Minister accept that any sensible Government would have retained the golden share to maintain an influence on this country's energy policy and on investment in jobs in Scotland? Has

1313
the right hon. Gentleman not put party dogma first and sold those down the river today? Has he not sent out a clear signal to the other industries with a golden share that that share means nothing at all because the Government believe in market forces and not in the prosperity of the country as a whole?
Mr. Morrison: There is nothing dogmatic about doing what one said one would do. We said that, once the assurances had been met, we would release the golden share—the special share and that is precisely what we are doing today.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, apart from spurious anger, some of the other comments expressed today have been unfair to the biggest and most profitable British company, which is one of the top four companies in the world? The taxation income brought in by British Petroleum and the thousands of millions of pounds that it has invested in North sea oil brings us huge tax revenues, huge sums of which go to support the Scottish economy. Have we now reached the stage where Scotland does not look upon itself as part of the United Kingdom, but wants to operate only in this little narrow vessel, which is what makes Scotland so unappetising to many industrialists?
Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. The frightening thing is that the international oil companies will read what has been said this morning and will therefore see what the Labour party would do in the unlikely event of it coming to power in, say, the year 2020. A significant number of hon. Members still want to intervene in the North sea in a major way, and that is what will drive away lots of investment and cut the labour force substantially.
Mr. Allen: There is not a great deal of family silver left to sell, but with the Government's economic problems, it is pretty clear that they will sell off every thing they can. I ask the Minister to talk to his colleagues, and I ask him and them to give the House an assurance that the golden shares and other Government shareholdings in British Telecom, British Aerospace, British Steel Enterprise Ltd., the water companies, Jaguar, Sealink, Cable and Wireless and other companies will be retained. Many of us feel that this announcement is a prelude to the grand closing down sale of the Thatcher Government.
Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to give such an assurance because, as he appreciates, all the golden shares to which he has referred are matters for my right hon. Friends the various Secretaries of State concerned. That is how the matter lies. In future each will be looked at over a period on its merits.
Mr. Dobson: As the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) has cast some doubt on the accuracy of what I said about the report of the Select Committee on Energy, will the Minister confirm that, as recently as 13 December last year, the Select Committee on Energy stated of the employment assurance:
"we are not ourselves convinced that BP's recent policy is fully in accord with the spirit of that assurance".
1314
It also stated:
"The Special Share in Britoil should remain in existence for the time being."
In what the Committee then described as its "main conclusions"—those are the Committee's words, not mine—it stated:
"It is debatable whether the proposed asset sale to Oryx can properly be considered to be 'in the ordinary course of trading'. Further substantial asset sales would not be consistent with the assurances."
Will the Minister confirm that, by removing the golden share he can no longer prevent further substantial asset sales and, indeed, that that is a likely consequence?
Finally, will the Minister clarify what he said and confirm that the decision taken on the golden share by the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Scotland, which may cost the Treasury as much as £100 million in lost revenue, was taken without any consideration being given to that loss of revenue?
Mr. Morrison: On asset sales, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that, when there is a change of ownership, there is a process within the Department by which the Department looks at it carefully and either approves or does not approve it. In that respect, the Department will keep some control, as it would be for any asset sale in the North sea—and rightly so, because the licences were given to a particular group, which gave certain undertakings in its application for the licence.
It would be wholly inappropriate for me to delve into the matter of—
Mr. Dobson: Why?
Mr. Morrison: Because I am concerned about whether Sir Peter Walters's assurances were or were not met. That is what the special share was about and that is what I have adhered to, taking into account the Select Committee's thorough consideration of the matter. I have concluded, with my right hon. Friend's, that all the conditions have been met and that is why the special share will be redeemed.
Mr. Speaker: We now return to the—
Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is on his feet—
Mr. Wallace: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. You will have noted that the Minister said that he had informed the official Opposition last night that this statement would be made. While my hon. Friends and I do not expect to be consulted about whether a statement is to be made, do you agree that it would have been a courtesy to tell other Opposition parties about the statement, especially since my party and hon. Members from the Scottish National party represent constituencies that have a significant interest in the oil industry.
Mr. Speaker: That will have been noted by those on the Front Bench. We now return to the debate on the importance of the promotion of good health. Mr. Alex Carlile.

Good Health
Question again proposed.
11.45 am
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful for the opportunity to resume the sentence that I was in the middle of when we reached the statement.
I had been just about to commend the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) for his well publicised energy on a bicycle. He has done much for the image of those hon. Members who strive to draw attention to the need for public health awareness. However, I fear that, like many cyclists, the hon. Gentleman finds riding a bicycle in central London a risky business not only because of traffic problems, but because of the incredible pollution that hits every cyclist as he tries to cycle along the roads of London.
Nevertheless, cycling is undoubtedly a healthy activity and everthing possible should be done to enable cyclists to use the streets of London in a far more congenial way than is available at present.
One thing about cycling concerns me on safety grounds. I am referring to the prevalent use of Walkmen by cyclists. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Acton listens to a Walkman as he cycles —
Sir George Young indicated dissent.
Mr. Carlile: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head about that. It seems dangerous for cyclists to ride in the rush hour listening to loud music. which obscures the sound of the approaching traffic. Even as a car driver, I find it useful to hear the sound of the traffic around me, and I am sure that cyclists should find it even more useful.
This Friday morning, right hon. and hon. Members who are smokers are conspicuous by their absence—with one or two exceptions. I wonder whether they find that a four-day week is about as much as they can manage, whereas those of us who do not smoke can also leap to our feet in the House on a Friday morning.
We face an incredible number of hazards to our health, which are increasing daily. We have heard quite a lot this morning about tobacco advertising and about the sponsorship of sport by tobacco companies. It is extraordinary that a cigarette company should sponsor a grand prix for racing cars, for example, because if one were to light up a cigarette in the pits, I suspect that one might run the risk of causing a major disaster.
Equally, it seems extraordinary that the most energetic form of county cricket—not the form that I prefer, which is the slower five-day variety—is sponsored by a tobacco company. I doubt whether some of our more athletic young cricketers who score the largest amount of runs on a Sunday would find it easy to achieve their greatest successes if they were heavy smokers.
The increasing use of tobacco by young people, especially by those under 18, is a particular hazard to their health.
We have all heard the evidence about the number of young people in that age group who become alcoholics before they reach the age of 18. That is a shocking fact.
In my years as a criminal lawyer, I have noticed all too often how crime is committed by young people who have drunk to excess. It is committed not by people who are blind drunk—they are usually incapable of committing crime—but by people who have simply had rather more
1316
than they can safely manage which makes them, to use the psychiatrists' word, disinhibited, to the extent of committing crime. Such people tend to ask their lawyers to tell the judge that they were drunk, as if that was a mitigating factor.
Young people ought to understand that crime is just as serious if it is committed when they are disinhibited by drink as at any other time. The Government—indeed, all political parties and all groups with an input in education and which have contact with young people—should stress that alcohol leads to crime. There is a direct relationship between alcohol and crime. I am not talking about shop windows being broken. I am talking about the commission of offences such as rape and robbery as a result of young people becoming disinhibited by taking drink.
We continue to face increasing hazards to our health in the workplace as a result of industrial practices. The Health and Safety Executive, under its excellent chief inspector of factories Mr. Linehan, has done a great deal to improve the position. However, the funding of the Health and Safety Executive still leaves a good deal to be desired. I should like the executive to send factory inspectors out on a much more frequent random basis, particularly to smaller factories and workplaces. It is often in smaller workplaces that the worse practices are followed—for example with machine tools—which lead to many wholly unnecessary accidents.
I represent an agricultural constituency. Indeed, I believe that it is the most agricultural constituency. There are far too many agricultural accidents. A better funded agricultural safety inspectorate could do much to obviate that.
A more general issue affecting public health is town and country planning policies. They way in which they are operated causes a great deal of anxiety. Although there is a tendency to allow areas which were not traditional industrial centres to be developed—I commend the success of the Development Board for Rural Wales in my constituency and neighbouring areas on that score—town and country planning policies continue to concentrate jobs in conurbations. That compels huge numbers of people to travel to work on congested routes, which often leads to accidents, stress and consequent disruption of family life.
Those of us who sometimes drive alone in the rush hour from our London homes to this palace—I admit with some shame that I am one—are all too accustomed to the flash of anger which the rush hour can cause as one sits in one's car surrounded by other people who travel to work alone in their cars in this great city of London. I should like far more energy to be spent on finding imaginative ways of improving our public transport system. The state of London Regional Transport is very bad, as those of us who use it frequently can testify. The buses are unpredictable and infrequent—
Ms. Harriet Harman: And filthy.
Mr. Carlile: —and filthy.
The underground is unpredictable, sometimes infrequent, and filthy. Indeed, recent weeks have seen the virtual closure for several days of the District line, a line used not only by many Members of parliament, but, more importantly, by vast numbers of members of the public who try to lead reasonably well-organised lives in London. The consequence of that closure is that they all get into

1317
their cars and sit in queues in the rush hour suffering stress and anger with all the consequences to the health that that causes.
The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) mentioned homelessness and the consequences for people's health. When I first came to the House in 1983, there was no homelessness in my constituency to speak of. There may have been a small handful of people who were homeless, but if people in need came to me and asked me to help them to obtain a house of flat, the Montgomeryshire district council or the Development Board for Rural Wales could generally help within a reasonably short period. That is no longer so.
Newtown is the largest town in my constituency, with about 11,000 inhabitants. There are at least 50 young people living rough there, many of whom have good, regular jobs in factories and service industries in Newtown. There is a waiting list for homes of between 400 and 500. That is only part of the constituency. It is a reasonably affluent rural area. It has low wages but low unemployment, so it is reasonably affluent, taken overall. We have a waiting list for rented accommodation of about 1,000 people: those are the ones we know about.
I have one of the smallest electorates in the House, although I have one of the largest constituencies geographically. If we have long waiting lists in Mongomeryshire, what on earth is it like in other places with much denser populations? From what I have read, it seems that, particularly in London, the problem of homelessness is desperate.
We know what homelessness does to young people, because we can see it for ourselves. There is a risk that young people who are homeless will be driven on to the streets, into crime, into drink and, in some cases, into prostitution. Of course, it does not happen to all of them;. but the real risk does not seem consistent with the housing policy of a Government seeking to promote public health seriously. If young people are to be healthy, it is vital that they are given a reasonable prospect of having a home.
I am also worried about the privatised water industry. Again I can relate the matter to my constituency. The privatised water companies have inherited a large and elderly sewerage burden. In Montgomeryshire, in the town of Welshpool there is an historic problem of poor drains and decrepit sewers. A further problem which affects areas such as mine must be tackled. A statutory responsibility has rightly been placed on the district council to ensure the cleanliness of private water supplies. I am willing to lay a substantial bet that most of the private water supplies in Montgomeryshire are a good deal more healthy than the public water supply yet it is right that we should be sure. I make no complaint about the public water supply as such, but there are some excellent private water sources.
In my constituency, over 4,500 dwellings have a private water supply. That is an extraordinarily high proportion when one considers that the area has a population of not much more than 50,000. To fulfil its statutory responsibilities, the district council will have to foot an enormous bill, running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. It cannot meet that bill. It simply cannot pay for its responsibilities unless the Government are prepared to devote substantial extra resources to it. I have written to the Secretary of State for Wales and he has set up a consultation exercise to deal with the matter. We await the result with keen anticipation.
1318
I hope that the Minister and her colleagues in the Department of Health will pass on to the Secretary of State for Wales the view that it is extremely important that resources should be made available to enable a district council, such as Montgomeryshire, to test private water supplies, without detriment to the other services which it provides. In other words, extra money should be supplied for that purpose.
I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on choosing this important subject for debate today. He and I have the privilege of serving together as appointed lay members of the General Medical Council. Although our appointment is fairly recent, I know that he, like me, already takes it seriously and regards it as extremely interesting and important. We have the opportunity to learn a good deal about the way in which modern general practice operates. Certainly, I did not know much about it before. Some of it has been a source of pleasant surprise, but some of it has caused me a good deal of alarm.
The health of the nation is not assisted by the prevalence of a substantial number of single-handed general practitioners, particularly in our cities. I do not want to run down every single-handed GP because undoubtedly, some are among the best. Generally speaking, a practitioner who is working on his own is forced to use contractual on-call services for night visits and days off, with all their unpredictability. Generally, they are unsatisfactory. He is not providing the same level of service to the community as a practitioner who operates in a group practice, which has duty doctors on call, most of the time at least, servicing the patients of the practice.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: As always, I agree with a great deal of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. In my constituency, there is an abnormally high level of single-handed practitioners. One result is that constituents who are unhappy with the idea of going to a locum doctor if their GP is on holiday, spend far too much time going to the casualty departments of local hospitals. That is putting a huge strain on local hospitals. My constituents then complain that the waiting lists in casualty departments are too long. It is hardly surprising if the health service is misused in that way. That flows, at least partly, from the prevalence of single practitioners.
Mr. Carlile: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It is not merely casualty departments that are affected. Recently, the professional conduct committee of the GMC heard a case—in which, I hasten to add, the doctor was found not guilty—of serious professional misconduct. A family was anxious about the mother—the wife of the complainant. The patient, having had an unsatisfactory response from an on-call service, twice called out an ambulance. The family was uncertain whether to ask the ambulance to take her to hospital or to wait for a GP to turn up. The end result was detrimental to the patient's health.
There are two important aspects to this GP problem. First, it is a matter of sheer management common sense in relation to the organisation of a medical practice to have group practices. I speak with some indirect experience, because my late father was a GP. When I was a child he worked single-handed, and as I grew up he went into what is now a well-developed and successful group practice in

1319
the north-west of England. My friends in that practice undoubtedly offer a far better-organised service than was offered in the early 1950s. It is much better for the patients and more efficient for the doctors in management terms if they are working in a group.
The second aspect can be highlighted by an analogy with the Bar. The Bar is a collegiate profession, as are most modern solicitors' offices. Practitioners work together in groups and exchange ideas. We are sometimes accused at the Bar—my wife always accuses us of this—of being a gossipy profession; in a sense, that is true, but it is only a symptom of the fact that, when problems fall on to our desks, we share discussion of them.
It is certainly of great benefit to the client that we can bounce large numbers of ideas and problems off our colleagues. Senior colleagues have experience, and junior ones are full of ideas. Medical practice, particularly general practice, would benefit greatly from an increase in size of group practices, so that collegiate aspect of the learned profession of medicine could be more effective.
The personal relationship between the individual patient and the individual doctor has diminished, because it is often difficult to see the doctor on whose list one is registered. That does not matter greatly, unless a patient is seriously or chronically ill, in which case most practices ensure that one doctor sees the patient regularly. Much can be gained from allowing that one-to-one relationship to slip a little and replacing it with medical efficiency and patients' confidence that the doctors will know about the problems which they are asked to treat. That is important for all of us.
Over the years, we have seen a considerable shift of emphasis within dentistry. At one time one thought of the dentist as the person who pulled teeth; now he is the person who saves teeth. Dentistry has made enormous strides, from treatment to prevention. In the years to come, the same can be done with general medicine. The right place to invest money for the future, while maintaining a good treatment service, is in the prevention of illness. I urge the Government to invest ever greater sums in that direction.
12.7 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: The whole House has heard the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) with great interest. I warmly agree with his support for the concept of larger, joint general practices. They will come about increasingly and will assist in preventive medicine. I was interested in his reference to dentistry. Although he did not tell the House whether he was in favour of the fluoridation of water, I noticed that earlier in his speech he mentioned water, which is important in preventive medicine.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on his motion on preventive medicine. The House and the country are in his debt. The central part of his motion is that this House
"recommends the adoption of healthier lifestyles to help protect against major disabling and premature death causing conditions such as heart disease, stroke and cancer".
Our prime object must be to delay or defer death for as long as possible. In the Gilbert and sullivan opera "The Yeoman of the Guard" the character Fairfax, who was under sentence of death, began his famous song:
1320
"Is life a boon?
If so, it must befall
That Death whene'er he call,
Must call too soon."
Fairfax, a young man when he sang that, was awaiting execution. One often hears the young say, "I do not want to live over 80". They may feel differently on reaching 79. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) will chat to her hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) a little more quietly because I am finding it distracting.
Enormous improvements in medicine have occurred this century, and particularly in the last 10 years. The Library informed me this morning that the average expectation of life for a child born in 1986—the last year for which accurate figures are available—was 721 years for a boy and 77.8 years for a girl. Apparently girls and women have an expectation of life five and three quarter years more than boys and men.
That differential has greatly increased in recent generations. For example, a boy born in 1932 had an expectation of life of 58.7 years, and a girl, 62.9 years. That gave an average difference of four years, where as today it is five and three quarter years. It is not clear why that should be the case, but it is clear that the expectation of life has improved substantially for both sexes.
There has been a remarkable improvement in the infant mortality rate in the last decade—and the Minister may have up-to-date figures. The trend given in the Library figures shows that in 1981, the infant mortality rate was 11.2 per thousand and in 1989, projected, it was 8.4 per thousand. It is remarkable that the infant mortality rate should have dropped by about a quarter in the eight years 1981 to 1989.
There have been other significant improvements in mortality rates. I note in the analysis of causes of death given in the official year book for Britain that, for example, in respect of bronchial disease, the number of deaths from pneumonia dropped from 54,000 in 1981 to 26,000 in 1988, a fall of more than half in the number of deaths from pneumonia in seven years. The number of deaths from bronchitis and emphysema dropped from 17,000 in 1981 to 9,000 in 1988, a drop of nearly a half. It seems highly likely that preventive health measures had much to do with that improvement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Acton, (Sir G. Young) who I am pleased to see has returned to his place, referred in his interesting speech to the wearing of seat belts. In 1981, the year when seat belt wearing in the front two seats of cars became compulsory, the number of deaths from road accidents was about 5,500. By 1988, that number had dropped to 4,500. I have no doubt that in the significant drop of 20 per cent. in the number of deaths from road accidents during those years the introduction of seat belts played a part.
One could go on giving examples of improvements, but there remain two great killers, cancer and heart disease. The number of deaths from heart disease amounts to nearly half of all deaths. In 1988, it was 268,000 out of 568,000. The number of deaths from cancer of all sorts totalled about 144,000, or about a third of all deaths.
We must all die at some time and from some cause, but undoubtedly those two areas of illness provide great scope for preventive medicine. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst is right to refer in his motion to heart disease and cancer. He is also right to advocate

1321
"the widespread dissemination of advice and information"
in the context of the national health service.
In welcoming the increasing emphasis on preventive medicine I commend the excellent work of the Maddison clinic at Teddington in my constituency. It was founded by the late Dr. Maddison to enable elderly people to have regular health checks and be given information about, among other things, what to eat to protect their health. It is a highly popular institution which is widely patronised.
There are occasional rumours about the clinic closing. Such rumours were circulating seven years ago. We conducted a great campaign, and it was saved. There have been rumours in the past few months to the effect that it might close, but I am glad to say that the general manager of the Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton district health authority has confirmed to me that the clinic will remain open.
I hope that the Minister will note what I have said about the valuable work done by that clinic and what the district health authority has said about it not closing. I emphasise that because some local general practitioners have shown a noticeable lack of enthusiasm for the clinic; they prefer patients to receive all the health checks from the GPs and not from the clinic. I repeat that the clinic is extremely valuable, and I hope and believe that it will long remain to serve this and future generations of elderly people resident in my constituency.
The concept of preventive medicine contains a large proportion of what can be done to reduce the incidence of premature death. I would not object to an element of compulsion, as occurred with seat belts, or as would be the case with water fluoridation. We need more discipline in preventive medicine, as well as compulsion, and we need more incentives. We should pay doctors more to achieve a high target of immunisation of babies against diphtheria and smallpox. That is part of the purpose of recent legislation, which we were right to pass, because it should be compulsory for babies to be immunised in that way. Parents who are so ignorant as to seek to prevent immunisation should be overridden by the law, as in the case of seat belts.
Mrs. Wise: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that vaccination against smallpox no longer takes place?
Mr. Jessel: Well then it ought to take place, and so should the immunisation against diphtheria because one never knows when such things will break out again. There should also be other vaccinations.
I can tell the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) of the greatest episode of compulsory immunisation in recent times when I was on a delegation in 1971, 10 million refugees went from Bangladesh to India because they were being ill treated by the Pakistan army, based in West Pakistan. A massive number of refugees had to live in the most appalling conditions, in the ditches and fields in the open, when they went into India. The Indian Government wanted to feed those 10 million people, look after them and protect their health until they were able to get back into their own territory of East Bengal.
But there was a terrible threat of a cholera epidemic. The Indian Government insisted that every one of those refugees was injected against cholera and produce a certificate of inoculation before being entitled to receive a food ration card. That must sound tough, but it was toughness based on the motive of compassion. It forced everyone to have an inoculation against cholera before
1322
they could get food. That was done and in that way, the number of deaths from cholera was kept down to 3,000 out of 10 million refugees. Without that policy, probably hundreds of thousands of people would have died of cholera. That is what I mean by compulsion in preventive medicine. The Indian Government were right, and that episode made a great impression upon me. Ever since, I have believed that there is little place for freedom in preventive medicine, and there should be more compulsion, discipline and inoculations where necessary.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am listening to my hon. Friend with increasing nervousness. About two centuries ago, if my hon. Friend's philosophy were followed, it would have been compulsory to have cupping and blood-letting of everyone as a matter of course. Medical science moves on, and from time to time things that are thought to be good are later thought to be bad. If such progress can be achieved through encouragement and incentive, that is all to the good, but doing it through compulsion makes me wary.
Mr. Jessel: I am sure that if my hon. Friend had been a Member of the House in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he would have voted against the compulsory wearing of seat belts. We had passionate debates on that subject when people who thought like my hon. Friend thought that it would be a monstrous interference with individual liberty for people to be compelled to wear seat belts and people should make their own decision about it. The other argument prevailed, and we are saving 600 or 700 lives a year, preventing 10,000 serious injuries a year and saving the National Health Service £8 million or £9 million a year from treating people who would have been severely injured on the roads and might, in some cases, have been human cabbages and taken up beds in national health service wards, which are now available, instead, to other people who need the treatment.
I am, at heart, as much of a libertarian as my hon. Friend, except in health matters. That may sound inconsistent, but my hon. Friend should remember the wise words of Emerson:
"A foolish consistency is the hob-goblin of little minds,"
and …
"Speak what you think to-day in words as hard as cannon balls, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said to-day."
It is a most barren and foolish form of politics for people constantly to try to look for remarks, quotations or attitudes that are in conflict with what someone has said or thought in a different context or at a different time. We have to say what we believe is right at any particular time. It seems monstrous that young babies should not be protected against the risk of diphtheria because they happen to have a misguided mother. It is better to make a few mistakes than to make a lot.
I remind the House that a few years ago we were constantly being told that there were 2,000 deaths a year from cervical cancer in women and being asked why the Government and the House of Commons were not doing more about it. People said that something must be done about it. We have done something about it in the recent legislation. We have introduced targets for general practitioners to ensure that a certain percentage of women have checks, cervical smears and screening against cervical cancer. Now, those same people who were saying that we

1323
must do something about it are beefing and complaining, whining and whingeing—the usual lobby—saying that it is an interference with their professional liberty. We should disregard that sort of lobby and get on with what we believe to be right. It is wrong to pay too much attention to people who complain in that way. In public life, sometimes we must lead public opinion and not just follow it. It is right to do so in this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst, who introduced the debate, was one of the supporters of compulsory seat belts, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Acton. If I may say so, I was also active in that. That was the right philosophy and I regard the prevention of accidents as part of preventive medicine.
Much of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst was devoted to smoking. He is famous for the lead that he has given in that subject. He should have more backing from the House as a whole and from within my party. In an intervention in his speech, I mentioned that it is more difficult to book a non-smoking seat in a crowded aircraft than a smoking seat. I suggested that he should invite the Minister of State for Health to make representations to Ministers with responsibility for transport that there should be international co-operation among Transport Ministers from different countries to remind airlines that they should keep ahead of the public demand for that instead of lagging behind it, and ensure that there are more non-smoking seats available to meet that public demand in view of the decreasing proportion of people who habitually smoke when travelling.
There should be higher taxation on cigarettes. The tax on cigarettes should go up in every Budget systematically and regularly so that over a period of five or 10 years cigarettes become at least relatively twice as expensive as they are. Whenever they have gone up a little, due to tax changes introduced by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, there have been complaints from tobacconists in my constituency, but never by more than three or four of them. People quickly settle down to a 5p or 10p increase in the price of cigarettes. The Government then have the extra revenue to spend on the health service or whatever they and the House believe to be right. I should like the tax to be increased progressively, year by year, until cigarettes become much more expensive. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst that cigarettes should not be included in the cost of living index.
I am greatly concerned about the number of children who smoke, and particularly about girls at school, who seem to smoke more than the boys. I do not know why that is and I would be grateful if anyone could throw any light on it, but it is a worrying trend. I am glad to have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Acton that the Home Office intends to tighten up its regime for the prosecution of shopkeepers who sell cigarettes to minors.
Cancer remains a major cause of death, and within the total figures there has been no significant reduction in the number of deaths from lung cancer. There were 35,000 in 1988, compared with 34,000 in 1981. That remains a great cause for concern because it is preventable to a large extent.
I turn now to heart disease. We are all told these days that we must cut down the proportion of cholesterol in our diets. My hon. Friend's motion refers to
"the widespread dissemination of advice and information."
1324
But in some respects there is not yet enough information about diet. I could not help noticing when there was anxiety about beef three months ago and about eggs 18 months ago—[Interruption.] I must ask my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to whisper a little more quietly as I find her distracting, too—
Mr. Irvine Patnick: That is a sexist attack.
Mr. Jessel: It is not. I am always interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): But the hon. Gentleman would prefer to hear it when the hon. Lady takes the Floor and makes her own speech.
Mr. Jessel: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for your assistance.
I could not help noticing when we heard so much about eggs in the winter 18 months ago or about beef in the spring of this year that hardly anyone mentioned that eggs and beef contain a high proportion of cholesterol, which enters into people's diets.
Fish are another area of diet. We are all told to eat more fish, but there is little reference to shellfish. It is far from clear whether a healthy diet includes shellfish in the same way as it includes flat fish, white fish or oily fish. At least one eminent heart specialist, who is a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, has written that shellfish are just as healthy as white fish and that there is no reason why we should not all eat a large amount of them. But that is not reflected in the information put out by the societies that advise on diet, so there is a conflict of information.
We should remember that if we are told to reduce our intake of milk, cream, butter, cheese, eggs and meat, there is not much left that does not contain those foods. We cannot live all the time on kippers, cabbage and aspirins. If people could include a substantial proportion of shellfish in their diets that would add to the variety of what they can feel free to eat.
There are two main classes of shellfish: crustaceans and molluscs. Crustaceans are crabs, lobsters, shrimps, prawns and crayfish. Molluscs include winkles, whelks—which are described as sea snails on menus in France—clams, mussels, cockles and oysters. It is sometimes suggested that shellfish, whether crustaceans or molluscs, are luxuries, but I see the hon. Member for Peckham in her place, and I hope that she will not mind my mentioning that in 1964 I was the Conservative candidate for Peckham; indeed, I had been the prospective candidate there since 1960, which may well be before she was born. When I was there I had a drink in every pub in Peckham. They then numbered 117, and at least 20 of them had shellfish stalls outside. Peckham is not one of the richest areas in the country, as I am sure the hon. Lady would not deny. The consumption and enjoyment of shellfish was widespread throughout the whole of society in Peckham.
Of course there can be tremendous changes in relative food prices. We all know that salmon has come down in price. I was told by the main fishmonger in Twickenham, Mr. Ray Sandys, that the price of salmon last week was lower than the price of cod. That is absolutely astonishing: no one 10 years ago would have believed it possible. We all know that chicken is now much cheaper than beef, and 50 years ago it was the other way around. The same applies to certain shellfish.

1325
When Lewis Carroll wrote "The Walrus and the Carpenter" in the 1880s, the oysters which feature prominately in that poem were a dish regularly and frequently eaten by working men in London. It would not have been surprising in those days for carpenters to eat oysters; these days, oysters are more likely to be consumed by yuppies. I believe that the wheel will turn full circle because, owing to improved fish-farming methods in Brittany and all along the west coast of France—methods which I hope will be extended to include places like Whitstable and Colchester in this country—the price of oysters has gone down. One can now buy 12 big ones at a fishmonger in Brittany for 20 francs, which is £2. I believe that it will not be long before some enterprising business man finds a way of importing oysters into Britain far more cheaply, so that their dissemination can be much more widely enjoyed among the population as a whole. In the context of preventive medicine, it is all the more important that we should know whether oysters are good for health and ought to be enjoyed as much as possible.
Next, I turn to eels. When we are told by health experts that we all have to eat more oily fish, they invariably mention herrings and kippers, but they make little mention of eels. Jellied eels are a traditional British dish, and they can be bought outside pubs in Peckham and outside a few pubs in Twickenham, which I have the honour to represent.
We should be told whether the consumption of eels ought to be encouraged to promote health, as well as that of kippers and herrings. They are high in calories—that is known—but they are a delicacy that is enjoyed less and less often than used to be the case, because so many people have a snobbish attitude towards eels. They think jellied eels in particular a proletarian dish, although smoked eels are considered more smart or eels in a green sauce, as one would eat them in Belgium or Holland. I want my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to obtain departmental advice, and to let me know in writing whether eels are as healthy as herrings and kippers. I shall make the result of this inquiry known in my constituency.
I now turn to lobsters. I spoke of food farming in relation to oysters which could make them much cheaper here. Recently I was on a visit to Canada, where I was representing the Council of Europe at a conference in Ottawa on global warming and the ozone layer. I flew back via Toronto. There is in the heart of Toronto a restaurant where one can eat as much lobster as one likes for 24 Canadian dollars, which is about £13. It is analogous to the carvery that one might come upon in a British restaurant, where people can eat as much pork or beef as they want for a certain sum.
I went into this place, and I must confess to the House that I ate seven lobsters for 24 Canadian dollars. I had never had more than half a lobster in my life before, so it was a tremendous treat to eat seven lobsters. They told me in that restaurant that the record was 35 lobsters. I did not aspire to emulate that; I might have expired if I had.
I have never felt better than I felt on that occasion. Lobsters have become much cheaper in Canada because there is farming of lobster taking place, either in Hudson bay or Newfoundland—I do not know where exactly. If it takes place there, presumably it can take place around the coast of Scotland and I think that lobster will become much cheaper here in future years. We should be told whether lobsters are a healthy diet so that in future we know, because if we are not told, we shall not know.
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend has several times mentioned fish farming, but I wonder whether this is the best route to healthy eating. Some of the fish farming in Scotland produces, for example, salmon that are fatty because they do not have the proper lifestyle of wild salmon. They do not taste nearly as good, and presumably they are not nearly as healthy for us as wild salmon. I should have thought that the same would apply to lobsters. While I am sure that one and even two lobsters would be a healthy part of one's diet, 35 are probably not.
Mr. Jessel: I did not eat 35, I ate seven. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention because he raises an important point to do with whether farmed salmon are a healthy part of a diet in terms of preventive medicine. As I said earlier, the country has been advised by the Department of Health and oily and fatty fish are good for health, and it mentioned herrings and kippers. I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for advice about eels, but now my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) asks about fatty salmon. He believes that salmon that are farmed are more fatty than salmon caught in the wild on the River Tay. In view of the fact that price of salmon fell last week below the price of cod, the public should be told whether salmon, albeit slightly fatty salmon, is as healthy as other types of salmon or other fatty fish such as herrings, kippers or, dare I say it, eel.
I think that I have said enough about fish and I now turn to the important subject of back pain. The national headquarters of the Back Pain Association is at Teddington, in my constituency, where it was founded by Mr. Stanley Grundy CBE, who happens to be the patron of my constituency Conservative association. He is an industrialist, and he is extremely fit. The Back Pain Association has been running for about 15 years. This is a subject in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) takes a great interest, because he has the Anglo-European College of Chiropractic in his constituency.
I believe that much more can be done to relieve the country of the scourge of back pain, by preventive health measures. People do not usually do anything about back pain until they are hurt and afflicted by it. If only people learnt to bend in the right way when picking up heavy articles, and were trained at an earlier age in physical recreation and physical training classes at school, the incidence of back pain would be greatly reduced. Much can be done to prevent it.
For example, far too many nurses—I mention them in particular because this has to do with the national health service—suffer from back pain because, when they are lifting patients, they do not follow the instructions that they have been given on how to stand or bend their knees when lifting patients or turning stroke patients in bed. Back pain is not a glamour cause in the health service or in the charitable sector, but it afflicts a great many people, and I should like the Government to devote more of their time and resources, and more of their share of the preventive medicine budget, to the prevention of back pain.
Earlier I mentioned fluoride. I used to represent the Greater London council on the Metropolitan water board—when it was the forerunner for Thames Water. I took an interest in the fluoridation of water. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to report to the House, either now or at some convenient time, what progress is being made. The great

1327
law suit in Strathclyde three or four years ago—a case to end all cases, which lasted for many months and took massive medical evidence—clearly established that fluoridation is not only safe but is the most effective measure that can be taken to protect children's teeth. Unfortunately, we are making rather slow progress. I hope that the whole process will be bucked up and that my hon. Friend will give us some information about it. I did not give her notice that I intended to raise the matter, so I should be content to accept a letter from her if it is not convenient for her to reply now.
Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour. Is he aware that the chairman of the anti-fluoridation campaign lives in my constituency? I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend said and I wonder whether he would like to receive correspondence from my constituent, rather than my constituent writing to me.
Mr. Jessel: No, I would not. I have had correspondence from the person in question for some 20 years.
Mr. Sims: Have not we all?
Mr. Jessel: Indeed we have. I admire the gentleman's tenacity, but he never seems to learn anything. He just churns out the same old stuff, and I see no point in reading it again. I do not want to hear from him. Indeed, I once had to threaten to sue him. I hope that the process of fluoridation will now proceed more rapidly.
I was pleased to hear the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery refer to water, because water is the basic foundation of health. A year ago, when water was still nationalised, some horrible green midges appeared in the pools of water waiting to go into the water supply at the waterworks at Hampton. Since water was privatised, those green weevils have not reappeared. That is an argument in favour of the privatisation of water.
I have one complaint about the water administration, and it is that the water pumping station—
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there is a cause and effect relationship between the privatisation of water and the disappearance of those monsters? If so, can he explain why quantities of green algae have now appeared in water sources in Wales?
Mr. Jessel: The green things that appeared in my constituency were not algae; they were midge larvae. They wriggled, they were shown on television and they alarmed a great many people, even though they were perfectly harmless. I do not know whether the algae are harmless, but I am sure that they do not wriggle. They are therefore less likely to bring about fear, anxiety and despondency, and so are a less worrying matter.
I want the waterworks in my constituency to stop sounding a hooter at 9 am. It is a Victorian relic summoning people to work and it annoys those of my constituents who are still asleep—and there are a few. I hope that the chairman of Thames Water will stop the hooter noise forthwith, after which I shall cease complaining about it.
12.49 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman: It is a challenge to follow the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who has much in common with the green things that he found in his water supply: he too is perfectly harmless but frightens many people.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for taking the opportunity provided by his success in the ballot to debate such an important topic, and for drafting a motion with which I and many other right hon. and hon. Members agree. His speech was wide ranging and struck the balance interestingly between private and Government responsibility.
Every individual has a responsibility to take care of themselves, and it is the responsibility of every parent to care for the health of their children. The Government also bear a major responsibility in caring for the nation's health—to promote good health and to prevent ill health—but they are failing to meet it. There has been progress in cutting deaths from preventable disease, but it has been too slow. Heart and liver disease and lung cancer are still major killers, but many deaths from them could be prevented.
We know much more now about the causes of disease and of accidents, and about their prevention. We know of the link between alcohol and liver disease, smoking and lung cancer, poverty and ill health. That knowledge places a moral obligation on the Government, which they should discharge by setting targets for preventive medicine and formulating strategies that will meet them. They should also monitor progress. That will not happen by itself, so the Government must take the lead.
Of course there must be a partnership between individuals, local authorities, health authorities, industry, and the Government, but they must take the lead. The reason they are failing to do so is that all their health initiative and enterprise is bogged down and tied up with their efforts to press ahead with national health service reforms that the public do not want. If one goes to any district health authority or family practitioner committee, one finds it discussing not public health strategy but how it can manage to make ends meet and to implement the Government's ludicrous reforms.
A further obstacle to the Government being the real champion of preventive medicine and good health promotion is their hostility to planning and regulation, which, as other hon. Members have remarked, are a vital element in maintaining public health. Nor are the Government prepared to invest the resources necessary to improve it.
I shall mention some of the aspects involved, though I am afraid that I shall not range as widely as the hon. Member for Twickenham. I hope to shed more light on family planning than he was able to do, but I cannot compete with the hon. Gentleman when it comes to the price of lobsters in Toronto.
Lung cancer, which is caused by smoking, is a major killer. We know that smoking is also a major cause of disability and premature death. Recently, I visited a hospital in my constituency whose patients included those who had just undergone amputations as a result of circulation problems caused by smoking. I went from ward to ward seeing babies born prematurely because their mothers smoked, and adults struggling to breathe as they

1329
tried to talk to me about smoking. The toll that that habit takes on public health is intolerable. The facts and figures, as the hon. Member for Chislehurst said, are appalling.
We did not always appreciate how dangerous smoking can be, but we do now. I remember an advertisement from the 1950s which was shown recently on television. It was a public information advertisement to encourage people to go to see their general practitioner. A woman was invited into the GP's surgery but one could hardly see the GP for the cloud of smoke from the fag he was puffing on. He invited her to sit down and, in order to show how to take it easy in a GP's surgery, and how a GP can set patients at their ease, he offered her a fag, she lit up and the cloud of smoke deepened.
One of the people I met in hospital who had had an amputation said that he was given cigarettes as part of his rations in the armed services. He said that he had not chosen to be a smoker but had become addicted to smoking at a time when information about the link between smoking and ill health was not known.
Now that we have information about the effects of smoking and ill health, we must have clear and unambiguous policies to cut down smoking and prevent ill health. The facts are appalling. In its strategy document for 1990–95 entitled "Strategic Plan", the Health Education Authority says:
"Cigarette smoking is the greatest cause of preventable death and disability in this country. It is estimated that some 110,000 deaths each year in the United Kingdom are attributable to tobacco products. This is the equivalent of one million years of life lost annually."
It is the equivalent of 300 people dying every day from smoking. Smoking causes 90 per cent. of deaths from lung cancer, 90 per cent. of deaths from chronic bronchitis and emphysema and 20 to 25 per cent. of deaths from heart disease.
Smoking rates are still much too high. A total of 32 per cent. of the British adult population are regular cigarette smokers. Worryingly, at the age of 15, 22 per cent. of girls—more than one in five—and 17 per cent. of boys are regular cigarette smokers. We have to act decisively on this issue.
We have to have a target. That target should be to reduce by the end of the century the number of adult smokers from 32 per cent. to 20 per cent. We should aim to cut to 5 per cent. or less the number of children under 16 who smoke. That would be a realistic target. I too support the Parents Against Tobacco initiative which is looking at new ways to deter children from smoking.
We need to have regular increases in the price of tobacco. We should have an advertising levy on tobacco promotion which could be used for health education. Really, we should abolish advertising for tobacco and tobacco products. We know that smoking kills. Why do we still allow advertisements for a product that causes major ill health and death? We should have a total ban on advertising and sponsorship. It is horrifying to see in toy shops toy cars with the name of cigarette companies all over them and during motor racing on television the cars whizz past with highly visible adverts. Cigarette sponsorship runs throughout sport.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Will the hon. Lady say the same about alcohol advertising? Is she saying that a Labour Government would ban advertising of both products?
Ms. Harman: I shall come to alcohol advertising shortly. If the hon. Gentleman reads "Looking to the Future", our policy document, which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), he will see that we are committed to a total ban on advertising and sponsorship. We must be clear about that.
The ceiling for permitted tar yields must be reduced and there should be no Government subsidies, through any Department, for the production, import or manufacture of tobacco products. That will be hard, because the tobacco industry, including the manufacture, importing, sale and supply of tobacco products, accounts for many jobs in this country. However, the Department of Health should not have to pick up the pieces of illness caused by smoking while the Department of Trade and Industry is subsidising the tobacco industry in this country.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most distressing problems at the moment concerns the export of high-tar tobacco products to poorer countries and the promotion by British companies of tobacco in Third world countries? Does she agree that those companies should be rapidly encouraged to adopt product diversification instead of promoting the sale of those dangerous tobacco products to poorer people in poorer countries?
Ms. Harman: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government should have an honest and coherent approach to smoking across all Departments. Smoking cannot be dangerous in this country but safe in the third world. Different Departments should not be pulling in different directions.
There should be more resources for health education targeted at smokers and to prevent people from taking up smoking. We need more training in the risks of smoking for health professionals, and smokers who are trying to give up should be supported and receive counselling.
We also need legislation to control all public and workplace smoking, because that smoking involves a twofold problem. First, non-smokers are smoking passively and that is a problem for everyone, but particularly for people with respiratory diseases and for children. Secondly, workplace and public smoking seems to create the idea that smoking in public is somehow acceptable and that we can expect to see people on buses, in restaurants or at work smoking.
Smoking should not be allowed in day rooms in hospitals. It is an amazing irony that a mother who has given birth prematurely to a low birth weight baby with a health risk as a result of smoking can go and have a fag in the day room. We must have a public health strategy in which the Government take a lead in their role as an employer and provider of facilities and services. Cigarettes should not be sold on health service premises. Selling them there is a contradiction in terms.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) made an interesting point about the sale of cigarettes bearing the House of Commons insignia. I would be interested to hear what the Minister for Health thinks about that.
The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley)indicated dissent.
Ms. Harman: The Minister is shaking her head. It seems that she is going to try to avoid that point. However, I hope that she will consider the matter.
There must be a named individual in each health and local authority to co-ordinate action. Smoking control plans should be part of every local and health authority's strategy.
There has been a great advance in child immunisation, as several hon. Members have said. However, there should be more stringent checks to discover whether children have had the correct immunisations. Those checks should be made when children enter school, because if children have missed out on immunisation before then, they can be caught and their parents can be encouraged to have their children immunised.
The Government must back that kind of service with resources. The Government took up on the excellent MMR vaccination campaign. Obviously, we should aim to stamp out rubella; it can have a terrible effect on a child if its mother had rubella when she was pregnant. That illness is entirely preventable. However, it is ironic that, when the advertising campaign for MMR was at its height, district health authorities were rationing the vaccine because they could not afford it. Parents were told to bring their children back on a different day because there was not enough vaccine available. They were told that, although their children were eligible for vaccination, they were not in the main target group and therefore they should bring their childern back on another occasion. We should take every oportunity to ensure that children have received their immunisations and vaccinations.
More and more stress is being placed on health visitors yet their posts are being frozen as a result of cuts and difficulties with health budgets. Health visitors play a vital role in promoting public health and in encouraging women to have cervical smears and to take their children for vaccinations. They must be an important part of any health promotion strategy. Their posts should not be frozen because health authorities are having financial difficulties.
I should like the Minister to respond to my next point, about vaccine-damaged children and their eligibility for compensation. As I understand it, a child is eligible for compensation only if he or she has suffered 80 per cent. disability. As the compensation scheme does not cost very much in any case—because vaccine damage is rare—it seems unfair that children who have been vaccine-damaged should not be eligible for campensation unless they cross the threshold of 80 per cent. disability.
We know that health inequalities relating to income are as deep as ever. The map of the variations in health and disease patterns shows that the picture remains largely unchanged since the Black report. Our health strategy and our targets for health promotion should focus not only on certain diseases, such as those caused by smoking or alcohol, but on the ill health that exists in different regions and individual cities. We need to set targets for cities and to encourage healthy city projects such as those in Liverpool and Sandwell, and the one that I have visited in Oxford. We need public health profiles so that the agencies concerned and the local community can join in setting and achieving targets to improve the health of their region or city.
Many hon. Members have referred to food safety. Our discussion has ranged across salmonella, botulism, listeria and the problems of a contaminated drinking water
1332
supply. Our knowledge of food safety and of the link between poorly stored food and ill health is growing as food science is becoming more developed and microbiology is telling us more.
The Government should not lag behind. They should see the research as an opportunity. They should not bring in controls reluctantly, only when everybody is screaming and shouting; they should look closely at what science can now tell us about food and ill health, which it could not previously, and be poised to cut the incidence of ill health caused by food.
The Government should not be dragged kicking and screaming to introduce new regulations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston has said, we need a sufficient number of environmental health officers to enforce the regulations, because regulations by themselves have only a limited value if there are insufficient environmental health officers to police them. No local authority has sufficient environmental health officers to ensure that the current law is being complied with, let alone to make the improvements in the regulations that we are seeking.
While I am dealing with food and nutrition, I must emphasise that the low level of breast feeding in this country is a scandal. All the evidence shows that the best food for a child when it is born is its mother's breast milk. However, the companies that produce artificial milk are still giving out free samples of their products in hospital maternity wards. Although that is against the regulations, it is still happening because the milk manufacturers have been clever and have recognised that maternity wards no longer give out packs to new mothers.
In the past, a new mother could take a nappy, some baby lotion or vaseline and some talcum powder from the hospital supplies. The national health service used to provide such things, when it was not so strapped for cash. That is one of the cuts that has taken place. Therefore, milk suppliers provide what are called "bounty boxes" for expectant mothers. In the bounty box there is stacks of commecial advertising material for artificial milk.
Despite the increase in the number of babies being born, the number of maternity beds has been cut. That has led to mothers being discharged sooner after they have their babies. The amount of time that women spend in hospital after having a baby is rapidly decreasing. One of the casualties of that is that women return home with a new baby without having established breast feeding with the support of the midwives in the hospital. The community support of the midwives is the hospital. The community midwife service is too stretched to enable mothers who have nothing wrong with them to establish breast feeding.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Harman: We have an expert on breast feeding; I shall give way.
Mr. Arbuthnot: As the hon. Lady will understand, I am not an experienced breast feeder. Would she cope with the problem by banning the advertising of babies' milk?
Ms. Harman: A Department of Health regulation states that hospitals should not advertise babies' milk. I simply argue that that regulation should be enforced. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. The Minister will confirm that it is already Government policy that milk should not

1333
be advertised in hospitals but that the regulation is not enforced. The milk companies encourage hospitals to break the regulation by offering free samples which hospitals stretched for cash take up.
Mrs. Wise: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's point. Does she agree that the community midwife service needs to be strengthened and that it would be a good thing if new mothers were again given a home help so that they could rest more and give more attention to the baby? That would help in the establishment of breast feeding.
Ms. Harman: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The home help service was introduced to assist mothers with new babies, but it is now almost entirely devoted to the elderly and people with disabilities.
I wish to touch briefly on maternity services. We must increase pre-conceptual care and promote understanding of the issues behind it, but we must also increase the number of women who come forward for ante-natal assistance and screening.
There is still an appallingly high toll from industrial illness and accidents at work. Many of those accidents simply should not happen. There is an unacceptable level of accidents among employees of cowboy builders. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston mentioned repetitive strain injury. Ill-health and disease is caused in the chemical and nuclear industries. Farmworkers are affected by chemicals and machinery used in agriculture.
We need a combination of openness, so that people know and assess the hazards in their workplace, and good inspection by the Government which is properly resourced, so that employers know that, if they breach regulations, there is a substantial chance that they will be discovered and fined. We need unionisation so that management can negotiate with strong unions acting in the interests of their members to ensure their safety.
I wish to touch briefly on ill health caused by poverty. A severe winter always brings an epidemic of hypothermia, which is preventable. The Scandinavian countries, which have far harsher climates, do not experience the increase in deaths by hypothermia that we have in Britain. If people had a decent income, if there were good incentives for insulation and if the cost of fuel was lower, we would not have that unacceptable Dickensian epidemic of death by hypothermia that arises every time that there is a cold winter.
We have too many accidents in the home. We need to have better regulations to ensure that unsafe toys and electrical goods do not reach the market. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston mentioned the safety of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. In her previous incarnation as a social worker, she will have visited families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Such accommodation lacks cooking facilities. The electric kettle is inevitably without a table because there is no space between the beds, and its wire snakes across the floor. That is of particular danger to children. Several families share the same toilet and inadequate washing facilities. They are prone to infectious diseases, such as gastroenteritis. It is a contradiction in terms to claim an interest in public health promotion when so many families live in these squalid, unhealthy hostels for the homeless.
As I came here today, I went down Haygate street in SE17 and saw a touching shrine of a little dog made up of flowers. Obviously, a child has been killed there recently.
1334
Recently I went to Doncaster royal infirmary and chatted to two children who had been hit by a car. We have an unacceptably high level of road accidents. It is ridiculous that, when one argues on behalf of one's constituents for a school crossing, better enforcement of the speed limit or more school crossing attendants, one is told, "Yes, we recognise the need, but you will have to wait because spending restrictions mean that you are 50th in the queue."
We need improvements in public transport and deterrents to private cars—for example, road humps and parking restrictions. Hon. Members have talked about cycling, and it is welcome to see more people wearing cycling helmets. Sometimes cyclists wear elaborate masks because of the appalling pollution in central London and our other cities.
In any accident and emergency department there are people who have injured themselves by falling down when they were drunk. There are people, certainly in my constituency, with punch or stab wounds from being hit by someone who is drunk. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, in court people give as a defence, "I hit him because I was drunk." In every hospital there are people suffering from liver and other diseases caused by drink.
A cut in the volume of alcohol consumed, particularly high consumption, must be a target in improving the nation's health. Alcohol consumption should be cut by 20 per cent. by the year 2000. In particular, we must halt the increasing alcohol consumption by women, reduce consumption among high risk occupational groups and reduce the proportion of the population drinking more than the recommended number of units. The Government have a responsibility in that. Advertising plays an important part. We should have mandatory, clear labelling of alcohol content and the recommended limit on consumption on all containers. There is more information now that even small levels of alcohol can damage health.
Family planning clinics are an important health promotion and preventive medicine resource. The Government are wrong to allow hard-pressed, cash-starved, district health authorities throughout the country to cut those clinics because they are desperate to reach he end of the financial year without going over budget.
Research recently undertaken in Warwickshire showed that 45 per cent. of those presenting themselves for abortions had not used any form of contraception. In the light of that appalling figure, a strategy has been developed in that area with the aim of reducing the number of abortions by a third by the end of the century.
Family planning clinics and sex education are important in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and it is wrong to reduce such services in the face of a possible epidemic of a sexually transmitted disease. Family planning clinics are a good base from which to conduct health and sex education and to provide people with information about sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS.
There are about 180,000 abortions in Britain every year. If nearly half of those involve people who have not used contraception, it is clear that a major objective of the Government should be to reduce the number of people not using contraception.
Giving evidence to the Select Committee, the Secretary of State made an astonishing remark. He seemed to think that family planning had no relationship to contraception

1335
and that contraception had no relationship to unwanted pregnancies. He seemed to think that, in any event, none of that had anything to do with him.
It is difficult to have a sensible strategy to promote good health and prevent ill health when financial spending restraints are placed on the national health service in such a way that the service cannot improve in the way it should. People who are diagnosed as needing heart surgery must wait for that surgery and they become more ill all the time they are waiting. People requiring hip replacements are having to wait, and they suffer immobility and further disability while waiting for their operations.
The same is true of cuts in provisions for the menopause clinic in my constituency at King's College hospital. Menopause, pre-menstrual tension and post-natal depression services all have the aim of preventing situations from deteriorating. It is a false economy to cut their financing. A doctor recently told me, "Unless we can help women suffering the effects of the menopause, many of them will end up as in-patients across the road at the Maudsley." I am sure that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) will have more to say about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston was right to talk about the importance of our commitment to abolish the charges for eye tests and teeth checks. Such checks are major preventive measures against glaucoma, diabetes, brain tumours and many other ailments. The hon. Member for Twickenham seems to appreciate that, if the price of a packet of fags goes up, fewer people will smoke. Yet he seems to think that, if a charge is slapped on eye tests and teeth checks, people will continue to go to the optician and the dentist. That does not make sense.
Does the Minister share my concern about the mushrooming of bogus advertisements for slimming aids, which clearly are not aids for slimming? Numerous magazine and newspaper advertisements urge people to spend their money on such projects, which would either not have any effect or, if they did, would harm people.
Likewise there are a growing number of advertisements for cosmetic surgery. We are constantly told, "Get your nose done," "Get your breasts fixed," "Have a slice taken off your thighs," and "Have a face lift." We do not want to go down the path that they have trodden in the United States, where one sees increasing numbers of elderly women with faces like a baby's skin, stretched thin. The Government should take a view on such matters. It is obscene.
The path that people are encouraged to take—cosmetic surgery for no good reason so that doctors in private clinics can make a fat profit—is wrong. I do not say that there is not a place for cosmetic surgery under the NHS. There are important uses for such surgery, but at present it is turning into a racket, and I promised to say that one need not have a face lift to look young. Look at the hon. Member for Billericay.
I should like the Minister to comment on the adverts about hair loss. There are increasing numbers of adverts encouraging people to spend money on hair transplants that will no doubt mutilate their scalps without making them look as though they have thick hair. Other adverts encourage people to spend money on potions that will allegedly thicken the hair shaft. There are also bogus adverts inviting people to spend money to deal with
1336
memory loss. There are many quasi-medical claims in those adverts. If they are to have a serious and scientific approach to educating people about health and what effects their bodies, the Government should take a stance on such adverts and do something about them because they are becoming a scandal and a rip-off.
The Government must also ensure that there are adequate resources for research. We are able to have a cancer screening service because the research has been done, so that we know how to detect the early signs of cancer and prevent it. We have made major breakthroughs in a number of cancers such as Huntington's disease and childhood leukaemia, but we still need more research to prevent ill health caused by cancer. We need an integrated, comprehensive, well-resourced health service, with local government working in partnership with health authorities, partnerships between unions and management, the Government acting to prevent environmental pollution, and above all, a determination to end the poverty that is the cause of so much ill health.
1.26 pm
The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I shall not follow the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) by ranting about the shortcomings of the private sector and what basically sounded like the need for a national plan. I thought that even her party had abandoned the idea of such a salvation from the difficulties that we faced some years ago. I strongly support the sentiments expressed by many hon. Members who paid a most warm and fulsome tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for his motion and the manner in which he delivered it. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who paid a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst for his non-sermonising Jimmy Young style. That was an excellent description of the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst presented the motion and drew together its main strands.
I shall seek to describe the steps that the Government are taking and the reforms that are already under way in the health service, which for the first time will, we hope, achieve a health service rather than a disease service. It is a recognition of the emphasis that we put on health promotion that a major, central section of the leaflet that we distributed to every household in the country relates to health promotion matters such as looking after the heart and the importance of healthy eating. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) that I fear that it does not cover lobsters, shellfish or eels, but it covers smoking, alcohol and other matters of great concern. It explains in a clear and direct manner how the new reforms will lead to enhanced and better care for our people.
It is well known that health promotion has had a long history. The bible describes dietary laws to prevent disease and contains detailed passages on the control of leprosy. In the middle ages, communities took steps to avoid the plague. Quarantine later helped to control the spread of diseases such as cholera. Modern health promotion stems from the major sanitary revolution of the previous century. I suspect that plumbers, rather than pharmacists or physicians, had the largest part to play in the improvement of health standards of our and other nations.

1337
Sound engineering, the separation of sewage and clean water revolutionised health care and reduced mortality from water-borne diseases such as typhoid and cholera.
The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) referred to housing. The revolutionary concept of having a sink inside the house led to a marked decline in food-borne killing diseases such as infantile diarrhoea. The gradual reduction in overcrowding reduced the airborne infections such as streptococcal disease, rheumatic fever and tuberculosis.
The second era, of medical intervention, dramatically increased people's opportunities of surgical and medical treatment. I refer to the remarkable development of antibiotics and then to the era of vaccination and immunisation, of which more in a moment. The result has been that polio, diphtheria and many of the killer diseases of childhood of the past are scarcely seen in our country any more.
The new challenge is to combat the diseases in which personal responsibility and individual action can play a major part. Heart diseases, strokes and cancers, the great modern killing diseases, are the areas on which so much of our debate today has centred. We know only too well that the key risk factors in strokes overlap with those for coronary heart disease—high blood pressure and cigarette smoking; we know less of the causes of cancer, but cigarette smoking is certainly the cause of 30 per cent. of all cancers in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton spoke about the influence of smoking on other chest diseases, too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst and others mentioned how the developments in the health service are for the first time placing responsibility on district health authorities for analysing and assessing the health needs of their populations. The Acheson report on public health made a major contribution to the way in which we analyse and study public health, as has the appointment of a director of public health in each district health authority with a crucial part to play in carrying forward the district health board's responsibilities to provide for health needs and to draw up contracts. Let no one underestimate the significance of the new and enhanced nature of the role of the district health authority or of the prominence that will inevitably be given to public health matters and the prevention of disease by analysing the needs of the local community and purchasing services to meet those needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst also mentioned the changed nature of the general practitioner's contract. There, too, there has been a marked shift towards recognising the importance of health promotion. I pay tribute to the Royal College of General Practitioners which, in its policy statement in response to our Green Paper "An Agenda for Discussion", said that many of the problems brought by patients to doctors are best understood by the doctors who know the patients as people, who understand their fears and feelings and who know the problems in their daily lives.
More and more the principle of healthy living and much of the management of chronic disease depends on people making changes in the way that they eat, drink and smoke. Personal preventive medicine is now a major feature of the modern health service, and it is logical for people to be offered preventive services in the same place and by the same team as offers them treatment services. Fusing prevention and treatment into comprehensive clinical care is an exciting development in modern practice.
1338
As the House will know, we decided to make health promotion an explicit part of the GPs' new contract. I was interested in the remarks by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile); his role on the General Medical Council, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst, is an important new development. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the collegiate ethos of the Bar and about how that could apply in general practice, thereby registering a point that was also picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot). So often those who cannot gain access to single-handed practitioners might make excessive use of a casualty department.
Our reforms in the recent National Health Service and Community Care Act mean that doctors who choose to become fund holders can invest in their own practices. They can develop services, provide anti-smoking clinics and diet-exercise clinics, and they can make sure that health promotion becomes the key to their work. There will be extra help for the over-75s, who will be offered an assessment of their medical needs. There will be a requirement regularly to assess both current and new patients on doctors' lists.
We are already seeing in practice the effects of that important new work. The general practitioner service—the family practitioner service—is the gatekeeper to the national health service: it is where most people go first when they are worried about their health. It is essential that the key messages from the debate should be echoed by the general practitioners, and by the new groups of practice staff who have been able to join general practice thanks to the investment that the Government have made.
Throughout the health service all members of staff—doctors, for instance, and the health visitors to whom the hon. Member for Preston paid especial tribute—have a role to play. We have seen a dramatic increase in the number of health education officers, from about 200 in the mid 1970s to nearly 700 now. Their job is to ensure co-operation, and to ensure that the messages that are spread from the centre—from the Health Education Authority and others—are properly disseminated.
I should like to refer particularly to the appointment of Professor Michael Peckham as the new director of research and development for the national health service. I think that he will be able to inform and enlighten the service from the top to ensure that the latest research is properly evaluated, and that we draw on those lessons in carrying out our health promotion campaigns.
The major arm of Government, in health promotion and disease prevention, is the Health Education Authority. Since it was established as a special health authority, it has had a substantial increase in funding, and its work in carrying out health promotion is a force for good. Its recent strategic plan for the first half of this decade identifies seven key programmes as priorities for the next five years: HIV and AIDS prevention, and sexual health; "Look After Your Heart"; cancer education; smoking education; alcohol education; nutrition education; and family and child health. All those issues have been raised by hon. Members in the debate.
The plan identified key settings in which the programmes should operate—primary health care, schools and colleges and youth settings. I think that all of us would agree about the importance of education at school in encouraging health promotion. Health Education is a cross-curricular theme in schools. The chief medical officer

1339
has recently had discussions with the chairman of the National curriculum Council to discuss how that can be carried out further. If people can understand the importance of healthy living, of exercise and of avoiding smoking at an early age, it sets a good pattern for life.
The strategic plan for the Health Education Authority also identified the special needs of women and members of the ethnic minorities. We want good health to be available to all groups in our community. The other day I went with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins)—my Parliamentary Private Secretary—to his constituency to meet a group from the Commission for Racial Equality, where we discussed what more could be done to ensure that the ethnic minorities were informed about, and had access to, high-quality health care and services.
Addressing the health needs of elderly people is of major importance, and Age Concern has carried out a considerable amount of work in that area. The Health Education Authority and my Department have been developing—in consultation with health professionals—the concept of a personal health record, which would be provided for GPs to issue to their patients. It is intended to organise a major consultation exercise to examine how those proposals can be implemented.
The idea of a personal health record is a powerful statement in itself. We have just taken through Parliament legislation concerned with access to medical records. It demonstrates a change in culture and attitudes that there is now an expectation that individuals should have their own personal health record. In the past, many felt that they were being denied access to vital information about their own health. That is a message about individual involvement and responsibility.
Many hon. Members spoke about coronary heart disease, prevention of which has to be a high priority for us all. In April 1987, the Department and the Health Education Authority launched a joint "Look After Your Heart" campaign, in response to concern about the high level of coronary heart disease. We know of the success of health education campaigns in other countries with initially far higher rates of death and disability from the disease. The original aim was to increase knowledge of the risk factors for coronary heart disease. In its first three years, the campaign enjoyed considerable success. Although there are other notable campaigns against coronary heart disease, we believe that ours is the first national campaign of its kind in the world. All Health Authorities have been involved in it. "Look After Your Heart" has sponsored more than 270 projects at a cost of over £500,000.
The involvement of the campaign with industry has been a great success. The hon. Member for Preston said that industry believes that it owns its employees body and soul. If that means that employers are increasingly aware of the contribution that they can make by promoting good health and passing on health education messages, that is a welcome development.
I know that this is an interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and there is no doubt that, in the "Look After Your Heart" campaign, an excellent example has been set. Some 300 major organisations, with around 3 million employees, are
1340
actively involved in the campaign, both in the public and private sectors, including large organisations such as ICI and smaller organisations, the TUC and most Government Departments.
The "Heartbeat Award Scheme", which is run in conjunction with local environmental health officers, encourages not only good standards of hygiene but health menus and no-smoking areas in all eating places from canteens to restaurants. Although it was launched nationally only two months ago, already 40 per cent. of local authorities are taking part. Many of the remarks by hon. Members today lead me to think that they will welcome that development and that they understand how vital it is that people should take steps to promote healthier eating and to discourage smoking.
I have had any number of invitations to take up the issue of smoking on aeroplanes with Ministers in the Department of Transport. It would be less than generous of me to fail to do so after the strength of the remarks made on that subject.
The "Look After Your Heart" campaign has also been working with the food industry and last year developed a "Less Fat Fortnight". This year, it will be mounting a month-long promotion called, "Food For the Heart". These are all ways in which a campaign that is determined to meet with success can draw together people from the public and private sectors and from Government Departments. It is vital that they work successfully together. The campaigners have worked continuously with the National Forum for Coronary Heart Disease Prevention and the coronary Prevention Group to inform and enlighten their work further.
In that context, I am pleased to announce that we are able to give further section 64 resources this year to the Chest, Heart and Stroke Association, which we shall be funding to the tune of £35,000 this year and £36,000 in each of the following years for the important work that it does in promoting nurse facilitators associated with doctors' practices, particularly in the north of England, to make sure that the lessons on heart disease are fully incorporated and understood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst mentioned the recent report of the standing medical advisory committee on whether opportunistic cholesterol testing can make a cost-effective contribution to combating heart disease. Copies of the report are available in the Library and a consultation period is under way. I hope that my hon. Friend and others will contribute to those consultations.
Another subject that has been the source of a great deal of comment today is smoking. The effects of smoking are devastating, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst made clear. Each year, it kills more than 100,000 people and costs the NHS around £500 million. What it costs in forgone earnings, and in personal misery and bereavement can scarcely be accounted for in terms of money. The habit accounts for millions of days of absence from work. It is a staggering toll in both human misery and cost.
There can be little doubt that if cigarettes were introduced today, their production and sale would probably be banned, but the habit has a 400-year history of acceptance and approval and it is too firmly established for a ban to be imposed now. However, when new tobacco products are introduced in the United Kingdom, we can

1341
consider a ban. Indeed, at the end of last year we responded to the evidence that oral snuff products were linked with mouth cancer by banning their sale.
We can and do use the law to protect children. Tribute has been paid to the "Parents Against Tobacco" campaign and discussions are taking place on how further we can strengthen the law to ensure that young children do not gain access to cigarettes and tobacco products. It is not only a question of the law; it is a question of public perception and social accountability. The more that can be done to make the sale of tobacco products to children unacceptable and offensive, the better. That is certainly an area in which the good will of the campaign is important.
Smoking harms not only the smoker. As hon. Members said, there is a growing rejection of the effects of passive smoking. There is an increasing demand for smoke-free areas, both in public places and in the workplace. We welcome that change in public attitudes. I shall take up the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton and ask the Health Education Authority to accept his invitation to draw up guidance on passive smoking for general distribution.
Another important plank in the Government's response to the grave health risk posed by tobacco has been to strengthen and refine the system of voluntary agreement with the industry. As hon. Members will know, recent developments in the European Community mean that there must be changes, and we are still considering the implications of some of the latest directives. We are all committed to ensuring that smoking is reduced, that there are proper controls over advertising, and that needless deaths are avoided at all costs.
Nutrition has also been a subject for debate today, and it has been a long-standing debate over recent months and years. I cannot furnish my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham with detailed replies on all the various products that he identified, such as eels, oysters, herring, kippers, salmon and so on. However, I can give him some good news. Next week the Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Health Education Authority will jointly issue joint guidelines for a healthy diet. They are intended to be exactly what hon. Members wish—a clear statement of guidance about healthy eating and the importance of nutrition, to try to develop a sense of coherence and understanding in an area that is easily moved to emotion rather than common sense. "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" is an old maxim. The importance of diet for health cannot be understated.
I want to speak briefly about the importance of alcohol. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, who spoke about the effects of alcohol not only in terms of disease and illness, but in terms of crime, and especially domestic violence. I am closely associated with a Minister who is committed to the eradication of drinking and driving. He has been most successful in making people think through the dangers of drinking and driving. We could spread the message more widely.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President currently chairs the ministerial group on alcohol misuse. In launching "National Drinkwise Day" this year, he said most aptly that alcohol can either be a good friend or a bad enemy. We all know of the many circumstances in which alcohol makes a very bad enemy.
My right hon. and learned Friend co-ordinates that group, which draws together Ministers from different
1342
Departments to ensure that policies are developed and initiatives planned in a co-ordinated way. A report describing the progress that has been made in combating alcohol misuse will be published early next year. When sensible drinking rules are breached, that poses a serious threat.
In our proposals announced this week for phasing in the implementation of community care, a commitment was made to introduce a specific grant for the treatment of those with drug and alcohol misuse problems, which demonstrates the seriousness with which we view alcoholism. Alcohol Concern provides an important service in that regard. The Government are funding it to the tune of £500,000 this year, but by 1992–93 that figure will rise to £2.5 million.
Little mention has been made of the dangers of drug misuse, but we are committed to ensuring not only that supplies from abroad are reduced but that enforcement is effective, that there are strong deterrents, and that improved rehabilitation treatment is available. Above all, we want education and prevention to be spread as widely as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, the hon. Members for Preston and for Peckham, and others, mentioned child health. We have seen a dramatic reduction in infant mortality, from 12.8 per 1,000 live births in 1979, to 8.4 in 1989. Perinatal mortality fell from 14.7 per 1,000 births in 1979 to 8.3 in 1989. The figures are now at an all-time low, and that achievement is a source of considerable pride. However, none of us is satisfied that we have gone as far as we can. We must encourage every group and community throughout the country to take every possible step to ensure that children benefit from all the advantages of modern health care.
Immunisation rates have also dramatically improved, from 85 per cent. to 89 per cent. between 1985 and 1990, provisionally, in respect of tetanus, diphtheria and polio. Immunisation against measles improved from 68 per cent. to 88 per cent. in just five years, and against whooping cough from 65 per cent. to 82 per cent. That is a remarkable and impressive achievement.
Our efforts will not stop there. Recently, we published a handbook, "Immunisation Against Infectious Disease", which has been sent to all doctors and health visitors. It reminds them of the continuing importance of the immunisation campaign. In September, we shall launch with the Health Education Authority a further publicity campaign, "Immunisation, the safest way to protect your child", which will carry forward that work. We have learnt the lessons of the past as to how easy it is to allow a campaign to become forgotten. The momentum must be kept up, and there is no better way of doing that than the commitment in the general practitioner contract to provide an incentive for GPs who go out of their way to ensure that the children on their lists are properly immunised. Again, we are seeing important and impressive results already, which will lead to further improvements in child health.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Peckham's remarks concerning maternity services, which have continued to show a considerable improvement. This week, I was pleased to speak at the annual conference of the Royal College of Midwives, when I emphasised that our maternity services provision is based, as it has been for the past 10 years, on the reports of the Maternity Services Advisory Committee, and that we recognise the

1343
importance of the continuity of the midwife's role and of a coherent and integrated service. Those are precisely the policies that we shall be pursuing. The process of contracting is being examined carefully in two areas—Maidstone and Lewisham. I have invited the Royal College of Midwives to discuss the effects on maternity services, to ensure that all the aspects about which it may have concerns are properly addressed.
To pay tribute to the midwives, only this week they launched a new video on "Rights and choice in maternity care" particularly intended to ensure that those from ethnic minorities receive the services and are aware of the importance of protecting their child as they approach childbirth and in the months afterwards. It was funded by the Department and is an excellent and professional video. It will be a force for good.
The hon. Member for Peckham mentioned breast feeding. We recognise the importance of breast feeding and have been involved in a joint initiative funding three voluntary groups. We are determined that the messages should be carried forward because, as the hon. Lady said, there is no doubt that breast feeding in the early stages can make an important impact on health, apart from the relationship that develops between the mother and child.
I should not be doing justice to the great programme of work that the Government have been undertaking if I did not refer to the important breast and cervical cancer screening programme. We are the first country in the Community to introduce a nationwide breast and cervical cancer screening programme based on inviting women by computerised call and recall. We have been setting the pace in terms of preventive health care for women.
There is no doubt that on the basis of the Forrest report on breast cancer screening and the inter-collegiate report on cervical cancer screening, early detection and intervention can mean that many lives will be saved. It is vital that throughout the country women should accept the invitation for a test and ensure that the family practitioner committee is aware of any change of address. They should ensure that in following up their invitation they encourage others to do the same. It is a waste of resources to have failed appointments but, my goodness, it may be a waste of years of a woman's life if she fails to take up the appointment. We know, sadly, that the vast majority of those who have died from cervical cancer have never been screened or have not been screened in the recent past. It is possible to save lives and to promote health.
Concern has been expressed by some about the availability of results. There has been a substantial increase in those going for cytology testing but I can assure the House that about 80 per cent. of results come through within the four weeks in which health authorities are asked to provide them. We are looking carefully at local authorities where there may be difficulties or delays.
This is an important programme, which is a force for good for women. It is backed up by the GP contract, where the incentive is such that we are going out of our way to encourage GPs to ensure that the women on their lists have taken advantage of screening. We have also asked the national co-ordinating network for the cervical screening programme to ensure that the lessons that are learnt in terms of the fast implementation of the programme are properly disseminated throughout the country.
1344
Women are a particularly important group, not only in terms of the health issues that affect them, but in terms of their role so often as the communicators about the health service within their families. They are often the gatekeeper to the health service for their family. They are often responsible for their family's food habits and many of their social habits and the way in which they conduct their lives. It is right to make a special effort to inform and work with women's organisations to ensure that those messages are spread.
I regularly have meetings with a series of women's organisations to ensure that all those lessons are properly understood and that they take steps to inform their members. I have meetings with the National Council of Women for Great Britain, the British Federation of University Women, the Townswomen's Guilds, Women's Gas Federation, the Fawcett Society, the Business and Professional Women's Federation, the National Federation of Women's Institutes and the National Association of Women's Clubs. Not only are women so often the gatekeepers to the health service, setting the tone for their families, but the majority of health service workers are women, so they play a particularly important part.
I must briefly refer to a subject that has been strangely absent from our debate. More resources are spent on AIDS by the Health Education Authority than on anything else. It would be unacceptable for any Government to fail to recognise the great importance of that major modern threat to public health. For a disease for which there is no known cure, prevention and education—the theme of the motion before us—must be fundamental.
We are committed to a programme of prevention, to monitoring, surveillance and research and also to treatment, care and support. Dramatically and significantly, those in the groups most affected by AIDS seem to have been able to change their behaviour as a result of health education messages. It is easy for us to agree what the messages should be, but it is much harder to turn those messages into action in terms of diet, sexual behaviour, smoking or drug addiction.
We have launched a further publicity campaign about AIDS and HIV. It is important that we have introduced an anonymous screening programme and before long it will be possible to debate the subject on the basis of facts rather than fiction. Sometimes the debate on AIDS seems to suffer from too much heat and too little light. However, we continue to give AIDS a very high priority, working closely with the Health Education Authority.
I have not been able to respond to all the points that have been raised. If hon. Members feel that I have not covered their points, perhaps I can write to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst asked about the progress that we are making on the European region of the World Health Organisation's "health for all by the year 2000 targets". We have been making good progress in several areas, particularly on cardiovascular disease and infant mortality. We are doing as well as any on accidents. The next formal response is due in 1993. However, those matters are carefully monitored by the Department's central health monitoring unit. I shall ensure that we look carefully to see whether there are any other ways in which the information can be provided before the next formal reporting date.

1345
This has been an important debate, with many thoughful and considered contributions. I hope that I have left the House in no doubt that the Government take enormously seriously the challenge that confronts us. We believe that our proposals for reform in the national health service will ensure that health promotion and disease prevention are given the proper consideration that they deserve and that we will indeed well and truly have established a national health service.
2.3 pm
Mr. Simon Coombs: Since this debate started about four and a half hours ago, more than 100 of our fellow citizens have died of coronary heart disease. To put it another way, every day in this country a number equivalent to a Boeing 747 jumbo jet full of passengers die from that crippling disease.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on moving his motion and I thank him for the opportunity to debate this subject. This debate has ranged widely over the whole question of health promotion and illness prevention. I shall concentrate on one aspect—coronary heart disease. It is particularly appropriate to discuss this issue now, just after the third anniversay of the establishment of the Health Education Authority, the "Look after your heart" campaign, the publication of its five-year plan, "Beating heart disease in the 1990s" and the recent publication of the report on cholesterol testing by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members.
Much has been said in the debate and both inside and outside the House on many occasions about the incidence of coronary heart disease, what causes it and where it is likely to he found in the United Kingdom. The four countries of the United Kingdom have an appalling record with this disease. Of the top six countries in terms of the incidence of coronary heart disease, four are Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. The other two are Finland and Czechoslovakia. Naturally, I welcome the progress that has been made in the past three years, but we started late on the journey and we have a lot of catching up to do.
I should like to give the House one or two pieces of information about the incidence of coronary heart disease in this country. In Scotland, for example, the Scottish Medical Journal says that people in social classes 3, 4 and 5—especially men—are "closely associated" with a high mortality rate. Male unemployment is also strongly associated with coronary heart disease death rates. A Whitehall study of civil servants showed that men in the lowest grades, including messengers, had three times the coronary heart disease mortality rate of men in the highest grades, the administrators. The Health Education Authority has said that a man's unemployment is a strong predictor of his subsequent risk of getting coronary heart disease and that unemployment is more significant than any other risk factor. Coronary heart disease is more prevalent among manual rather than professional social groups. A man in social class 5 has nearly three times the chances of dying prematurely from coronary heart disease than a man in social class 1.
However, it is only fair to say that coronary heart disease death rates are falling fast in the younger age groups. Since 1972 death rates from coronary heart disease
1346
in England and Wales in the 35 to 74 age group have fallen by 18 per cent. for men and 11 per cent. for women. That seems good, until one compares it with the decreases in other countries such as the United States and Australia, where the decreases are three or four times greater than those which I have just quoted. In the past 15 years, reductions in coronary heart disease mortality rates for women aged 35 to 44 have been nearly seven times greater than for women aged 55 to 64, and two and a half times greater than the rate for men. It is undoubtedly true that mortality rates are falling faster in the younger age groups than in the ones that I have quoted.
Much has been said inside and outside the House about the location of high rates of mortality from coronary heart disease and about the north versus the south. According to the figures, Scotland and Northern Ireland have high incidences, with the north-east, the north-west, Merseyside, Yorkshire, the Trent area and the west midlands all having high figures; but so—it must be said—have the east end of London, Plymouth and Cornwall. We should not talk about a north-south divide in coronary heart disease, nor should we say that simply because someone happens to be of a certain age and class, he is certain to contract the illness.
However, what has to be said—I echo the comments at the beginning of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst—is that it is up to the individual to decide whether to have a healthy life style. There is no reason why people on a low income, for example, should not eat wisely. The food that is harmful to diet is often more expensive than that which is good for the diet, but it is rejected.
I support my hon. Friend the Minister in saying that in 1990 we are more likely to perish of a self-inflicted disease than from a contagious disease. That is a complete reversal of the situation 100 years ago. In 1890 we were likely to die of cholera, typhoid or another of the water or air-borne diseases. That it is not so today is a triumph for technology, engineering and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, plumbers. Today our lives are literally in our own hands, not in those of others or of the environment.
It has already been said that we spend a relatively small amount of public resources on prevention of coronary heart disease. We spend about £10 million a year in England and Wales. Let us set that against the cost of treating coronary heart disease, which is £500 million a year. Another even more alarming statistic is that 40.5 million working days are lost in Britain as a result of the disease. That represents 11.6 per cent. of all the days of sickness. That lost production costs £1.8 billion a year. Yet we spend only £10 million encouraging people to avoid the habits which lead to coronary heart disease.
The Public Accounts Committee in its report last year, just 13 months ago, said:
"We are concerned at the stark contrast between the levels of expenditure on the prevention and treatment of coronary heart disease. We conclude that our examination illustrates our predecessors' concerns about the Department's failure to evaluate the full potential for spending on prevention to save on treatment costs."
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, what more we can do to counter that charge? I listened with interest to what she said, of course, and I recognise that more is being done, but we are not yet doing enough to counter coronary heart disease.
There are two main causes of the disease—diet and smoking. There is a third cause—alcohol—but in view of

1347
the time I shall restrict myself to a few remarks on the first two. The major factor in diet is an excess of fat in the diet of ordinary British men and women, particularly of saturated fats. We were told six years ago by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food that such consumption should not exceed 35 per cent. of total energy intake. But the figure remains above 40 per cent., despite all the best efforts of experts and politicians to advise people to reduce their intake of saturated fat.
There has been a slight improvement from saturated to unsaturated fat, but the total amount of fat in the diet is still far too high. It is true that people consume less butter, milk and red meat and have changed to semi-skimmed and skimmed milk. But when I hear people say, "Oh well, we cannot afford to eat the things that the experts tell us to eat", I look at the price of 250 grammes of butter. It is two and a half times the equivalent cost of 250 grammes of margarine. So it can be done.
Smoking accounts for approximately 20 per cent. of deaths from coronary heart disease in Britain. Those who have hypertension, are overweight or have high blood cholesterol are more likely to contract the disease than others. The risk is two and a half or three times greater for smokers than for non-smokers. In men under 45, 80 per cent. of heart attacks are due to smoking cigarettes.
It is even more appalling that schoolchildren aged between 11 and 15 are taking up smoking. In that age group 7 per cent. of boys and 9 per cent. of girls smoke regularly. There is tremendous public support for reducing the level of smoking. A recent survey showed that 82 per cent. of the population supported banning smoking completely in restaurants; 72 per cent. supported a ban in banks and post offices; and 70 per cent. supported a ban at work. Even 42 per cent. of the population said that they would support a complete ban on smoking in pubs. That is a substantial and remarkable figure. Seventy-four per cent. of hon. Members support bans on smoking on public transport, 63 per cent. support bans on smoking in school buildings and 60 per cent. support bans on smoking in shops. The will is there. We must translate it into action.
In 1987 "Look After Your Heart" produced a guide to healthy eating. It recommended the need to cut down on fat, sugar and salt and to eat more fibre-rich foods and plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables, to go easy on alcohol—a weak way of putting it—and to get plenty of variety in food. As my hon. Friend the Minister has already spoken, perhaps later she will let me know how many copies of the guide were produced and what happened to them. What monitoring was done to see whether they went to the people who needed to read them? Although a large proportion of people think about what they eat and try to eat healthily, a substantial proportion of them ignore advice and dismiss any suggestion as ludicrous. They are the ones who are at risk from this killing disease. Clearly, we must do far more to get the message across to those who, until now have been deaf to it or have refused to listen.
Unless we tell people the contents of food, it is unlikely that they can make the right choice of what they should eat. The Standing Medical Advisory Committee estimates that if every adult adopted its dietary recommendations, those needing clinical supervision due to elevated blood pressure would decrease by two thirds. Information on
1348
blood pressure and diet would influence public attitudes and behaviour, thereby influencing good manufacturers' approach to labelling.
Professor John Goodwin, the chairman of the National Forum for Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, recently said:
"To help achieve a healthy diet, we need compulsory food labelling so that people can put into practice the advice given in the healthy eating leaflets."
How much longer will we talk about food labelling? Surely the time has come for action. We are in the middle of yet another consultation period, this time involving all the European Community countries. We should be taking a lead in those talks. For the benefit of producers, manufacturers and, most important, consumers, we need to bring the talking to an end as quickly as possible and make it abundantly clear to the population exactly what they are eating so that those who wish to make the right decisions can make them in the full-knowledge of what they are buying.
This month the SMAC published its report on blood cholesterol levels. It states:
"An elevated level of blood cholesterol is one of the chief factors which lead to an increased risk of coronary heart disease…Some programmes of opportunistic blood cholesterol testing and treatment have the potential to make a cost-effective contribution to CHD prevention, whilst others are likely to perform less well."
We have some decisions to make following the consultation and I hope that we make the right ones. The committee suggests that doctors give priority to high-risk categories, such as those with high blood pressure, smokers, diabetics, people with a family history of CHD or hyperlipidaemia, and those who already have CHD, and in particular that high priority should be given to people with more than one of those symptoms. The committee states:
"If blood cholesterol testing and treatment programmes are to remain cost-effective the proportion of prescribed drugs must be kept to a minimum by careful dietary counselling."
I say amen to that. Let us not get into the position where GPs, faced with a patient who has a high level of blood cholesterol, simply prescribe pills to help get rid of it. This is crucial. We must not turn another group of people into pill pushers. The answer lies in the life style and the diet of the people, not in having people think, "I can eat, drink and smoke what I like because a magic pill will put it all right." Unless we get that right, the NHS will have another problem with its drugs bill.
To give an example of what it could cost, if the figures for people with high levels of cholesterol in their bloodstreams in this country are anything like the figures in the United States—the evidence suggests that, in all probability, the figures here are much higher than those in America—we could be talking about well over £1 billion a year for the drugs needed to bring blood cholesterol down to safe and acceptable levels. I cannot believe that such expenditure is the answer to the problem that undoubtedly lies ahead.
The opportunity to do the testing of cholesterol levels on GPs' patients must be grasped. We must ensure that GPs have the training to be able to cope with those who come to them presenting high levels of blood cholesterol so that they can give the right advice about the diet and life style necessary to bring down cholesterol levels.
There is no doubt that physical activity and exercise can help to reduce obesity, blood cholesteral and blood pressure. Again, men and women in professional groups are more likely to go in for physical activity in their leisure

1349
time than are men and women in unskilled manual groups. So the people who are eating the wrong foods are likely to be doing nothing about it in terms of taking exercise.
In socio-economic groups A and B, 15 per cent. said in a recent survey that they had taken no exercise the previous week, compared with 35 per cent. in group E, who similarly said that they had taken no exercise. Nearly twice as many people in socio-economic groups A and B went running or jogging than those in C2, D and E groups.
Younger people said that they exercised to feel fitter. Older people said that they exercised for health reasons. In either case, it was predominately the people who were already eating more sensibly who were taking more exercise, rather than those who were taking risks with their diets or life styles.
We must also consider the younger section of the population, those at school eating school meals. The national forum for CHD prevention has demanded national nutritional standards, and I support its call. School meals account for a third of children's energy intake, and 45 per cent. of that comes from fat, well above the levels recommended by the experts to whom we turn for advice.
Two years ago the Government introduced the FEAST—fun eating at school today—campaign, which was designed to promote healthy eating and attract as many pupils as possible to eat healthy, nutritious school meals.
The problem with a debate such as this—we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst for initiating it—is that it is answered by a Health Minister, and we are grateful for her presence. But we see no sign of Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or from the Department of Education and Science, both of which have a key role in the promotion of healthy living. I hope that that message will be passed to those Departments, although I welcome on the Front Bench my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Department; the Home Office is always anxious to see that we are looked after in every possible way.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Coombs: It is essential to check what youngsters at school are eating and to make sure that they do not eat the wrong foods, and I hope that the message that was given to me last year by the former Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher)—that the Government were anxious to see local authorities taking up the chance to participate in the FEAST campaign—means that that campaign continues and has the Government's support.
With regard to home economics and health education, it is crucial that the new national curriculum should take into account the need to teach children how to look after themselves when they grow older and have responsibility for themselves and their children. Having looked at the national curriculum guidelines, I am not entirely satisfied that the emphasis is sufficiently clearly placed on the need for healthy eating and cooking with unsaturated fats. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to pass on the message to the Department of Education and Science about the need for action on that.
I congratulate the Government on what they have achieved so far. I hope that nothing that I have said in the past 20 minutes or so gives the impression that I do not
1350
welcome the progress that has been made. I believe, in concert with large numbers of people outside the House, that we still have a great deal to do to beat coronary heart disease. Other countries have tackled the problem and produced major reductions in the number of people suffering from CHD.
Last year, the Public Accounts Committee said:
"We are also concerned at the varying levels of local commitment to the heart disease prevention programme in England, and by the slowness of the Department of Health in obtaining essential monetary information from health authorities."
We must continue to monitor the work of local health authorities in this matter because some of them are doing a great deal more than others. I pay tribute to my health authority in Swindon, which is well advanced. Not all the others have managed to achieve the same amount of progress in the past three years.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Coombs: I shall stop in a moment, if my hon. Friend will allow me.
I welcome the large number of projects related to looking after the heart that are being undertaken, particularly the Allied Dunbar national fitness survey. That company, which is located in my constituency, has taken an important lead.
In relation to food and its impact on health, I hope that the Houston initiative on the common agricultural policy of the European Community will be given every encouragement to succeed—principally and ideally through the end of the CAP. It is ludicrous that we are spending 800 million ecu on community support for the tobacco industry in Europe, when tobacco is a killer drug.
The CAP does not mention food or consumers, only farmers. We must remember that there are more consumers in every constituency in Europe than there are farmers. They are the people who will count in the future. We need to promote greater consumer confidence in food safety. I welcome the National Farmers Union suggestion of an independent food assessment and monitoring body; it deserves careful consideration. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to be unremitting in her efforts to secure more money from Treasury Ministers to enable the prevention of coronary heart disease to continue in the future, with an ever greater determination to beat that dreadful disease.
2.28 pm
Mr. Sims: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak again.
I thank all those who have spoken in the debate It has been time well spent. I appreciated the kind comments about my initiative in tabling the motion. I am sorry that our proceedings were interrupted by a statement over which we had no control, which has precluded two or three of my hon. Friends who were anxious to contribute to the debate from doing so. That is unfortunate, but that is how things happen in Parliament, and we have to take the rough with the smooth.
I hesitate to refer specifically to any of the speeches because all of them either picked up points that I had touched on or elaborated on others which simply due to lack of time, I had been unable to mention. I hope that the debate has brought home to hon. Members and the country the importance of preventive medicine and what

1351
we can do to promote our good health. I particularly appreciated the comprehensive reply by my hon. Friend the Minister, who covered a great deal of ground in a relatively short time. It will be interesting to hear whether she has more to tell us about the extraordinarily fishy speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel).
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have supported me in the debate and I hope that the message that I was endeavouring to put across—that individuals have responsibility for their own health, and that the Government have a responsibility to take measures to promote good health and disseminate information—has got through to the House and to the country. I am grateful for the opportunity to have had this debate.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day
  Private Members' Bills

    CONSUMER GUARANTEES BILL
    Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Consideration of Lords amendments deferred till Friday 19 October.

    ROAD TRAFFIC (TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS) BILL
    Order read for further consideration of Lords amendments [6 July].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Second Reading what day? No day named.

    SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Third Reading [6 July].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because the same issue will arise several times, can you tell us which dates if any are available, given that there appears to be some confusion about which days can be named?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that, because it might help our proceedings. The answer is that there is no further time available in this Session for private Members' Bills.

    PROTECTION OF BADGER SETTS BILL
    Order read for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee).
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Consideration deferred till Friday 19 October.
    Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears that everyone is now saying that no one objected—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There was an objection.
    Mr. Ken Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think I saw—

    RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    PENSIONERS' TELEVISION LICENCES BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    BAN OF IMPORTS (CHILD LABOUR) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    FORMER CABINET MINISTERS (INTERESTS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    TRADE UNION ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    SAFETY IN CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUNDS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    COMMUNITY CHARGE (LANDLORD AND TENANT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    COMPUTERS (COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    HUMAN RIGHTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    WRITTEN CONSTITUTION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    FUEL AND ENERGY PROVISION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    POLL TAX (ABOLITION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    LOCAL AUTHORITY PLAYING FIELDS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    CONTROL OF TOXIC WASTE RESIDUES BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    DRUG TESTING (SCHOOLS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTORAL REFORM BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    FORMER MINISTERS (INTERESTS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (PROTECTION OF GREENFIELD SITES) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    BEACHES AND COASTLINE (REGULATION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    SAFEGUARDS FOR RESIDENTS IN REGISTERED HOMES BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    ADOPTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    DOGS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    PRIVATE SECURITY (REGISTRATION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    MOTOR TRADE (CONSUMER PROTECTION) BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    TRADE UNION ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE BILL
    Order for Second reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    CONTROL OF DETERGENT POLLUTION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Ever hopeful—now, Sir.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Hughes: 13 October, Sir.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a non-sitting day. We had better make it 19 October.
    Mr. Hughes: 15 October, Sir. That is our first day back.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday 15 October.

    POLL TAX (RESTORATION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    RAPE IN MARRIAGE (OFFENCE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITION OF USE BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    DECLARATION OF WAR AND COMMITMENT OF TROOPS ABROAD (CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On behalf of the hon. Member concerned and all peace-loving peoples, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Corbyn: In deference to the warmongers, 19 October.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.

    PRESCRIBED DRUGS (COMPENSATION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    ABOLITION OF FOX-HUNTING BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 October.
    Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am in no way challenging what you have said, but Opposition Members heard not a word when the title of the Protection of Badger Setts Bill was read out. In view of the earlier experiences of some hon. Members. I understand why others do not wish to be associated with objections to that Bill. Nevertheless, will the hon. Member who objected—if indeed it was an hon. Member—identify himself or herself? Will he or she at least have the courage to admit it, so that we can all see who it was?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House know very well, we have been round this course many times before. The procedure is well established: one objection stops a Bill proceeding any further, and—whether it happens at 2.30 pm on a Friday, at 2.30 pm on a main sitting day or at 10 pm—no hon. Member need identify himself in such circumstances.
    Let me also remind the House that an objection does not necessarily mean that the hon. Member concerned objects to the Bill; he may simply be objecting to the Bill going through a stage without any discussion or debate.
    Mr. Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully understand that, but there is some confusion on these occasions. People are objecting to Bills, of trying to move Second Reading motions for Bills that have already been passed. There is a general climate of confusion.
    All the hon. Members who were in the Chamber at the beginning of the process through which we have just gone are still present; none has admitted to objecting to the Protection of Badger Setts Bill. It could well be, Sir, that you heard something that was not actually said. No one is admitting to having objected.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue the matter any further. As I say, this is a well-trodden path.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am somewat surprised at the Opposition's concern. Opposition Members objected to three Bills that have received general consent in the House—the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill, whose Second Reading I moved, the Sexual Offences Bill and the Radioactive Materials (Road Transport) Bill. The Road Traffic (Temporary Provisions) Bill was objected to by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) if a fit of pique because his Bill was objected to before.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have let hon. Members on both sides of the House get the matter off their chests and we must now move on.

Bangladeshi Communities
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful—
Mr. Ken Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now cutting into the time for the Adjournment debate. I am sure that he does not want to do that.
Mr. Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that we can be encouraged by the prospect that we might get further with this subject than we did with the ones set down for consideration earlier.
I am pleased to have secured at last an opportunity to debate the needs of the Bangladeshi community in Britain. I say that because, like other hon. Members, I have got this opportunity by lottery and one can apply often without success.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Could not the hon. Gentleman have persuaded his party to take one of the Supply Days that it is allocated to debate this matter?
Mr. Hughes: That is true. Had we more than about two days a year, we might have been able to find some time, but we have little time. My party has discussed the possibility of debating the matter, but the Government and the Labour party have far more opportunities than we do and have never used them to debate this subject.
Specifically, we could have debated this subject at any time since December 1986. I say that conscious that much of the work done by Committees does not get debated in the Chamber. But the Home Affairs Select Committee reported nearly four years ago on Bangladeshis in Britain. It investigated the Bangladeshi community, reported and made a series of recommendations because it believed, and this belief was confirmed by its report, that the Bangladeshi community is "considerably the most disadvantaged" of Britain's minority ethnic communities.
For example, the Committee found that Bangladeshis live in some of the worst accommodation of any community, and that 78 per cent. of 15-year-old Bengali speakers are not fluent in English. The Committee called that an "educational and social disaster". It also found that many Bangladeshis are unskilled and that the percentage of unskilled workers among Bangladeshis is much higher than in any other group and that many Bangladeshi women have a high incidence of depressive illnesses. It concluded that it is even unclear how many Bangladeshis live here.
Those concerns have led me to introduce this debate, so that we can consider the range of social provisions that we afford—or, sadly, too often do not afford—to people who come from Bangladesh to make their home here with us. They come from a country that is one of the most disadvantaged in the world in its own right, because of its geography and because it lacks natural resources.
The Government responded to the Select Committee report in July 1987. There was then a follow-up check by the Home Affairs Select Committee. I now challenge the Government on what has been done about the recommendations of the Select Committee.

1359
For me, and I am sure that I speak for other hon. Members, the Bangladeshi community is a welcome addition to the complexity of our society. The figures are unclear, but there are over 100,000, and perhaps approaching 150,000, of them. They are to be found mainly in a few cities and towns and there are more in Tower Hamlets than anywhere else. I therefore particularly welcome to our debate the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who is a former Secretary of State for the Environment and has shown a career-long concern in this community for which we are grateful.
Other large towns and cities have large numbers of Bangladeshis, too—Birmingham, Luton, Oldham, Bradford and, in London, Camden and my borough of Southwark. I know from my dealings with those in my community and elsewhere that they are a committed, industrious and persuasive people in terms of what they want to contribute. I had that confirmed by the privilege that I had last year of visiting Bangladesh for the first time. I was lucky to go with three of my Liberal Democrat colleagues from Southwark—Councillor Anna McGettigan, Martin Downs and Paul Hobbs. We went for almost a fortnight and had a fascinating and informative time. I had always taken the view that I could not properly represent Bangladeshi and Bengali-speaking people without visiting the country from where they came, and I am very glad to have done that.
Unfortunately, there is little time available, so I shall highlight the matters of greatest concern. I begin with housing. The Select Committee rightly drew attention to housing issues which are still the most immediate concern. The dual problem is overcrowding, coupled in many instances with the fact that the housing stock is poor. Homelessness has affected Bangladeshis more than any other ethnic group in the community. The report says that 67 per cent. of Bangladeshi households contains five or more members, compared with the national average of 10 per cent. There is no doubt that there is a tradition of difficulty in obtaining equal treatment. The Commission for Racial Equality and many local authorities have accepted that there is often an inherent disadvantage in the meeting of Bangladeshi housing needs because of the nature of the stock and because of the way the people are dealt with as a result of the lack of linguistic ability to put the case as well as others might. I shall single out one action that we must take to meet those needs. We must ensure that the test of the amount of housing that we provide is that which meets the needs of the people, not just the demands of the market economy. Above all, in the allocations of housing funds or approvals from the Department of the Environment budget, whether directly to and through local authorities or via the Housing Corporation, we must specifically provide more housing for larger families. Without that, Bangladeshi families will often remain grossly overcrowded or he unable to stay together. This week the Prime Minister made a key speech on the family. It is no good talking about rights of maintenance and divorce if social policy does not allow the families who wish to stay together to do so.
Education lies at the heart of many of the needs and problems currently affecting the Bangladeshi community—not just the young, but the middle-aged and older
1360
generations. As I said, the report shows that five years ago, 78 per cent. of 15-year-olds were not fluent in English. Another report, published by the Inner London education authority in its last days, showed the poor educational performance of Bangladeshi youngsters compared with those from other ethnic minorities. For example, Indian families, who have often come from East Africa, attain much better results. The problem has been exacerbated because the areas in which there are many Bangladeshi youngsters at school have been among those with the greatest teacher shortage.
There are certain actions that we could take to help. There should be more mother tongue teaching for the very young. All the evidence is that cognitive functions are improved if that is provided at an early age. Last year, I argued in Committee that rather than having only European languages as first choice foreign languages in the national curriculum, non-European languages should also be available as first choice languages. We need more English as a second language teaching provision for all ages. In particular, we must ensure that we meet the educational needs of the older communities, especially those who otherwise would be handicapped or housebound because of their lack of skill in English.
Of course, all this is directly related to employment problems. About 62 to 65 per cent. of the Bangladeshi community who wish to work are unskilled, compared with 16 per cent. of the white community. That leads to disadvantage. We know that of all the ethnic groups, the Bangladeshis earn least. That is partly because of language and discrimination problems, because they do not have sufficient knowledge of the way the system works. It is all cumulative. We could alleviate the housing problems fairly quickly, but educational disadvantage causes a much longer-term problem. I want the Minister and other Departments to address several linked issues. Most people wanting to set up a small business in Tower Hamlets or Southwark, for example, must compete against a big developer and will be confronted by high land costs. Unless we as a society intervene to help, that will be impossible to overcome. Accommodation must be made available as well as skills provision.
Social services departments have a supportive role to play. Soon, there will be many elderly Bangladeshis to care for. We have an elderly population as a whole, and we are adapting our social provision accordingly, to allow them to participate in society. As an example, I can say that it took years to arrange in Southwark the handover of land for a community centre where, for example, women past working age can meet others who share their interests and aspirations. Only this week, I attended the opening of a Turkish centre in my borough which clearly offers a great advantage to that section of the community. We must do the same for Bangladeshis.
A sense of alienation and isolation gives rise to illness, particularly depressive conditions. We must ensure that people do not feel alienated from the health service and that they can find at the hospital or doctor's surgery someone to whom they can talk. This year, the London hospital introduced a language line so that members of the ethnic communities can communicate in their first language. That sort of practical help counteracts the feeling that barriers are being erected.
A high proportion of the Bangladeshi community are women. Women have enough problems in society anyway, but those from the ethnic minorities have particular

1361
difficulties. That is even more true of women from the black or Asian communities. They often carry the burden of an overcrowded home, a lack of suitable skills to allow them to join the work force, and language difficulties. Earlier this week, I mentioned to the Minister that I am encouraged to believe that the lessons learnt from our Overseas Development Administration in Bangladesh are being considered for translation into the development of policy in Britain. However, I should like to know what are the initiatives regarding women proposed by the committee that the Minister chairs, and what are the plans for increasing the opportunities available to women from Bangladeshi communities.
Bangladeshi young people represent our future as much as do white young people. They have an enormous contribution to make to the arts, sport, the academic world, and practical employment, yet often we write them off. That is not done intentionally but because there is insufficient provision to ensure that they succeed. Certain features of Government policy are intended to help. For example, there is a provision known to those in the trade as section 11 grants, made specifically to deal with the needs of the ethnic minority communities. However, I was disappointed to learn from a parliamentary answer that this year section 11 grants look likely to be reduced, for the first time, from £115 million to £110 million.
Mr. Hanley: That provision is not cash limited.
Mr. Hughes: Perhaps not, but it is not enough to say that such a reduction is justifiable, even if there are many other demands. I am not asking for something that is incapable of being answered, or suggesting that money is not being made available in other forms, but the Government's key mechanism for helping such people must not be cut.
Britain is coming to terms with the Bangladeshi community, as it has with others in the past. I recognise that some action has been taken. For example, the Home Office has entered into a commitment to reduce the height and chest measurement requirements for recruits entering the police and there are many agencies now serving that community. But I do not see sufficient changes to ensure no discrimination against Bangladeshis who are already in this country, let alone those who have still to arrive here.
I could have dealt with immigration or the problems of racial harassment and racial attacks because they are also important. However, I have concentrated on the general point so that Parliament has a springboard from which to jump to pressurise those in power to take more steps more quickly and to ensure that we do not ignore a community which, because of its economic and social status, currently depends more on others for help. I hope that after today's debate there will be increased awareness of our obligation to ensure that all these people, as part of our community, have the opportunities that we would wish for ourselves.
2.55 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on his successful initiative in bringing the important subject of the Bangladeshi community in the United Kingdom to the Floor of the House. I have the honour to represent the constituency of
1362
Bethnal Green and Stepney, which contains a substantial number of Bengali settlers. I am as conscious as anyone of the great problems that they face.
However, I do not think that the story is one of unrelieved gloom. When one looks at the enormous number of people who come from the entirely different environment of Sylhet in Bangladesh to live in the east end of London, the enormous adjustments that both they and the settled host community have made in accommodating each other reflect creditably upon all concerned. It is admirable to see people of Bengali origin occupy some of the seats on the local council as properly elected members. We all wish to see greater integration of the community in the future.
I want to deal with three important points. First, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, racial harassment is a major problem. There are more racial incidents and more violence due to racial causes in the borough of Tower Hamlets than anywhere else in England with the possible exception of Newham. That requires an energetic police presence as well as a continued stream of advice, warning and encouragement from everyone in public life so that there is a proper appreciation of the difficulties of both communities and so that the racial tension underlying attacks can be reduced.
ducation is the second great problem. I have been to see the Minister and raised on the Floor of the House at least three times in the past 12 months the appalling problem of the 300 to 400 children of school age who are not receiving any education, let alone making up for the special difficulties and problems that a recent immigrant community is bound to face in the education system and with the English language. That problem must be dealt with. I urge the Minister to agree to the proposition that a timetable should be laid down for when we can expect every child in the Bangladeshi community and in Tower Hamlets to have the same right to education provision that is guaranteed to all our citizens.
Thirdly, our housing problem is appalling. It is difficult to describe and I shall not even attempt to do so. It is Dickensian. It is overcrowded and there are many homeless people, particularly Bangladeshi families. The housing stock in Tower Hamlets is in a pretty bad state of repair. The Select Committee report, which underlies much of what we have said in the debate, said about the effect of housing on race relations:
"It is hard to imagine anything more damaging to racial harmony in Tower Hamlets than competition between different communities for increasingly scarce housing. It is not adequate for the Government to deplore racial hatred but to accept no responsibility in respect of situations which forment it. For these reasons, we recommend that Tower Hamlets' HIP allocation be significantly increased, to at least the extend needed to prevent further deterioration in housing conditions in the borough."
I regret that that recommendation has been ignored. The housing investment programme for Tower Hamlets in the past two years is just under 34 per cent. of what it was 10 years ago. That is a problem that Ministers can address urgently and I hope very much that the Minister will urge it on his colleagues.
2.59 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who has an unparalleled reputation for personal integrity both inside

1363
and outside the House and I know that he looks after the interests of his Bangladeshi constituents as carefully as he can and never plays politics with the race issue. In that regard, I listened with care to the moderate and moderately phrased way in which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke to the House. I found his tone characteristic of the way in which he normally speaks, but surprising when compared to a press release that he issued on Monday, in which he gave an entirely different account and flavour of what he would say this afternoon.
The press notice issued by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was more political and, alarmingly, was inaccurate and might cause some distress to the Chair. I shall place a copy of the document in the Library so that hon. Members may read it. The press release states that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey
"is to force a Commons debate on 'The needs of the Bangladeshi communities in Britain.??
I had always thought that Adjournment debates are raised somewhat differently and are not forced upon the Chair. I have heard about muscular Christianity, but muscular liberalism is a contradiction in terms. The idea that the Liberal party could force anything on anyone, inside or outside the House, is ludicrous. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the earliest opportunity to write to Mr. Speaker and apologise for his doubtless inadvertent mistake in suggesting to the outside world that he had somehow heroically forced this debate.
I have also indulged in a little textual criticism of the hon. Gentleman's press notice, which was brought to my notice by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who I am happy to see is in the Chamber now. He has given distinguished service to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and has travelled to Bangladesh on an important fact-finding mission. I believe that he was surprised at the tone of the speech made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and his references to the Home Affairs Select Committee report and the Government's attitude to it. My feeling of unease was reinforced when I opened my mail and discovered a letter from the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who cannot be present today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North is a most distinguished Chairman of a distinguished Committee and he has given me his authority to quote his letter. I shall place a copy of my hon. Friend's letter in the Library. In his letter, my hon. Friend refers to the press notice and then states:
"I am afraid this"—
and "this" refers to the press notice—
"does not reflect the truth and the most generous interpretation I can place upon these remarks is that Mr. Hughes is not familiar with the work done."
My hon. Friend draws my attention in his letter to various reports from the Home Affairs Select Committee and states:
"In each of these reports, my Committee dealt in detail with the needs of the Bangladeshi community, and following the publication of these reports, the Home Office replied setting out in detail what was being done and the achievements made. In particular, I would draw attention to"—
1364
and he then refers to several responses from the Home Office and continues:
"as well as statements made by ACPO and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
I am concerned that the interests of race relations may be harmed by selected statements which do not represent the truth concerning these issues."
It is important that the House and in particular the Bangladeshi community is made aware as widely as possible of the views of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
I want now to consider the welfare of the Bangladeshi community, which I have got to know quite well over the past three years particularly, interestingly enough, in Tower Hamlets—the constituency of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. He knows that I have made a number of visits there recently.
Any member of the Bangladeshi community would resent the implication that Bangladeshis are making no contribution to British life. I was delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman refer to the considerable contribution that that community is making to British life and to local government, and to the fact that Bangladeshis do not simply present a problem that needs to be solved. When taking about delicate issues, it is important that we balance the problems—and the right hon. Gentleman certainly pointed out some problems—against the successes and contributions of the Bangladeshi community. I pay due tribute to their successes.
The Government accept that, despite its capacity for self-help, to which I have just referred, and some individual successes, the Bangladeshi community is among the more disadvantaged of the ethnic minority communities in this country. I, personally accept that also. The Bangladeshi community suffers especially in those areas where the Bangladeshi population is relatively small, sometimes located next to members of other Asian groups. We must all make a substantial effort to recognise that the needs of Bangladeshis in this country may be different from the needs of other Asian groups. They must be differentiated.
In defence of the problems that the Bangladeshi people face, they would be the first to recognise that they are among the newest arrivals to this country. Young groups of Bangladeshi men and women—and especially young women—who have arrived here as recently as 18 months ago, have been to see me at the Home Office to talk about the problems that they face. They recognise that it will take some time for them to establish themselves in the mainstream of British life. Family reunions mean that there has been a fairly regular flow of people needing time to adjust to this country, its culture and language.
If one looks to the success of slightly older-established Asian minority communities to see how they have managed to enter the mainstream of British life, that makes me full of hope for the future of the Bangladeshi communities, notwithstanding the problems of Tower Hamlets, and Southwark and Bermondsey. Their achievements have been widespread—in the professions and in business. I wish that the Hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey had mentioned the contribution made by the Bangladeshi community.
Mr. Hanley: Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that as a result of the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the Metropolitan police are considering

1365
relaxing the height restrictions for entry to the police, so that the Bangali community can play a full part of the policing of London?
Mr. Patten: Yes, the Metropolitan police and police forces in other parts of the country wish to have as many recruits as possible from the Bangladeshi communities, as soon as possible. I am a great believer in community policing and in communities policing themselves, although not totally. Obviously, having more people from the Bangladeshi communities in our police forces can only help.
I want to see the Bangladeshi communities being able similarly to contribute to many other parts of British life. We hear quite a bit about Islam these days, and the Islamic values of many Bangladeshis, such as the commitment to family life and the belief in hard work and enterprise, correspond closely to some core elements of British society. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties would agree with that.
I refer now to some points in detail. I was asked why the findings of the Select Committee on Home Affairs have not been debated on the Floor of the House. We sit long and hard—longer than any other legislature anywhere else in the world, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will doubtless reflect from time to time late at night. It would be impracticable for the Government automatically to initiate debates on every Select Committee report that is produced. However, the Government published a comprehensive reply to the report in July 1987, and an update was published in 1988. Copies have been placed in the Library.
1366
I was also asked about how many fellow Bangladeshi-British citizens we have. The current estimate, which is based on the 1986–88 surveys, is of a Bangladeshi population of about 108,000. For those who are statistically minded, that is about 0.2 per cent. of the total population of the United Kingdom. The 1991 census will solve the problem because it will contain a question that asks people to classify themselves, if they so wish, as Bangladeshis.
Housing is another important issue. I certainly do not think that all Bangaldeshis live in the worst housing in the country, but I acknowledge the considerable problems in inner London boroughs where the Asian community has chosen to live and where there are large concentrations of Bangladeshi families. The Department of the Environment, and my right hon. Friend—and namesake—the Secretary of State for the Environment, looks to the housing authorities to identify housing measures that will help Bangladeshis and other ethnic minorities and asks them to include provision to address such problems in their bids to the Department.
I fear that time is probably about to run out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I seek the permission of the House to write to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and so deal with all the points that I have been unable to cover in the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Three o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaths and injuries due to road accidents there have been in Northern Ireland since 1969.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The figures are 5,421 and 171,998 respectively to the end of 1989. The detail was as follows:

  Year

  Killed

  Injured

  1969

  257

  7,124

  1970

  272

  7,902

  1971

  304

  7,658

  1972

  372

  8,025

  1973

  335

  7,662

  1974

  316

  7,188

  1975

  313

  7,340

  1976

  300

  7,319

  1977

  355

  7,849

  1978

  288

  8,080

  1979

  293

  7,628

  1980

  229

  7,035

  1981

  223

  7,557

  1982

  216

  7,923

  1983

  173

  7,540

  1984

  189

  8,561

  1985

  177

  8,460

  1986

  236

  9,206

  1987

  214

  9,722

  1988

  178

  10,789

  1989

  181

  11,430

  Total

  5,421

  171,998

  Security Forces
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the RUC and RUC reserve are currently estimated to be Catholics; how many people were recruited to the RUC and RUCR in 1989; and what proportion of those recruits were Catholics.

  Mr. Cope
  [ holding answer 4 July 1990]: I am advised by the Chief Constable that at 1 January 1990, 855 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its reserves were perceived to be Roman Catholic. The religion of a further 388 officers could not be determined.

  In 1989, 556 officers were recruited to the RUC and its reserves. Seven per cent. of these were perceived to be Roman Catholic and a further 5.4 per cent. could not be determined.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants in his Department of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge; and how many are graduates of other universities.
  736
  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: Within the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments 991 civil servants of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates.

  Information as to which university each individual attended is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of(a) the future work programme of the equal opportunities unit of the Northern Ireland civil service, in relation to the representation of (i) females and (ii) Catholics in the higher grades of the Northern Ireland civil service and (b) the timetable for the introduction and implementation of this programme of action.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: The future work programme of the equal opportunities unit of the Northern Ireland civil service is multi-faceted. It ranges from the essential maintenance and development of its computer monitoring system, through analysis of recruitment and promotion competitions to researching ways and means of dealing with specific issues such as the adverse impact of recruitment selection procedures and the low level of representation of females and of Roman Catholics in the higher grades of the service.

  As I indicated in my reply to a previous question on 18 April, Vol. 170, col. 879, the level of representation of females and Roman Catholics in the higher grades is being treated as a priority issue at senior level within the service. Consideration of this matter, assisted by discussions with the Fair Employment Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission, has produced a number of ideas which require further work to assess whether they should be included in the equal opportunities work programme. I am thus unable now to give details either in terms of content or time scale. An account of this work, as it develops, will continue to be given in the regular reports of the equal opportunities unit.

  In the meantime, the encouraging trend of increased Roman Catholic representation in the higher grades, to which I referred in my earlier response, continues. The proportion of Roman Catholics at assistant secretary level and above in the general service is now 15.1 per cent. (21 out of 139) compared with 12.3 per cent. in January 1989 and 5.9 per cent. in January 1985.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UN Conservation Convention
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom is expected to ratify the United Nations convention on conservation.

  Mr. Sainsbury:
  I shall write to the honourable Member.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Income Tax
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount of income tax the Exchequer would forgo in 1990–91 if the threshold
  737
  for the starting point for the higher rate of income tax were raised to (a) £30,000, (b) £40,000, (c) £50,000, (d) £60,000, (e) £70,000, (f) £80,000, (g) £90,000 and (h) £100,000.

  Mr. Ryder
  Estimates are as follows:

  Increases to the basic rate limit from £20,700

  New basic rate limit £

  Direct revenue cost1 £ billion

  30,000

  1.6

  40,000

  2.5

  50,000

  3.0

  60,000

  3.3

  70,000

  3.5

  80,000

  3.7

  90,000

  3.8

  100,000

  3.9

  1 for a full year at 1990–91 projected levels of income

  The estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional, the estimates for basic rate limits above £70,000 being particularly tentative.

  VAT
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Gloucester on 13 July,Official Report, column 353, what is the administrative cost of implementing the change whereby value added tax is applied to (a) gas and (b) electricity bills for supplies made to domestic premises for business purposes.

  Mr. Ryder
  I regret that no estimate is available. However, the arrangements to ease the administrative burden of taxing some supplies of fuel and power, which was required following the judgment of the European Court of Justice in June 1988, were formulated after extensive consultation with representatives of fuel and power suppliers.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal measures the Government intend to introduce to encourage an increase in the United Kingdom's manufacturing base.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Finance Bill contains proposals to increase the small profits limit for the small companies' corporation tax rate and to introduce a comprehensive system of VAT relief on bad debts.

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his answer of 4 April,Official Report, column 608, he will make a statement on the outcome of the price variation negotiations with Racal Data Networks Ltd. for the Government data network.

  Mr. Ryder
  I confirm that these negotiations between the Treasury and Racal Data Networks Ltd. (RDNL) have now been completed.

  RDNL has the right under the Government data network contract to increase the tariff by 6.75 per cent. for the year beginning 1 April 1990. The company has agreed,
  738
  however, to limit the effective rate of increase over this period to 5.06 per cent. by applying this price adjustment from 1 July 1990 instead of 1 April 1990.

  As foreshadowed in my answer on 4 April 1990, column 608, the Treasury and RDNL have discussed possible revisions to the Government data network contract. It has not, however, been possible to identify revisions which would be acceptable to both parties. The existing contract provisions will therefore remain in force.

  As stated by my right hon. Friend the then Paymaster General on 22 June 1988, columns 599–600, Departments will continue to be free to compare alternatives to the Government data network to ensure best value for money. Hence RDNL will retain a strong interest in maintaining the Government data network tariff at a competitive level.

ENVIRONMENT

  Landfill
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those landfill sites surveyed earlier in the current year by Government—sponsored research which were found to be(a) poorly managed and (b) contributory to water pollution problems.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The hon. Member may be referring to the UKAEA Harwell paper published earlier this year and based on a survey two years ago on behalf of my Department. The co-operation of the site owners was given on the understanding that statistical information only would be published and no sites identified.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of the number of requests that would be received; what consideration he is giving to the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  By 16 July 1990 my Department—including PSA—had received 491 subject access requests. No prior estimate of this number had been made and I have no plans to reconsider the level of the fee charged.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to meet local authority leaders to discuss his proposals for amending the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend will be meeting the leaders of the local authority associations at the consultative council on local government finance in September. They may wish to raise the matters dealt with in his statement of 19 July,Official Report, columns 1185–89, and discussed in the consultation document issued that day.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the risk of explosion in respect of the presence of acetone or alcohol solvents in radioactive waste subject to storage and disposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Conditions imposed in certificates of authorisation issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 for the short-term accumulation and disposal of radioactive waste take full account of the assessment made in each case concerning the nature and activity of the waste in question.

  For example, in the case of flammable liquids contaminated with radioactivity, conditions imposed require the waste to be kept in closed containers in a locked store which is designed and constructed so that the waste is reasonably protected from fire and that the store contains nothing else which is explosive or flammable. All authorised premises are subject to inspection by HMIP to ensure that these conditions are being met.

  Cryptosporidium
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the report of the group of experts on cryptosporidium in water supplies is to be published.

  Mr. Trippier
  The report of the expert group chaired by Sir John Badenoch is being published today by HMSO. I have placed copies in the Library.

  Following an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in Swindon and that part of Oxfordshire supplied by water from Farmoor reservoir, the group was appointed in March 1989 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and asked to examine the implications for water supplies generally. It produced an interim report in July 1989 which formed the basis of guidance issued by Government Departments to the water industry.

  Cryptosporidium has long been recognised as a parasite of animals and birds, but it was not until 1976 that it was shown to be capable of producing illness in man. Infection with cryptosporidium may cause acute diarrhoea. In 1989 there were about 9,000 reported cases of cryptosporidiosis in Britain; an increase over previous years which can be attributed in part to recent changes in laboratory sampling policies. The report concluded that water supplies can act as a source of human infection although the illness also spreads in other ways. Nationally, waterborne cases of cryptosporidiosis represent only a very small fraction of all cases of diarrhoea.

  When operated optimally, the background levels of cryptosporidium oocysts in raw water sources, current water treatment processes appear able to prevent contamination of drinking water. However, they cannot be relied upon to remove all oocysts from heavily contaminated raw water.

  The group highlights the importance of trying to prevent heavy contamination of raw water and of developing alternative disinfection processes to kill oocysts. It does not advocate routine monitoring of treated water for the parasite until more is known about the occurrence of cryptosporidium in the water environment
  740
  and techniques for its isolation and identification are improved. The group recommends that each water undertaker should develop a strategy for monitoring in certain specific situations; and that water undertakers, health authorities and local authorities should collaborate to produce detailed contingency plans for identifying, and dealing with, any outbreak of cryptosporidiosis. The report identifies a number of subjects on which further research is required.

  My right hon. and right hon. and learned Friends are most grateful to Sir John Badenoch and the other members of the expert group for producing such a comprehensive and authoritative account of the present state of knowledge. The Government had accepted and endorsed their recommendations, and I have put in the Library a copy of our detailed response. Many of the recommendations involve action by other bodies, and copies of the report and the response are being sent to all water undertakers, health authorities and local authorities.

  The Government already have wide-ranging polices to reduce pollution of source waters from farming activities. These include advice to farmers, generous grant aid, and regulations currently being finalised. In addition, we intend to increase the maximum fine in magistrates and sheriff courts for polluting controlled waters from the present £2,000 to £20,000 at the next legislative opportunity.

  Some of the specific topics which the report identifies as needing further research have already been incorporated into a national research programme funded by this Department, the National Rivers Authority, the Foundation for Water Research and water undertakers, and supported by the Public Health Laboratory Service. This will now be extended to cover the remaining subjects.

  The Government will keep the position under review, and will consider the need for further action when the findings from the research programme become available.

  Sports Clubs (Rating)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the reply he gave on 19 March to the hon. Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy),Official Report, column 483–84, if he has made a further assessment of the effect of the new business rate upon sports facilities now that the rating lists have come into force.

  Mr. Chope
  The 25,591 sports grounds, sports stadia, playing fields and clubhouses in the rating lists for England which came into force on 1 April have average rate bills under the new system, excluding the effect of the transitional arrangements, 3.05 per cent. higher than in 1989–90. This represents a fall of about 4.5 per cent. in real terms. Average rate bills for the 3,300 golf courses, swimming pools and tennis courts in the new lists have risen by 20.6 per cent. and those for leisure and sports centres, of which there are 2,105 in the lists, by 30.3 per cent, again without transition.

  These figures take no account of rate relief: local authorities have discretion to grant up to 100 per cent. rate relief on property occupied by non-profit making bodies.

  Litter
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the current timetable for competitive tendering for street cleaning services in the light of the proposed code of practice on litter under the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Portillo
  A number of authorities are now making preparations to let contracts for street cleaning from 1 January 1991. We have proposed, in the Environmental Protection Bill, that there should be a new litter duty on local authorities from 1 April 1991 and that, in fulfilling that duty, authorities should have regard to standards contained in a code of practice. While consultation on that code is well advanced, it is not yet in its definitive form, and I recognise that authorities cannot easily settle the basis for new street cleaning contracts until the standards are finalised. In the case of those authorities to which the deadline of 1 January 1991 currently applies, I intend, therefore, to substitute a later deadline of 1 August 1991. In the case of those authorities to which the deadline of 1 August 1991 currently applies, I intend to substitute a later deadline of 1 January 1992. In the case of those authorities to which the deadline of 1 January 1992 applies, I intend to make no change to the deadline. I shall bring forward regulations to give effect to these changes.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be making similar arrangements in respect of the competitive tendering deadlines applicable to Scottish and Welsh authorities.

  Non-hazardous Waste
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his best estimate of the current average cost of landfilling non-hazardous municipal and industrial waste per tonne; and what is the estimated cost per tonne resulting from the implementation of the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: The Department is currently reviewing the availability of waste disposal statistics, but there are no firm figures on costs currently available. We estimate that the current average cost of landfilling non-hazardous waste is about £7 per tonne and that disposal to the highest possible standards reflected in the terms of the Environmental Protection Bill is likely to be in the region of £10 to £13 per tonne or more.

  Environment Exhibition, Czechoslovakia
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will send an official to the Brno environmental exhibition in Czechoslovakia; and if he will make a statement on British participation.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: This Department has not received an invitation to the environmental exhibition "ENVIBRNO" in Brno, Czechoslovakia, on 23 to 25 October. On the information available to me, however, I think it unlikely that an official from this Department will attend. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Trade and Industry has today answered an associated question on the involvement of his Department and British industry in the exhibition.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which boroughs in London have made claims to his Department for the refund of community charge benefit; and in respect of how many people in each borough such a claim has been made.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  All local authorities are currently receiving monthly payments of subsidy from the Department based on their estimated 1990–91 expenditure on community charge benefit. It is largely a matter for local authorities to determine the basis for such estimates. At the end of the financial year each authority is required to make a final claim for subsidy based on the actual outturn expenditure on community charge benefit. Any difference in subsidy between the estimated claim and the final claim is adjusted accordingly.

  Information about numbers receiving benefit is collected independently from the subsidy information. Returns of the numbers receiving community charge benefit on 31 May have not yet been received from all London boroughs.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now publish the 1987 data on households below average income.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We expect to publish the 1987 data on households below average income shortly.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Incomes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his answer of 13 July to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel),Official Report, column 349, if he will give the money figures for per capita income in £ sterling and include the United Kingdom in the table.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information is as follows:

  Average GNP per capita in low income countries (excluding India and China) and average GNP per capita for DAC member countries and United Kingdom 1979–1988

  Year

  Low income countries GNP per capita £ sterling

  DAC member countries GNP per capita £ sterling

  United Kingdom GNP per capita £ sterling

  1979

  125

  4,559

  3,455

  1980

  168

  4,597

  4,046

  1981

  183

  5,296

  4,462

  1982

  199

  6,080

  4,901

  1983

  208

  7,250

  5,345

  1984

  178

  8,644

  5,671

  1985

  242

  9,373

  6,186

  1986

  221

  10,074

  6,673

  1987

  161

  10,394

  7,282

  1988

  194

  10,617

  8,051

  Sources:

  OECD—DAC chairman's report, 1981–1989.

  World bank atlas 1989.

  Note 1: Low income countries as classified by OECD are those

  743
  countries which have GNP per capita of

  1979—less than $500 in 1979

  1980–82—less than $600 in 1980

  1983–86—less than $700 in 1983

  1987–88—less than $700 in 1987

  Note 2: Sterling-US dollar exchange rates used

  1979 0.4713

  1980 0.4299

  1981 0.4931

  1982 0.5713

  1983 0.6592

  1984 0.7483

  1985 0.7714

  1986 0.6820

  1987 0.6102

  1988 0.5614

  Eastern Europe (Information Technology)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to the reply of 24 May,Official Report, column 368, what progress has been made on establishing a computing/information technology mission (a) in Czechoslovakia and (b) in Hungary.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We hope that information technology missions will visit Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the autumn.

  European Development Fund
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the value of goods and services procured by the European development fund from United Kingdom companies for each £1 contributed by the United Kingdom Government.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As at 31 March 1990, United Kingdom companies had won contracts to the value of 133.15 million ecu under the current (sixth) European development fund. This represents 13.7 per cent. of total procurement—some 27 per cent. of which is won by recipient countries. The United Kingdom contributes 16.58 per cent. of EDF VI.

  Know-how Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries of eastern Europe and the amount that each is due to receive in each of the next five years from the know-how fund.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: It is not possible to list the amounts that each eastern European country will receive over the next five years. These will depend on the total resources available for eastern Europe which have to be agreed in the context of the public expenditure survey, plans for spending those resources, which will depend on developments in the countries concerned, and the pattern of actual disbursements. Support under the know-how fund is at present available to Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and East Germany.

TRANSPORT

  Leicester-Burton Rail Link
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received any proposals for re-opening of the Leicester to Burton railway link; and if he will make a statement.
  744
  Mr. Freeman
  Leicestershire county council has made an application for grant aid and credit approval in respect of the proposed reopening to passengers of this railway line. We are considering this application, but no decisions on resources for the project can be taken until the autumn.

  Railway Tankers
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss alternative sites for the parking of railway oil tankers at Port Talbot.

  Mr. Freeman
  Safety issues are discussed, if appropriate, at our regular meetings. I understand that loaded fuel trains are stopped briefly at Port Talbot while a new crew takes over and the train is checked. Certain empty trains returning to the refinery wait during the night at Port Talbot for periods up to four hours.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ask the railways inspectorate to examine British Rail's compliance with its statutory duties so far as safety is concerned in respect of the parking of rail-borne tankers at stations.

  Mr. Freeman
  The railway inspectorate is examining the practice of holding fuel tanker trains at stations to ensure that all reasonably practical safety measures are being taken. I am writing to the right hon. and learned Member with further details.

  Public Transport, London
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many passenger journeys were travelled by underground within London in 1989; what was the figure in the previous three years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many passenger journeys were travelled by bus within London in 1989; what were the figures for the previous three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information is given in the table:

  Passenger journeys on London Regional Transport services

  Underground millions

  Bus millions

  1986–87

  769

  1,158

  1987–88

  798

  1,249

  1988–89

  815

  1,244

  1989–90

  765

  1,221

  The number of passenger journeys during 1989–90 was, of course, affected by industrial action during the summer of last year.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to attract commuters to the London underground and London bus systems.

  Mr. Freeman
  A total of 83 per cent. of commuters into central London already use public transport. I trust that the major investment programme being undertaken by London Transport, coupled with the quality of service objectives which the Government have set it will encourage more commuters to use its services.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what age a boy or girl may be committed to prison in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  Although a sentence of imprisonment cannot be passed on anyone under the age of 21, other custodial sentences are available. The minimum ages for custodial sentences for boys and girls are as follows. The sentence of detention in a young offender institution is available for boys from the age of 14 and girls from the age of 15 convicted of imprisonable offences. Detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is available from the age of 10 for young people of either sex convicted of murder or manslaughter; and from the age of 14 for those convicted of other offences for which an adult may be imprisoned for 14 years or more.

  Boys aged 15 or 16 charged with criminal offences and refused bail may be remanded in prison department custody if a court certifies them as being too unruly to be safely committed to local authority care. The adult remand arrangements apply to young people of either sex from the age of 17.

  World Cup (Deportations)
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what authority the 247 British citizens deported from Italy during the World Cup tournament were photographed upon arrival at Gatwick airport; what was the purpose of this photographing; what use is to be made of these photographs; and what action is open to these people to ensure that such photographs are destroyed and no records retained.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  People who were returned from Italy on 26 June following incidents of violence in Rimini were photographed on their arrival at Gatwick airport by the national football intelligence unit (NFIU), which is responsible for obtaining, collating and analysing information about individuals who are suspected of being involved in acts of football hooliganism.

  Personal information held by NFIU on computer is subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Immigration Officers
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the pay scales of immigration officers are designed to reward proficiency in more than one language;

  (2) if immigration officers at ports of entry to the United Kingdom are required to speak foreign languages.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The possession of foreign language skills is not a pre-requisite of employment as an immigration officer, but it is the policy of the Department to attract new recruits who have language skills and to encourage the use of those skills in existing staff. Immigration officers who are successful in departmental language examinations are paid an allowance for each language in which they reach the required standard up to a financial limit which is reviewed regularly. Individual language allowances are higher for the more difficult languages.

  Public Order Act 1986
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the results of his evaluation of the operation of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 with particular reference to the interpretation of police forces of the circumstances under which the relevant powers should be exercised.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are considering the representations which we received in response to the announcement of the evaluation of section 39 and hope to reach conclusions by the end of the year.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the numbers of subject access requests made to police forces; whether he will introduce regulations to make it an offence for any person to require a data subject to seek subject access to personal data held by the police; whether he will introduce legislation to determine when police records may be used for vetting purposes; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that from July 1989 to June 1990 the subject access office of the national identification bureau received 10,818 requests for subject access under the Data Protection Act 1984. Of these 1,371 requests were made initially to the Metropolitan police and 9,447 to other forces. We are currently discussing with representatives of the police service and the Data Protection Registrar how to deal with enforced subject access. The Home Department is planning to mount a scrutiny in the autumn to examine the most appropriate arrangements for the maintenance of, and disclosure from, the national collection of criminal records.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision is to be taken on the application to the post in Islamabad by Shamim Ayaz, born on 31 July 1965, Home Office reference: H.162359, to join his family in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I shall write to the hon. Member about this case shortly.

  Juvenile Detainees
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the regulations concerning the imprisonment on remand in adult prisons of juvenile detainees.

  Mr. Mellor
  The provisions which govern the detention in prison custody of unconvicted and convicted unsentenced juveniles are sections 23 and 34 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, section 69 of the Children Act 1975, section 37 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, the Certificates of Unruly Character (Conditions) Order 1977 (Statutory Instrument 1977/1037) and the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (Transitional Modifications of Part I) Orders 1979 and
  747
  1981 (Statutory Instruments 1979/125 and 1981/81). By virtue of section 37 of the 1980 Act, when a magistrates court commits in custody to the Crown court for sentence a young offender aged 15 or 16, the committal may be only to a remand centre or prison. By virtue of the other provisions quoted, the only other unsentenced young persons who may be committed in custody to a remand centre or prison are boys aged 15 or 16 whom a criminal court has certified to be of so unruly a character that they cannot safely be committed to the care of a local authority.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles are held on remand at each adult prison in the United Kingdom at the latest available date.

  Mr. Mellor
  The available information is given in the table:

  Untried and convicted unsentenced males1 aged under 17 held in adult prisons2 in England and Wales on 30 April 1990: by establishment

  Establishment

  Number

  Bristol

  3

  Hull

  12

  Leeds

  1

  Manchester

  2

  Pentonville

  2

  Shrewsbury

  1

  Winchester

  1

  All adult prisons

  22

  1 No unsentenced juvenile girls were held on 30 April 1990.

  2 A further 62 were held in remand centres taking only prisoners aged under 21.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many youngsters aged 16 years or under have committed suicide while in custody in each of the last 20 years; at which institutions; and what was the age of each.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: In the last 20 years six inmates aged 16 or under have died at their own hand while in prison custody. The details are as follows:

  Year

  Establishment

  Age

  Verdict recorded at Coroner's inquest

  1971

  Cardiff

  15

  Suicide

  1976

  Pucklechurch

  15

  Suicide

  1978

  Hindley

  16

  Suicide

  1981

  Rochester

  16

  Suicide

  1983

  Manchester

  16

  Suicide

  1990

  Swansea

  15

  Not yet held

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders aged under 17 years are in Her Majesty's prisons at present.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: According to the records held centrally, on 30 April 1990, the latest date for which information is readily available, 65 untried, 19 convicted unsentenced and 21 sentenced juveniles were held in prisons and remand centres in England and Wales. Of these 44 untried and 18 convicted unsentenced juveniles were held in remand centres for young offenders.

  Football League Grounds (Policing)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the correspondence between the hon. Member for Stalybridge 748
  and Hyde and his Department's Under-Secretary for State on the subject of increases in charges made for policing at Football League grounds in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A reply to the hon. Member's letter to me of 12 July about this matter will be sent to him as soon as possible. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he is issuing to police authorities on the assessment of charges for the policing of football matches following recent increases in the levels of such charges.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  These charges are a matter for police authorities. Lord Justice Taylor's report recommended that their charges should be more realistic. We are therefore consulting the football authorities, the local authority associations and police representative bodies on the terms of the Home Office circular advising police authorities to recover as far as practicable the full cost of providing police officers inside football grounds.

  Philip Andrew Knight
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the death of Philip Andrew Knight in Swansea prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  The circumstances surrounding the death of Philip Knight will, as in all cases of death in prison custody, be thoroughly investigated at a coroner's inquest. It would not be right for me to comment on the details of the case until the inquest has taken place.

  Prisoners (Observation)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the regulations pertaining in(a) adult prisons and (b) juvenile penal establishments concerning the observation of prisoners considered to be at risk of committing suicide.

  Mr. Mellor
  Once an inmate has been identified as potentially suicidal it is for the prison medical officer to decide what form of special supervision is needed, depending on the seriousness of the risk. Broadly speaking, continuous supervision is considered appropriate where the medical officer believes there is an immediate risk of the inmate harming him or herself. Where continuous supervision is impracticable, or where the medical officer considers the inmate to present some suicide risk but not so immediately as to require continuous supervision, the inmate should normally be placed under intermittent supervision. Where this is ordered, the inmate will normally be observed by a member of staff at approximately 15-minute intervals. Where, exceptionally, this is not possible, the governor or medical officer may order the frequency of observation to be reduced, but not below once every 30 minutes.

  Detailed guidance on special supervision procedures, and on all other aspects of suicide prevention (for example, the location of suicidal inmates and sources of help and support), is set out in circular instruction 20/1989, a copy of which is in the Library. The guidance applies to all prison service establishments.

  Autopsies
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many autopsies were carried out in England and Wales for the latest year for which information is available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of post mortems ordered by coroners is published in table 1 of the Home Office statistical bulletin issue 14/90 "Statistics of Deaths reported to Coroners: England and Wales 1989", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Pollution Prosecutions
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for pollution have been undertaken against the owners of(a) lorries, (b) buses, (c) motor cycles and (d) other motor vehicles in respect of air pollution and noise, respectively, in the past 12 month for which figures are available; and what are the comparable figures for the previous 12-month period.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information about offences relating to motor vehicles is published annually in Home Office statistical publications. These statistics do not identify the type of vehicle involved. Summary information is set out in the bulletin entitled "Offences relating to Motor Vehicles, England and Wales"; the most recent number 34/89, included data for 1988. Detailed information is given in the publication "Offences relating to Motor Vehicles, England and Wales, Supplementary Tables". Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Details of noise offences, offence group 22, are included in the supplementary tables publications. Emission of smoke offences are not separately identified.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  City Technology Colleges, Wandsworth
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he or his colleagues last met the chairman of ADT Ltd. regarding the opening of city technology colleges in Wandsworth.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend last met Mr. Michael Ashcroft, the chairman of ADT plc, on 9 January 1990 to discuss the proposal to establish a city technology college at Wandsworth. They also met informally at a dinner given by the CTC Trust on 31 January.

  Baccalaureate
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the introduction of a baccalaureate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 8 May 1990,Official Report, col. 10.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his talks about proposed negotiating machinery for teachers' pay and conditions.
  750
  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is now considering the responses of the teacher unions and employers to his proposals for new permanent pay negotiation machinery. He will announce his conclusions in due course.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has completed his review of the arrangements made by local education authorities to give effect to the recommendations in his Department's circular No. 4/88 for the protection of children from abuse.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This review has recently been completed, and the Department is writing today to local education authorities to convey my right hon. Friend's thanks for their co-operation with it and to give them some feedback. We are encouraged both by the positive manner in which authorities have responded to our advice and by the confirmation that the measures we recommended are proving generally helpful and workable.

  School Closures
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools in England of fewer than 50 pupils closed in(a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985 and (d) 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: The information for the years, 1985, 1980 and 1975 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In England, 36 maintained schools with fewer than 50 pupils were closed in 1989.

  The criteria against which my right hon. Friend considers proposals to reorganise schools are set out in the Department's circular 3/87, which makes it clear that assessing the viability of an individual school is not solely a matter of the number of pupils on roll. A copy of the circular is available in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bank Accounts
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 13 June to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns),Official Report, column 212, what further progress is being made on the implementation of the European Commission bank accounts directive.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has today issued a consultative document inviting comments on draft regulations to implement the EC bank accounts directive. Copies will be placed in the Library. Views are invited on the draft regulations attached to the consultative document by 19 October.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has yet received the formal Community decision on the Rover Group.

  Mr. Lilley
  I received the formal Community decision on 19 July, and have placed copies in the Library.
  751
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the reasons there was an exceptional tax allowance pool prior to the sale of Rover in August 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: I presume the hon. Member has in mind the reference in the National Audit Office report (appendix 2, paragraph 2.1.2) to
  "the exceptional size of the capital allowance pools"
  As that paragraph went on to explain, this was
  "resulting from previous disclaimers of allowances".

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest information available to the Government about the current value to British Aerospace of the lifting of the ring fences on Rover's capital losses and allowances in July 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: This must be a matter for British Aerospace, but the report by Touche Ross for the National Audit Office in September 1989 put the commercial net present value of the trading losses and capital allowance pools at £33 million to £40 million and assigned a "negligible or nil value" to the capital losses.

  Auditing Practices Committee
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 3 April,Official Report, column 507, he can now indicate the Auditing Practices Committee's policy on release of information.

  Mr. Redwood
  I understand that the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies is now undertaking a comprehensive review of the methods of operation of its Auditing Practices Committee.

  Companies Act
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to amend the Companies Act to provide a statutory definition of(a) revenue, (b) an expense and (c) liability.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. These terms are in general use and well understood. If definitions are required in particular contexts, that is best dealt with in accounting standards or other professional guidance.

  Tear Gas
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences have been granted in the last 10 years for the export of tear gas to(a) Yugoslavia and (b) Tunisia.

  Mr. Redwood
  Such information is not readily available, and could be produced only at extremely disproportionate cost, as export licensing does not maintain records of export licence applications by specific products.

  Germany
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new initiatives he has taken to improve trade relations with Germany.
  752
  Mr. Lilley
  I intend to maintain close contacts with my German counterparts on all aspects of bilateral and EC business involving my Department.

  Dunsdale Securities
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department is intending to pay compensation to those investors who dealt with Dunsdale Securities when it was under Department of Trade and Industry licence.

  Mr. Redwood
  I see no grounds for considering compensation payments to investors who placed money with Dunsdale Securities Ltd.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) of 26 June,Official Report, column 129, (1) whether the auditors' certificates issued by his Department to Dunsdale Securities were qualified in any way;

  (2) whether the auditors of Dunsdale Securities appointed by his Department were fully recognised by an appropriate accountancy body.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: The Department does not issue audit certificates to companies or appoint their auditors, nor did it do so under the regulatory system put in place by the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 which was repealed in April 1988 upon entry into force of the Financial Services Act 1986. The auditors' reports and verifications provided to the Department in relation to applications and annual monitoring returns for Dunsdale Securities were in accordance with the requirements of the Dealers in Securities (Licensing) Regulations 1983 made under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958: they were not subject to any qualifications. Dunsdale Securities Ltd. employed auditors who, when they signed the reports and verifications, were members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, were qualified in accordance with the law and held a practising certificate issued by the institute. One of the auditors was subsequently excluded from membership of the institute.

  Textiles and Clothing
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest index of output figures for the textile and clothing industries; and what the figures were one year ago.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:

  Index of Production (1985=100)

  Textiles (SIC 43)

  Clothing (SIC 453)

  May 1989

  98

  97

  May 1990

  92

  98

  Percentage change

  -5.8

  +0.2

  March-May 1989

  99.8

  97.1

  March-May 1990

  92.7

  100.6

  Percentage change

  -7.1

  +3.6

  Source: Central Statistical Office (CSO).

  Notes:

  1. Textiles and clothing have been classified according to the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC).
  753
  2. The Index of Production (IOP) figures are seasonally adjusted, and represent movements in output in constant price terms. The series for textiles has also been adjusted to account for stock movements.

  3. Although the latest IOP figures are those for May 1990, comparisons have also been made for the latest three month period. The extra data are included, on the advice of the CSO, as a more reliable guide to underlying performance than comparisons between single months. Monthly data tend to be volatile.

  4. Percentage changes have been calculated on unrounded data.

  Raw Materials Imports
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide the latest available statistics for the import content of raw materials consumption.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Based on information published in the latest available input-output tables for 1984, the proportion of all purchases by the energy and manufacturing industries accounted for by imports was approximately 26 per cent. Purchases include both raw materials and semi-manufactures, which cannot be separately distinguished. I will write to my hon. Friend in more detail.

  Environmental Control Equipment
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what involvement his Department has had in encouraging British firms to sell environmental control equipment to the countries of eastern Europe at the forthcoming Brno exhibition in Czechoslovakia; with what results; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: When my Department's programme of assistance of overseas trade for 1990–91 was drawn up last year, consideration was given to the inclusion of a British group at the exhibition to which the hon. Member refers (ENVIBRNO). However, demand for support at other trade fairs worldwide was so great that it was not possible to include ENVIBRNO in the programme. There was, of course, nothing to prevent United Kingdom firms from attending ENVIBRNO if they wished to do so.

  The Department is providing support for some 60 British companies at the annual Brno general engineering fair in September, where it is expected that some will be exhibiting environmental control equipment.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what is his estimate of the United Kingdom content of television sets produced in the United Kingdom in 1973, 1975, 1985 and the latest year for which an estimate is feasible;

  (2) what is his estimate of the United Kingdom content of cars and commercial vehicles produced in the United Kingdom in 1973, 1979, 1985 and the latest year for which an estimate is feasible.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 18 July 1990]: Information on which to base a reliable estimate is not available.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the annual exports from the United Kingdom of chlorofluorocarbons for each year from 1979 754
  to 1989; what is the figure for 1990 to the most recent practicable date; and what estimate he has made of the quantities which will be exported in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: This information is not available.

  British Airways
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his reply of 16 July,Official Report, column 384, under what legal provision EEC inspectors entered the office of Lord King, chairman of British Airways, and inspected the chairman's personal banking papers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: Commission officials visited British Airways on 23–24 February, by prior arrangement with the company. The Commission was investigating an agreement between BA, KLM and Sabena which had been notified by the airlines under the Community's competition rules. The relevant powers are set out in article 11 of Council regulation (EEC) 3975/87, which lays down competition procedures for air transport.

  Machine Tool Industry
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the most recently available output figures for the United Kingdom machine tool industry in money and real physical output terms, and the equivalent figures in Germany, France and Italy, for the latest available statistical periods.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 18 July 1990]: Information on numbers or weight of machine tools produced is not readily available. The most recent data on output of machine tools in money terms may be found in the latest issue of "Engineering Sales and Orders", a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. The table shows the most recent international comparisons from industry sources:

  Machine tool production in 1989 (£ million)

  United Kingdom

  969

  France

  590

  West Germany

  4,840

  Italy

  1,835

  Source: Machine Tool Technologies Association.

  Note: These figures are industry estimates excluding parts and accessories.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Policy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to convene meetings to assess the characteristics of any or each of the European Community countries for the development of European policy.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the replies given to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on 17 July 1990, at column 859.

EMPLOYMENT

  Child Care
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what instructions have been issued to the Training Agency with regard to the treatment of child care costs for single parent employment training trainees.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) and Training Agency area offices must ensure that provision is made for the costs of caring for children of lone parents who have one or more children under the age of 16 and who are participants in assessment or training on ET. TECs may also make provision for child care out of their local initiative funds. Funding arrangements for child care are for negotiation between individual training agents, training managers and the TEC or area office concerned.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the cost of child care for single parent employment training trainees is to be covered under the new contract; and whether the Training Agency is including child care costs as part of the single unit per training place.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Contracts with training agents and training managers require them to ensure that child care provision is made for lone parents who have one or more children under the age of 16 and who are participating in assessment or are trainees on ET. Arrangements for funding child care are for negotiation between individual training agents and training managers and the training and enterprise council or Training Agency area office concerned. Provision for child care may be included within composite unit costs or funded separately.

  Illiteracy and Innumeracy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of illiteracy and innumeracy upon future prospects for British employers.

  Mr. Eggar
  Available evidence indicates that as many as 6 million people in the adult population may have experienced some difficulty with literacy or numeracy either in the workplace or outside. Lack of basic word and number skills is clearly a barrier to effective performance at work and, in turn, profitability. The problem is as much the concern of employers as of individuals.

  Tourism
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the Government's measures to encourage the tourism industry since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The then Secretary of State announced the conclusions of the Government's major review of their support to the tourism industry on 6 July and 28 November 1989. With the sharper focus of Government support, my right hon. and learned Friend is confident that the industry will continue to prosper.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the statements of the Minister of State of 29 November 1989,Official Report, column 761,
  756
  concerning the Government's estimates of the cost of establishing a minimum wage, if he will state when the research referred to was conducted and completed.

  Mr. Eggar
  Work estimating the effect of a national minimum wage in the context of the social charter started in early October 1989. The estimate of the costs of imposing the national minimum wage, referred to on 29 November, became available in mid-November. Subsequently, a note on method was written, and the work continued to be under review until the end of January.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 98, to the hon. Member for Stretford, on the effects on pay differentials from the introduction of a minimum wage, what would be the total effects if it is assumed that differentials are restored by one half only (a) where, according to the new earnings survey and other departmental sources, more than 50 per cent. of workers in a particular industry earn between half and two thirds of national average earnings, (b) where more than half the workers in an industry are paid below the minimum wage, (c) for those earning up to two thirds average earnings and (d) in the (i) retailing, (ii) distributive trades, (iii) miscellaneous services and (iv) national and local government industries.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Such estimates could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stretford, 2 February,Official Report, column 375, on minimum wage effects, what is the estimated direct cost of raising all those to the minimum wage assumed in the note, broken down as follows: (a) industrial category, (b) region, (c) public sector and (d) private sector and the costs in each case.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 98, to the hon. Member for Stretford, regarding the assumptions contained in the Treasury model on the demand effects of the introduction of a minimum wage (a) how many jobs will be gained as a direct result of the higher wages paid according to the simulations done for the Treasury paper, "The Relationship Between Employment and Wages" and (b) what are the estimated demand effects according to the latest version of the Treasury model.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The simulations reviewed in the Treasury paper, "The Relationship Between Employment and Wages" produced an estimate of the impact of changes in real wages on employment. This is an estimate of the net change taking into account both the effects on consumer demand of changes in real wages, as well as the offsetting effects on company sector demand which arise from corresponding changes in their costs. It is, therefore, not possible to make a separate estimate of how many jobs will be gained as a direct result of the higher wages paid.

  It has not, since 1978, been the practice to run particular simulations on the Treasury model to meet specific outside requests, but the hon. Member will be aware that the current version of the model is available in the Library for Members' use.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria are used in deciding whether accident prevention advisory unit reports are made public by(a) the Health and Safety Executive or (b) the employer involved.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not the Health and Safety Executive's policy to publish the reports of its accident prevention advisory unit which rely on information provided in confidence by employers. Publication by employers is a matter for them.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Health and Safety Executive intends to make public the full findings of the accident prevention advisory unit report into health and safety issues arising from construction of the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive does not intend to publish the report but has sent a copy to the Select Committee on Employment, at its request. Chapter 16, which contains the report's conclusions, has already been published by the contractors, who, with assistance from HSE, are bringing the report to the attention of their work force.

  Training
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the arrangements for approving training providers under new youth training and employment training.

  Mr. Howard
  In April 1986, three years after its introduction, the youth training scheme was extended into a two-year programme. At the same time all YTS training providers were required to achieve approved training organisation status. The purpose of the approval process was to ensure that all providers developed and maintained training of the highest possible quality. By October 1988 all providers delivering YTS met the required standards. These arrangements have been carried forward into new youth training which I launched on 28 June.

  Drawing on the YTS experience a similar stringent approval process was introduced into employment training from its outset in September 1988. In April 1990 the approvals process was streamlined so that seven common criteria now apply to both employment training and new youth training. These are:

  Stage1:

  1. Recruitment, selection and competence of staff;

  2. Equal opportunities;

  3. Health, safety and suitability of premises and equipment;

  4. Financial viability.

  Stage 2:

  5. Identification of training needs;

  6. Training designed and delivered to national standards;

  7. Effective quality management.

  Good progress has been made in extending approval to employment training providers. At 13 June 90 per cent. had achieved stage 1 approval. The stage 2 approval process is still under way and I expect it to be completed not later than April 1991.

  During this period, training and enterprise councils will progressively take over the responsibility for contracting with training providers and for completing the approval
  758
  process. They will be required to ensure that providers achieve and maintain the standards necessary for approval under each of the seven criteria or to set and enforce equally or more exacting quality standards to be agreed with my Department.

WALES

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what secure units, and how many places, are available for young offenders in(a) the Swansea area, (b) south Wales and (c) Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Grist
  The following secure units, and places, are available in Wales:

  (a) the Swansea area:
  Llwyncelyn in West Glamorgan has two secure places.

  (b) South Wales and (c) Wales as a whole:
  Ty Mawr in Gwent has two secure places and Silverbrook in Mid Glamorgan has three secure places.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what responsibility he has for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's operations and activities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has joint responsibility with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for the operations and activities of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in Wales.

  Pollution, Port Talbot
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will consult Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution as regards pollution created by BP Chemicals at Baglen bay, Port Talbot;

  (2) if he will take appropriate action to deal with pollution created by BP Chemicals at Baglen bay, Port Talbot.

  Mr. Grist
  I am advised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) that the pollution referred to in these questions is primarily that associated with the flaring of light hydrocarbon material during periods of major plant commissioning or plant upset. The impact of such flaring is a high luminosity flame, and noise associated with the use of steam injection to ensure complete combustion of flared material. HMIP received complaints during the commissioning period of the BP petrochemical complex from 27 May to 10 June. It had 95 representations via BP Chemicals' complaint procedure system, and a similar number via Port Talbot borough council environmental health department. Six complaints were received directly by HMIP. We understand that most complaints were received by BP and the local authority over the critical period from 1 June to 5 June when instability in the refrigeration system resulted in flaring.

  HMIP tells me that the commissioning of any major petrochemical works will inevitably result in some degree of flaring as the flare system is vital for major equipment protection and safety of personnel. HMIP assures me, however, that it is being kept fully informed of the

  759
  situation at BP Chemicals by communications with the company and is currently assessing the results of internal investigations into the flaring incidents and will be taking any action deemed necessary.

  Corlan Housing Association
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements have been made to continue the outstanding commitments on Corlan housing association's grant-aided development programme.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Under the terms of the rescue package for Corlan housing association drawn up by Housing for Wales, the outstanding commitments on Corlan's grant-aided development programme will be taken over by Housing for Wales and then placed with other housing associations.

  As an interim arrangement instead of paying housing association grant, Housing for Wales will need to make payments direct to contractors. Parliamentary approval of this expenditure will be sought in a winter supplementary estimate for class XVI, vote 6. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at a total cost of £6.4 million is being met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

ENERGY

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place in the Library copies of all notifications provided by his Department to the European Commission relating to the level and extent of the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) on Monday 26 March at column 5.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey,Official Report, 10 July, column 155, on the fossil fuel levy, if he will give details of the projected scope for efficiency savings within Nuclear Electric until 1998 as identified by his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. This is a commercial matter for Nuclear Electric plc.

  Energy Paper Projections
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to update the projections in energy paper 55; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I expect to review energy paper 55 in 1991. This will include both the projections and Government programmes.

  Wind Power
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most recent estimate of the maximum potential for wind power generation in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Government views on the potential for renewable energy sources were laid out in 760
  energy paper 55. A contribution of up to 30 TWh/y from land-based turbines was estimated by the year 2025 if R and D programmes were successful and the technology could be deployed commercially.

  PowerGen
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) with whom discussions have taken place about the sale by private treaty of PowerGen;

  (2) which companies are advising him on the possible sale of PowerGen by private treaty;

  (3) what steps are being taken to protect public financial interests under the private treaty method of sale for PowerGen.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In preparing the electricity industry for privatisation, I am bound to consider with my financial advisers all options for maximising proceeds consistent with the Government's objectives for the industry. All such discussions are confidential. It would not be right to rule out the possibility of a trade sale if a suitable purchaser emerged.

  Nuclear Fuel (Reprocessing)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is(a) the total quantity and (b) the total percentage of plutonium arising from the reprocessing of foreign spent fuel that has been returned to its country of origin, for each foreign country whose fuel has been accepted, for each year from 1965 to 1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand from British Nuclear Fuels plc that, between 1965 and 1989, some 3.5 tonnes of plutonium from the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel were returned to the country of origin or sent to a country specified by the owner of the plutonium. The bulk of this plutonium has been of Japanese or Italian origin with smaller amounts originating in Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Spain or Switzerland. At the end of 1989, some 0.5 tonnes of extracted plutonium were held in stock at Sellafield awaiting return to overseas owners.

  National Grid Company
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the proposed capital reduction for the National Grid Company.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A court hearing is scheduled for Monday 30 July. This is an important part of the process for establishing the capital structure of the company in preparation for the move to the private sector as part of the sale of the 12 regional electricity companies later this year.

  Hinkley Point C
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish the report of the Hinkley Point C inquiry before he announces his decision and before the House rises for the summer Adjournment.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [pursuant to his reply 2 July 1990, c. 431]: I am now in a position to inform the House that I shall not be able to announce my decision regarding Nuclear Electric's application before the House rises for the summer Adjournment. As I have previously indicated it is my intention to publish my decision and the inspector's report simultaneously in the late summer.
  761
  I shall be arranging for copies of both my decision letter and of the report to be placed in the Libraries of the House. Copies of my decision letter and the inspector's conclusions and recommendations will be available in the Vote Office.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Offals
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now ban the use of those offals specified in the bovine offals order in(a) pet food and (b) feed for pigs and poultry.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am considering the recommendation by the Select Committee on Agriculture of a statutory ban on the use of these materials in pet food. In doing so I will need to bear in mind whether there is any scientific evidence for such action.

  There is no evidence to support banning the use of these materials in pig and poultry feed.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in respect of disposal of those cattle offals banned for use for human consumption which are not held in storage by the rendering industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 7 December 1989, (Official Report, column 374).

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now instigate an inquiry into the production of animal feed.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am considering the recommendation of the Select Committee on Agriculture that such an inquiry should be undertaken.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the prevalence of the practice of feeding chicken manure to(a) cattle, (b) pigs and (c) poultry; what is his policy in respect of this practice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  As far as I am aware, chicken manure is not fed direct to animals and ensiled poultry litter is fed only to cattle. Free-range chickens may of course naturally eat their own and other chicken's droppings.

  Anyone ensiling such material is subject to the provisions of the Processed Animal Protein Order 1989 which requires registration with the Department and microbiological testing of the end product. Regular checks on the ensiling process are carried out by the state veterinary service.

  Cattle Offspring
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now introduce a comprehensive system for identifying and tracking the offspring of cattle.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 4 July,Official Report, column 590.

  Cattle Heads
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now ban the splitting of cattle heads in abattoirs.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 10 July 1990,Official Report, column 270.

  Fish Landings
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details for June 1989 and June 1990 of all(a) non-cod and (b) cod landings from sea area VIIA broken down by vessel length band for (i) east coast Scottish, (ii) west coast Scottish, (iii) English, (iv) Welsh and (v) Northern Irish, indicating within each category the number of vessels and tonnages landed.

  Mr. Gummer
  I regret that it would be too expensive to give a detailed response to the questions posed by my hon. Friend. I will, however, make a general statement about the alleged misreporting of cod in the Irish sea and off the west coast of Ireland.

  The non-sector's quota of cod in the Irish sea for 1990 is 1,858 tonnes. Approximately half this quota was apparently taken by Scottish vessels and landed into Scotland during June and early July. In addition, landings into Scotland of cod reported as taken from the west of Ireland (areas VIIb and VIIc) have shown a marked increase in the second half of June. The Irish sea cod fishery has had to be closed to the non-sector as its quota for the year has already been exhausted.

  The industry has stated its view that some Scottish vessels have been misreporting fish caught in the North sea or off the west coast of Scotland as coming from the Irish sea or off the west coast of Ireland, and has asked that catches should be reallocated from the latter to the former areas.

  Fisheries Departments accept that the circumstantial evidence points to misreporting having taken place. The Irish sea cod fishery is traditionally a spring and winter fishery and high catches in summer are unusual. The pattern of landings this year is very different from experience. Moreover, the rate of uptake by the non-sector has not been paralleled by the sector. However, departments cannot act to penalise a particular group of vessels or to compensate Irish sea fishermen affected on the basis of rumour or circumstantial evidence; they can act only following successful prosecution of offenders. Departments are examining all fishing documents and, if they can secure hard evidence of misreporting, they will prosecute.

  In the meantime, Departments are looking urgently at ways of limiting misreporting in future, and hope to be able to set up a system later this year. I know that the industry has in the past rejected tougher enforcement measures in view of their cost and inconvenience, but if it is serious about limiting misreporting, I hope that it will now accept the need for firm action.

  If a system to limit misreporting can be established quickly, Departments will try to obtain more quota from another member state with the aim of reopening the Irish sea cod fishery to the non-sector later this year. However, such a swap would depend on the successful identification of another United Kingdom stock to offer in exchange.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of persons on hospital waiting lists per 1,000 persons within(a) Norwich district health authority, (b) East Anglian regional health authority and (c) all district health authorities in England.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. The waiting list per thousand resident population may be misleading because a significant, though varying, proportion of patients on the waiting list are referred by general practitioners in other districts. The relevant population for comparison is therefore the "catchment" population which in many cases varies substantially from the resident population.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of people who have been treated for psychiatric or physical injuries following harassment for being HIV-positive.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all projects in the United Kingdom of which he is aware involved in researching the AIDS virus, together with their expenditure, noting specifically where the Government have financed or partly financed them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The chief scientist of the Department of Health chairs interdepartmental meetings to discuss Government-funded AIDS/HIV research. Under the auspices of this committee, "HIV Infection and AIDS in the UK: Overview of Government Funded AIDS Research" has been compiled. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to contain the HIV-2 virus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are firmly committed to taking effective action to minimise the spread of HIV. All the possible health measures in place, including health education, are as relevant to HIV 2 as they are to HIV 1.

  All blood donations have been screened for HIV 1 and 2 as a combined test since 1 June 1990. However, HIV 2 is not considered to be a significant problem in the United Kingdom, nor for the rest of Europe, except Portugal where there appear to be roughly equal numbers of HIV 1 and HIV 2 positive donors. Many countries do not screen for HIV 2, including the United States of America.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are being used to evaluate the effectiveness of advertising the dangers of AIDS in the media.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  AIDS mass media public education campaigns are evaluated by continuing independent market research consisting of interviews with a sample of the population. This measures public awareness, comprehension and acceptability of campaign advertising. This research, which began in 1986, also includes surveys of respondents' claimed heterosexual behaviour, including condom use, and a survey 764
  undertaken in venues attended by homosexual men to gauge their response to advertising specifically directed towards them.

  Other indicators include:
  the number and nature of calls to the national AIDS helpline; and
  new attendances at genito-urinary medicine clinics.

  National Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much per capita spending on the national health service is for the current financial year; and how much it was in 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We currently spend more than £500 per head on the National Health Service each year, compared with £360 at today's prices in 1978–79.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the spending per resident by Dewsbury health authority was for each of the years 1979 to 1989, inclusive; and what was the comparable national average spending over the same period.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 13 June 1990]: Information for Dewsbury health authority and for all district health authorities in England for the years since 1 April 1982 are shown in the table.

  The figures relate expenditure on services within Dewsbury health authority boundaries to numbers of residents. They do not show expenditure on services for Dewsbury residents, since they do not take account of services provided by other districts for Dewsbury residents, or services provided by Dewsbury health authority for residents of other districts.

  Total revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services (HCHS) per resident

  Dewsbury health authority £ (cash)

  England average £ (cash)

  1982–83

  118

  166

  1983–84

  123

  175

  1984–85

  130

  185

  1985–86

  139

  194

  1986–87

  149

  208

  1987–88

  162

  227

  11988–89

  181

  252

  1 Latest available.

  Sources:

  (a) Annual accounts of the Dewsbury health authority and all other district health authorities in England for the financial years 1982–83 to 1988–89.

  (b) Mid year estimates of resident population—1982 to 1988 (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

  Notes to the table:

  1. Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) covers the total expenditure by district health authorities including that on hospital community health and where relevant patient transport (i.e. ambulance), blood transfusion and other services.

  2. District capital expenditure, all expenditure incurred by Regional health authorities on behalf of their regions as a whole and by special health authorities, etc. is excluded. Expenditure on family practitioner services, which is accounted for by family practitioner committees and cannot strictly be attributed to particular districts, is also excluded.

  3. Prior to 1 April 1982 to Dewsbury health authority's predecessor health district formed part of a larger area health authority and in those cases district based figures were not collected centrally.

  National Health Service (Contracts)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the effect of separating purchasers and providers within the national health service in the new contracts system.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We expect the separation of purchasers and providers and the introduction of contracts to bring a new clarity to the management of the National Health Service. As purchasers, district health authorities will be able to concentrate on securing effective and efficient health care for their residents. Our initial concern for 1991–92 is to ensure that the new mechanisms are in place. As the new system develops, we expect contracts to be the means by which purchasing authorities and provider units together will be able to agree improvements in the quality and appropriateness of services offered.

  National Health Service (Surplus Land)
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the amount which has now been raised within the national health service, for the sale of surplus land since 1979; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Sales of surplus National Health Service property from 1979–80 to 1989–90 inclusive have realised a total of approximately £1.1 billion. This money has been retained by health authorities for reinvestment in the service.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the new membership of the district health authorities will be announced.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Statutory responsibility for the appointment of non-executive members of district health authorities rests with the relevant regional health authority. We expect them to make announcements in due course.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions apply on the eligibility for reappointment of CHC members of eight years' standing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The restrictions on the eligibility for reappointment of CHC members of eight years' standing are set out in the Community Health Councils Regulations 1985, regulation 7(2).

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who was consulted over the new membership for each of the positions of (1) chairperson of regions, (2) membership of regions, (3) chairperson of district health authority, (4) membership of district health authority and (5) membership of family health service authority in the new health authorities.
  766
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is no statutory requirement to consult on these appointments. However, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State appoints the chairmen of regional and district health authorities and the non-executive members of regional health authorities he welcomes recommendations and comments from all quarters, as do regional health authorities when making the appointments to district health authorities and family health services authorities.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the new(a) membership and (b) chairpersons of the regional health authorities will be announced.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today placed in the Library a list of the non-executive members of regional health authorities appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The general manager and the director of finance will be ex-officio executive members of the regional health authority. Other executives are appointed by the chairman, the non-executives and the general manager.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made an announcement on regional chairmen's appointments in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) on 24 May at column 337.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the new membership of the family health service authorities will be announced.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Appointments of members of family health services authorities is a matter for the appropriate regional health authority.

  Remand Homes
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of spaces available in each juvenile remand home and other secure accommodation together with the number of vacancies currently available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Local authority social services departments provide a range of facilities and services, both residential and non-residential, which may be used by juveniles remanded to their care. This includes a national network of approved secure accommodation to which all local authorities have access.

  The number of places available in approved local authority secure units in England on 30 June 1990 was 294. Such accommodation is, however, available for children in care generally, some of whom will be alleged juvenile offenders. Details of the number of places provided in each secure unit are in the following table.

  Occupancy figures are collected annually. Provisional figures for the year ending 31 March 1989 indicate that there were 282 approved secure places on that date, of which 224 were occupied (an occupancy rate of 79.4 per cent.). This figure is similar to the year-end occupancy rates of previous years.

  Information relating to the provision of secure accommodation in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  767

  Table: Places provided in local authority secure accommodation on 30 June 1990

  Region

  Name of Unit

  Local Authority

  Number of places

  Northern

  Aycliffe (Royston House)

  Durham

  *14M

  Aycliffe Special Unit

  Durham

  36M

  Netherton Park

  Northumberland

  5M

  Yorkshire and

  Kepples View

  Rotherham

  4M

  Humberside

  East Moor

  Leeds

  27B

  North Western

  Red Sands

  Cheshire

  6M

  Derwent House

  Liverpool

  4G

  Red Bank (Vardy House)

  Lancashire

  4B

  Red Bank Special Unit

  Lancashire

  26B

  Blackbrook House (Labore House)

  Liverpool SSVA

  5G

  Briars Hey (Orchard House)

  Lancashire

  8G

  Dyson Hall

  Liverpool

  8B

  Barton Moss (Park House)

  Salford

  7B

  West Midlands

  Stoke House

  Coventry

  8M

  St. Johns

  Birmingham

  4M

  East Midlands

  Moorfield

  Derby

  2M

  Kesteven

  Lincoln

  4M

  Amberdale

  Nottinghamshire

  8M

  Greenacres

  Derby

  5M

  Thames/Anglia

  Salters

  Cambridgeshire

  6G

  Woodside Young People's Centre

  Hertfordshire

  2M

  Thornbury House

  Oxfordshire

  3B

  Brookside

  Berkshire

  4M

  London

  Middlesex Lodge

  Hillingdon

  9G

  Little Heath Lodge

  Newham

  6B

  Orchard Lodge

  Southwark

  8B

  Frant Court

  Greenwich

  3G

  Stamford House

  Hammersmith

  16B

  Southern

  Landsdowne

  East Sussex

  5M

  Beechfield

  West Sussex

  6M

  Fairfield

  Hampshire

  3G

  Glen House

  Hampshire

  8B

  South Western

  Atkinson Unit

  Devon

  12M

  Kingswood

  Avon

  20B

  M = Mixed B = Boy G = Girl

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  High Court Judges
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the number and percentage of High Court judges, by rank, who are(a) ex-solicitors and (b) ex-barristers.

  The Attorney-General
  It is at present a statutory requirement that anyone appointed to the High Court bench must be a barrister of at least 10 years' standing (Supreme Court Act 1981, section 10(3)(c)). The Courts and Legal Services Bill, currently before Parliament, provides for a change in this requirement.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has on the number and percentage of High Court judges, by rank, who are(a) public school educated, (b) university educated and (c) Oxbridge educated.

  The Attorney-General
  There are 83 High Court judges, of whom 64 (77.1 per cent.) went to schools which are today listed in the "Independent Schools Yearbook," 80 (96.4 per cent.) went to university, and 70 (84.3 per cent.) went to either Oxford or Cambridge.
  768
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the number and percentage of High Court judges, by rank, who are(a) 70 years old and over and (b) 60 years old and over.

  The Attorney-General
  There are 83 High Court judges, of whom 23 (27.7 per cent.) are aged between 60 and 69, and 10 (12 per cent.) are aged between 70 and 75, giving a total of 33 (39.8 per cent.) who are aged 60 and over.

SCOTLAND

  Maternity Services
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has funded to assess the safety or the comparative costs of delivery in(a) district general hospitals, (b) general practitioner maternity units and (c) at home; and if he will give the conclusions of each project funded.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: The Scottish Home and Health Department provides core funding for the health economics research unit and the social paediatric and obstetric research unit, which are based in Aberdeen university and Glasgow university respectively.
  769
  In the late 1970s the health economics research unit published "An Analysis of the Costs and Functions of General Practitioner and Specialist Maternity Hospital Units" which showed that the cost per delivery and per occupied bed-day in general practitioner and consultant units was not dissimilar.

  Over the past 20 years the social paediatric and obstetric research unit's research programme has covered epidemiological studies of maternal and child care and the evaluation of the performance of aspects, including safety, of the Scottish maternity services. This recognises that in practice straightforward confinements can be handled at home but potentially more complex ones should be directed to specialist services at an early stage. The results of the studies have been widely publicised.

  The Department is funding separately a study based at Dundee university of antenatal care in a random sample of Scottish hospitals.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what was the average number of days at sea per trip recorded in June by Scottish vessels landing into Peterhead and having declared fishing in area VII;

  (2) of the Scottish vessels landing into Peterhead in June having declared area VII catches, how many had radioed in; and what percentages were physically summoned for inspection;

  (3) how many of the Scottish vessels landing in Peterhead in June having declared area VII catches failed to radio in;

  (4) whether vessels crossing the 4 deg. line have to declare in which International Council for the Exploration of the Seas area their catch was caught.

  Mr. Lang
  I have been asked to reply.

  During June, 29 Scottish vessels landed fish into Peterhead which they recorded as having been caught in International Council for the Exploration of the Seas area VII. This involved 34 fishing trips, averaging eight days. None of the vessels radioed in on crossing the 4 deg. line and consequently none was summoned for inspection. There is no requirement for vessels which do radio in to report details of where catches were taken. This information is obtained from the log book.

  These cases are being fully investigated and any evidence of misreporting will be submitted to the procurator fiscal. Urgent consideration is also being given as to how to limit future misreporting.

  Local Authority Allowances
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to lay the Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 before Parliament.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am grateful to all those who submitted comments on the draft regulations circulated by my Department on 15 June 1990. Points have since arisen which will result in a number of changes to the regulations. These changes will not affect the main essentials of the Government's proposals, including the banding proposals which I announced in my letter of 15 May 1990 to the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I have nevertheless decided to defer implementation of the 770
  new scheme of councillors' allowances in Scotland until 1 November 1990. This will provide local authorities with time to decide whether they wish to make any detailed amendments to their schemes in the light of the revised regulations which will be issued as soon as possible.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to introduce regulations to remove the need for charge payers to inform community charge registration officers of their new home address or a forwarding address whenever they move to a new charging authority area; and whether he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the terms of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 there is no general duty placed upon community charge payers to inform the community charges registration officer for the area in which they are registered for any of the community charges of their intended address, if they are proposing to move outwith that registration officer's area. There is, of course, a requirement for a charge payer to register at his new address. Under section 18A of the 1987 Act a registration officer may require information of a person whom he reasonably believes is, has been, or is about to be resident in the residential area but only if that information is such as the registration officer may reasonably require for the purposes of the exercise of his functions under the Act and is in the possession or control of the person. Charge payers can, of course, provide forwarding addresses to registration officers if they wish to have the notification that their register entry has been deleted sent to their new address.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce regulations to prevent the disclosure of information by charging authorities, whenever the information disclosed relates to community charge debts and the recipients of information are not acting as agents of the authority with respect to debt recovery; and whether he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to introduce such regulations which he considers to be unnecessary.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of domestic rates payable for 1988–89 was collected by local authorities; and what percentage of personal poll tax payable for 1989–90 was collected by local authorities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: The information requested relating to the collection of domestic rates is not held centrally. On the general level of collection of community charges I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 July. Final collection figures will not be known until local authorities have completed their recovery procedures, which may not be for some time.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of the number of requests that would be
  771
  received; what consideration he is giving to the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Forty-six valid applications have been received under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984; 45 were received from Scottish Office staff and one was from a member of the general public. For forward planning there was a working assumption of 500 requests per annum. I do not propose to review the access fee. There have been no complaints or other evidence that the access fee accounts for the low level of public interest.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has for regulations concerning the disclosure of anonymous poll tax data; what advice he intends to give to community charges registration officers on how to ensure that the identity of individuals is guaranteed; and whether he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will introduce legislation to prevent charging authorities from using community charge information for purposes that are not directly relevant to the management or collection of the community charge; and whether he will make a statement;

  (3) whether he will introduce legislation to prevent a community charge registration officer or charging authority from disclosing community charge information for purposes that are not directly relevant to the management or collection of the community charge; and whether he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 26 February 1990,Official Report, 26 February 1990, Vol. 168, column 76].

  Rural Libraries
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce a rural library incentive scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  In line with the undertaking already given to the hon. Member and others, I am considering whether a rural public library incentive scheme should be introduced in Scotland. The report, which called for a rural public library incentive scheme, also urged rural library authorities to take action to improve services within their communities and I hope that rural authorities will consider this carefully.

  A1
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at which points the A1 in Scotland is expected to be reduced to one-way operation during the next six weeks; and whether these restrictions will apply during the Scottish and English bank holiday weekends.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  One-way operations on the A1 in Scotland in the next six weeks will take place at the following locations:Haddington Bypass—construction of a roundabout at the Aberlady (A6132) junction.
  Haddington eastwards to Beanston—two separate moving single lane.
  Beanston eastwards to East Linton—restrictions for laying a gas main.
  Musselburgh Bypass—short contraflow or lane closures for bridge works.

  Of these, the Haddington bypass restriction will be in force over the Scottish bank holiday weekend but will be
  772
  lifted for the English holiday. British Gas will still be working on both holidays but will remove one-way working over the Scottish holiday weekend and it is hoped that it will manage to do likewise for the English weekend.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what were the projected traffic flow figures for vehicles, by category, travelling on the A1 between Edinburgh and the border before the announcement of the upgrading programme south of Newcastle;

  (2) what are the projected traffic flow figures for vehicles, by category, travelling on the A1 between Edinburgh and the border following completion of the upgrading programme south of Newcastle.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: Traffic levels vary significantly on the A1 between Edinburgh and the border. At 1989 traffic levels, the average annual flow west of Haddington was 13,000 vehicles per day, reducing-to approximately 5,000 vehicles per day in Borders region. Heavy goods vehicles account for approximately 12 to 13 per cent. and 20 to 30 per cent. of the flows respectively. National forecasts predict an overall increase in road traffic of between 23 per cent. and 39 per cent. by the year 2000. However, the routes south of Edinburgh study concluded that improvements planned on other competing routes will affect the distribution of traffic and that traffic growth on the A1 through the Borders in Scotland will be less than might otherwise be expected.

  The study also considered the potential for a transfer of traffic to the route resulting from east coast road improvements. It is likely that the completion of a motorway link to Newcastle will result in an increase of fewer than 1,000 trips per day on the A1 in Scotland by the turn of the century.

  These assessments will be monitored by the A1 steering group whose formation I announced recently.

  Hazardous Waste Inspectorate
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the hazardous waste inspectorate will publish its fourth annual report for 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord-James Douglas-Hamilton
  The hazardous waste inspectorate's (HWI) terms of reference required it to publish reports periodically rather than annually. The last report, published in June 1988, covered the whole of the United Kingdom.

  In April 1987 the HWI in England and Wales became part of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) whose report does not cover Scotland. The Scottish Development Department is preparing a separate Scottish HWI report which it intends to publish before the end of 1990.

  Nitrogen Dioxide
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers he intends to use to protect the health of people in Scottish cities from the effects of nitrogen dioxide.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no evidence that the present levels of nitrogen dioxide pose a health hazard to people in Scottish cities.
  773
  Measurements of nitrogen dioxide made at some 50 different locations in Scotland gave no cause for concern. The relevant EC directive on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide specifies the limits and the results from the directive monitoring site in Glasgow have been below these limits.

  Powers to reduce emissions of nitrogen dioxide from motor vehicles rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. His plans for the reduction of emissions are contained in the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport on 8 June, Official Report, Vol. 173, column 722.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for emissions from prescribed industrial plant and for implementing the EC large combustion plants directive which requires, inter alia, that emissions of nitrogen dioxide be reduced overall by 15 per cent. and 30 per cent. by 1993 and 1988 respectively, taking 1980 as the base year.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers he has to reduce the volume of urban traffic in Scottish cities; and whether he intends to take steps to reduce the concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in city centres.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has no such powers. Responsibility for traffic management matters for local roads in Scotland rests with regional and islands councils as local roads authorities.

  Plans for the reduction of nitrogen dioxide emissions from motor vehicles are contained in the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport on 8 June 1990, Official Report, Volume 173, column 722.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers he has to reduce emissions of nitrogen dioxide from industry where these contribute to a level in air which exceeds the limit laid down by the EC directive on nitrogen dioxide.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate is responsible for ensuring that the best practicable means are taken by operators of prescribed classes of industrial premises to prevent the emission of substances such as nitrogen dioxide and to render such emissions as may occur harmless and inoffensive.

  Autopsies
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many autopsies were carried out in Scotland for the latest year for which information is available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of autopsies performed in Scotland in the year ended 31 March 1989 was 9,721.

  Nurses (Grading Appeals)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what deadline he has set for all clinical grading appeals by nurses which are currently outstanding.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: A majority of health boards have already completed their regrading appeal hearings. Initial reluctance on the part of the staff side to co-operate in arranging hearings led to considerable delays in the commencement of the appeal hearings programme. These difficulties have now been overcome and health boards have been asked to ensure that the backlog of hearings is cleared as quickly as practicable.

  Bypass Operations
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of patients in each health board area currently awaiting coronary artery bypass operations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 July 1990]: At March 1990 the numbers were:

  Health board of residence

  Number of patients

  Argyll and Clyde

  50

  Ayrshire and Arran

  56

  Borders

  23

  Dumfries and Galloway

  23

  Fife

  45

  Forth Valley

  31

  Grampian

  114

  Greater Glasgow

  223

  Highland

  33

  Lanarkshire

  89

  Lothian

  105

  Orkney

  2

  Shetland

  2

  Tayside

  91

  Western Isles

  3

  TOTAL

  890

  Youth Training
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 607, if he will give the equivalent figures for the reduction in funding under youth training for those with special training needs.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 July 1990]: In 1989–90, 26.5 per cent. of youth training expenditure in Orkney and 14.4 per cent. in Shetland related to special needs trainees. Information as regards the overall percentage of youth training expenditure in 1990–91 which relates to special needs trainees will not be available until total data for that financial year have been analysed.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

War Pensions Claims: Radiation Exposure
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in the light of the decision of the coroner in the case of the late Mr. Walter Fazackerley they will review the decisions in other cases of claims to war pensions by persons exposed to radiation resulting from nuclear tests on Christmas Island and elsewhere in the Pacific.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the war pensions scheme provides for pensions where there is reliable evidence which raises a reasonable doubt that a condition is caused or aggravated by service or that death was due to or substantially hastened by service. It is accepted that the evidence raises such a doubt in the case of participants in the United Kingdom nuclear weapons test programme who have contracted leukaemia (excluding chronic lymphatic leukaemia) or multiple myeloma, the condition from which Mr. Fazackerley died. Any claim to a war pension by such servicemen or their widows is therefore likely to succeed. Consequently, a review of decisions on claims for war pension as a result of the coroner's decision in the case of the late Mr. Walter Fazackerley is unnecessary. I am pleased to advise my noble friend that a war widows pension has been awarded to Mrs. Fazackerley.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Did I understand him to say that, nonetheless, the war pension authorities are not to review radiation cases which had been turned down despite the clear decision of the coroner's court? Surely in the circumstances of this case of exposure to radiation, at a time when very little was known about it, the finding that death had resulted from it must raise a reasonable doubt in all similar cases. Would it not be in accordance with the traditions of the war pensions scheme, with its bias towards the applicant, that these cases should be reviewed?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the coroner found that Mr. Fazackerley died of multiple myeloma. We have agreed in the past that we will award war widows pensions for deaths caused by multiple myeloma. There is no evidence that other forms of cancer apart from leukaemia have been caused by taking part in these tests.
My noble friend went on to say that we should review all cases. He may know that we previously rejected Mr. Fazackerley's claim on the grounds that
1114
he had not taken part in the tests but had been involved only in the clean-up operations. After representations from the right honourable Member for Stoke on Trent, Mr. Jack Ashley, I apologised for that decision, which was an error, because Mr. Fazackerley had been present in the area. I said that we would review all the claims to see whether the cause of death, if it came within those two categories, would give entitlement to a war widows pension.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not a fact that in a general sense we treat the people involved rather more shabbily than other countries, such as Australia and America, that took part in nuclear tests? If that is the case, is it not time that we put matters right for the diminishing number of people involved?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer for other countries. All I can say is that evidence shows that there is a slightly increased likelihood in the case of multiple myeloma and leukaemia. There is no evidence in the case of the other cancers.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while it is common sense that there should be some identifiable boundaries to bring people within the category for the purposes of war pensions, other factors such as our way of life today can sometimes account for the problems lying behind my noble friend's question? Is there no way of running alongside the formal agreement to give a pension by providing an ex gratia alternative? That would allow us to get over the rigid borderline which brings about these uncertainties.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have already said that we have a generous standard of proof. I do not think that we can go beyond that. All we ask is that there is a reasonable doubt that a condition is caused or aggravated by service. In those circumstances, we will grant a pension.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord he good enough to consider having talks on this trying subject with the Royal British Legion, which has many members who are so affected? It is beginning to examine the proposition whether or not such exposure could be treated as a form of war wound.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have met the Royal British Legion on a number of occasions and it has raised this matter with me. I cannot go further than I have gone. If there is a reasonable doubt that a condition is caused or aggravated by service, we will grant a pension.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that there is strong feeling on all sides of the House that something should be done? I support the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is a question of a little generosity and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said, a little imagination. Will the Government think again about that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I honestly cannot go any further. As I said, the standard of proof for the war pensions scheme is already very generous. We can award pensions only where there is some reasonable doubt that disability is caused by war service.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it seems to some of us who have been concerned in war pensions administration that it is contrary to the whole spirit of that system to rely on the highly technical question of which form of cancer has arisen? Is it really sufficiently certain that while radiation can produce some forms of cancer it cannot in any circumstances produce other forms? Is that really being maintained?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are relying on the evidence produced by the report published by the National Radiological Protection Board. It stated that there was a slightly increased hazard of mortality in those two cases, but not in other cases.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, in the past there was the War Pensions Appeals Tribunal. Anyone who was rejected for a pension by the Ministry had a right to appeal to what was mainly a lay body. The two issues involved were attributability and aggravation. I speak as one who went before that board many times. I found that if one could show that some aggravation was caused through war service or, in this case, radiation, the tribunal would without any shadow of doubt find in one's favour. Does that still apply today, and have these people the right to appeal?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously these people still have a right to appeal. The appeals tribunal still exists.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, what action should be taken as regards someone who was present at this explosion and who subsequently died of cancer? Further, what type of cancer would bring such a person into the pension range either for the benefit of his widow or indeed any of his relatives?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if someone who took part in those tests subsequently dies of or contracts leukaemia, excluding chronic lymphatic leukaemia or multiple myeloma, there is a likelihood of entitlement to a war pension. In the case of a person's death, his widow would be entitled to a war widows pension. Such claims should be made through my department.

NHS Trusts: Applications
11.15 a.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many hospitals and other NHS units have now expressed interest in becoming self-governing, and how many formal proposals have now been submitted.
Lord Henley: My Lords, 205 units have expressed an interest in becoming self-governing and 51 formal applications have now been received.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, can he tell us what criteria the Government use for deciding whether or not a hospital should opt out of the National Health Service? I am sorry; I do not really mean opt out of the National Health Service scheme; I meant to refer to hospitals becoming self-governing. What precisely are the criteria upon which decisions will ultimately be made?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that I misheard the noble Lord. I hope that he did not say that our hospitals are opting out of the National Health Service. The situation has been made quite clear to him on many occasions.
Applications for National Health Service trust status will have to demonstrate, first, potential benefits to patients and improved quality of service; secondly, they will have to demonstrate adequate managerial skills and capacity to run the hospitals as self-governing units; and, thirdly, they will have to show the involvement of senior professional staff in the management of a hospital. Further, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the proposal is consistent with maximising choice for patients and GPs, that it is financially viable and that self-governing status is not being sought as an alternative to closure.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may pursue the issue of criteria. Bearing in mind the fact that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that doctors, nurses and paramedics tend to be opposed to self-governing status and that it is only the management staff who seem to think that they will do well out of it, will the Secretary of State, in making such a decision, actually make public in documentary form the precise reasons to which my noble friend referred as to why he took the decision in the way he did? In other words, will the reasons as to why the hospital concerned did or did not meet the required standards become public knowledge? Alternatively, will he simply say yes or no?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we shall consult all the bodies involved in the hospital, the regional health authorities and all other interested parties. My right honourable friend will then make his decision based upon the application document which will be published, as will the comments received in consultation and all the other information relevant to that application. As yet, my right honourable friend has not said whether he will make public the reasons for his decision.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I understand that the phrase "opting out" really means that hospitals want to get away from what some of them call the dead hand of bureaucracy which is applied by the district health authority. I must therefore ask the following questions. Can the Minister say who are the people in the district health authorities? Further, when they make a good decision, who is the person above them who says, "No, we shall not have that either"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, membership of the district health authorities is another matter. I must stress again that National Health Service trusts will not opt out of the National Health Service.
Lord Mellish: I know that.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in so far as the Minister has outlined the criteria which will be used, can one assume that the information will ultimately be published in detail? Further, will it be possible for

1117
interested people to protest about something that the Government may be intending to put upon them which they do not want?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, there will be consultation with all interested bodies. Obviously such consultation will be taken into account by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when he makes his decision.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this matter, but my noble friend asked an important question. Perhaps I may clarify the position in regard to your Lordships' House. If a particular hospital were granted self-governing status, would Members of this House be able to ask precisely why this had happened? Alternatively, if such questions were asked, would the Minister, if it were his job to do so, simply rise and say, "My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has taken this decision and there is nothing more to be said"? That would be a very serious situation given the way in which we have debated such matters in this Chamber. We need to know upon what basis, especially in terms of public documentation, we shall be able to examine such decisions.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said that the application document will be made public and that comments received through consultation will also be made public. After such consultation, it is the duty of my right honourable friend to make his decision.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with all due respect to the Minister, that does not answer the question. Are we at any stage to be told on what basis a decision has been made? Further, is there any way in which Members of your Lordships' House will be able to challenge a decision?
Lord Henley: My Lords, quite obviously my right honourable friend is accountable to Parliament. Therefore, to that extent, any decision he makes can be challenged.

Company Failures
11.20 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the level of company failures is in line with their industrial policy.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government's policy is to promote a business climate in which the private sector is free to prosper by its own efforts. That policy is working. In a dynamic economy there will always be firms going out of business. What matters is the net position. The latest figures for VAT registrations, the best available measure of net change in the number of businesses, show continued strong net increases in registrations.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am pleased to hear the optimistic note in the Minister's Answer. Perhaps I might point to some other figures which show rather a different picture. Is the Minister aware that figures released recently show that 11,600 firms
1118
went into liquidation or were declared bankrupt in the first half of 1990, and that that is a 30 per cent. increase on the same period last year and the highest figure for 10 years? Is the Minister further aware that one of the reasons for that rise is the Government policy on the uniform business rate? Are the Government contemplating a U-turn on the setting of the UBR as they have with the poll tax?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no, we are not contemplating any U-turns; the noble Baroness may be assured of that. The reasons why businesses go out of business are many and varied. Some of them relate to the standard of management. Companies sometimes cease to trade for respectable reasons; for example, in connection with amalgamations and such matters.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that in many areas of this country where there are bodies such as local enterprise agencies, a movement to which the Government have given a great deal of support, the rate of failure of new small businesses has been about halved in recent years?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The position is far from consistent across the country. As he rightly pointed out, in some areas the rate of failure is much less than it is in others. What matters, as I said earlier, is the net position, and the fact is that substantially more businesses are opening these days than are closing down.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it was interesting to hear the Government statement of their industrial policy, because until now I did not gather that they had one. Will the Minister confirm, however, that that industrial policy which he has just set out is wholly at variance with the Government's counter-inflation policy? A counter-inflation policy, after all, demands, according to them, high interest rates. Is it not those high interest rates which are driving small companies into bankruptcy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, nothing is worse for small businesses than high inflation. It is our policy to reduce inflation through the measures that we have taken, and that will be of great benefit to all industries, small and large alike.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Japan is the business failure capital of the world at the moment, closely followed by the United States and West Germany and then us, and that at the other end of the scale come North Korea and Albania? Is it clear in which direction we should be going?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Viscount draws your Lordships' attention to some interesting statistics upon which I should like to reflect, if I may.

BA: EC Competition Directorate Visit
11.23 a.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Under what powers, and in what circumstances, officials of the competition directorate of the European Commission are permitted to search the London office of the chairman of British Airways and to inspect his personal bank account.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Commission officials visited British Airways on 23rd and 24th February, by prior arrangement with the company. The visit was part of the investigation of an agreement between BA, KLM and Sabena which had been notified by the airlines to the Commission under the Community's competition rules. We have no reason to believe that the Commission exceeded its powers. If the airline wishes to make a complaint about the conduct of the visit, we will follow this up.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the company received less than 24 hours' notice that such a search was to be made and that even though the chairman offered total co-operation and to make available any documents that the Commission wished to specify, it did not specify any documents, but made the search an open one which included the perusal of some of the chairman's private belongings? Is the Minister aware that such a search is not what we expect in this country and is totally unacceptable?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said, I do not believe that the Commission officials exceeded their powers in the matter; but I think that the visit was conducted in a somewhat heavy-handed way. We hope that they will be more restrained in the future.
Lord Jay: My Lords, if the Commission officials exceeded their powers, would the British authorities have corresponding powers to inspect the personal bank account of members of the Commission?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said, I do not believe that the Commission exceeded its powers in this matter, but I doubt that we have the powers that the noble Lord mentions.
Lord Monson: My Lords, if the Commission did not exceed its powers, is that not an argument for restricting its powers?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Commission's powers in this matter are set out in a regulation made under the Treaty of Rome, which came into force in 1987 and was approved by the Council of Ministers at the time.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as a matter of information, when Euromerger control comes into operation, as I believe it will later this year, will the powers that the Commission already has under the regulations that the Minister has specified be extended to the new regulations for all Euromergers?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, those powers were granted to the Commission under the competition articles of the Treaty of Rome. Any new powers will have to be granted under whatever is the appropriate
1120
article of the treaty, and will, as I understand it, require the further approval of the Council of Ministers.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister but I am not entirely clear. Is not the Euromerger control a regulation under the same articles (Articles 85 and 86) as the previous regulation, and therefore presumably the same powers will apply?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I need to take further advice on that question. It sounds to me as though the noble Lord has it right.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sorry to be obtuse, but will the Minister explain what on earth the private bank account of the noble Lord, Lord King, has to do with a possible merger of BA with KLM and Sabena?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not certain what papers were examined by the Commission during the two visits which it made on consecutive days; but I understand that one of BA's legal representatives was on hand throughout the visit. I presume that he satisfied himself that only the appropriate papers were examined.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, without commenting on that case, is it not clear that those powers were invested in the Commission to deal with situations where serious abuses of monopoly power could take place, or had taken place; and that it is necessary in such circumstances for the Commission to avail itself of such powers at relatively short notice, because somehow vital documents frequently have a habit of disappearing if a longer period of notice is given by the Commission of its requirement to carry out those searches?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Council of Ministers has agreed, as I said earlier, that the Commission should have certain powers in that area. I do not believe that it exceeded its powers on that occasion, but I agree that appropriate powers are correct and proper, which of course is what the Council agreed a couple of years ago.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, the allegation in the Question is that a private bank account was investigated. Has there been an investigation as to whether that allegation is true of false?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the precise list of papers which the Commission studied is not available to me because I understand that such a list is not kept. British Airways has made no complaint that incorrect papers were studied. So far as I know, the Commission studied only those papers that it was entitled to see.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, are the examiners' powers restricted to the private sector or do they also have power to investigate government documents on demand? If they have that power, would it not have saved us all a great deal of trouble if they had investigated the DTI papers when the British Aerospace deal involving Rover Group was going through?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Department of Trade and Industry is not a party to this particular matter. Therefore the question asked by the noble Lord does not arise.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether it is the case that a European bureaucrat can enter private premises in this country without an order of the court?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is not quite as simple as that. As I understand it, the position is that the Commission can ask to visit premises, and if the party refuses to allow admission to the premises it is the duty of the government concerned, in this case the British Government, to make the necessary arrangements which would mean going to the court to get a writ.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I apologise for pressing the noble Lord a little further on this. As regards the documents that were inspected—his department has notice of the question I am asking—is he aware that it is invariably the practice when an investigation takes place, at least if it is carried out professionally, that a list is always kept of the precise documents that are inspected?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord is referring to some other kind of investigation. I understand that a list of the documents that were inspected was not kept on this occasion, although I understand that some of the personal documents of the noble Lord, Lord King of Wartnaby, were in the office which the Commission visited.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, notwithstanding the point that my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis made, surely the first thing the Commission should have done was to ask for the documents it wanted to inspect and not to carry out a search.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I understand that British Airways would have been perfectly willing to provide whatever documents the Commission had requested. However, the Commission chose, nonetheless, to make the visits that are the subject of this Question. That is why I said I thought the Commission had acted in a rather heavy-handed way on this occasion. However, I do not think the Commission exceeded its powers.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords—
Lord Denham: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, wishes to ask a question. However, I hope he will forgive me if I point out that we have spent nine minutes on this Question and 25 minutes on the Questions as a whole. I think the House might feel that after the noble Lord, Lord Boston, has asked his question and my noble friend has replied, it might be time to move on.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I am obliged to the Government Chief Whip. Is it not extraordinary that a list is not kept in these circumstances? How is the owner of the documents to be sure that he will receive any of them back? He is entitled to get them back.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that any documents were removed. They were inspected, and in certain cases I believe they were copied. However, they were not removed.

Finance Bill
11.33 a.m.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Government's central economic objective is to defeat inflation. The key instrument is tight monetary policy and high interest rates, which discourage borrowing and encourage saving. Tight monetary policy is supported by tight fiscal policy; the public sector's budget has been in surplus for the past three years. In his Budget my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained this tight fiscal stance.
The two years 1987 and 1988 were a remarkable time for the UK economy. Over this two-year period, non-oil GDP grew by 10·5 per cent. Fixed investment grew by 24 per cent. Unemployment fell by nearly 1 million. Real personal disposable income increased by 8·5 per cent. Profitability reached a level not seen for nearly 20 years.
Looking back with hindsight, it is now clear that the rate of expansion of the economy over that period was rather too rapid. Growth in domestic demand averaged 6 per cent. a year over the two years 1987 and 1988. Output performance was good but could not realistically be expected to keep pace with this rate of demand expansion. The result was rising inflationary pressures, higher inflation and a deficit on the current account of the balance of payments. This is the background to the present situation of tight policies and slow growth. To reduce inflationary pressures we need a period in which the growth of output is below that of productive potential. This is what we are now seeing.
GDP growth has slowed markedly in the past year or so. Non-oil GDP growth for 1989 as a whole was down to 3·25 per cent. from 5·5 per cent. in 1988. GDP in the first quarter of this year was only 1·5 per cent. above the level of a year earlier.
There are those who say that policy is not working but I have to say that they are wrong. In order to reduce the inflationary pressures arising from excessive demand growth, the first requirement has been to get that demand growth down. This we have done. Although the impact of tight policy on demand has been slower than originally anticipated, there is no doubt that it has had an impact and demand growth has slowed. The increase in retail sales over the past year has been only 1·5 per cent.
Against this background inflation is bound to fall. But up to now the economy has been much more resilient than we originally expected. The consequence of slower than expected progress in reducing excessive demand growth has meant disappointingly slow progress in reducing inflation.

1123
The peculiarities of our retail prices index measure are serving at the present moment to produce a headline inflation figure well in excess of the true underlying rate. But even if one excludes mortgage interest payments and the community charge from the RPI, thus producing a measure of consumer price inflation which much more closely corresponds with that used in most other EC countries, the inflation rate is still 6·9 per cent. around two percentage points above the EC average.
We clearly need to get our inflation rate down. We shall succeed in doing so as long as we maintain our present tight policy stance. This is exactly what the Budget presented by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer aimed to do. But this does not mean that there is no further scope for tax reform at this point in time. There is scope and this Finance Bill takes advantage of it.
A feature of the 1980s was a substantial fall in the personal sector savings ratio. This should by no means be seen as necessarily a bad thing. One reason why people have been saving less in aggregate has been because financial deregulation has given them opportunities to borrow which were denied them before. Another reason is that the lower inflation rates of the 1980s, as compared with the 1970s, meant that savers no longer simply had to run hard just to stand still—to save substantial new amounts each year merely to repair the erosion of their existing savings through high inflation. And, as personal sector savings have fallen relative to income, so public sector savings have risen, with the result that the national savings ratio did not fall significantly.
But when investment growth really took off, savings did not respond. Indeed, the personal sector savings ratio continued to fall. An imbalance emerged between domestic investment and domestic savings, which was met from overseas—in other words, a large current account deficit emerged on our balance of payments.
As a short-term development this is nothing to worry about. But in the longer run it is desirable to restore a better balance between domestic savings and domestic investment; and as we do not want to invest less it is better that we do this through saving more.
As a nation we have at times in recent years given the impression of having lost the habit of thrift. At some point we need to rediscover it. In these circumstances it is only right that we should look again at how the tax system rewards or penalises saving and see what might be done to change it. That brings me to the specific measures included in this year's Finance Bill. The Budget which my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced on 20th March was a Budget for savers and the taxation of savings lies at the heart of this Bill.
This Government have always supported the saver. Anyone who put his money in a building society in 1979 will have seen the value of his savings rise by half, before tax. Savers are getting a decent return, and quite right too.
1124
Your Lordship will know that under the previous Labour Government the real return on savings was negative. The post-tax return was even worse. A top rate of tax of 83 per cent. combined with an investment surcharge of 15 per cent. meant that some savers lost to the taxman all but 2p. in the pound of bank interest or dividend income.
It was no surprise therefore that one of our first priorities when we took office was to reduce marginal rates. This we have done. Successive cuts in income tax and the abolition of the investment income surcharge mean that for many savers—not just higher rate taxpayers but basic rate taxpayers too—marginal rates have been halved.
As well as reducing tax rates, we have created new savings media which allow people to accumulate capital completely unencumbered by demands for income and capital gains taxes. Nearly 4 million people have now taken out personal pensions. Two million employees have been given shares or options to shares through employee share schemes and 850,000 personal equity plans have been taken out.
The success of these schemes has surpassed expectations. It is time we extended similar tax treatment to saving through banks and building societies. That is how most people-34 million of them—save. And that is why we are introducing tax exempt special savings accounts, known as TESSA, through Clause 28. The tax exempt special savings account is a very simple mechanism designed to encourage medium to long-term saving. Savers deposit their money and leave it there for the full five years and they get their return tax free. Savers can withdraw interest as it accrues, albeit on a net of tax basis or they can leave it to roll-up. In either event, they will be entitled to the tax paid at the end of the five-year period.
It will suit all savers. For example, the pensioner with a small capital sum will be able to put up to £3,000 in his account in the first year and £1,800 in subsequent years, up to a total limit of £9,000. Younger people, perhaps saving for a deposit on a flat, will be able to put their annual bonus into a TESSA or, if it is more convenient, enter a contractual arrangement saving up to £150 a month. There have been contractual saving schemes in the past, but these have tended to be over-regulated and dominated by a need to raise money for the public sector. TESSA is different. The banks and building societies will be free to offer competitive interest rates. We believe this scheme will prove immensely popular when it begins in January 1991.
Complementing TESSA will be the abolition of composite rate tax—the sixth major tax abolished by this Government. Composite rate tax paid on bank and building society accounts has always been justified on administration grounds. But from 6th April this year independent taxation has come into operation. For the first time for tax purposes, the wife's savings income is being treated as her own. Many of these women have incomes below the level which brings them into tax but pay it nevertheless in the form of the composite rate. CRT is looking increasingly unfair,

1125
and it is time for it to go, as it will from April of next year. Five million married women, 4 million pensioners, 2½ million children and 2 million other depositors with relatively low incomes will benefit by an average of £1·40 a week.
Another of our priorities is to reduce the extent to which saving choice is distorted by the tax system. For example, if one transfers money from a bank to a building society, no tax charge is incurred. But if one transfers it from a bank into equities, one pays a surcharge in the form of stamp duty. In 1979, this surcharge was as high as 2 per cent. It was hardly surprising that direct share ownership was going out of fashion. We halved the rate in 1984 and again in 1986. This year we have gone one step further. Clauses 107 to 114 will remove stamp duty on shares—the seventh major tax to be abolished by this Government. Abolition will coincide as far as is possible with the introduction of paperless share transactions by the Stock Exchange, probably at the beginning of 1992. It will ensure that the City of London enters the European single market in as competitive a position as possible. It will also ensure that share ownership continues to widen and deepen. One in four adults in Britain now owns shares; in 1979, the proportion was just one in 14. The benefit of abolition will not just be confined to direct shareholders. Most of the full year cost of £800 million will go to people saving through the institutions in life assurance, pensions and unit trusts.
An improved climate for savers will in time feed through into an improved climate for investors. As I outlined before, in the long term this is the recipe for balanced growth. but there are a number of measures in this Bill designed to have a more immediate effect on business.
Clause 20 will increase the profit limits for the small companies' rate of corporation tax to £200,000 and £1 million and will reduce the tax burden for 20,000 companies. Since this Government took office the lower threshold has been increased by over 60 per cent. in real terms and the higher threshold almost fivefold. This is on top of a reduction in the small companies corporation tax rate from 42 per cent. to 25 per cent.
The VAT changes in Clauses 10 and 11 will reduce burdens on business and represent a major package of deregulation. We have tackled what many considered unduly onerous provisions concerning VAT relief for bad debts. Under the current scheme, bad debt relief is only available in the event of formal insolvency. The provisions in Clause 11 will replace that with an automatic relief for debts which have been outstanding for two years. These proposals will save business £150 million in a full year, and have been widely welcomed.
Clause 10 will make registration for VAT easier. The vast majority of firms will no longer be subjected to three complicated turnover tests. Instead, there will be just one simple test based on turnover in the previous year. This should be of particular benefit to new businesses.
1126
There are a number of other supply side measures in this Bill that I should like to highlight. Clause 21 will ensure that nurseries provided by employers will no longer be treated as a benefit in kind for income tax purposes. We have always taken the view that it is not for the Government to encourage or discourage women with children to work. That is rightly a matter for personal decision. We remain of the view that in general benefits in kind should be subject to income tax. But it was becoming increasingly apparent that the tax treatment of workplace nurseries was functioning as a disincentive both to women with children who wished to enter or return to the labour market and to employers who wished to provide workplace nurseries.
This measure has been criticised in some quarters for not going far enough. But a wider relief would merely have increased demand, bidding up the price of child care, with little effect on provision. We have instead opted for a targeted approach. The new exemption will involve only a small deadweight cost and, with its focus on the workplace, is consistent with the tax treatment of other benefits in kind provided at the employer's location—for example, canteens and car parking spaces.
This year's Budget was not just a Budget for savers. It was also a Budget for givers. In 1987 we introduced the payroll giving scheme. Over 175,000 people are now participating, and donations are running at about £7 million a year. Clause 24 will encourage the further expansion of such schemes by raising the annual limit by 25 per cent. from £480 to £600.
We are also helping charities to attract one-off donations. Clauses 25 to 27 will introduce the gift aid scheme which will give relief on one-off gifts of at least £600—the annual upper limit for the payroll giving scheme—up to a maximum of £5 million a year. Charities that benefit from large one-off donations—for instance, museums launching appeals for new galleries or for the purchase of major works of art—will be particularly advantaged by gift aid. The combined effect of these two measures should be a further increase both in charitable giving and in the proportion of such giving that is eligible for relief. The Charities Aid Foundation, for instance, has estimated that charities might take in an extra £50 million as a result. I am sure their reaction to the measures as "the best ever by any Government" will be endorsed by those of your Lordships who are involved with charities.
I look forward very much to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Tombs and Lord Varley, as we debate this the fourteenth Finance Bill introduced by this Government. The Bill builds on our record of tax reform. It includes a series of measures designed to encourage saving, to offer help to charities and to reduce the tax burden on growing companies. These are important changes which set the right course for the 1990s. I commend the Bill to the House.
11.50 a.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House would like to thank the noble Earl for the way in which he has addressed the debate today. We must confess to some little curiosity as to why the traditional form of the debate, which is principally at this time of the year to examine and comment upon the state of the economy, has been so studiously avoided. Normally there is a speech from the Benches opposite which talks in the most laudatory terms of the vast progress that has been made in the country in economic terms and which does not go into very much detail on the Finance Bill itself.
As will emerge in the debate, I have every reason to know why the noble Earl has been so modest about the economy and so strong on the details of the Finance Bill. For our part we shall endeavour to examine where, after some 11 years of Conservative government, the economy stands and how it is performing at the present time. We on this side of the House shall also be very glad to welcome and to listen to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and my noble friend Lord Varley, both of whom have had distinguished careers prior to entering the House.
In the one part of the noble Earl's speech in which he ventured to make some comment on the performance of the country he mentioned that output and employment were at record levels. The term "record" is extremely useful when discussing such matters, because, like athletic records, even though one affects the issue only marginally and does only 0.1 per cent. better than the year before, each 0.1 per cent. counts as a new record.
The Minister has not been quite so forthcoming as to the other records that have been attained by the Government. One is rather surprised at his modesty. As my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs has pointed out to the House, there has been a record number of bankruptcies and liquidations. We have had an all-time record adverse balance of trade, particularly in visible trade, in goods which we produce ourselves. We have had record overseas net investment during the period. We have had lower manufacturing output in relation to GDP than ever before. When the Government took office, some 28 per cent. of GDP was in the manufacturing sector; the Government have now successfully reduced that to some 24 per cent.
Every now and again, as your Lordships will be aware, the Government enlarge on further and better vistas. Those are normally in the desired expansion of the social services or future investment in training and matters of that kind. They use rather queer figures for that, which they have not repeated today. They normally take this form: "We are going to spend £6 billion on so and so over the next 10 years", or "We are going to spend £9 billion on so and so over the next 20 years". However, we are not very often given precise indications, other than those in the expenditure Estimates, as to exactly what their future plans are. If one looks through the expenditure Estimates, the figure is not so good.
1128
However, from the Government's point of view, everything is going well and the economy is buoyant. However, half-way through that buoyancy there is a sudden reverse. After 11 years of unexampled progress and wisdom the Government have stated that things are not really going well at all. The economy is overheating, whatever that term may mean. The term has never been explained explicitly. The noble Earl's right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put the matter very aptly only a few weeks ago in a correction of the euphoria which had apparently gripped his own Benches. He said that the economy needed treatment. It is almost like a doctor who has been tranquillising his patients with valium over a period of 11 years suddenly finding that the treatment has been all wrong. He stated in regard to the Government's current measures that if the treatment was not hurting it was not working. So now apparently the ingredient for success is that it has to hurt; otherwise nothing very much is happening for the economy.
So when there is a decline in sales, the Government having previously mentioned how buoyant the economy was, the decline in the sale of commodities is hailed as a victory. Every time the Government are reproached with the fact that there is an increase in house repossessions, that is greeted with considerable satisfaction. Every time there is an increase in bankruptcies and liquidations it is regarded as a sign of a triumphant policy diligently pursued. Increases in unemployment are referred to as a reflection of the Government's wisdom—the medicine is working.
In regard to inflation, I was intrigued by the term "headline inflation" which suddenly appeared after the Government's own specific endorsement of the finding of its committees that it was entirely proper to include the new poll tax and mortgages. They now suddenly find, when it is convenient, that after all that is not the right way of dealing with it.
We have had the Government for 11 years, but they have been 11 years of extraordinary circumstances. The Government cannot complain that in those 11 years they have not had complete power. They have been able to do anything that they wanted to do in that period. They cannot be challenged in the other place, even though they are challenged, peripherally, in this place from time to time. Moreover, during that period they have had the benefit of £80 billion of North Sea oil revenues which were denied to any of their predecessors. Former administrations—and I include that of Mr. Heath as well as our own administrations—had to cope, first, with the consequences of the famous Barber boom, which shoved up inflation enormously, and also with the inflation that arose naturally from the fourfold increase in the price of oil and its effects on the world economy. Therefore, they had all the advantages. Anything they wanted from Parliament they could have.
Yet what has happened? In 1979 inflation was 10.3 per cent. The latest figure, under the same definition, is 9.8 per cent. We are warned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that presently it will be 10 per cent. The

1129
Government inherited interest rates of 12 per cent. They are now 15 per cent. They inherited unemployment of 1,300,000 and according to their own figures it now stands at 1,600,000, but when one takes into account the 30 or so fiddles of the figures that have occurred, it is in fact in the region of 2.5 million.
Trade in manufactures with overseas countries has gone down as well. Whereas in 1979 our trade figures were such that the ratio between exports and imports was 110 to 100, the relation of exports to imports is now down to 85 to 100. Worst of all—and this is the most important point—investment in manufacturing industry at 1985 prices is now only very marginally above what it was in 1979, 11 years afterwards. The figure in 1979 was £11 billion and in 1989 it was £12 billion. The latest information from the financial papers, which I take it we all read, is that in all probability after accumulated obsolescence is taken into account, at the moment there is negative investment in terms of any increase that has been made.
I make no apology for concentrating only on manufacturing industry. Manufacturing industry is the core of this country's future. I do not need to resurrect the all-party report of many years ago which made that point perfectly clear. Aside from an argument from the Government that that report was a Marxist document (an observation made without their even having read it) everybody knows that that statement is true.
The key to an increase in the production of manufactured goods is investment in manufacturing industry. I mean investment in the broadest sense, not merely plant, machinery and equipment but also training, research and development and all those other items which, if I may say so, are regularly elaborated on not only from our own Benches but from the Benches beside us. This is a problem that has dogged this country for the past 20 to 30 years. Mr. Edward Heath when in office complained about it. He complained to the Institute of Directors, to the City and indeed to everybody else. Roughly his words were: despite all the tax concessions and inducements that I have given you, you still will not invest.
That has been and remains the problem. Whether or not we join the exchange rate mechanism, whether or not we integrate further within Europe, whether or not we take any steps toward further co-operation with our colleagues in the European Community—whatever happens, whether we are in the ERM or outside it and whether or not we integrate more closely into Europe—until this country tackles the whole problem of investment in manufacturing industry it will continue to decline.
Why is there a lack of investment in manufacturing industry? Investment normally has a number of sources. In the first instance it comes from retained profits of individual companies. Retained profits depend fundamentally on profit margins, which in turn depend not only upon all their costs—I repeat, all their costs—but upon their degree of competitiveness throughout the world. That competitiveness may
1130
be—indeed over recent years has been—profoundly affected, as I am quite sure my noble friend Lord Jay will inform the House, by the ridiculously high rate of exchange at which the pound has been held against both the deutschmark and the dollar.
However, setting aside those issues, out of retained profits comes a very large percentage of the amount invested in manufacturing industry, and, as I said, that depends not only on competitiveness, containment of costs and so on but also on how much is left after paying dividends. The rule of thumb in the old days was that one devoted approximately one-third of one's profit surplus to pay a dividend to shareholders, one-third was held for increased working capital requirements in the light of the company's expansion and one-third was held in reserve for research and development. That kind of ratio has now gone out of fashion.
What happens now in British industry? Owing to the threat of predators, companies tend to distribute far too much in order to avoid being taken over. Then they have the additional threat of very high interest rates. That is what has happened so far as concerns internal funds for investment.
With regard to outside investment income, there are amounts obtainable via the Stock Exchange but they are a very small proportion of the total that is required. The rest of the money invested by capital normally goes into making money out of money. Part of the trouble with inflation and with the grossly excessive money supply (even though one cannot precisely define money supply) is the amount of capital that has been devoted to takeovers by predators and to the dismantling of companies in many instances or to buying and selling companies. None of those operations adds in the slightest to the country's productive capacity. They add nothing at all to the investment in manufacturing industry.
That is what has been happening. A good deal of the funds that are invested by capital take the form of leverage buy-outs—new money created exactly for that purpose. The net result of the total—although money has been made in the City and very often devoted to opulent and somewhat obscene expenditure in view of the poverty in which 7 million to 10 million of our people live—is an addition to inflation.
We say that there has to be more investment. The Government's reply is that all the trouble comes from what they term wage inflation. They tend to obscure that argument a little by referring obliquely to unit labour costs. The two are not identical. Unit costs have to be kept down in order for companies to remain competitive in the world market. Outside any exchange rate aberrations which may and indeed have disturbed them, unit labour costs, in which the wage level—the hourly wage paid to the operative—although a substantial ingredient, is not at all the only ingredient, must be reduced.
Indeed, Mr. Ridley himself, in a happier context and without having refreshed himself with even a small glass of wine as we understand he did in the

1131
company of the proprietor or editor of a well known magazine, delivered himself of the following opinion. He said:
"Britain also has one of the lowest labour costs in the EEC".
That was in the Daily Telegraph on 15th May last. So it is not the wage rate. That is perfectly true. The real answer on unit costs is that lack of investment adds to the unit labour cost. If training, research and development, proper marketing and market research (where it occurs) are absent or below what they ought to be in competitive terms and in comparison with our colleagues in other parts of the world, they add to the labour costs.
I hope that the Government will abandon any endeavours to blame wage increases for the country's troubles. Since the Government have been in office there have been wage increases. I believe that the current round on average is about 9 per cent. Why do workers want wage rises? Stopping them appears to be one of the Government's preoccupations. The answers are these. There is the inflation factor which the Government do not yet have under control. Then there has been the decline in the social wage which most employed people receive. The social wage under this Government has gone down progressively. It is all very well to refer to marginal increases of 9 per cent. or 10 per cent. (whatever it may be) in comparison with the 100 per cent., 33⅓ per cent. or grossly higher percentages from a higher base which are paid to the managers. But there has been a decline in the social wage.
There has been a deterioration in social services. Prescriptions cost 3,000 per cent. more than they did. There are increased optical and dental charges. There has been the non-indexation of child benefit and a series of other factors which for individual employed workers represent part of the household's total income. As those go down, wage demands through unions or otherwise are bound to go up.
Part of the responsibility for the alleged wage explosion lies within the hands of the Government. One must also bear in mind that many employed workers also have mortgages and are obviously affected by the increase in mortgage interest rates. But above all, in formulating their wage demands they are affected by the obscene extra awards from a higher base that are paid to those who presume to lecture them on their profligacy.
Those are matters to which the Government have to pay attention. They must actively assist British industry through investment and through a proper determination of the social wage to maintain and indeed improve its price competitiveness with the remainder of the world. But the key is still investment. The Government have no plans for investment in manufacturing industry. They continue to leave it to the market. But there are grave problems ahead and the Government have no clue how to deal with them.
One of the challenges that we shall face over the next five to 10 years is the closing down or diminishment of the arms industries. To provide
1132
employment and to secure production in the production industries requires a considerable transfer of resources both of men and money.
Another great challenge that faces the country is to try to resolve as best we may the contradication between the exploitation of resources on the one hand and the protection of the environment on the other. That forms a profound and important economic problem. Those matters have to be addressed.
It has often been said that when it comes to the point the British people are fully able to rise to the occasion. I very much doubt whether they will be able to rise to it under the type of administration that we have at present. One of the reasons why our German colleagues have been able to address these matters so successfully is that it was a Labour Government, and in particular Mr. Ernest Bevin, who helped to design the whole structure of the German Republic, the relations between capitalists and trade unions in their country and the machinery for arriving at a consensus on economic policy. That has been very successful indeed.
The word "consensus" is repugnant to the Government. I should be kind if I were to refer merely to the Government's incompetence over the past 11 years in addressing any of these problems. I prefer to say that by their philosophy, by their whole drive, by their emphasis on greed rather than need, they are not the Government to lead this country into the future.
12.16 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I sometimes take the view that your Lordships' House is entitled to assert itself more than is welcome to the Government business managers. I do so in particular at a time when centres of countervailing power are thin on the ground in this almost uniquely arrogant and incompetent Government. I do not, however, take the view that we should contemplate interfering in a Finance Bill. Although it is nearly 40 years since I wrote a little book called Mr. Balfour's Poodle which endeavoured to expound what happened to your Lordships' House when it rejected a Finance Bill on Second Reading, I still retain the tone of slightly shocked surprise at the behaviour in 1909 that I felt when I wrote the book in 1951 or 1952.
If we are properly impotent before a Finance Bill, there may not be a great deal of point in going into the details of what we cannot change. However, I believe that there is a great deal of point in using the occasion for a general consideration of the economy. It is some time since we did so in this House. We certainly look forward to the two maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Tombs and Lord Varley, both of whom in differing ways have major experience in the practical business of running the economy.
I do not believe that there is now anybody, except perhaps the Prime Minister, who regards the economy of this country as being in a good shape today. I certainly do not think that Mr. Major does. Indeed one of his more engaging characteristics is that he does not indulge in the language of triumphalism or bombast. Even Dr. Pangloss himself in the shape of

1133
the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, from whose mouth words of complacent wisdom used to pour with such effortless ease, has fallen silent both in this House and outside it.
We thank the noble Earl for his speech this morning. I have come to respect his doggedness. Of course he holds his end up but, if I may say so, he does not introduce an offensive note of excessive conviction into the defence of the indefensible. From the point of view of inflation, interest rates, balance of payments, the competitive position, investment, import penetration export sluggishness the picture is not encouraging.
In winding up I should like the Minister to try to reconcile a number of propositions which the Government have been advancing but which I find difficult to fit together. The first is that during the past 11 years we have achieved one of the most successful economies in Europe. We have heard that proposition frequently advanced from the Government Front Bench. The second is that the most important aspect of the Government's economic policy should be their anti-inflationary thrust. We understand that today that is the central objective of the Government.
Then we have the third proposition, which I find difficult to fit in with the other two. It is that this supremely successful Government, who have concentrated on the evils of inflation, have, nonetheless, during the past 10 years been prevented—and uniquely so among the countries of the EC with the exceptions of Greece and Portugal—from entering the exchange rate mechanism principally because our inflation is so much higher than that of any other country.
If the noble Earl could be so kind as to reconcile those three propositions he would do me a great service and I should be grateful. Indeed, he might qualify as one of the more ingenious magicians that we have seen for several centuries.
When we contemplate not merely its state today but the history of the British economy, there is little room for hubris on any side. The economy was in a mess in 1979 and it is in a mess again today, 11 years later. Indeed, if one goes back a further decade to 1970, when I had some responsibility for what was handed over, one finds that, although the indices were in good order—that is, the balance of payments and the Budget were in substantial surplus, inflation was half the present rate and unemployment was about one-third of today's reduced rate—we had not solved many of the underlying problems of the British economy.
During the early 1980s the Government undoubtedly slayed one dragon—that of excessive union arrogance and domination and the consequent stultification of significant parts of the economy. It was done at a somewhat unnecessarily high price in terms of the destruction of much of the manufacturing sector. However, it was a dragon which had to be stayed. I wonder whether the ethos and outlook of the Government have not brought in its place a different dragon but one which could be equally dangerous.
1134
Indeed, perhaps it is more insidiously dangerous because it is less obvious and less easily perceived. It is the climate in which the pursuit by industrial firms of short-term profit at almost any cost is made almost inevitable for management.
That situation certainly does not apply in Japan; it does not apply to anything like the same extent in France, Germany or Italy; and it may have applied in the United States but it is receding even there. It stems from the disintegration of any stable relationship between industry and finance in the United Kingdom and from the control of about 65 per cent. of all British equity by approximately 200 managers of pension funds, insurance companies and so forth. The duty of those investment fund managers is to maximise the annual profit yield of their institutions' investment portfolios. They are closely competitive with each other. The results are constantly surveyed and compared on a short-term basis. The managers are directly rewarded, or in some cases sacked, depending on the performance shown by the portfolios over a short period.
Alongside that—and to some extent they are allies because they help to put up the short-term return—are the new industrial heroes of Thatcherite Britain, the corporate raiders. They cruise around looking for companies whose current share price does not reflect the break-up value. Companies with weak managements are vulnerable, but that does not matter too much. What matters is that companies with strong managements are also vulnerable if in the view of the corporate raiders they are too far sighted and put too much money into research and development while holding back on dividends in order to pursue a long-term strategic plan.
The result is that, in contrast with Japanese industry above all, where the primary aim is a steady increase in world market share, British industrial eyes are concentrated on defence against next year's hostile take-over bid. A further result is the massive and growing import penetration and indifferent export performance. For many years almost every new factory which has opened in Britain has been Japanese, American or Swedish owned and those which have closed down have been overwhelmingly British owned. The corporate raiders and their supporting shoals—the arbitragers, the junk bond dealers, the City solicitors, the accountants, the advertising and public relations firms—all do extremely well out of this state of affairs. Yet the British economy has a massive balance of payments deficit which still persists, even with the greatly reduced level of activity which normally brings the balance of payments position into considerable improvement. Our long-term market share certainly does not grow and we move increasingly towards a subordinate industrial system.
That is the system which the Government wish to import into Europe and they become indignant towards the so-called hypocrisy of our European partners when it is not universally welcomed. The Government would be better advised to consider strongly whether there should be a fundamental

1135
reappraisal of this short-termism, this elevation of doing a deal over making something, this concentration of the energies of management upon making or defending take-over bids, this get-rich-quick atmosphere co-existing with Britain becoming steadily competitively weaker. It would be a remarkable and sad, but not impossible, achievement if this long Government were first to promote the total elevation of financial manipulation over industrial strategy and then, having left us with the City and all its ramifications, and little else, when the oil runs down, were in turn to undermine even the City by standing on the sidelines and handing over the financial leadership of Europe to Frankfurt.
12.29 p.m.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, it is a daunting task to follow three wide-ranging speeches from experienced parliamentarians such as the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Jenkins. I wish to speak from a more restricted point of view; that of an industrialist. I declare my interest as a chairman of Rolls-Royce, not because I wish to make points on behalf of the company but because I propose to illustrate some of my points by reference to it.
My industrial career has been divided between the public and the private sectors. I have no doubt about which is the better sector for a company to occupy if it is to contribute adequately to the economic life of the nation. It is, of course, the private sector. The Government should be given full credit for the privatisation programme upon which they have embarked during the past decade. That is not to say that all privatisations are in any way ideal. In some cases there is limited competition and in some cases—perhaps concerning electricity privatisation—the organisation proposed is excessively complex.
Given those disadvantages, nevertheless I believe that removal of the dead hand of state control and its substitution by enterprising management is good for the company and the country. I should like to illustrate that from the experience of Rolls-Royce, which was returned to the private sector just over three years ago. In that period its order book for aero engines has trebled, partly due to the buoyant civil engine market, but more due to the ability to grasp the opportunities offered by that market.
I should like to turn to a topic which I think is unchallenged on all sides of the House; that is, the health of manufacturing industry. That is important to the balance of payments, to employment and to our ability to spend money on desirable ends. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was critical of the investment level in manufacturing industry and, to a degree, rightly so, although there are exceptions to his general strictures. However, I believe that the principal reason for the relatively poor investment in manufacturing industry in this country is the lack of stability offered by post-war administrations. We have a history of volatile exchange and interest rates under successive governments. In those circumstances it is very difficult to invest on a substantial scale when faced with the resultant uncertainties.
1136
Today, industry has two principal problems: namely, the exchange and interest rates. Those have been problems for us for many years, but are especially so today for reasons which have been discussed. The European exchange rate mechanism will not solve those problems, but joining a larger organisation should help to dampen the volatility at least of the exchange rate and, by extension, of interest rates. To that extent, I hope that we join soon and I welcome the Government's commitment to doing so.
I should like to suggest that the role of government towards industry is providing an encouraging climate. To that extent, the reduced personal and corporate tax rates are beneficial.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was uncharacteristically unfair in ascribing to the present administration the title "uniquely arrogant and incompetent". That ignores the very powerful claims of earlier administrations to a similar title.
I believe that the Government's attitude to industry should not be interventionist but, on the other hand, should not be as laissez faire as it sometimes is. In my contacts with government through the years, I have noticed that government policies in defence, energy, environment or fiscal matters rarely take into account at an early enough stage their likely effect on the manufacturing base. That is a discipline which should commend itself to all parties. Of course it should not be the dominant factor, but it should be a factor in the examination of any new policy. I speak not only of the costs imposed on industry by a policy but also the manufacturing opportunities often arising from those new policies where an early consideration might enhance them.
Government can help greatly in a more purposeful use of purchasing power than is often the case and in the promotion of technology demonstrators in suitable areas. There are a number of reports by the Advisory Council on Applied Research and Development and its successor, the Advisory Council on Science and Technology, both of which I have had the honour to chair and few of whose recommendations have been taken up. There are some opportunities there which would pay for revisiting.
My simple message is the need to create wealth before arguing about how to distribute it. To do that we need a much closer understanding of the problems of industry. We do not need intervention, as I said earlier, but a better association. I close by commenting that our industrial competitors in Europe in particular are much better at that symbiosis than we have been post-war in this country.
12.35 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my first and most agreeable duty is to express your Lordships' admiration and enthusiasm for the admirable maiden speech to which we have just had the privilege of listening. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, gave us the advantage of his very distinguished practical and successful experience of industry. That is precisely the kind of contribution which is of particular value to your Lordships' House, because although many of

1137
your Lordships have experience of government and the public service we have not anything like enough industrialists of the noble Lord's distinction who can tell us from the point of view of their practical knowledge of the realities of industry what the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, has been able to tell us.
In addition, he expressed that with great wit and clarity. It was—I hope he will not mind my saying this a real Rolls-Royce of a speech, and I should be the first to warmly congratulate him upon it. I express the hope that he will have the time and opportunity to contribute further to the debates in your Lordships' House whenever it is possible for him to be here. I assure him that he will be listened to with ever-increasing interest when he finds the opportunity to make a contribution to your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, rightly said that a debate in your Lordships' House on the Finance Bill tended to some extent to concentrate on questions of economic policy. Inevitably it brings in also the effects on the economy of what is being legislated in the Finance Bill. Therefore, although obviously all your Lordships will give their general views on the economy, there is some advantage in relating what one says both to the terms contained in the Bill and perhaps to expressing regret for what it does not contain.
For that reason I say, first, how much I personally resent the fact that we did not receive this Bill which we are debating until less than 48 hours ago. I believe that it is bad management of parliamentary business when a major Bill—and a Bill not without its complexities—is only available to your Lordships within, as it turned out, about 43 hours of the beginning of the debate. I hope that my noble friend the Paymaster General will represent to his noble friends that that is not the way to treat major measures or your Lordships' House.
The matter was complicated further by the fact that although copies of the Bill as finally amended were in existence early on Wednesday, some extraordinary bureaucratic prohibition attempted to ensure that they were not made available to your Lordships until the mystic hour of four o'clock. It was only because my noble friend the Leader of the House exercised his considerable influence that some of us obtained the enormous advantage of obtaining a copy of the Bill at about half-past three. I take very serious exception to that. I hope that the noble Earl the Paymaster General will feel that that is a fairly general view held throughout this House and that when business is arranged in future on important measures it is essential that the Bill before us and which we are being asked to approve is in the hands of noble Lords in sufficient time to enable them to study its highly complex provisions.
I say at once that if in the course of my few remarks I err as to what the Bill does or does not do, there is a simple explanation for that; that is, that it has not been possible to give it proper study.
Having said that, I very much agree with what my noble friend said about the desirability of encouraging
1138
savings and of expressing support for the not unimportant provisions in the Bill for savings schemes of one sort or another. However, we cannot leave the matter there. One of the great deterrents to saving is that if one saves and derives an income from those savings, despite recent changes one undoubtedly continues to pay a substantial amount of the income on the savings back to the Government in tax.
Our rate of income tax is still very high. When earnings reach a little over £20,000 a year it rises to 40 per cent.; that is to say, two-fifths of what a man earns above that level is taken away in income tax. It could be suggested, and no doubt will be, that at that level no one should mind. However, people on substantial earnings do not have those earnings indefinitely. There is a period in a man's life when he earns highly. But he has to save money to provide for his old age. It is very unusual for someone to maintain a very high rate of earnings into advancing years.
I was sorry that my noble friend the Paymaster General did not give any indication—perhaps he could not—of the possibility of further reductions in the level of income tax. The rate of 25 per cent. from the starting point and 40 per cent. at £20,000-odd per year are high rates of tax. They are a real discouragement to saving. I also express doubt as to whether they are really necessary in order to raise revenue. It is our experience, and that of other countries, that if the rate of tax is lowered the revenue obtained from it is not necessarily lowered also. If the rate of tax is lowered the incentive is removed for people to avoid in one way or another paying tax, either by fraudulent concealment or by perfectly honourable and respectable practices such as going abroad or to the Channel Islands, as many people do for reasons of taxation.
If the Government face up to that reality and make substantial reductions in income tax they will find, surprisingly, that the losses of revenue are a great deal smaller than they apprehend. Despite other problems that exist today I hope that the Government will not resile from what used to be their declared policy of progressive reductions in the standard and higher rates of income tax. I hope also that they will remind people in this country that it is only from a Conservative Government that it is possible to hope for further reductions in income tax. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will deny that a Labour Government would certainly raise the higher rate. They said they would raise it at least to 50 per cent. and probably higher. Therefore I hope that in his reply my noble friend will be quite firm upon this very important subject.
If we want to encourage people to save we can do it not only by the various devices of tax-free schemes, and so on, but also by making it seem worth while to people, so that if they put money by at the time they are earning well they will be able to obtain a good return on that money without excessive deductions of tax either under the present Government or under other governments. That is essential.
That has a great deal to do with what was said by both the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and

1139
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, regarding the need for investment. I agree with them that modern industry calls for very high levels of investment, and that the development of competitive equipment in most of our industries involves substantial investment. It is in that context that I take a somewhat different view from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, regarding foreign investment for British industry. It always seemed to me that the fact that foreign countries, particularly the Japanese, think that this is a good country to invest in and are prepared to bring their money here is not only a compliment to Her Majesty's Government as to their management of the economy and shows confidence in the way that that is done, but is also beneficial to this country directly by way of providing additional employment and by increasing the output of British goods. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is exhibiting symptoms of upheaval.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He may recall—if he does not, an examination of tomorrow's Official Report will confirm it—that at no point in the remarks I was privileged to make to your Lordships did I pass any comment at all upon overseas investment in this country.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. During a speech which did not err on the side of brevity I obtained the impression that the noble Lord had taken that line. If he did not, I apologise to him and am glad to know that at least on one point he was right.
That was the only point I wished to make to my noble friend on income tax. I have one or two more points to make on taxation, and one goes in the other direction. I am sorry that Clause 2 of the Bill does not further increase the tax on tobacco. If people, by smoking, are taking a step which undoubtedly in the long run will increase the cost of the National Health Service, they should be made to pay for it. One of the ways in which they can be made to pay for it is by a swingeing increase in tobacco duty. Not least for that good reason, and for the additional reason that it would bring in some revenue without doing any economic harm whatever, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take a much firmer line on the taxation of tobacco. I realise that one or two noble Lords who are persistent smokers may not wholly share my view, but it is one that I hold very strongly.
One of the troubles in our taxation system arises from VAT, which is a very bad tax. It lacks the flexibility of the old purchase tax, in which I had some share at one time in administering. Purchase tax could be moved about so that it fell very heavily on luxuries and exempted necessities. VAT, in my view, is highly inflationary.
It may be argued that by subtracting a certain amount of purchasing power for the payment of VAT, inflation will be eased. However, that does not happen. By increasing the RPI, as VAT does, one simply ensures that wage demands—which are
1140
increasingly based on RPI figures, quite understandably—are higher than they otherwise would be. Therefore by making everything more expensive by the imposition of 15 per cent. VAT, we are simply pushing up wage demands unnecessarily. Nobody receives any additional benefit but prices are in fact being raised.
I was delighted to see that the courts turned down the efforts of the VAT authorities to impose VAT on airline meals. It seemed to me to be a peculiarly silly proposal even for those who organise VAT. I was delighted to see that they failed. However, I am sorry that the present Finance Bill does not deal with the point raised in last year's debate in respect of VAT; that is, the extraordinarily oppressive arrangement in respect of motor cars.
I do not know whether noble Lords recall this, but if one buys a car one must first pay car tax on it. One is then mulcted in VAT, not on what one paid for the car alone but on what one paid for the car plus car tax. There is therefore a 15 per cent. tax on a tax. That is extraordinarily oppressive. For a government committed to tax reform I must express very great regret that that has not been remedied. I hope that my noble friend the Paymaster General will deal with that.
There is then a better story over the composite tax which your Lordships discussed last year. I understand that it is to go. It is of course an indefensible tax because it involves imposing income tax on people with incomes below the income tax level. That is outrageous. I am only sorry to learn, if I understood my noble friend and the Bill aright, that it is not to go until 6th April next year. I had hoped that it would be abolished at once. It is indefensible to set a level of income below which people are not supposed to pay tax and then make them pay tax because they have put their money into a building society or a bank. The result is that a great many people, particularly widows, are made to pay tax when other people with identical incomes are paying none. Is it not possible, even now, to expedite the waiving of that tax at an earlier date than 6th April next year?
I do not altogether agree with the emphasis that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, put on industrial development. This country is also very reliant on service industries; on finance, tourism, and many other useful sources of income which far more frequently than industry in past years have shown a credit on the balance of payments. For that reason I looked with some interest at Clause 81, which deals with various City taxes.
At this stage I should declare an interest as director of an investment trust. Although Clause 81 makes some considerable improvement, it does not go the whole way. I understand that the so-called bond washing rules unintentionally catch the options of pension funds, thereby preventing them from taking advantage of the broader tax exemptions for derivatives contained in Clause 81. I hope that that will be looked at because it is increasingly important that the position of the City of London as a financial centre should be fully maintained in the coming years.

1141
With our closer contacts with Europe it is particularly important that the position of the City should be maintained. If our tax system, in return for a negligible yield, is operating to prevent City companies undertaking lawful and proper operations which assist their conduct and assist them to handle money brought in from abroad, that is very damaging. I understand from responsible sources that although the Government apparently accept that that is the position and are bringing forward proposals to improve it, they do not go the whole way and there are still considerable risks and difficulties arising over the limitations into which the caution of the Inland Revenue has no doubt pushed them.
This is a vastly important Bill. Although we say we are discussing only economic policy, the Finance Bill each year is one of the major instruments by which economic policy can be conducted. I fully support the general line of the Government. I do not believe that our position, although it obviously has its problems—it would be foolish to dispute that—is anything like as serious or difficult as suggested by the noble Lord. Lord Bruce of Donington, and, for that matter, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. One need only look around this country today to see that the general standard of life has shown a considerable improvement over the years. People are, as a whole and on average, very much better off than they have ever been before and that despite the difficulties of the time. That good situation is due largely to the efforts of the present Government, which I hope and believe will continue for many years to come.
12.55 p.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, it is a great privilege to address this House for the first time. After spending nearly 20 years in another place and the last six years working in private industry, it is a pleasure to be back in the Palace of Westminster. I am particularly fortunate too to be making my maiden speech on the same day as the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. I have fond memories of working closely with him in the public sector when I had the honour of being at the Department of Energy. He was of course chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board. He then went on to the Electricity Council and was a distinguished member of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board, which I had the privilege of chairing.
I listened to the noble Lord's strictures about government intervention. I bet that as chairman of Rolls-Royce he is delighted that Mr. Heath took the opportunity of intervening massively to take it into public ownership and that successive governments should then put millions of pounds into the organisation in order to get it into a prime state for privatisation. I know the company and wish it well.
I wondered whether the Finance Bill would be an appropriate subject on which to make my maiden speech because I am keen to observe the courtesies and conventions of the House. I shall endeavour not to be too controversial and, better still, I do not want to take too long. However, the Bill provides an opportunity to refer to the general economic situation and the conditions applying since the Budget speech.
1142
It is five months since the Budget and nearly three months since the Finance Bill was published. A great deal has changed since that time. Some would say that our economic and industrial problems have worsened.
I believe that the economy is slowing down and the recession is much more virulent than some commentators suppose. Clearly Mr. Major has had a great deal to concern him since he took over as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is wise not to use the phrase "economic miracle" which used to trip off the tongue of Mr. Nigel Lawson. With high interest rates as the chief economic weapon—I know that the Government claim that that is not so, but many people believe that it is the only economic weapon being employed by the Treasury—unemployment is again rising, inflation is close to 10 per cent. and our trade deficit stands at a record level. Therefore, the Chancellor is right to urge caution, as I understand he did earlier this week at a meeting of his political friends. I do not believe that there is a pot of gold at present.
It must be a matter of great regret for the Government to see the public sector borrowing requirement for the first three months of this financial year. At the time of the Budget the public sector debt repayment was being anticipated. It may be that a surplus will still arise at the end of the financial year and I look forward to the noble Earl perhaps telling the House whether that is still the Government's expectation when he speaks at the end of the debate. If that happens as a result of the electricity supply industry moving from being a public monopoly to a private monopoly—to all intents and purposes—it will stretch credulity to the limit.
The British people have had the great good fortune in the 1980s of being self-sufficient in primary energy, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. Now we seem to take North Sea oil and gas for granted, as though we have been fortunate to have such supplies for decades. It is worth recalling that not a drop of North Sea oil came ashore until the middle of 1975 when the Argyll field owned by Hamilton Brothers came into production. The full economic benefits, which have been massive, did not arise until the 1980s and they have been to the benefit of the present Government during the whole of their period of office. However, in my judgment, those supplies have allowed us as a nation to be quite cavalier with much of our manufacturing industry. Our manufacturing base has shrunk. We have neglected it.
That point was brought to light very vividly by the Select Committee of this House, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, to which my noble friend referred. The revenue from North Sea oil has certainly cushioned the impact of the mass unemployment of the early 1980s. It provided money broadly to maintain our social security payments, although I accept that the social wage has been reduced. However, I am absolutely certain that history will show that we failed to make the best use of our unprecedented good fortune and strength in energy resources.

1143
British manufacturing industry has not only been neglected but its problems have been aided and abetted by what has come to be known, and what was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and my noble friend, as the short-termism of the City and of the institutions that form the City. In the boardrooms of British Companies, they not only have to deal with the high interest rate policy, tighter margins and now in some cases profit decline, but, even when the economy was strong and growing, a disproportionate amount of time was spent by boards of directors on taking the temperature of the share price, whether they could maintain its strength, improving the year-on-year dividends and analysing closely the share register to ensure that there were no predators around and that corporate raiders were not eyeing their company.
British industry is forced to pay far too much attention to City interests rather than long-term investment, product development and good old-fashioned risk taking. Unless the pay back on investment is fast—usually within three to four years—it is rarely put in place. That is the case for many companies in Britain.
It is quite inconsistent that, while we properly welcome inward investment from Japan, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said a moment ago, and we are prepared, again quite rightly, to devise all kinds of special inducements to attract Japanese industry to these shores, those industries have grown in strength as a result of the long-term development and practices which are anathema to some of the City interests and to the Treasury.
I hear Minister after Minister proclaim that they are creating a framework for industry to thrive, only to see the inexorable rise in our trade deficit. If manufacturing industry was thriving, our propensity to import would have been much less over recent years. No one can put all the blame on all governments. It must be a matter of great distress that inflation is nudging 10 per cent. and unit labour costs are rising quite alarmingly. Again, I make the distinction, as did my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, between unit labour costs and wage increases.
There are two ways of reducing unit labour costs. The first is to increase demand, but at the moment that is not an option open to the Government because their policies are quite in the opposite direction—high interest rates to dampen demand. The second, which is much more preferable if it is possible, is to increase productivity by increasing output per head, but that can be achieved only on the shop floor of the individual firm. There is no general policy through which a government can perform that vital objective. What we pay ourselves—what we call unit labour costs—unlike raw material costs or imported material costs is wholly within the control of the British people. If we ignore that issue, the impact on our international competitiveness and on the value of our currency will be devastating.
There is much discussion at this time in the context
1144
of our economic problems about our possible entry into the European exchange rate mechanism, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords during the debate. During my period in another place I was a reluctant European. When the Government of my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx applied for entry into the Common Market, I voted against. Again, when in 1975 my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, as Foreign Secretary, renegotiated the terms of entry into the EC—the terms which had been agreed by Mr. Heath's Government—I was one of seven Cabinet Ministers to vote no in the subsequent referendum.
I always believed at that time that there was a British way and that we could thrive and prosper on our own. I must confess that I was wrong. I am certainly wrong now in the light of everything that has happened over the past few years. I now see no point whatsoever in being a reluctant European for those who have a genuine fear about the economic might of Germany, following integration, lead me to believe that only full-hearted participation in European institutions can now help the United Kingdom.
Although it is by no means a panacea—I hope that I am not disappointing my noble friend Lord Jay entry into the European exchange rate mechanism may bring a discipline to our monetary affairs that has so far escaped us. It may allow us at least to have the manoeuvrability to put in place some long-term, strategic investment in training and, above all, in public transport and industry. It may diminish the narrow short-term view of company performance by those in the City.
By the time we come to consider next year's Finance Bill, I hope that many of the problems that we face today will be resolved. However, I doubt very much whether they will be.
1.6 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am privileged to be the Member of this House who is able to express and has the pleasure of expressing to the noble Lord, Lord Varley, real appreciation of that quite remarkable maiden speech. People always say that maiden speeches are remarkable, but this is a remarkably remarkable maiden speech in that the noble Lord managed to bring in many matters of great substance which were potentially—and not even potentially; in actuality—controversial, but he did it in a way to which no one could possibly take the slightest exception. It was a real contribution to the subject that we are discussing today and not just an entry ticket to our debate, as maiden speeches inevitably sometimes tend to be.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Varley, one realised how fortunate your Lordships' House is to be able to draw on people of such varied experience from which they have obviously learnt so much. The noble Lord's life story, starting in industry, with great parliamentary and ministerial experience, followed by experience and responsibility in the private sector, makes him quite exceptionally suitable as a further addition to your Lordships' House. When his

1145
colleagues think about tidying up this House, I hope that they will bear in mind the importance of being able to continue to incorporate into the upper House people with the kind of experience of the noble Lord, Lord Varley. Although the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has already congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, I should also like to say how much we all also enjoyed his speech.
I have been somewhat surprised that, so far as I can recall, no one in the debate has yet challenged one very import ant aspect of the Finance Bill. We all agree that inflation is enemy number one and that it must be control led at all costs. There can be no doubt that the effect of inflation on personal expenditure, mortgage rates, bankruptcies, indebtedness, the problems that industry faces and the success of manufacturing industry, large and small, makes its control of the greatest importance. However, no one has said that high interest rates are the only way to control inflation.
It is perfectly possible, as has been repeatedly said by my honourable friend Mr. Beith in another place, to use fiscal means as well as interest rates in the control of inflation. It is one of the arguments for going into the single market. It was very restrained of me, I think, in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Varley, not especially to stress the importance of his conversion to the Common Market and to the ERM. One of the great advantages that will be gained from full participation in the exchange rate mechanism is that the discipline of the mechanism will force us to look at methods other than high interest rates to control inflation. Fiscal means are one way of doing it.
I should like very much to have spent a limited time elaborating that point. However, with unusual self restraint, I have decided today that I shall not talk about the general economic situation and the other ways in which inflation can be controlled but concentrate instead on Clauses 24 to 27 of the Finance Bill which have not so far been mentioned during the debate. Those clauses deal with changes in taxation in relation to charities.
I say straight away that I congratulate the Government on the introduction of gift aid and on the way in which it has been made much easier for larger sums to come forward for charitable giving. However, give-as-you-earn, which was introduced in an earlier Budget, has not been the success so far that it ought to be. Give-as-you-earn is at present producing something in the range of £7 million a year. More than 26 million people are employed in industry. It is impossible to believe that that figure of £7 million cannot be raised through a properly organised and run give-as-you-earn scheme. We like to pat ourselves on the back for being very generous people. According to the Charity Aid Foundation we give on average £2 per month per household. I have not worked that out in cigarettes but it is not very many. It should surely be possible to improve the level of giving.
I understand that some of the major charitable foundations have raised with the Government the possibility of matching funds for a very much better information scheme to boost give-as-you-earn. One of
1146
the reasons for its relative failure—one must regard £7 million as relative failure—has been the lack of information to both employers and employees. Will the Government consider a powerful information exercise on a matching funds basis? If the charity produced £500,000 the Government would then give £500,000 to invest in getting more money out of give-as-you-earn.
I choose this subject for today because I want to raise a much wider question in connection with charities and charitable giving. The Government have talked a great deal—and it has been well received on the whole in this country—about the importance of partnership between statutory bodies, the private sector and the voluntary sector. That is a very nice term and, if properly carried out, has a great deal to be said for it. But the fact of the matter is that it is not working. We are relying on the voluntary sector, in participation with others, to carry a very heavy share of a wide range of social and economic developments. For the voluntary sector to do this it has to be able to rely on adequate funds and, even more importantly, has to be able to retain a proper degree of independence.
Over recent years, and particularly over recent months, many voluntary organisations which have undertaken heavy commitments have found themselves in an almost impossible position because of the way in which the statutory bodies have, not to put too fine a point on it and in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, welshed on their commitments to the voluntary organisations. It is no secret that, in regard to Employment Training, contracts were cancelled at a month's notice to voluntary organisations which had heavy commitments in rents, in payments to staff and in other expenditure. Those contracts were renegotiated at a very much less favourable level.
When such things happen—it is only one illustration of the difficulties—voluntary organisations have turned to the private sector. It is part of the policy that there should be this partnership between statutory bodies, the private sector and voluntary organisations. Many members of the private sector have responded admirably. I can say from my own experience—I name no names—that we have been saved by the timely and generous intervention of the private sector when the public sector has let us down. That is not good enough for a number of reasons. The voluntary sector should not be so dependent on either the statutory sector or on the private sector. Nor is it really right, without a good deal more thought, to take it for granted that the private sector will be a major partner in this kind of enterprise.
Giving by the private sector is fine up to a point but it is not really the private sector's primary task to be bailing out social schemes which should be financed very often in other ways. Its primary task, as has been made clear by speaker after speaker this morning, is to invest in industry, to get down prices, to pay decent wages and to pay decent dividends. Yes, it is good that the private sector should fund from its additional money when it has some opportunities to help schemes of social importance of one kind or another,

1147
but it should not be relied upon to deal with emergencies in the way that it has been called upon to deal with them in recent years and months.
There is another point here. The private sector does not have expertise to understand how that money should best be spent. It is not expert. Why should it be? It is not expert in which organisations and which undertakings should receive these resources. It does a good job in difficult circumstances but it is not expert in making those decisions. In many cases giving by the private sector is well informed and well carried out. But it must be no secret in the House, where so many noble Lords are involved in schemes of this kind, that if one wants to get money out of the private sector at the present time one needs to know someone on the board, one needs to twist his arm, one needs to know someone's wife, one needs to know what the particular favourites are. That is not always the case but inevitably that is the way in which things tend to be done. It is, to put it mildly, a second best way.
What is the alternative if we are to maintain the idea of partnership between those three sectors, which we all support, and if we are not to run into the difficulties which I have attempted to outline? The only way is to build up private giving through a development of trusts and foundations, of which at the moment we have many but not enough. They will be staffed by people expert in the problems of those areas for which appeals are made. They will carry out the distribution of the money offered through the private sector to these foundations, as is more frequently done in the United States of America than here. That would ensure that the distribution is made by people who are expert and who are becoming increasingly so, in dealing with the schemes' problems and the areas asking for help, be it the arts, social services, sport or all the other multifarious schemes which require financing.
This new approach calls for a new look at the way in which people can be encouraged to give. That is why I have spoken for 13 minutes, which is much longer than I intended. I do not expect the Minister to be able to give me a reply today. However, will the Government look very hard not at welcome but minor changes in taxation but at ways in which we can build up a far more effective system of encouraging and canalising private and private sector giving so that it is used in the best possible way, and thus make this partnership which we all applaud a reality, which is not the case at present.
1.20 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I should like to join other speakers who have already expressed their sincere appreciation of the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lord Varley and the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. One of the great things that I remember about when my noble friend was a Cabinet Minister, is that he was always available to listen to what some of us might have assumed was advice or guidance. His great gift was that he realised that the importance of Parliament was on the Benches behind the Cabinet Ministers.
1148
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, on his remarkable experience both in the public and in the private sector which he brings to this House. I can remember a time when the words Rolls-Royce were magic to everyone, even to those who never stood a chance of ever riding in one, let alone owning one. Everyone was proud of the Rolls-Royce. Some of us also understood that the creators of that wonderful motor-car—that is, the scientists, the engineers, the technicians, the industrial specialists, the fitters and the machinists—all depended in turn upon the steel workers and the miners, where the process started, and also upon many other tradesmen. It was a great example of a British industrial corporation which produced the magic name of Rolls-Royce.
The Minister said that there are people who will not agree with the claim that the Government's policy is not working. He continued to say that he had to say that they are all wrong. Whoever gave him that advice, gave him a very dangerous and unfair instruction.
There is one aspect in this area which I do not believe we are examining in enough detail. What happens to the families who form part of the millions who are unemployed? I refer to the agony and the quarrelling within the family. I know about it because I had to witness it. My mother and my father argued brutally. Why did my father go up to the pits when there was work on Swansea docks? He did so because he thought that if he went to the pits he might get some work. That caused terrible confusion and agony in the family. That kind of attitude does not seem to appeal to the present Tory Government—not that it did to the Tory Governments before the war.
The Government continue to make excuses for unemployment, knowing that they created it. However, after they have pushed up unemployment to 8 million and then brought the figure down over four or five years, they have the nerve to claim that they have reduced the number. That is one of the most crass and almost obscene claims that any government can make. I hope in the future that they will realise the appalling stress which is imposed upon a family through years of unemployment.
I turn now to deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He said that it was to the credit of this Government that the Italians and the Japanese are coming over here to buy British water companies, and to purchase British organisations which were once publicly-owned industries and undertakings. In my view, Lord Stockton put it correctly when he said that what the Government were doing was selling the family silver.
We should all appreciate—as I am sure we do—that a Finance Bill, like all other Acts of Parliament, concerns people. It concerns their standard of life and their guard against inflation. So far as is humanly possible, we should always try to ensure that there is fair play. I regret the fact that the present Government do not seem to be concerned with the latter. They seem to be aiding inflation. The cost of living is increasing. For example, prescription charges are above the rate of inflation. This affects the poor and the sick more

1149
than anyone else. It is deplorable to target the poor, the sick and the disabled in this way. The situation has been going on for some time.
I believe that that it is a highly deplorable situation, especially when one realises that drugs will cost an extra £15 million a year, and that to pay for those extra costs there will be yet another increase in prescription charges and probably many others, based on the idea that the sick, the ill and the crippled must pay. Only one-third of the cost of drugs is available, and government policy seems to suggest that they will have to depend upon people becoming ill. I know that the Government are not particularly fond of the BMA or the Federation of Health Service Employees. They sometimes seem to detest the Royal Colleges. However, all these institutions say that it is a tax on illness, which is disgraceful.
We should remember that Aneurin Bevan, with the aid of my noble friend on the Front Bench Lord Bruce of Donington, did great work in introducing the National Health Service. At that time we had just fought a tremendous war which was the most difficult war in our history. But, right or wrong, we had overcome an almost implacable foe. Yet, as soon as peace was restored, they embarked upon a policy of civilised behaviour and introduced that great Act of Parliament which created the National Health Service. It was to become, and I believe still is, the envy of the world. Nevertheless, there are indications that it will slowly be chipped away.
The Social Services Select Committee in another place, which has a majority of Conservative Members, employed the Institute of Fiscal Studies to look into the matter. It condemned the Government's attitude in every aspect of taxation, and their attitude toward the great services. It is of the opinion that the poorest families will receive the smallest increase in every respect except taxation. The committee is so alarmed by the situation that it is to call for more details to examine what can be done for the future.
In discussing a Finance Bill, we should also be concerned about housing. I think, on reflection, that it might have been a wise thing to encourage people who were living in council houses to own them. However, what was deplorable when they set about buying their homes was the fact that the interest and mortgage rates became so high that they had to give up their homes. In this Great Britain of ours, many of our cities are spoilt and shamed by the increase in the number of cardboard beds in the main streets. Anyone on arty evening can walk down London's Oxford Street or Tottenham Court Road and many of the equivalent streets in Cardiff, Nottingham, Manchester or Glasgow and see tens of thousands of people sleeping rough.
People in local government of all parties are desperately ashamed about the housing situation. They deserve some appreciation of the situation by the Government to help them overcome the appalling housing shortage. A large percentage of British families have an income below the Council of Europe's decency threshold. Our country is the one
1150
country which has been singled out in this respect. Is it a question therefore of those people being out of sight and hence out of mind?
There is one remarkable development of which the House should take note. It is the sensible approach of the TUC and the CBI, whose general secretaries have said some remarkably wise things about British industry. Both condemn stupid and unrealistic wage claims, and absurdly high directors' salaries. They both agree, as my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, said, that it is vital that we increase investment in British industry. We cannot go on telling the workers and trade unions, "You must not put in for a wage claim wanting another £30 a month", when we read in the Financial Times of a director who received £8 million for five days' work. That is an abomination. That is read not merely by people in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Yorkshire, Cardiff and London but by people in Paris, Rome and Germany. We are laughed at. People wonder, have we lost our way? Wage and salary restraint is necessary to combat inflation, and therefore I agree with the general secretaries of the TUC and CBI.
We must maintain and protect our care services. Unfortunately, they have to be protected from possible government brutalisation and the destruction of the principles of compassion. Our children are our future. In co-operation with local authorities, Parliament must see that they receive the best possible education. Our children have two fundamental needs: the best of health protection and the best possible education. Child benefit helps. It is a great benefit and has done a great deal of useful service. It is essential that we have investment in our industry, and we must see that the best possible education is provided for healthy British children or we are in danger of becoming a divided nation.
It is remarkable to recall that during the war we had fair play. Fair play was the principle lying behind everything. It was maintained after the war with the creation of the welfare state. The mixed economy ensures that there are no dead hands in any part of industry, public or private. A dead hand is bad for both. We have had it in both. It must be removed from both sectors. There must be sensible collaboration and co-operation between both sides of industry—between the workforce and the managerial force. We should maintain the welfare state and keep compassion at the top of the agenda. That will be good not only for this country; it will provide a civilised example for many other nations.
1.33 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, there is just time for me to say how much I enjoyed the two excellent and stimulating maiden speeches. Faced with a Bill of 133 clauses and 19 schedules, one obviously has to be highly selective. The first topic that I should like to mention is not dealt with directly in the Bill; nevertheless, it is highly relevant to government finances, inflation and so forth; not least because, amazingly, it is now reflected in the retail prices index. I refer of course to the poll tax. The disproportionate costs involved in the collection of that tax and the

1151
enormous problems of non-payment need no elaboration; nor will the almost universal feeling that the tax is unfair fade into oblivion as the Government hope, notwithstanding the latest trivial concessions announced yesterday.
For all the talk of all-embracing rebates for the poorest, the fact remains, as I pointed out a few weeks ago, that in Oxford, for example, young people earning less than £94 a week pay approximately 10 per cent. of their gross income in poll tax. That is shocking. As I understand it, in France no one with an income at that level pays any form of direct tax. In Oxford, a single person with an income of £12,000 a year pays proportionately as much income tax, national insurance contributions and poll tax as does a single person with an income of £24,000 a year who is in all probability living in a much larger house. The progression in our taxation system to which we have become accustomed over the past seven or eight decades is virtually disappearing.
A great opportunity was missed in the Bill to make up for the non-progressive nature of the poll tax by making the income tax system more progressive by way of compensation. For example, the single person's allowance could have been raised by £400 with all other personal allowances raised pro rata; or a reduced rate of tax on the first £6,000 or so of taxable income would have been introduced, balanced by the introduction of an intermediate rate of tax of 35 per cent. and a top rate of 45 per cent., or by limiting tax relief on mortgage interest to a maximum of 32.5 per cent. this year and to the standard rate next year, by which time interest rates should have come down so as to make the move relatively painless.
Such a move would, incidentally, help to counteract the rise in the price of larger houses which all economists agree will be the inevitable consequence of the introduction of the poll tax. Some move in that direction would have gone a long way towards reconciling the public to the flat-rate nature of the poll tax but, alas, it was not to be.
Another topic which is not in the Bill but which impinges upon it is that of child benefit. There are some who maintain that we should reintroduce tax allowances for children. If there are to be tax allowances for wives, why should we not reintroduce them for children? That is logical, but the trouble is of course that the greatest benefit goes to the better off. The solution might be to treat child benefit as a dividend, paid net of the standard rate of tax with a tax credit attached. Let us suppose that the weekly sum were to be increased to £7.50 per child. Parents who were not liable to pay tax would be able to reclaim an additional £2.50, bringing their total up to £10 per week per child; parents taxed at the standard rate would receive £7.50; and parents liable to the higher rate of tax would eventually repay £1.50 leaving them with £6 a week net.
Lastly, I turn to two specific clauses in the Bill: Clause 22 slightly increases the tax on company cars; but as an honourable Member—a Conservative honourable Member, let it be noted—said in another
1152
place a few days ago, that did not go far enough. The rationale of lowering the top rate of tax—ours is about the lowest in Western Europe, and, what is more, lower than that of Japan—was that perks would no longer be necessary; they would gradually wither away. They have not done so. We have a higher proportion of company cars than anywhere else in Europe. That cannot be a good thing. Company cars tend to have larger engines than private cars. Larger engines use more fuel and cause more pollution. For prestige purposes company cars have larger bodies, which take up more space in our overcrowded island. In an average London street one could park 10 private cars in the space occupied by seven company cars, with their burglar alarms going off seemingly 23 hours out of 24.
Nor is the British motor industry helped since most of those cars are now foreign made. That was not always the case: there was a time when most company cars were British. This is no longer so. I therefore agree with the honourable Member who, I re-emphasise, was a Conservative. I say that because I am trying to argue from the point of view of fairness and not doctrine.
That brings me neatly to the point touched on yesterday in Question Time which was certainly not resolved to the satisfaction of many people. Clause 54 of the Bill among other things removes all accumulated indexation from highly respectable, long established, gilt-edged, onshore unit trusts—and once more I declare a minor interest. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, tried to argue that the sudden disallowance of indexation which has accumulated month by month for up to eight years was not retrospective. If it was not retrospective, then the overnight imposition by some hypothetical future Left Wing government of, let us say, a capital gains tax on 10-year insurance policies or income tax at the highest rates on accumulated pension fund contributions, must equally not be retrospective. I cannot see a future Conservative opposition ever accepting such an assertion. However, no matter. The point is that it is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.
It is true that building society indexation was disallowed overnight, but building society indexation was essentially a freak event which nobody ever expected. Consequently nobody expected it to last. Against this, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, the honourable Member for Richmond and Barnes, in a Standing Committee in another place on 5th June, at column 132 of Hansard, gave five examples where perfectly reasonable notice of tax changes had been given. I added another example yesterday.
Furthermore, I specifically wish to ask the noble Earl—and I hope that he will have time to reply when he sums up—why the new rules apparently apply, according to all the professional advice I have received, from midnight on Budget eve and not from midnight on Budget day, or even from 6 p.m. on Budget day, after the exchanges have closed. It thus catches people who had perfectly innocently sold on

1153
the morning or early afternoon of Budget day, rendering them liable to enormous capital gains tax bills.
Apart from the recognised evils of retrospection, there is the simple matter of what is fair and what is unfair. On 9th March 1982, Sir Geoffrey Howe, in his Budget speech, after talking about the injustices attaching to capital gains tax, said at column 755 of Hansard:
"It is intolerable for people to be permanently condemned to pay tax on gains that are apparent but not real—gains that exist only on paper".
On 8th May 1985, Mr. Peter Rees, as he was then, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, replied to an indignant question from Sir Brandon Rhys Williams. He stated that it was a matter of profound regret that capital gains remained a levy purely on inflationary gains. In his Budget Statement on 15th March 1988, at columns 1004 and 1005 of Hansard, Mr.Nigel Lawson said:
"capital gains tax … should not be a tax on the original capital at all … the tax [which] falls largely on purely paper profits … bites deeply and capriciously, into the capital itself.
"This has long been recognised as manifestly unjust. Indeed, from the time I first entered the House I have argued that capital gains tax should fall only on real gains and not on paper gains".
However, it now seems that the policies and the strongly and sincerely held sentiments of Sir Geoffrey Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Rees, in his previous incarnation, and Mr. Nigel Lawson are being thrown into reverse, as is their policy of fiscal transparency, as it is called. As I pointed out yesterday, paper profits are again going to be taxed and possibly quite heavily taxed. A major unfairness is being introduced to cope with a minor abuse which could be dealt with by other means.
Speculation in commodities, futures, and so on is benignly treated from the taxation point of view. Collective investment in solid government stock—one is talking about a total of £736 million invested by 64 trusts—is in contrast being treated as something sordid and disreputable. This is especially hard on elderly and retired people who tend to invest in trusts like these—rather foolishly, one has to say, considering how badly gilts have performed over the past 10 years or more. That is contrary to what an honourable Member on the Labour side alleged in another place. Gilts unfortunately are a risk investment.
The new clause will tempt elderly and retired people to invest in latter day Barlow Cloweses because something like Barlow Clowes is not a unit trust but invests clients directly into gilts, so they avoid what is effectively a tax rate of 55 per cent. when one takes into account corporation tax on underlying profit.
It will make the position of Lloyd's members who are already reeling from massive losses on Piper Alpha and other disasters even more difficult. Moreover, the Government have effectively changed the terms on which they issued stock originally so as to entice investors. It is not in the long term interests of the Government or the country. Mr. Sam Brittan's article on the centre pages of the Financial Times yesterday
1154
was entitled, "Goodbye to those Budget surpluses". It may well soon be the case that the Government will have to start issuing gilt-edged stocks once more. This ruling will mean that the new gilt-edged stock will have to he issued on more generous terms than would otherwise be the case.
Mr. Peter Lilley, in Standing Committee, seemed tacitly to acknowledge that the new clause is unfair on certain unit holders, while arguing that it would be too complicated to rectify. In any case, only the better off would suffer. That is a totally unacceptable argument, even leaving aside the fact that anyone with more than £10,000 0,000 in gilt trusts will be hit by the new clause. I do not think that anyone would argue that £10,000 represents a fortune nowadays.
Two remedies have been proposed. The first involves confining the new ruling to offshore trusts into which most of the efforts at tax avoidance are concentrated. That is a possibility but better, in my opinion, would be to proceed with disallowing indexation on losses, although the retrospective aspect is still abhorrent, but to continue to permit indexation of gains, which is what the Inland Revenue press release on 20th March suggested was in the Government's mind. What the press release said and what the Government said later are two quite different things.
In this way, deposit trusts, into which most tax avoidance schemes are concentrated, would be hit, but gilt trusts in general would not. That would allow the equitable and just treatment of purely paper gains initiated so splendidly by Sir Geoffrey Howe and Mr. Nigel Lawson to continue. I hope that, come November, the Government will see fit to introduce a short Bill to remedy the injustice of Clause 54 as it stands.
1.47 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we are coming to the close of this wide-ranging debate. Many noble Lords have talked about broad issues of policy. A number have talked on specific clauses in the Bill. The noble Earl did so when he introduced the debate, as did the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, my noble friend Lady Seear and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Others dealt with broader matters, in particular the two noble Lords who made their most impressive maiden speeches today. I was pleased to be present when they did so because I have known them for many years in the period when I was in the energy industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, was successively chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and then of the Electricity Council. I met him in varied capacities, as I was in one sense a supplier and in another sense a competitor of his great industry. We met on a body which was quite big in those days. I have no idea how large it is now; somewhat diminished I fear. It was known as the Nationalised Industries Chairmen's Group. Noble Lords opposite have done something to reduce the membership of that group. It was quite a good thing while it lasted because we had interesting discussions.
Lord Molloy: All British nationalised industries.
Lord Ezra: That is right. I never thought it would receive this amount of praise.
I knew the noble Lord, Lord Varley, over many years because of his close association with the mining industry—not only himself but his father and other members of his family. I knew him particularly when he was Secretary of State for Energy. I shall always owe him a great debt for the help he gave to the coal industry at that time in one of the many difficult periods in the life of that great industry. We are particularly fortunate to have these two noble Lords with us participating in our debate.
Of the broad issues of policy which have been raised in the debate today I believe the two most important are inflation and investment in industry. Those were the two big matters that came out of the debate, although a number of other important issues were also raised. However, I shall concentrate on the two issues of inflation and investment in industry.
Everyone is agreed that the malady of inflation has to be dealt with. The Government are adopting strong measures and taking steps which they believe are right to deal with the problem. There have been signs recently that the medicine may be starting to take effect, at least as regards high street spending and private credit. However, the thing which is worrying, and which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Jenkins and the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, is our long term-policy towards inflation. Are we getting back to the stop-go situation? Are we getting back to the situation of up and down inflation, where inflation is up today but no doubt will be down tomorrow, and who knows what will happen the day after? Will we find that situation recurring over the years?
When we look to the Continent and to our major partners there, in particular France and Germany, we find that they seem to have found a way to stabilise inflationary trends. We have the immediate problem of bringing our inflation down, but what will happen after that? Have we given any attention to ways of achieving not only a low level of inflation that is comparable with that of other countries within Western Europe, but also a stable level over the years? That is a phenomenon which seems to have eluded us. That position might be achieved in many ways. I hope that the noble Earl will take us into the confidence of the Government's thinking on this matter. I am sure they have given it some attention.
I wish to put forward two suggestions. One concerns a matter which we have discussed in this House many times. I was delighted to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Varley, on the subject. I believe that prospective early entry into the exchange rate mechanism will eliminate one element of instability in the whole monetary scene; namely, that of getting a more stable currency relationship with the currencies of other countries.
However, there is one other thing which needs to be done. The conduct of our monetary policy seems to be subject to the exigencies and the timetable of the electoral scene. When an election approaches, governments tend to relax their policies in order to
1156
woo the voter. That is of course a natural inclination on the part of any political party in a democratic society, but it is not much good for maintaining a firm, consistent monetary policy. Again other countries have found the way round the problem by giving a more independent status to their central financial institution. I have asked a number of questions about that matter in the House and I have always been met with the answer that this whole question of monetary policy is too important for any government to give up in any way.
Therefore I wish to suggest a compromise. I am not suggesting that we should invest the Bank of England or any central bank with total independence. Democratic accountability is the whole basis on which we operate in our country. Let such an institution become more directly accountable to Parliament, and let it be less accountable to the Executive.
I am concerned about what will happen in the next 12 months. There will undoubtedly be a relaxation of the monetary measures presently in place because of the approach of the election. That relaxation might or might not be justified, but all of us believe that it will take place. In a way it is wrong to put that kind of responsibility on to a government. Let it be held separately by a body that is accountable to Parliament. I have made two suggestions on the way in which, if we look to the long-term solution to the inflation problem we may be able to help solve it, but others may have other ideas to add.
I now turn to the question of industry, and particularly manufacturing industry. I believe that noble Lords on all sides of the House quite rightly emphasise the importance of a greater level of investment in productive manufacturing industry. The noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, my noble friend Lord Jenkins and the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, among others took that view. So I can say, not only from the evidence of today's debate but from our general approach to these problems, that we are totally in agreement that this needs to be done so that we can build up our manufacturing capability in order to compete more effectively with the rest of the world.
There are, however, a few problems here. The first problem arises from the current fight against inflation. The trouble is that while the main measure adopted by the Government to fight inflation—the high interest rate—is having some impact or could have some impact on inflationary levels by restraining excess private expenditure, it is also having an impact on investment in industry, particularly in medium and smaller sized enterprises. The large companies in this country are now almost multi-national companies. They have substantial operating interests abroad and therefore can invest a good deal in those other countries without running into the difficulty of the high interest rate that is imposed here. However, the smaller companies who have to raise all their money on the UK market are in great difficulty.
The problem here is how to offset the broad impact of the high interest rates on industry and on industrial investment so as to enable that investment to go ahead

1157
without suffering too much damage. In looking through the debates in another place I noticed that there was a proposal for increasing investment allowances. That proposal was rejected by the Government. Such allowances would be a good way of offsetting the high interest rate. Investment allowances on plant and machinery at present stand at 25 per cent. A not unreasonable suggestion was made that this figure could be increased to 40 per cent. I know that that proposition has been put forward by the CBI.
If the Government were to contend that this is hardly the time to be giving money away when we are facing such a parlous financial position, I would like to rally to the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, when he said that it is not the level of tax that counts but rather the revenue that one gets from tax. I believe that stimulating investment in industry would lead to more tax being collected, even though that investment results from a reduction in tax.
I also believe that if we want to take the same long-term view of our industrial expansion as I have suggested that we should take in dealing with inflation, we have to reconsider what the role of government should be in regard to R&D in industry and in regard to training. We have debated that many times in this Chamber. We must still do some further thinking.
Thy remarkable situation of research and development in industry is that no more than 20 companies carry out some 50 per cent. of industrial research; 80 companies do 80 per cent. I need hardly remind your Lordships that there are 6,000 companies quoted on the Stock Exchange alone; there are countless thousands of companies which are not quoted. We are not only talking about the total quantum, which is inadequate; there is an imbalance in the amount of R&D conducted in this country when considered in industrial terms. I believe that it is essential that something should be done to stimulate smaller and medium-sized companies to innovate and research.
I am the chairman of a medium-sized company. I am afraid that we limit our own research. We depend on the bigger companies in our particular technology to come forward with the instrumentation in which we are interested—which happens to be energy instrumentation—and to develop it for our benefit. We then select what is best on the market in our opinion. However, I believe that we could contribute a good deal ourselves, but we cannot afford it. Therefore, here again I believe that a measure of tax incentive, of remission of tax, for direct research by medium and smaller-sized firms would be a desirable way to proceed.
The same applies to training. I have worked in all sizes of companies, as other Members of your Lordships' House will also have done. I have noticed invariably that when times are difficult the items which are cut back are those which are less visible such as research, training, promotion and publicity. Those are the items which go. I believe that those are the very ones that we should seek to retain. We need to stimulate more in-house training of personnel in
1158
British firms. Again, I believe that a carefully devised fiscal incentive could do the trick. The fiscal measures which I suggest, far from diminishing the total amount of tax gathered, would increase it by enabling companies to grow faster in the future.
I conclude by saying that we all agree that we are faced with very serious economic problems. In dealing with them immediately, as we must, I believe that we are losing sight of the equally urgent necessity to look at them on a longer-term basis. I have made certain proposals to that end.
2.2 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, it is with more than usual enthusiasm that I offer my congratulations to both the maiden speakers today. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, that is partly because I recall that in the 1960s the Board of Trade gave a good deal of encouragement and support to Rolls-Royce for the RB211 engine. Even though I believe that the noble Lord was not with the company at that time, he will nevertheless agree that it received a good deal of help from the Government. In the case of my noble friend Lord Varley, I offer my congratulations in the spirit of my belief that there is no former colleague from the other place whom I would welcome here both as a parliamentarian and a colleague with more enthusiasm than I would him.
The Minister spoke at the beginning of the debate about the Government's scheme called the personal savings account. I should like to ask him whether it is possible under that new scheme which carries tax concessions for anyone simply to acquire considerable sums by selling securities, pay them into such an account and, by leaving the amount in the savings account for some years, obtain the tax concessions. If that is so, no saving is involved. It is merely a transfer from one asset to another. If I am correct in thinking that that is what will happen, I do not see why we should concede large amounts of revenue for that purpose.
More generally, the best that can be said for the present Chancellor's Budget and Finance Bill is that they are a good deal less damaging than those of his predecessor. He has at least not stoked up a further consumer and import boom by giving large tax cuts to people who do not need them. There was a time last autumn and winter when it seemed that the present Chancellor might have the inkling of a balance of payments policy when he let the sterling exchange rate fall somewhat nearer to its natural level. Now he has let it bounce back again to an overvalued level.
As a result of the policies of the 'seventies and 'eighties this country is now further from paying its way in the world and is adding to its international debts faster than at any time since 1947. In 1988 we ran a balance of payments current deficit of £15 billion, in 1989 it was £21 billion and in 1990, against a forecast of £15 billion, it looks more likely to be nearer to £18 billion. The previous Chancellor invented the argument that it did not matter because we were borrowing those huge amounts annually from overseas. That is surely just the trouble.

1159
By the end of this year we shall have increased our overseas debt by about £50 billion, mainly in the form of short-term withdrawable funds. Simple arithmetic suggests that an extra £50 billion of debt, even at 10 per cent. interest, means extra annual interest payments across the exchanges of £5 billion and at 15 per cent. of £7.5 billion. It is that huge new external interest bill, together with larger EC budget payments, which have more or less extinguished our invisible surplus on the balance of payments for the first time in our history.
So after 11 years of this Government we have a deficit in visible trade, a deficit in trade in manufactures, an invisible deficit and a total payments deficit equal to some 4 per cent. of GDP, the largest at any time since the war. Every month the interest bill is getting larger, and the Government apparently have no policy for stopping the rot. Yet, even in the 1950s and 1960s we had largely overcome the effects of our wartime losses and were earning a payments surplus—a current surplus—in most years. We earned large balance of payments surpluses, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in particular will remember, in 1969, 1970 and 1971 without any help from oil. But instead of tackling the remaining long-term causes of our economic weakness, which much evidence now suggests derived largely from our antiquated systems of both training and education (but I leave that matter aside), we gratuitously laid new burdens on ourselves.
Today we have been talking about labour costs. We raised all our labour costs with the artificially high food prices involved in the common agricultural policy. At the same time we removed all remaining restraints on manufactured imports from the European Continent. It was from that time in 1973 that the deficit on our manufactures trade began, though partially concealed by oil revenues in the 1980s. I congratulate the Treasury on having now admitted specifically that the common agricultural policy costs every individual in this country about £4 a week at present in higher food prices. That has in part led to higher pay demands. In order to maintain real living standards an average family requires an extra 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. at all pay levels and therefore in labour costs. Together with largely free manufactured imports, as any sensible person would have predicted and many did, that has landed us now with a £15 billion annual deficit in manufactured trade with the rest of the EC.
I should have thought that when one has added short-term weaknesses to a long-term underlying weakness one would need both a short-term and a long-term remedy. The present Government show little sign of having a policy for either one or the other.
Let me give one example of what I mean by a genuine long-term policy. As we all know, 25 years ago France, knowing that she had little coal and virtually no oil or gas, planned and created a major nuclear power industry. That industry is apparently able to produce nuclear power very much more cheaply than we can. Perhaps someone would explain the reason why; no one yet seems to have done so. We
1160
have now exhausted much of our oil and gas and discovered that in our case nuclear power costs too much.
However, we have one great asset: coal. We have coal reserves which will last for 200 years. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Varley know far more about coal than I do, yet it looks to me as if we are now on the brink of allowing our coal industry to dwindle away because the use of highly sulphurous coal in so many power stations will pollute the atmosphere. Coal-burning power stations can be desulphurised, but one is told that the cost would be prohibitively high.
It seems odd to me that we propose to expend £7 billion or perhaps £10 billion in capital resources on an attempt, which will probably fail, to save 30 minutes or perhaps 20 minutes on a train journey to Paris rather than spend that same amount of capital to make this country self-sufficient in power supplies over the next 50 years. I wonder how that will look 50 years hence.
I ask the Minister—in case my guesses about magnitudes are wrong—what would be the capital cost of desulphurising all our power stations which use high sulphur coal. What does he expect the cost of the present Channel Tunnel scheme to have been by the year 1993?
So much for the long term. As a result of those policies we find ourselves in a short-term balance of payments crisis, with £30 billion or £40 billion of short-term funds owed across the exchanges. Incidentally, we used to hear a great deal at one time about the sterling balances and how they were a frightful burden round our necks when they never stood at more than £3,000 million. Now that there are £35 billion to £40 billion in foreign balances we seem to hear much less about them.
The Government's only response is incantations. They hope that the speculators will be blinded to the realities by promising or hinting that we shall fix the exchange rate possibly some time in the near future. However, the short-term cause of our payments crisis is the overvaluation of the sterling exchange rate. To think that one can cure the payments crisis by artificially fixing the exchange rate is like thinking that one can control the weather by jamming the barometer.
The only short-term weapon that we now have left after all the mistakes of the past 20 years is the exchange rate. Most of the economic history of the past 50 or 60 years shows not merely the importance of the exchange rate in a modern economy but also that what most weakens the structure of the economy is an overvalued rate. The lowering of the sterling rate in 1949 gave us the payments surpluses of the 1950s; and the lowering of the rate in 1967 made possible the large surpluses in 1969, 1970 and 1971.
The overvaluation of 1980, temporary though it was, was probably the main factor in destroying 20 per cent. of British industry in the three years after 1979 and producing 3 million unemployed. Do not let us forget this. The fixing of the exchange rate in 1925 at

1161
an overvalued rate meant six years of strikes, unemployment and depression; and only the fall of the rate in 1931 gave us six years of recovery.
It is also worth remembering that Germany's genuine economic miracle in the 1950s was greatly helped by a largely undervalued deutschmark in 1948–49 when German industry was prostrate and, very shrewdly by the Germans, devalued with sterling in 1949. Now that East Germany has had its mark up-valued by 100 per cent. it will be interesting to watch what the consequences will be for internal employment in Germany.
For a country like the UK today, with a weak economy, a weak payments deficit and an overvalued exchange rate, to fix the rate at that level would be a recipe for decline and unemployment. Indeed, it would not be merely a repetition of 1925 and 1931 because in this case it would result in putting ourselves politically as well as financially in the hands of our creditors. Worse than that, a new fallacy seems to have sprung up recently, that once one has the exchange rate right, it will stay right. But of course it will not. With a deficit such as ours and an economy as weak as ours compared with the greater Germany, until the long-term remedies have been applied, what is the right exchange rate for sterling against the mark one year will almost certainly be the wrong rate two years later.
As I see it, what would happen if we were so blind as to fix the sterling rate against the mark at anything like its present levels in the near future would be some euphoria for a few months or perhaps weeks when people believed that a miracle had been achieved. But after that the old forces would reappear, made worse by the overvalued rate. Interest rates would be raised, exports would flag, unemployment would grow and the whole struggle to defend an indefensible rate which we have had so often before would re-emerge.
It should therefore be a prime aim of the British economic policy in the next few years to keep management of the sterling exchange rate to the maximum extent practicable in British hands. With none of the long-term remedies yet in force, I believe that this is the worst possible moment for rash expense. For government to view joining the ERM as a magic charm which will strengthen sterling just because they say it will is short-termism gone mad. It would create a false sense of relief for a very short time at the cost of prolonged trouble thereafter. That is the evidence of experience and history. Indeed it would be to throw away gratuitously the one effective short-term weapon that we still have left.
2.19 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have had an interesting and constructive debate this afternoon. The debate has given rise to a large number of points both in general on the economy and, for some of your Lordships, on specific matters on the Bill. I hope to deal with as many points as possible.
Many of your Lordships inevitably mentioned the question of the manufacturing industry in the United
1162
Kingdom. On most objective indicators, the performance of the UK manufacturing in recent years has been very good. Productivity growth has averaged 5 per cent. per annum in the nine years to 1989. Profitability as measured by the net real rate of return has risen to the highest level for nearly 20 years. Manufacturing investment has risen by 25 per cent. in the three years to 1989. The UK has more or less maintained its share of world trade in manufacture since 1983.
The state of the UK manufacturing industry in 1979 was parlous. The UK was bottom of the league on most indicators of economic performance. The manufacturing industry was overmanned, uncompetitive and, as we all recall, prone to strikes. The UK's share of world trading manufacturers had been falling steadily for decades. That state of affairs could not have continued indefinitely and some kind of shake out was inevitable at some stage. That is what, in effect, the recession of 1980–81 induced. Manufacturing output fell by 40 per cent. during a period of two years. Manufacturing employment was also reduced by 14 per cent. during that period. Investment also fell sharply.
That period was undoubtedly a traumatic time for all those involved. The manufacturing industry which emerged from the shake out at the beginning of the 1980s, was more productive, more profitable, less strike prone and better equipped to hold its own in world markets. That is borne out by the much-improved performance of UK manufacturing since then.
Investment also plays an important part. The improved investment performance is a reflection of the improved quality of investment which is now taking place. I stress the phrase "improved quality of investment" because, as a result of what has been said today, it appears that it is not the quality of investment that matters but how much money one can throw at the problem. The Government have removed tax distortions which affected investment and which led to much of the inefficient investment during the 1970s. The quality of investment is now much higher, as is shown by the dramatic improvement in productivity, (up 60 per cent. since 1980) and in profitability (up four times since 1981). UK manufacturing is well placed to meet the challenges and take the opportunities of the 1990s. A few weeks ago John Banham, Director General of the CBI, remarked:
"We enter the 1990s with the supply side of the British economy in a comparatively better shape than at any time in our history".
Manufacturing is only one side of the coin. It is vital that it thrives and is profitable. However, the UK must also be a strong service sector which contributes more than twice as much to output and nearly three times as much to employment. It is an area in which the Budget helps and one on which we must concentrate as with manufacturing. In his excellent maiden speech the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, put his finger on the point when he said that the creation of wealth is important before we can start talking about

1163
spending it. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is keen to come to this side of the Chamber and spend, spend, spend as usual. However, I hope that he will give a great deal of thought to how he will create the wealth before he begins to distribute it with largesse.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also spoke about the record number of bankruptcies. It is not surprising that he looks at one side of the coin, and it is only right that I should give your Lordships the other side. It is the net position which is important. The net business start-ups, based on VAT registrations, reached a record rate of 1,500 per week in 1989. The indications are for a continued number of net start-ups and show that the trend has continued in 1990, although not to the same extent.
Apparently I disappointed the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in my opening speech because I looked at the Finance Bill and commented upon it as I did last year. I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, disappointed me. After all the talk we have heard from the Labour Party about their new policies, I should have thought that he would have lifted the curtain just a little and would have been keen to grab both sides of the Dispatch Box and tell your Lordships what he had in store for the British people and what they could look forward to. We did not hear a word of that from the noble Lord. Nothing came from him to tell us about the new power to be given to the DTI in order to give it the same lobbying power in Whitehall as the Ministry of Agriculture has provided for the farmers—to quote the famous phrase. Nor did he tell us what the economic shape of Britain will be and how different it will be. We all know that it will be different because none of the Labour Party's proposals are new. They take us right back to the failed policies of the 1960s and 1970s. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is a consistent man and he will support those policies. He has not become a convenience politician.
I am sad, too, that the noble Lord did not tell us about the new taxes which the Labour Party intends to impose, or about the new training level which will do so much to increase employment! He did not tell us about the new taxes which will take place on savings, on capital and inheritance, or about the roof tax, nor did he mention the hoof tax for Scotland. We do not know the details. However, it is likely that not everyone will be affected by what the noble Lord's party has in mind. However, those who will be affected will be those with homes, jobs and savings.
I was sad, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, did not take the opportunity to reinforce his party's commitment to defeating inflation. That is something to which we give very high priority. Nor did the noble Lord reveal to us that he had taken the Damascene conversion, as has the noble Lord, Lord Varley, who made an excellent maiden speech, in becoming European and pro Common Market. There is an increased need for us to work very closely with our European partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, mentioned the point which I made about the necessity
1164
for controlling inflation being the primary aim of government policy. Indeed, it is. We all know that the effect of tightening monetary policy to reduce inflation by increasing interest rates has a temporary perverse effect on increasing the RPI. The effects of the community charge also distort that figure. Together, those add up to about 3 per cent. of current inflation.
However, I say to the noble Lord that there are clear signs that the policy is working and that inflation will fall sharply next year. Some of the short-term measures which have been taken are one-offs which will come out of the RPI next year. We should see a substantial fall to a more sustainable and better rate because nobody likes the present rate. We can then proceed in a more orderly fashion than has been the case in the recent past. As I explained in my opening speech, that will be to the benefit of industry in this country as well as to everyone else.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, took a quite contrary view to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, on the question of joining ERM. I do not have to make it clear that it is the Government's intention to join ERM. The question is when is the right time to do that. The conditions as set out by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in Madrid made clear the requirements which we believe are necessary before we take the decision to enter. Good progress has been made since the Madrid summit which I have explained on previous occasions. For example, all those countries required to abolish their exchange controls by 1st July 1990 have done so and progress has been made also on competition policy and on the liberalisation of financial services. However, there is still work to be done on that matter.
As regards inflation, which is such an important part of the preconditions, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that he wishes to be certain that UK inflation is on a downward trend and closer to the levels of our EC partners.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was concerned about the tax burden. I admit that this year's Budget was the first since 1981 not to contain cuts in income tax or national insurance. As a result the tax burden is expected to rise slightly in the year ahead. However, it is important that I say this. It is easy to maintain a low tax burden while continually increasing spending if one is prepared to borrow to make up the difference. I know that my noble friend will agree that all that does is transfer the tax burden on to future generations or, worse still, give government an incentive to fuel inflation.
Of course we could have done that, as indeed the previous Labour Government did. But that would mean mortgaging our children's future to pay today's bills. Running a PSBR averaging 6¾ per cent. of GDP would cost £35 billion today. That is not the Government's way. It never has been and never will be. Instead, we have chosen the path of fiscal rectitude, running a surplus since 1987 and reducing the ratio of public sector debt of GDP from 50 per cent. in 1979 to 28 per cent. today. The consequent saving in debt interest means more room for public spending on

1165
priority programmes and more room for tax reductions. It is also of great benefit to our children and our grandchildren.
The Government may not be cutting taxes this year, but it is worth recalling what 10 years of tax reform has achieved for the individual taxpayer. If the tax system was still as it was in 1979, indexed to inflation, a married man on half average earnings would be paying 50 per cent. more in income tax and NICs than he is paying now. I am sure that that would not please the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to say that if I had a choice I would choose that rather than throw 8 million of my fellow citizens out of work for four years.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure from where the noble Lord obtained his figure of 8 million. That does not tie in with any figure that I have.
In response to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, perhaps I may repeat something that my right honourable friend the Chancellor said in his Budget Statement. He confirmed that it is the Government's aim to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 20p in the pound, but only when it is prudent and sensible so to do. It would not have been prudent or sensible to make a move this year.
I understand the points raised by my noble friend regarding the tight timetable for the taking of this Bill. It was agreed between the business managers, and I understand that it was parliamentary procedure that prevented my noble friend from receiving the Bill earlier in the week. I believe he is aware of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Varley, made an excellent maiden speech. He mentioned two points I should like to answer. The first concerned the forecast for the PSBR. I am sure the noble Lord will understand if I say that the new forecast will be in the Autumn Statement, as is usual. The other point concerned the privatisation of electricity. I must disagree with him when he says that it is a transference from a public to a private monopoly. I take issue with the noble Lord on that point because there are to be 12 regional electricity companies. There is a real incentive to encourage competition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised a matter in which I was lucky enough and honoured to take a very active part in the past year; that is, payroll giving. I agree with her that the scheme has built up more slowly than we should have liked, but within that there is a trend that is encouraging. Many people are generous in their support for charities but may not change their giving habits overnight. As more people realise the advantage to themselves and to charities of giving even modest amounts regularly through payroll giving, the scheme will come into its own.
The Government have taken every opportunity to publicise the scheme, and I am glad that charities are doing the same. There was a time when an appeal was made for charity and at the end of that appeal there was no mention of payroll giving. Whenever I hear an appeal now I hear also that there is an opportunity for
1166
payroll giving, and that must help. Many charities have risen to the challenge of promoting the scheme, but others are still less aware of its potential than I would wish. I should like to see all charities encouraging their supporters to use the scheme. The Payroll Giving Association, which was set up specifically to promote payroll giving, can do a valuable job in that respect. I can tell the noble Baroness that the Government have agreed to match, pound for pound up to a limit of £50,000, any funds that the association raises for publicity purposes. We have already released £25,000.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, took the debate from the economy into prescription charges. I agree with him that it is right that those who can afford to do so should contribute to costs in order to enable more resources to be spent on improvements to primary health care. There are wide exemptions applying to those who cannot pay. I do not think the noble Lord acknowledged that fact. Although increases may be above inflation, the cost of providing pharmaceutical services has risen on average by about 13 per cent. a year in recent years, reflecting the higher cost of providing better and more sophisticated drugs. That trend is expected to continue.
The new charge announced in April this year will continue to represent less than half the cost of average prescriptions in the NHS. I know that the noble Lord will agree that over 75 per cent. of prescription items that are dispensed are free of charge. That was not the impression that he gave in his speech.
The noble Lord then turned from prescription charges to the homeless. That is an area in which I have been involved. I repeat that we are concerned about the plight of the single homeless. The problem is mainly caused by the break-up of families and by other social reasons. We are determined that there should be no excuse for sleeping out on the streets. The noble Lord will know as well as I do that a recent initiative was taken by the Government and that a further £15 million is to be allocated in new initiatives to provide additional subsidised accommodation. That is over and above the £250 million homelessness package announced last year.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, blasted the community charge. I felt that he took a very odd angle in his attack. I was hoping that in mentioning Oxford he would go on to ask why the local authority had not curbed its spending in the first place and not pushed up its community charge. Living in Oxfordshire, I am paying the penalty of local authorities not controlling their spending. The noble Lord did not mention that what the local authorities imposed this year was equivalent to a rate rise of over 13 per cent. I had hoped the noble Lord would join others in condemning local authorities for that.
The debate enables me to respond more fully to the noble Lord's Question yesterday which was on a highly technical matter. He has declared his interest but I am not sure what it is. At present, units in all unit trust and offshore funds attract indexation allowances. That is the case even where unit trusts or offshore funds are invested in assets such as sterling bank

1167
deposits which do not attract indexation. The purpose of the change is to ensure that someone who invests in a unit trust or offshore fund does not receive the benefits of indexation if he or she would not have obtained indexation had he or she invested direct in the same underlying assets. In other words, as I said yesterday, the aim is to close off a loophole through which capital gains tax losses can be artificially created.
The change applies to remove indexation from units in unit trusts and offshore funds that are at any time during the period of ownership of the units at least 90 per cent. invested in capital gains tax exempt assets, such as sterling bank deposits or gilts, building society shares on which there is already no indexation, or both. As the noble Lord reminded us, it applies to disposals on or after 20th March.
The change affects a relatively small number of gilt funds and sterling money funds. Unit trusts and offshore funds investing in shares which form the bulk of the market will normally be unaffected. Thus, the vast majority of investors are not affected by the removal of indexation, including those invested in the funds covered by the change. That is because the £5,000 annual exemption, which is effectively £10,000 in total for married couples under independent taxation, means that most individuals do not pay CGT.
The noble Lord quoted various passages from my right honourable and learned friend Sir Geoffrey Howe, my right honourable friend Mr. Lawson and my noble friend Lord Rees. The policy has not changed. The noble Lord is trying to defend a system whereby, due to indexation, an artificial tax loss could be used to be set off against change. The policy therefore has been to close that loophole through which a significant risk of tax in the future might have occurred.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I intervene only briefly. I was not defending the creation of artificial tax losses. If the noble Earl reads my speech in Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I did not do so. This is no time to go into a long argument, but I asked him specifically why the changes took effect from midnight on Budget eve and not from midnight or 6 p.m. on Budget day, thereby catching people who had quite legitimately made transactions and sold shares early on Budget day before the Chancellor's speech.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I heard the noble Lord clearly on his request for information. I was not sure whether I would reply to him on that point or the previous point. I have replied to him on the previous point. I shall write to him on the point about which he has reminded me.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, requested that capital allowances should be increased. Capital allowances are now broadly in line with commercial depreciation. Increased capital allowances would re-introduce accelerated depreciation which distorted investment decisions in the past and ran counter to the 1984 business tax reforms. A 25 per cent. writing-down
1168
allowance is a generous average rate for plant and machinery and allows a cushion for inflation. As noble Lords will know, there is a special regime for short-life assets which can be written off more quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked whether, within TESSA, people would merely switch funds from their current deposits into a TESSA deposit and whether there would therefore be no increase in saving. He has failed to understand fully that the maximum amount is £9,000 over a five-year period. It is £3,000 in the first year and up to £1,800 in subsequent years, so it will not be possible to switch large sums of money across from one form of account to another. That might happen, but it is important to note that we are providing a new opportunity to save and an encouragement to save which many people who are not able to do so at the moment will have the opportunity to use in the future. We believe that it will prove worth while overall.
Lord Jay: My Lords, would it then be possible for someone who possessed a large amount of funds to transfer a small amount of funds up to the maximum and in effect gain that concession without having saved anything at all?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords. I do not deny that, but it opens up a whole new avenue for many other people who have not saved to date and whom we are keen to encourage to save.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, also mentioned training. I had hoped to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about his party's proposals for that. It is wise to remind the House that companies are already spending £20 billion a year on training and that the number of people reporting recent training is up over 70 per cent. in the five years to 1989.
The Bill contains a number of important reforms. Foremost are the changes to the taxation of savings. The abolition of stamp duty on shares removes a tax which was introduced in the last year of Queen Anne's reign and has come to look increasingly anachronistic in an ever more competitive world. The abolition of composite rate tax removes an anomaly of almost 100 years' standing and will help married women, pensioners and children alike. The advent of TESSA will provide further encouragement to savers. The scheme has been widely acclaimed for its innovation and already—even before the final details have been settled a number of banks and building societies have said that they will participate.
Since this Government came to power the British economy has undergone a transformation. Of the major EC countries, only Spain matched the UK's growth record in the 1980s. Living standards have risen rapidly and real personal disposable income is at a record level. After such rapid expansion the economy is due for a breather for a year or two. We need to restore the balance between savings and investment; and with its emphasis on the saver I believe that the Bill can contribute to this process. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be not committed.
Moved, That the Bill be not committed.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1990
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th June be approved. [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft regulations provide a number of small amendments to be made to the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1989 which were consolidated last year.
The assisted places scheme was established in 1981 for the purpose of widening the educational opportunities of able children from less well-off families. It provides their parents with assistance towards the fees of some of the best independent schools in the country. The assistance is on a sliding scale based on parental income and the principal changes embodied in the amending regulations are concerned with the annual revision of those scales.
In past years there have also been technical amendments to keep the definition of "total parental income" for the purposes of the scheme constant as tax legislation changes. This year one such amendment takes account of the position of APS parents who are eligible for relief on medical insurance in pursuance of Section 54 of the Finance Act 1989.
Regulation 1 of the draft regulations deals with citation, commencement, application and interpretation. The regulations are to come into force on 21st August 1990. Regulation 2 provides for grant-maintained schools (within the meaning of the Education Reform Act 1988) to be included in the definition of "publicly maintained schools" referred to in Regulation 19(2) of the principal regulations. I would mention at this point that the APS is not a means of supporting those families whose children would, in any event, have entered the independent sector without the aid of an assisted place. The scheme is intended to offer this type of education to the children of parents who, without assistance, would never have been able to afford it. Consequently, under the principal regulations, participating schools must ensure that at least 60 per cent. of their assisted pupils attended state schools immediately before taking up their assisted place. It is worth noting that in practice at this time 71 per cent. of those children attended state schools before taking up assisted places.
Regulation 3 of the draft regulations updates the 1989 regulations and relates to those parents who pay medical insurance. Its effect is to discount deductions
1170
from total income allowed on payments for medical insurance made by those parents aged over 60. For obvious reasons, few people will fall into this category.
Regulation 4 sets out the income scale used for assessing parents' contributions towards fees. As has been the case in previous years, this has been uprated to take account of movements in the retail prices index. The threshold at or below which parents pay nothing towards fees is raised from £7,584 to £8,200.
The provisions and amendments I have just described will ensure the continued smooth running of the assisted places scheme and I trust that they will find favour with noble Lords. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th June be approved. [22nd Report from the Joint Committee}—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the regulations. I have a number of specific questions to ask her but, not surprisingly, I take this opportunity to make one or two comments. I shall not speak at great length because I feel that this is one of those areas where there is no meeting of minds, or perhaps there is a meeting of minds, in the sense that we simply agree to disagree. In the past I have railed against the method of using public funds, as have my predecessors. However, the Government have stuck to their view and I do not think that either side has made any concessions.
We believe that the assisted places scheme has been a method of reintroducing selection via the back door. The evidence which we have—I shall return to the point about evidence—shows all the deficiencies of selective schemes which have existed in the past. We also believe that the funds involved could have been used for better purposes. In anticipation of what might be said, I think that I should stress the fact that noble Lords on this side of the House, and our party, are fully committed to abolishing the assisted places scheme, if for no other reason than that we see no sign whatever of any evidence to suggest that any educational benefits have been derived from it.
I turn now to deal with the scheme itself. The noble Baroness did not say what the anticipated cost of the scheme would be for the coming year. I assume that it will be more or less of the same order of magnitude as it was in the financial year which has just ended; namely, of the order of £60 million, plus some uprating for inflation. I take it that the figures mentioned in the regulations are uprated as regards inflation. However, can she tell us what rate of inflation was actually used to readjust them. The noble Baroness referred to the so-called 60 per cent. figure, in that at least 60 per cent of the assisted places should be for pupils who have attended maintained schools. However, she said that the actual percentage is 71 per cent. I believe that this point is covered in the legislation, although it may be in earlier regulations. Can she clarify what meaning we are to place upon the importance of pupils having attended maintained schools? Is the criterion that pupils must have spent all of their time in education up until that point in maintained schools, or is it that they must have spent

1171
some time in maintained schools? It is most important that that point should be clarified in order to enable us to interpret the significance of those figures.
I turn now to deal with gross family income. I have tried to do the relevant calculations myself, but I simply do not have the ability to do so. However, can the noble Baroness tell us, for example, in the case where there were two assisted pupils, what the gross family income would have to be—I refer to the income before allowances are made—before no money would be forthcoming for an assisted place? I emphasise the word "gross" as I had some difficulty in working it out for myself. Therefore, if those who are advising the noble Baroness cannot make the calculation on the spot, I should be perfectly happy to have the information sent to me.
On the question of costs, perhaps I may make a point which is often ignored. The matter has been debated here and in another place. I put it to the noble Baroness that comparing the actual unit cost of an assisted place with the unit cost of a place in a maintained school, and arguing that that throws light on the cost of the scheme, is an incorrect calculation. There can be no doubt that the unit cost of a young person in the scheme is a cost to the tax payer. But to cite the unit cost of a place in the maintained schools in comparison is erroneous because it must be compared with the amount which would be saved in a maintained school. The amount saved in the maintained school is a marginal cost.
Where we have an excess of maintained school places—in many of the areas about which we are talking we have an excess—the marginal cost of those pupils is zero. On clear economic grounds, the whole cost of the assisted places scheme falls upon the taxpayer. There are few savings to be offset against it. That is a piece of elementary economics, and it is something which I put to the noble Baroness or those who advise her, for them to think about.
My next question relates to research. Most of the debates on the subject, especially in the other place, have been of a knock-about kind: "Don't you know that your Miss Such-and-such has an assisted place? Her father is poor and she ended up a Cambridge", or some other fate worse than death, and, "Isn't that an example of the benefits of the assisted places scheme?" Such anecdotes are not research. They do not answer the question: how do you know that that person with ability would not have gone to Cambridge having been at a comprehensive? Vast numbers of young people from poor backgrounds do precisely that. To quote such anecdotes is of no help. We must ask whether any research has been undertaken to show whether there are positive benefits of the kind that we have in mind.
Secondly, we must ask whether there has been any serious research into the effect the assisted places scheme has on the schools to which those young people might have gone. Is there any evidence, as was argued at the outset, that allowing those people to leave the maintained system would act as a spur to an improvement in the maintained system? I ask those
1172
questions because the only research of which I am aware shows nothing of the kind. It shows the opposite: that on the whole it is impossible to demonstrate any net benefit from the assisted places scheme or any net benefit to the maintained system.
After the £200 million that has gone into the scheme since it started, I should have thought that the Department of Education and Science would have felt that it should fund a great deal of research to test those matters. I do not suggest that it is easy. I can think of hundreds of reasons why it is hard to do such research, but, since claims were made about the scheme's benefits, the proper use of public funds requires that we study the effects.
I regret to say that I have spoken for longer than I wanted, especially considering the time of the day and the day of the week. However, we are debating important matters. I thank the noble Baroness. I do not require all the answers to my questions immediately, but that does not mean that I do not regard them as not worth answering.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I too thank the Minister for her exposition of the new regulations. I am sure that the figures are what the Government intend them to be and I understand that the scheme is thriving. I have no doubt that the pupils, the parents and the school are happy about the scheme. The schools are having some nice, bright pupils whom they would not otherwise have. They are also getting an egalitarian image, which must please them.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I become apparently irrelevant for a short time. The only excuse for irrelevance is that one will not be long. I have just been reading an HMI report about some schools in Hackney. It is pretty hair-raising. I shall read a few excerpts. I want to emphasise that the report does not apply to all the schools in the borough of Hackney, some of which are excellent. I have seen some of them, and I know how well they are working. However, there are others which are not so good.
The inspections were carried out in January of this year. The report states:
"in the smaller sample of primary schools visited in January 1990 the percentage of unsatisfactory lessons was 55%. These figures are to be compared with the national figure of 30 per cent. for all primary school lessons in the academic year 1988–89. Considering each school as a whole, none of the primary schools inspected is outstanding; most range from adequate to poor; about half a dozen give cause for concern".
That is the most serious comment the inspectors can make, "cause for concern".
In addition, the report says about primary schools that old school buildings pose problems:
"over half the primary schools visited provide a dismal setting for teaching and learning; untidy classrooms, poorly organised resource rooms and a low standard of cleaning contribute to the shabby environment. In some schools the quality of facilities such as the toilets raises questions about the attitudes which are conveyed, consciously or unconsciously, to pupils by the school. For example in one primary school a single toilet roll was left hanging at the entrance to the building".
Regarding secondary schools, the report states:
"Visits to eight of the ten secondary schools in Hackney revealed that overall standards are significantly below the

1173
national average of one in three lessons judged to be good or very good; in Hackney only one in five lessons could be so described. Nationally a third of all lessons are judged to be less than satisfactory or poor; in Hackney the figure is over 40 per cent. and a tenth of all lessons displayed serious shortcomings. The core subjects fare no better than the rest: half the science lessons, half the mathematics and two-fifths of the English lessons were unsatisfactory or poor".
The inspectors basically do not blame lack of funding for materials and equipment. It is the shortage of teachers that concerns them. They say:
"Most Hackney schools are unable to recruit and retain sufficient teachers of any kind and find even more difficulty in attracting those with the experience and quality needed to teach effectively in the difficult conditions prevailing in the Borough…
Despite all that local effort Hackney entered into in the 1990s knowing that some children will not receive any teaching at all unless vacancies can be filled. Many more pupils will experience a succession of temporary teachers passing through their classrooms, each trying to pick up where the last left off, but leaving before they get to know the children and develop any secure idea of their capabilities. Some schools will continue to struggle without a permanent head and some without a permanent deputy either".
We all know that the basic cause of this is not the ILEA, which was responsible at the time of the inspections. It was the underfunding of the system as a whole. No less a person than David Jewell, chief master of Haileybury and chairman of the Headmasters' Conference, said:
"Underfunding of state education has been scandalous. Teachers' salaries are absolutely scandalous".
Dr. Rae, former headmaster of Westminster, also considers that the scheme should be funded by the schools themselves, not by public funds.
We On these Benches are all for parental choice and opportunity for the less well off. But these benefits must be balanced against the obligation of a government to provide public services. Education is a public service like health, and in a civilised country we consider that it is a birthright. What justification can there be for diverting taxpayers' money—that is, public funds—into private interests, when the public service stands in such dire need?
There has been a fair amount of talk in recent years of a two-tier society, and, more ominously, of a growth of an underclass. It seems to us that the assisted places scheme is likely to contribute to precisely that.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Labour Party has opposed the scheme since its inception. The regulations being considered today, the way in which the scheme is working and the principle involved have not led us to change our view. The cost per year for each assisted place pupil for 1989–90 was £2,364. This information came in a written reply to me yesterday from the Minister. She also stated that the equivalent national cost of a pupil in secondary education for that year is not yet available, but for 1988–89 it was £1,985 in the maintained sector.
The fact that there is a difference, in that the cost of an assisted place represents the greater cost, is unacceptable. The difference may not be very great but the assisted places scheme as a whole is expensive and unnecessary. I do not know what the total cost of
1174
the scheme is but it must run into many millions of pounds. As the noble Lord who has just spoken said, the scheme is being implemented at a time when the maintained sector is crying out for money. Every day we hear tales of crumbling schools, serious shortages of teachers and inadequate supplies of teaching materials, not least of text books.
The scheme was intended to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds. I have no doubt that some children in the scheme come from such backgrounds. However, I should like to ask the Minister—my noble friend on the Front Bench touched on this—how much detailed research is being carried out on that point. I assume some research is being carried out. If that is the case, it should be published so that we can see what is happening. I ask particularly about that matter because that is why the scheme was instituted. When it first came before your Lordships' House, that reason was quoted as the raison d'être of the scheme. Further, I ask about this matter because of a book entitled The State and Private Education: An Evaluation of the Assisted Places Scheme written by Edwards, Fitz and Whitty. The study was funded by the Government through the Science and Engineering Research Council, so presumably it has some respectability.
As far as I am aware, the study constitutes the most detailed investigation into the scheme. Its conclusions cannot make happy reading for the Government. The authors reveal that only 10 per cent. of assisted place pupils have fathers who are manual workers, while 50 per cent. of such pupils have fathers who are employed in service industries. The figure of 10 per cent. condemns the scheme as a failure in its main objective.
It would also be useful—I believe I have made this point in previous debates on the subject—and interesting to be given the numbers of assisted place pupils by region. That is a genuine query on my part. I have no information on that aspect, nor have I ever seen any published. I suspect, however, that my region, the northern region, has fewer such pupils than, say, the South East. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what information there is on that regional aspect. I hope that if it is not readily available she will consider trying to obtain it and will place it in the Library.
Supporters and Members of the Government frequently ask what the Labour Party will do about the scheme when it comes to office. My noble friend has already dealt with this point, but I shall add a few further remarks. I repeat that the Labour Party has said many times that it will end the scheme but that all pupils in the scheme will be allowed to complete their courses. That process will permit money and resources to be used much more effectively.
I hope the House will forgive me for repeating myself, but I must say once again that my main reason for intervening in the debate is to say that the main objective of the scheme is not being achieved. As I have already said, it is not working to the benefit of the children of disadvantaged parents. When one considers the amount of money and the amount of time and effort which have been spent on the scheme

1175
since it came into operation in 1980—it has now been in operation for a decade—particularly in the context of the huge problems of education at the present time, one begins to despair of this Government ever getting anything right.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the assisted places scheme is now in its ninth successful year. I can assure noble Lords opposite that any doubts which they may have about it are not shared by the many parents whose children have benefited and will continue to benefit from it.
There are now 27,000 pupils in the assisted places scheme, of whom about two thirds come from families with incomes under £12,000 a year. The scale for determining the amount of fee remission is intentionally a demanding one and only those families with incomes currently below £7,584 qualify for completely free places. That figure will be uprated to £8,200 in future. Even so, in the current school year one third of all assisted pupils are eligible for full remission of fees. It is quite clear that the scheme is working to the advantage of those less well off families for whom it was intended.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, suggested on the basis of the research to which he referred that only 10 per cent. of all young people taking advantage of the scheme come from families whose parents are involved in manual work. I prefer to think of salary levels rather than of what people do for a living. All sorts of people work at salary levels comparable to those of people who do manual work. I cannot restate too often that one-third of the children who are being helped under the scheme come from families in which the salary level is at or below £7,400 a year. Two-thirds of all the children helped under the scheme come from families earning £12,000 or less a year, and only 18 per cent. of children come from families where the salary level is above £14,000 a year. That means that the majority of children helped under the scheme come from families earning very low salaries, whether manual workers or not. I believe that the scheme is reaching those young people of ability who come from low-salaried families.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness so that we know what we are talking about. Are the salaries that she quoted what I refer to as net income and what the regulations refer to as relevant income, or was she quoting the figure that I asked for, which was gross salaries? I have a feeling that she quoted the former.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am talking about the income that is taken into account when allowances are deducted. Nevertheless a salary of £7,400, by anyone's standards, even taking allowances into account, is a very low salary. The level of £12,000 is the net salary. I shall ask for more details, which may come before the end of the debate. Otherwise I shall write to the noble Lord.
The APS provides excellent value for money. In the 1988–89 academic year the average cost to the taxpayer of each assisted pupil was £2,121. The
1176
corresponding average cost of a pupil in the maintained sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, pointed out, was £1,985, a difference of only £136. It is also worth noting that one of the reasons for the marginally higher cost is that the rate for young people under the scheme staying on into the sixth form is much higher than in the maintained sector. The fact that the taxpayer bears that cost annually for these young people bears out the point that we are spending the money on children from lower salaried families. The children we are supporting in the scheme are those we have to support to a higher level because they come from families earning at the lower end of the scale.
Even that small difference is due to the high proportion of sixth form provision which the scheme supports. The excellence of the output from the assisted places scheme expenditure is beyond question. Of those young people entered for A-levels, assisted place holders achieve on average a pass rate of around 90 per cent. The average for the maintained sector is 75 per cent. Not only are those young people from low salaried backgrounds entering the system; they also benefit greatly from it.
Like noble Lords opposite, we believe in equality of opportunity for all pupils. We believe that the assisted places scheme plays a vital part in that process and does so by levelling up rather than by levelling down.
I am pleased to say that from September, 17 more schools will be able to offer pupils assisted places under the scheme. These schools are mainly in regions of the country where the provision of assisted places has been relatively poor. In addition to this limited expansion we are continuing with plans to achieve a take-up rate of 100 per cent. by redistributing unfilled places to schools where demand exceeds supply. Thus, the opportunities offered by the scheme will be opened to even more families throughout the country.
The assisted places scheme is plainly achieving its objective of opening up some of the best independent schools to children who almost certainly would not otherwise have been able to look to them as an option. That can only be to their and the nation's advantage.
One or two other points were raised during the debate. For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I am now advised that the figure to which I referred earlier was a gross figure.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take it that the noble Baroness is completely confident about that answer. I must say that I find it almost impossible to believe. Nonetheless I am willing to wait for further consideration.
Baroness Blatch: I am assured, my Lords, that it is a gross figure. As a gross figure it supports even more the case that I was making earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked me about the length of time that a child may have been in a maintained primary school before going into the assisted places scheme. I am assured that it is the school immediately prior—in other words, the school

1177
from which the young person comes into the assisted places scheme has to be a state school. The minimum percentage is 60 per cent.
I was asked about the estimated cost of the scheme in the coming year. I am advised that it is around £61 million. That again is the figure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It will be subject to final adjustment because it depends upon the number of young people who take up the scheme.
As leas been said before, the figure for children who benefit from the scheme now is around 27,000. The aim is to take the target figure up to 35,000, and bringing the new schools on stream may help us to achieve it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, spent most of the time talking about schools in Hackney. There are not many noble Lords still in the Chamber this afternoon. But most noble Lords would agree with him that there is enormous cause for concern. However, I do not believe that it is right to invalidate a scheme which costs the taxpayer of this country less than half of 1 per cent. of all that is spent on education and which benefits upwards of 27,000 young people. The fact that the results are very poor in Hackney is not a good reason for invalidating the scheme.
I was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the level of income at which benefit falls away. It depends where one starts. Not only is there a banded income which determines how we help people, but it also depends very much on the fees charged by a school. In order to be specific, I should need to know the fee for any school mentioned. I could then give specific figures about the level to which we would help a young person. If the noble Lord cares to give me an example of the fees of a specific school, I shall write to him on this point.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asked about regional statistics. I can write and send them to him. I have already made reference to the 17 new schools which are coming into the scheme. Their geographical spread is designed specifically to assist where assisted places are not available in some parts of
1178
the country. I made some mental calculations while listening to the debate. I believe that something like seven of the 17 are in the North and North East, eight are in the Midlands, one is in East Anglia and one is in the South.
I shall write to noble Lords if I have missed any other points that were raised when I have had the opportunity to read the report of this debate. I believe that I have answered—
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Are we talking of the same thing? I spoke of the origin of pupils from a region, not the number of schools, although that would be interesting too. For example, in my part of the country, I refer to the number of pupils from the northern region, the West Midlands, the South East and so on. Are we talking of the same figure?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be more specific when I write. I shall take proper note of the question. What I said was not entirely irrelevant because most of those young people have assisted day places and inevitably they will go to a local independent school. In the North East one would expect that the children attending would come from the North East. However, we shall give the noble Lord a breakdown of the children in the system.
If I have missed any points I shall write to noble Lords. I commend the regulation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Aviation and Maritime Security Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Government Trading Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past three o'clock.

  CRYPTOSPORIDIUM IN WATER SUPPLIES: REPORT
  CRYPTOSPORIDIUM IN WATER SUPPLIES: REPORT
  US BASES IN EUROPE
  US BASES IN EUROPE
  BRAZIL AND THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  BRAZIL AND THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 16th-17th JULY
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 16th-17th JULY
  EC BANK ACCOUNTS DIRECTIVE
  EC BANK ACCOUNTS DIRECTIVE
  CFC SUBSTITUTES
  CFC SUBSTITUTES
  INCORPORATED ENGINEERS: EC REGULATIONS
  INCORPORATED ENGINEERS: EC REGULATIONS
  DEPOSITORS: PROTECTION
  DEPOSITORS: PROTECTION
  CONSOLIDATED STERLING DEPOSITS INCORPORATED
  CONSOLIDATED STERLING DEPOSITS INCORPORATED