Sitting of 24 July 1990

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

  INCOME TAX
  The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Addresses as follows:
  I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Italy) Order 1990 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Netherlands) Order 1990 be made in the form of drafts laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PENZANCE SOUTH PIER EXTENSION BILL

    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
    Orders for consideration of Lords amendments read.
    To be considered tomorrow.
    LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

    HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords]
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session:
    That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time.
    That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
    That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented with the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
    That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    278
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered tomorrow.

    KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords]
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
    That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
    That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
    That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
    That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered tomorrow.

    KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
    That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
    That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
    That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
    That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the

    279
    time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
    That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered tomorrow.

    MIDLAND METRO BILL
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Midland Metro Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
    That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
    That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
    That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
    That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
    That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered tomorrow.

    CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords]
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
    That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill
    280
    shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
    That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
    That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
    That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Footwear and Textiles
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement about job losses in the footwear and textile industries.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): The unprecedented job growth achieved under this Government is testimony to the success of their policies, which have allowed industry and workers to adapt to changing circumstances and seize new opportunities. It would be counterproductive to try to bolster uncompetitive sectors.
    Mr. Vaz: Nothing that the Minister has said will give comfort to those who work in the footwear and textile industries. Is he aware that since 1979, 197,000 jobs have been lost in those two industries—2·5 jobs for every hour that the Government have existed? Will he, please, as a matter of urgency, in consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry, set up a task force to look at the specific problems of the footwear and textile industries in order to save them from devastation? If he continues to fiddle, by the end of the decade there simply will not be a British footwear and textile industry left.
    Mr. Forth: Of course, we are conscious of the problems in those industries, but it is worth stressing that both, in their different ways and in certain sectors, are successful. I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should try to give the impression that we can magic away any problems with a wand, or even with a task force. Apart from anything else, he must realise that about 38 per cent. of imported footwear comes from the EC, and he and his party, with their belief in all that is good in the EC, must realise that no measures that even they would want to take could possibly do anything about that. I hope that the hon.

    281
    Gentleman will recognise that unemployment in his constituency, at 4·4 per cent., is lower than that for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Marlow: May I say that we in Northampton are proud that we produce the best footwear in the world and have one of the lowest levels of unemployment in the country? Is not that something to do with the fact that we do not whinge, we are proud of ourselves and we get on with the job?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, that well illustrates the difference in attitude between the Government and the Opposition. My hon. Friend is proud of his constituency and of the companies in it, whereas Opposition Members can only decry what happens in their constituencies and constantly talk it down.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister continue to bear in mind the importance of the textile industry in Northern Ireland, where there has been rapid growth and where many new jobs have been created? Will he bear that in mind especially when negotiations on the importation of textiles are taking place?
    Mr. Forth: I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in recognising the achievements in his part of the world. He is entitled to be proud and to bring to the attention of the House the fact that people in Northern Ireland are working very hard to built up those key sectors, and to demonstrate their capacity to be competitive and productive. We can all share the hon. Gentleman's pleasure and pride in that.

    Dock Labour Scheme
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received representations seeking the reintroduction of the national dock labour scheme.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I have received no such representations.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the words of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who said that the scheme provided what Labour wanted all industries to have, and the words of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who said that to abolish the scheme was a wilful act of sabotage against the country's economic interest? Will my right hon. and learned Friend say what has happened to productivity and to industrial relations in the docks since the dock labour scheme was abolished?
    Mr. Howard: Productivity has increased. We have lost only two days since the collapse of the strike against abolition, compared with an average of three disputes a week when the scheme was in operation. The national dock labour scheme provides an object lesson in what life would be like if we were ever to have another Labour Government.
    Dr. Godman: Whatever the merits of the national dock labour scheme, it provided our maritime communities with highly skilled workers. It is essential that the training facilities for those workers are maintained. In terms of industrial relations and productivity, the few Greenock dock workers who are still at work are among the best.
    282
    They may take a few minutes off their work tomorrow to welcome the QE2 as she berths at the container terminal in Greenock.
    Mr. Howard: I am delighted that the abolition of the scheme has given new opportunities to port workers at Greenock, as elsewhere. However, the hon. Gentleman is entirely incorrect if he suggests that there has been any deterioration in training since the abolition of the scheme. All surveys show that training has improved, that more of it is available and that it has been of a better quality since the scheme was abolished.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it comes as no surprise to the people of Medway that he has received no representations about the scheme, as both the Medway ports authority and the new container port on the Isle of Grain could be there, thriving and increasing the number of people in employment, only once the scheme had been removed?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. Only a week or so ago, I opened a new facility at Sheerness for fruit storage, which cost £3·5 million. It was conceived, designed and executed after the abolition of the scheme and it certainly would not have been there if the scheme had still been in existence.

    Rural Employment
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any new proposals to increase job opportunities in rural and semi-rural areas.
    Mr. Howard: Rural areas have shared in the increased job opportunities that have become available on an unprecedented scale in recent years. Training and enterprise councils are introducing new initiatives to reinforce that trend.
    Mr. Pike: Let us dismiss the nonsense with which the Secretary of State started his comments. Does he accept that in rural areas there is a lack of choice of jobs and that there are many low-paid jobs? Will he do something to increase the opportunity for choice of jobs and for higher pay in rural and semi-rural areas?
    Mr. Howard: But choice and job opportunities are increasing constantly in rural areas. They are sharing in the increased job opportunities that are becoming available. We have 3·5 million more jobs than we had in 1983 and rural areas have fully shared in that prosperity.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that when he came to my constituency on Friday, he saw a welcome increase in excellent and well-paid jobs that require high qualifications in several parts of my constituency? Does he further agree that the increase by one quarter in jobs in the south-west—which is, in essence, rural—since 1983 is laudable and that we have a magnificent increase in jobs in the tourism industry?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was delighted to join her on Friday in her constituency, where we saw some magnificent examples of the dynamic enterprise which has flourished under this Government and which is providing job opportunities in rural areas. My hon. Friend, unlike the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), is living in the real world.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State undertake to look carefully at the way in which the new regime under which the training centres are operating is discriminating against potential trainees from rural areas? Is he aware that the amount of money that the Government give to the training centres per head must embrace an element for expenses? It is obviously more expensive to travel the 50 miles from my constituency to Edinburgh than it is to go round the corner. Will he make sure that potential trainees from rural areas are not discriminated against in that way?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that one reason behind the setting up of the training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and the local enterprise companies in Scotland is to enable training to be provided that more closely fits the needs of local areas, including rural areas. They will be able to take the needs of their areas into account in a way that will be far more responsive than has previously been the case.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the unemployment figures in the towns of Barnstaple, Ilfracombe and South Molton in 1979 and the present day: and if he will make a statement on the future employment prospects in this area.
    Mr. Forth: The figures are 1,441 and 1,656, although they are not comparable, the travel-to-work area having been redefined and changes having been made in the coverage of the count. With unemployment at only 4·5 per cent. for the Barnstaple and Ilfracombe area, prospects for future employment are excellent, bearing in mind the fact that there are over 500 vacancies locally.
    Mr. Speller: Does my hon. Friend accept that the figures of 4·5 per cent. unemployment in the Barnstaple and Ilfracombe area and a mere 2·5 per cent. in South Molton show how wise we were to take away grant that was based on development areas and to substitute good roads and infrastructure? Can he promise me that when we get our downstream bridge, unemployment may virtually disappear in north Devon?
    Mr. Forth: I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the success in job creation in his constituency in the past few years. He is tempting me on to the territory of another Department. I shall resist that temptation, but I undertake to raise the point that my hon. Friend raises with the Department of Transport to see what can be done.

    Youth Training
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the improvements made by switching from YTS to youth training.
    Mr. Howard: New youth training builds and improves on the achievements of YTS. It offers the promise of a level 2 qualification or more for every trainee who can achieve it. It offers flexible design and duration of training and wider eligibility. It will provide improved help for those with special training needs and those seeking employment after training.
    Mrs. Hicks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while a disappointing number of youngsters over 16 are staying on for further education, it is vital for
    284
    the career development of young people and for the needs of the economy that we offer each and every young person who wants it, a tailor-made training, which truly assesses their individual needs, which, we hope, matches the needs of industry, particularly in relation to skill shortages, and which, most of all, guarantees them a good qualification that will be welcomed in the workplace and be highly regarded?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The combination of new youth training and the training and enterprise councils offers us the best possible prospect of achieving the objectives that she identified.
    Mr. Leighton: Will the Secretary of State please try to do better this year in protecting the budget of his Department than he did in last year's autumn expenditure round, when several hundred million pounds were lopped off the expenditure on employment training and youth training? In particular, will he note that the London borough of Newham feels cheated as do 20 other local authorities, because they wanted to co-operate with the Government on the technical and vocational education initiative but now find that the cash for it has been substantially cut? Does he appreciate that investing in the technical and vocational education of our young people is the best use that can be made of public money?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman, who follows those matters closely as Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, will know that in the past four years funding for training has increased by 60 per cent. in real terms at a time when unemployment has halved. That is the context in which this year's settlement must be seen.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that two members of the England World cup football squad first acquired their footballing skills under YTS? Will he further confirm that the same opportunities for young people to develop their world-class football skills will be available under youth training?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. David Platt and Paul Gascoigne, who combined to score the goal that put England in the quarter final of the World cup, were both YTS trainees. I am confident that youth training will enable the England World cup team to do even better in 1994 than in 1990.
    Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that even after the recent Cabinet discussions, and despite the chaos caused by the cuts in the youth training budget for this year, he still intends to cut next year's budget by over £120 million? What went wrong? Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman lose or did he simply not fight?
    Mr. Howard: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, there is no chaos. As I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, and as he too knows perfectly well, spending on training has increased in real terms by 60 per cent. in the past four years at a time when unemployment has fallen by 50 per cent. That is a measure of the Government's commitment to training.

    Work Permits (Hong Kong Nationals)
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work permits were issued to Hong Kong nationals in the latest available year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): The number of work permits issued to Hong Kong nationals during the 12-month period ending on 30 June 1990 was 868.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, and should like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his latest appointment. Will my hon. Friend offer some reassurance to those who are concerned about the total number of permits to be issued under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill, that the issue of work permits to people coming to this country and applying for permits once here will not be used as a means of circumventing the provisions of that Bill?
    Mr. Jackson: I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The strict conditions of the main work permit scheme will not be relaxed for Hong Kong citizens. Under the main scheme, work permits will continue to be issued only to those Hong Kong nationals who are recruited by employers for employment in high-level jobs that employers are unable to fill from resident labour.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that, come the single market, 300 million EEC nationals could—I emphasise the word "could"—seek employment in this country without the need to obtain a work permit? Against that background, does he agree that the number of work permits issued to Hong Kong nationals pales into insignificance?
    Mr. Jackson: Of course, European Community nationals will be able to seek jobs in this country and British nationals will be able to seek jobs in European Community countries.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that a few years ago a lot of illegal work permits were issued from his Department? Has he been in the Department long enough to know for certain whether that practice has ceased?
    Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. When I have got my feet under the desk—when I have even seen the desk—I shall look into that point.

    ILO Convention III
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when Her Majesty's Government will ratify International Labour Organisation convention 111 on discrimination, employment and occupations.
    Mr. Howard: Convention 111 was adopted by the ILO in 1958. Every United Kingdom Government since then have declined to ratify the convention, and the present Government have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Archer: Are the Government proud that standards in this country are so far below those of other countries? Is the reluctance to ratify the convention possibly connected with the findings of the committee of experts that the Government are in breach of the ILO conventions that they have ratified?
    Mr. Howard: Certainly not. Convention 111 has nothing to do with standards. Indeed, the Act of Parliament that is expressly inconsistent with convention 111 is the Race Relations Act 1976, which was passed when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Solicitor-General.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the growing concern about the difficulty in obtaining employment that is faced by ex-offenders? Will he undertake to look at that matter with a view to improving the regime under which they seek jobs?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend raises an important matter, which gives rise to concern. I entirely accept his concern about this problem, which, with the training and enterprise councils, we are taking forward positively and realistically.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his productivity today, which is an enhancement on previous Question Times? Do the Government have any difficulty with the parts of the ILO conventions on employment that allow for greater disclosure? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the concept of disclosure would mean that the report by the accident prevention unit of the Health and Safety Executive into the channel tunnel, where so many people have died and where there is clearly a real problem with management, should be published and come into the public domain, to ensure that we could have a sensible and rational debate about the quality of safety on that project?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will know that the reports to which he refers are compiled by the HSE and rely on the full co-operation of employers. If that co-operation is to be continuing and available in future, it is important that confidentiality should apply. That is why it is unlikely that that particular report will be published, but the hon. Gentleman will know the recent action taken by the HSE in relation to the channel tunnel.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the increase in the numbers of people self-employed during 1989.
    Mr. Forth: Between December 1988 and December 1989, the number of self-employed people in the United Kingdom rose by nearly 200,000 to reach 3·3 million.
    Mr. Boswell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him on his translation. Can he confirm that that was the 10th successive year of increase in self-employment and that the figures are now some three quarters higher than when the Government took office? Will he take it from me, from personal experience, that it is a satisfactory way of employing oneself and serving the customers?
    Mr. Forth: Indeed. My hon. Friend has made the point better than I could. We know that the main hope for future wealth creation and growth in employment is precisely the growth of the self-employed sector. The Government have demonstrated that we welcome and encourage self-employment. Our track record is excellent and we intend to maintain it.
    Ms. Short: I do not suppose that the Minister has had time yet, but if he looks at the figures for the incomes of self-employed people, he will find that large numbers of them are on very low incomes. Given the stress that his Government place on self-employment, will he consider securing better standards of protection against unemployment, sickness and low income levels for the self-employed, most of whom are extremely low-paid workers?
    Mr. Forth: The answer must be no, because the great strength of the self-employed sector is precisely that most self-employed people do not want intervention, interference, or the pseudo-protection that the hon. Lady suggests. Self-employed people are vigorous, self-maintained people; they want to get on with wealth creation and job creation unencumbered by the measures for which the hon. Lady asks.
    Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of self-employed people would be much higher had the Inland Revenue not engaged in a campaign classifying entire groups of people from the self-employed to the employed?
    Mr. Forth: On my first day in the job, I welcome the advice that my hon. Friend has given. He has given me a broad hint as to the direction that I might take better to discharge my responsibilities and I am most grateful to him.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he is taking any steps to introduce anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people.
    Mr. Howard: The consultative document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", which was published on 29 June, sets out various options for encouraging the employment of disabled people. I shall be considering what action to take in the light of the comments that we receive.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that good intentions and guidance may influence good employers, but will not affect bad employers who discriminate against disabled people? That is why the United States Government are enacting legislation outlawing unjustifiable discrimination. As many disabled workers in Britain suffer discrimination, why cannot we have the same legislation?
    Mr. Howard: We see considerable difficulties in the way of following the path that the United States Government have chosen, but that is one of the matters on which we have consulted in the document, and I certainly should not want to prejudge the result of that consultation in responding to the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend expand the numbers of sheltered placement schemes? Is not the success of the Government's voluntary schemes demonstrated by the fact that nearly 1 million disabled people are in jobs?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The sheltered placement schemes represent one of our great
    288
    successes. There have been huge increases in the numbers on those schemes in the past few years and we look forward to an expansion of the schemes as resources allow.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Do not the disturbing figures for unemployment and low pay from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys point to widespread discrimination? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the major disability organisations accept that disability can be relevant to job performance? They are asking not for deaf piano tuners or blind bus drivers, but for the outlawing of unjustifiable discrimination. Is he further aware of the findings of the Spastics Society that job applicants are 1·5 times less likely even to be interviewed if they are disabled? Will he consider the case for legislation? Does he agree that there should be an early parliamentary debate on the consultative document?
    Mr. Howard: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point and am aware of the research conducted by the Spastics Society. It has welcomed our consultative document, which canvasses a wide range of options. We shall consider the responses to that document with great care.

    Part-time and Temporary Work
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the impact upon those in low-paid employment of the European Commission's draft directives on part-time and temporary work.
    Mr. Howard: The draft directives would require an extra 1·75 million low-paid employees to pay national insurance contributions. I shall shortly be issuing a consultative document asking for comments on the proposals. A copy of the document will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Brown: In the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's answer, is not it clearly the Government's duty to do everything possible to ensure that the draft directive in its present form does not become European law?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that Opposition Members, who are so quick to leap to the defence of the low paid, will join us in ensuring that they will not be docked a significant proportion of their income as a consequence of that directive.
    Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that while it is the European Commission's policy to try to increase the wages of the low paid, it is the Tory Government's policy—especially through the privatisation programme—to reduce those wages?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The result of this and other draft directives emanating from the Commission would be to destroy jobs. We have an unrivalled record of job creation during the past few years, and we do not intend to have it put at risk by directives from the Commission or any other source.
    Mrs. Currie: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many businesses such as those in the retail sector which rely heavily on part-time labour, especially women, are already giving pro-rata benefits, including pensions? Does he agree that that is a most welcome development

    289
    which should be encouraged as it will mean that, in future, such staff will not be dependent on the public purse for pensions and other benefits when they retire?
    Mr. Howard: As usual, there is a great deal of substance in my hon. Friend's point. These matters are best left to the workers and the employers. It is not appropriate for burdens to be imposed on employers that they may not be able to meet and which will lead to a fall in the number of jobs available.
    Mr. Blair: So that the Secretary of State does not mislead the House, can he tell us the Government's policy towards the proposal that part-time workers should be given the same rights of maternity leave, so that more women can return to work as part-time employees?
    Mr. Howard: That directive has not yet been published. We shall consider its text as and when it becomes available, and regard it on its merits, as we regard all the other directives that emanate from the Commission.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in the rural parts of Scotland, where part-time and temporary work are an essential part of the local economy, there could be a devastating effect if anything was done to put such jobs in jeopardy?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right, which is why we have approached these matters with such care and caution—apparently in contrast to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is prepared to give a warm welcome to directives that have not yet been published, and to sign a blank cheque to the Commission without knowing what costs are involved.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals for employment services for disabled people.
    Mr. Jackson: The consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" sets out our intentions for the development of services in the 1990s. These take forward themes established in the 1980s of integration into the work force and the active commitment of employers to good practices in creating employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The document has been widely distributed and the period for consultation lasts to 31 December.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that disabled people need legal protection at work? Has the Department studied practice in France and Germany, which operate a quota and levy system? If not, will he undertake to study it before the conclusion of the current consultations?
    Mr. Jackson: Much work lies behind the consultative document to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred. We shall consider all the submissions and comments made, and they will be taken into account before decisions are taken.
    Mr. Soames: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his new job. Will he discuss these new services with the architects responsible for designing many of our industrial
    290
    buildings to ensure that they are far more user-friendly for disabled people, to the advantage of those who would like to employ more disabled people?
    Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcoming remarks. His comments about the adaptation of buildings and the construction of new buildings that are user-friendly for disabled people are important and we shall pursue them.
    Mrs. Heal: Does the Minister recognise that the review that the Department is about to undertake should not reduce the length of courses for disabled people who are on assessment, nor reduce the level of skills of the people who assess them?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point and I should like to consider it further with her later. This is an important debate which is not yet concluded.
    Mr. Conway: When my hon. Friend has had an opportunity to catch his breath, will he consider the work of the Shropshire committee for the employment of disabled people, which does a spendid job in the county promoting the employment of disabled people in not only the municipal sector but private business? Will he take the earliest opportunity to come to Shropshire to see the excellent work that it does in encouraging placement?
    Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend and I shall accept his kind invitation.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: In view of some of the concerns expressed in the Department's review of July 1989, will there be any resource implications or will additional funds be made available to implement the recommendations?
    Mr. Jackson: We have a good record for expenditure on supporting employment among disabled people. Last year about £400 million was spent on 225,000 people, which is an increase from expenditure of £270 million on 165,000 people. Resources are under constant review, but the record speaks for itself.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the unemployment figures for the Hexham constituency for May.
    Mr. Jackson: In May 1990, in the parliamentary constituency of Hexham, unemployment was 19·4 per cent. lower than a year ago.
    Mr. Amos: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government policies that have reduced unemployment in my constituency by more than half since June 1987 contrast strongly with the policies of the Labour party, which deliberately seek to undersell the region on every possible occasion by spreading doom and gloom, which simply is not true?
    Mr. Jackson: I can confirm what my hon. Friend says. Unemployment in Hexham has fallen by 59·8 per cent. since 1986. I visited the north-east frequently in my former capacity at the Department of Education and Science and saw the work done by its higher and further education institutions, and I look forward to visiting the training and

    291
    enterprise councils that are being established so effectively in the area. Much good work is being done, which is reflected in the figures.
    Mr. Bell: As a former candidate in Hexham, may I ask the Minister to give the House the exact numbers, not percentages, of unemployed people in Hexham?
    Mr. Jackson: I shall have to look that up. The exact number of those unemployed in Hexham is 1,036.

    Tourism
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount spent in the United Kingdom by overseas visitors in (a) 1988 and (b) 1989.
    Mr. Forth: It is estimated that overseas residents spent £6,184 million in the United Kingdom during 1988 and £6,877 million during 1989.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that, welcome though that money is for our poor country, some of our institutions are being swamped by visitors? Will he use his weight to secure a second daily changing of the guard ceremony? Will he persuade my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to put his Department's weight against pressure for the interchange for the proposed new underground service at Parliament square? This would have a detrimental effect on the 4 million people who visit Westminster abbey each year. It could be, and should be, relocated to the St. James's park area.
    Mr. Forth: I am disappointed that on this first occasion at the Dispatch Box in my new incarnation, I must slightly disagree with my hon. Friend. I cannot endorse his description of our country as poor. I cannot undertake to deliver him a second changing of the guard, no matter how desirable that may be. As for the location of interchanges, that is a matter which, in all conscience, I must leave to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Transport, but I shall, of course, draw his points to their attention.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister assure the House that he will not encourage tourism and jobs in tourism at the expense of manufacturing? He will be keenly aware that some 200,000 jobs—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Carry on, please.
    Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman will be keenly aware that some 200,000 jobs have gone from textiles and clothing, which is a major manufacturing industry. Will the hon. Gentleman use all his efforts to ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry renegotiates the multi-fibre arrangement to ensure that textile jobs continue to survive?
    Mr. Forth: May I join all my colleagues in welcoming to the Chamber my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). It is most gratifying to see him here.
    I see no conflict or contradiction between employment in tourism and employment in manufacturing. This country is outstandingly successful in both regards and will continue to be so. It is significant that 54,000 new jobs
    292
    have been created in tourist-related industries over the past year alone. We can be proud of that record. We shall continue to encourage tourism and manufacturing.
    Mr. Butterfill: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the action that he and other members of the Government have taken to encourage tourism, especially improved standards. This drastically contrasts with the Opposition's attitude. What representations has my hon. Friend received about the operation of the 100-day rule for business rating?
    Mr. Forth: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to everyone involved in tourism—the British Tourist Authority and tourist boards throughout the country—on doing an excellent job. They will continue to have the fullest possible support of the Government.
    Having recognised the difficulties that have arisen from the 100-day rule, the Government will consult on alternatives to it. We regard it as unworkable and unfair.

    Construction Sites
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to improve health and safety on construction sites.
    Mr. Howard: The prime legal responsibility to bring about improvements rests with the industry itself. As part of a continuing process to promote long lasting change in the industry, the Health and Safety Commission is to take forward proposals for new legislation to strengthen the legal requirements relating to the management of health and safety on construction sites.
    Mr. McAllion: Why is it that in a high-risk industry such as construction—where, according to the Health and Safety Executive 90 per cent. of the deaths that occur could be prevented—there are only 20 overworked specialist construction inspectors for the whole country?
    Mr. Howard: As the hon. Gentleman should know, I recently approved the Health and Safety Commission's plan for 1990-91. I look forward to attending its launch at a ceremony on Monday. The Health and Safety Executive is aware of the need to make proper arrangements to deal with monitoring and safety at construction sites.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that however much one legislates, and however many inspectors one employs, at the end of the day it is a question of the employees and their employers taking action to protect themselves? Does he further agree that we have seen a great improvement in the way in which the major national firms in the construction industry look after their employees?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As is recognised by the more enlightened Opposition Members, it is absurd to suggest that the number of inspectors is the chief determinant of safety on construction sites.
    Mr. Heffer: Does the Minister agree that what is now required is a strengthening of the legislation to deal with instances of genuine criminal activity on the part of employers who do not provide proper safety for their workers? Perhaps if some of the directors thought that

    293
    they might have to go to prison and not just pay a miserable fine, there would be an improvement in the position.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is concern in all quarters about some of the fines that have been imposed. One of the first things that I did on assuming my present responsibilities was to write to the chairman of the Magistrates Association asking him to examine the level of penalties that are being imposed.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Garrett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Garrett: The Prime Minister has now had 20 major ministerial reshuffles during her reign. As a result, 115 Ministers and Whips have been sacked or disposed of. By and large, what was wrong with them?
    The Prime Minister: We have a lot of good talent on these Benches waiting to come in. My second and third team could knock the Opposition's top team into a cocked hat.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Can my right hon. Friend believe that, once upon a time, only half my constituents paid anything for their services? The other half were totally subsidised. Can my right hon. Friend imagine going back to the bad old days, and explain to my constituents what a rating revaluation would mean—the removal of a spending assessment providing my authority with a guideline on what it should be spending, and hence no accountability whatever?
    The Prime Minister: To go back to rates would indeed be a step backward. It was the most unpopular tax that we have ever had; it was also totally unfair. A system that permits 35 million or 36 million people to vote for local authorities and taxes only half of them is totally unfair and unaccountable. I understand that the Opposition are totally against capping local authority expenditure. That would mean higher rates, higher local authority spending and higher taxation all round.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that she is willing—even eager—to sell off PowerGen at a knockdown price to Lord Hanson, another friend of the family?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy said yesterday, the Government have a duty to get the best deal for the taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman takes his customary swipe at private enterprise: he cannot stand it. He would far rather have nationalisation, run by politicians who know nothing.
    Mr. Kinnock: There is private enterprise, and there is looking after your friends. I think that the country can tell the difference between the two. [HON. MEMBERS:
    294
    "Withdraw!"] How can anyone who is selling off the electricity industry say that he is trying to get a good deal for the country, in any case? Most of all, how can anyone who is selling off that industry at a third of its value say that he is getting good value for the country? Whatever happened to the undertaking given by the Secretary of State for Energy that no one—neither organisation nor individual—would ever be allowed to own more than 15 per cent. of the company?
    The Prime Minister: PowerGen will be sold off at the highest price. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has an indicative price and other bids will be asked for. Is the right hon. Gentleman against selling it off at the highest price? Or does he allow his prejudices against private enterprise to dictate his every sentence?
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister can twist and turn all she likes. The truth is that, in breach of the promises that she has already made, she is selling off at a fraction of its value a highly profitable company to a bosom chum and major contributor to the Conservative party. Is not it obvious that this Session is ending as it began—with sleaze and shadiness at the heart of the Government?
    The Prime Minister: In one respect the Session is ending as it began, with the right hon. Gentleman not listening to any reply, but going on with a supplementary question that he had worked out before the reply. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy indicated that he will maximise the price, and he is duty bound to do that to get the best value for the taxpayer. However, other bids will be asked for. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that PowerGen is being sold at a knockdown price, why do not he and some of his trade union friends put forward a consortium and bid at a higher price? No, the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense as usual. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Settle down now.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: As this is the last Prime Minister's Question Time before the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain which will be celebrated in September, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay her tribute to the heroism of the few and assure those 1,000 or so who remain that they are not forgotten? Will she join me in commending to the British public the Reach for the Sky appeal to raise £20 million so that those who so valiantly fought for the freedom that we in the House take for granted today will not be forgotten?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will gladly respond to my hon. Friends invitation. We shall never forget and can never repay the debt of gratitude that we owe in particular to those pilots and to the other people who lost their lives during the second world war. I hope that people will respond gladly to that appeal.
    Mr. Ashdown: Did the Prime Minister notice yesterday that her Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the alternative to his plan was a two-speed Europe? Would the Prime Minister prefer that to Britain joining a single currency and a central bank?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the plan that we have put up can gather support from all European countries. It will be an effective next stage to Delors stage 1. I think that we all approve of Delors stage 1, or at least most of us do,

    295
    and we are prepared to have a stage 2 which would unite people. Why is the right hon. Gentleman constantly trying to divide them?
    Mr. Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend find time to commission a special inquiry into the administrative cost and duration of a revaluation of every house in the country to effect a return to the rating system, or would she rather proceed with figures that are 20 years out of date?
    The Prime Minister: I did at one time consider a rating revaluation which would have been 17 years after the previous one. However, we had enough experience in Scotland of a domestic rating revaluation only seven years after the previous one. That resulted in a bigger proportion being paid by the domestic ratepayer and rates on individual ratepayers which were utterly intolerable as well as grossly unfair.
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Davies: Is there any truth in the rumour that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is still a man of principle, that he has not sacrificed his beliefs for a little patronage and that he has been appointed to the Government Whips Office only to mastermind the repeal of the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) shares those characteristics with every other person on the Government side of the House.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend give strong guidance to local authorities on their priorities for community care? Is she aware that the 64-year-old mother of my constituent Paul Hargreaves cannot go on holiday tomorrow because Bolton council says that his disabilities are too severe for it to look after him? Should not local authorities get their act together before taking on more responsibilities?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that we all sympathise with that family. I know of the particular attention that my hon. Friend pays to those with disabilities and the amount of work that he has done for them. I hope that he will be able to get the mother a holiday.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Aah."] Yes, I do. Most of us have experienced cases of that kind in our constituencies and know that, during August, hospitals will frequently take in for a fortnight people who are in need of attention to permit their parents to go away.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Williams: As a chemist, and having been Prime Minister for 11 years, which environmental achievement would the Prime Minister like to be remembered for—the deterioration in Britain's beaches, the continued dumping of sewage sludge in the North sea, the 10-fold growth in the import of toxic waste, the continuing increase in carbon dioxide emissions, Britain's exports of chlorofluorocarbons—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Normally we have one question.
    Mr. Williams: Or the fact that when this Government leave office not a single one of our power stations will have been fitted with desulphurisation equipment. Is it any surprise that Britain is now the dirty man of Europe?
    The Prime Minister: Like many other people, I could scarcely hear what the hon. Gentleman said, except for his remarks about beaches and water right at the beginning. The hon. Gentleman asked me which I prefer to be remembered for. I should like to recall to the House that the European Community sent a directive in 1975 to the then Labour Government requiring that all beaches that were not up to standard or in accordance with the directive be identified and that something be done about them. The Labour Government did absolutely nothing. It took a Tory Government—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It takes a lot of time to answer multiple questions.
    The Prime Minister: The Labour Government, I am reminded by one of my right hon. Friends, promptly cut capital expenditure on water. It took a Conservative Government to come in and increase capital expenditure on water, to identify those beaches, to deal with three quarters of them in the first 11 years, and, in the next few years, to have a £3 billion investment programme to bring all those beaches up to standard. I am glad to go on to answer the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have a lot of information. For example, on achievements since the 1987 election, the national debt has been reduced by £30,000 million—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that multiple questions always take more time.
    The Prime Minister: Two hundred thousand more businesses opened than closed, we had the top number of jobs in this country ever, and the 1988 Budget reduced basic income tax to 25p—et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
    Mr. Barry Field: Did my right hon. Friend see the report in The Sunday Times that the Roman Catholic and Anglican bishops of Liverpool have requested a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment because of the financial chaos into which Liverpool city council has been plunged as a result of the Liberal Democrats voting with Militant Tendency? Is not that the worst case of political prostitution we have ever seen?
    The Prime Minister: I accept what my hon. Friend says and it shows precisely what happens when local government gets into the hands of Labour authorities with no overall control. That is precisely what would happen if socialism ever got in charge of Britain.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: As the Prime Minister was so keen to defend the right of Mr. Salman Rushdie to publish his book "The Satanic Verses", may we have an assurance that she will be equally diligent and vigorous in defending the rights of Muslims who want the film "International

    297
    Guerillas" to be distributed, particularly as Mr. Rushdie has said that no question of criminal libel arises, or are we simply to have double standards?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The decision to refuse the film "International Guerillas" a certificate was taken by the British Board of Film Classification which, having received legal advice
    298
    that the recording might constitute a work of criminal libel, decided in accordance with normal practice that it would not be appropriate to issue a certificate. The board is an entirely independent body and if the distributors of the recording wish to appeal against its decision, they may apply to the Video Appeals Committee in the usual way. That is what the House decided and we cannot overturn it.

Civil List
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a statement on future arrangements for expenditure on the civil list for the support of Her Majesty the Queen in carrying out her duties as Head of State. I shall also announce some changes on the management of the occupied royal palaces.
The Government propose, with the Queen's agreement and following consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that Civil List provision should return to the form recommended by the 1971 Select Committee on the Civil List and contained in the Civil List Act 1972. Under those arrangements, the Consolidated Fund made a fixed annual payment related to the anticipated expenditure over a period of years. The Queen's official expenses will thus revert to a standing service on the Consolidated Fund. The need for annual voted supplements under the Civil List Act 1975, introduced as a temporary expedient, will cease.
As the House will know, the financing mechanism in the Civil List Act 1972 supplies, in the early years, provision in excess of need. That surplus will be accumulated as a reserve for use in due course to deal with any future shortfall in income towards the end of the period. If provision is to be adequate to support the Civil List over a decade, the annual payment needs to be set at a realistic level.
Subject to the agreement of the House to the necessary statutory instrument, the Government propose that, from 1 January 1991, the yearly sum for Her Majesty's civil list should be about £7·9 million per year for 10 years, which the Select Committee recommended as the appropriate review period.
The yearly sum is the average of estimated need over the period. It is built up by taking the civil list sum for the present year of £5·09 million—increased by agreed additions for current and capital expenditure—and increasing that sum at 7·5 per cent. per year. That is the average annual rate of inflation over the past decade. The yearly sum also allows for efficiency savings which the Royal Household is expecting to make from continuing improvements in management, in line with the best financial practice.
Should the provision be more than necessary, the surplus at the end of the 10-year period would be carried forward and taken into account by the Government in setting the figure for the new period. Should the proposed provision prove insufficient, there would be a report from the Royal Trustees, and the Government of the day would bring forward proposals for a new settlement. The Civil List Act 1975 and the powers that it contains for additional payments from the Treasury vote will be left in place as a means of financing of last resort.
The same principles have been constructed in adopting a yearly sum for each of the other households that receive annuities under the Civil List Acts. I will, with permission, circulate in the Official Report a note about the Queen's civil list, which will also show the amounts for the other annuitants. The total net cost to the consolidated fund of the other members of the royal family will be about £1·9 million a year after taking account of the amounts that the Queen will continue to refund to cover the payments made to three of the annuitants.
300
The Government will present a Royal Trustees report on civil list expenditure later in the year together with a new civil list order-making provision for the new arrangements to come into effect from 1 January 1991. The order is subject to negative resolution.
The Government also propose that the Royal Household should be given greater responsibility for the management of, and expenditure on, the occupied royal palaces. This change is also in keeping with modern financial management. The new arrangements will not disturb the source of finance, so that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will continue to ask Parliament to vote annually moneys to provide for the necessary maintenance of the occupied royal palaces. Operational responsibility for the upkeep of the palaces within the moneys provided will in future rest with the Royal Household.
The arrangements will be settled under an agreement between the Royal Household and the Department of the Environment. The Comptroller and Auditor General will continue to audit moneys in the hands of the Secretary of State. Expenditure provision will be included as is it now in the civil estimates provided to Parliament. The Government propose that the changes will come into effect on 1 April 1991.
The arrangements that I have announced for the civil list and the occupied royal palaces are, in the view of the Government, in tune with modern financial management. Moreover, they are in keeping with dignity of the Crown and with the esteem and affection in which the royal family are held.
Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn): I thank the Prime Minister for her statement. May I tell her that there will be widespread support for the decision that the basis of civil list expenditure should be that set out by the 1972 Act, as it obviously serves the purposes of good management? The practical commitments to modernised administration, to the improved efficiency of the Household and to a planned basis for Household expenditure are all welcome.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House what steps have already been taken by the Royal Household to improve efficiency in the use of publicly provided resources? Will she confirm that, because of the assumed efficiency savings to which she referred, the cost to public funds will actually increase by less than 7·5 per cent. in all but one of the years in the 10-year programme?
Finally, will the right hon. Lady accept that the new arrangements under the statute will provide for greater continuity and more effective planning in the financing of the Royal Household and therefore commend themselves to the House?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. He asked what steps had already been taken to improve efficiency. The Household has engaged management consultants to advise it upon these matters. It has had a study made of the use of information technology and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, some of the extra requirements in the first year will go to providing information technology.
The role of the Lord Chamberlain has been crucial in getting extra good financial management. The appointment of a Director of Property Services will shortly be

301
announced so that the Royal Household can the better manage the moneys that are available for the upkeep of the occupied palaces.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's question as to whether the cost will go up by less than 7·5 per cent.—which, he said, happened in every year except the first—the efficiency savings over the period will amount to some £5 million. In the last three years, the increased Civil List expenditure by the Queen has been of the order of 18 per cent. That compares very well with local authorities, whose expenditure in the last three years has been up by 34 per cent.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents cherish Hampton Court palace as a royal palace and that they want it to remain a palace, not to become merely a museum? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will retain its status as a royal palace?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Hampton Court is one of the unoccupied royal palaces. The arrangements will continue precisely as now for the upkeep of that palace.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Since the Royal Household is to be responsible for the expenditure of the greater amount of the moneys concerned, can the Prime Minister say something about the accounting arrangements? She mentioned the responsibilities that would be attached to the National Audit Office, but since the financial arrangements have changed, will a memorandum be published? If there is to be a memorandum, will it be made available to the Public Accounts Committee, if it should wish to see it?
The Prime Minister: The amount spent on the upkeep of the occupied royal palaces will be detailed, as it has been in the past, in the usual Department of the Environment estimates. That sum will be negotiated each year and will be reported in the supplementary estimates. The sum will therefore be subject to audit by the National Audit Office. The civil list will be subject to Treasury audit.
Sir Alan Glyn: May I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the new proposals, which give financial continuity to the royal family, who render singular service to the nation? They will also allow the royal family to plan their arrangements in advance. I welcome also the new arrangements for the royal palaces and the very clever and clear study that was undertaken before the proposals were made.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. The new arrangements for the civil list, which revert to the Select Committee proposals in 1971, will give much more dignity and continuity to the Crown and enable its administration to be much more efficient than was previously the case.
Mr. James Molyneaux: May I be permitted to add to the tributes that have been paid to Her Majesty and to the members of the royal family, not least for their frequent visits to Northern Ireland which do so much to stabilise the community in Northern Ireland? My party is, in principle, in favour of reversion to the 10-year period, as laid down in the 1972 Act, but we wonder about the timing. Does not the Prime Minister feel that it will prove somewhat difficult to fix the allowance for inflation some 10 years ahead?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We have made no prediction; we have taken the average annual increase in the retail price index, which was 7·5 per cent. in the decade 1979·89. That sounds a lot, but in the previous decade, 1969·79, the average annual rate of inflation was 12·5 per cent. Therefore, we have taken what it was and said that the annual amount will be increased by that figure. If that is too much, there will be a surplus in the fund, which will be taken into account when the Government of the day look at the next 10 years. They will then be able to see what the surplus was.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend recall, as I do, that in 1971 the Select Committee spent many months devising a sensible system for this arrangement, and that the reversion to it now is greatly to be welcomed? May I also welcome the improvements in efficiency, which in future will give us even better value for money?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In 1971·72, the Select Committee went into the matter more thoroughly than ever before and came up with the good proposal that we are restoring today. The 1975 arrangement was the exception, and now we have reverted to the rule.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people believe that the sums paid to the royal family far exceed the services rendered? Can she give us an assurance that, when the order comes before the House, the House will have an opportunity to consider the functions and role of the Crown in modern society, so that people can strike a proper balance on those matters?
The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will also agree that an overwhelming number of people in the nation regard the royal family as the greatest asset that the United Kingdom has and greatly admire everything that it does. A report of the Royal Trustees will be laid before the House and a new order brought and that order will be subject to negative resolution so that, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to debate it, he will have an opportunity to do so.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in answering that question she spoke, as always, for more people than the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? But does she agree that, in the commendable and proper search for economy and efficiency, it is important that the royal family do not forget that the British people like pomp and circumstance?
The Prime Minister: The royal family are a great asset and everything must be done in keeping with the role that they play so superbly.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Prime Minister confirm that we are talking about a woman who is the wealthiest person in Britain and who does not pay the poll tax? If almost 10 million old-age pensioners can be robbed of the £13·20 that they would have received if the 1979 formula still existed, why should the taxpayer hand out large sums of money to the Queen and all the hangers-on at the palace?
The Prime Minister: I think that most people in Britain will thoroughly disagree with the hon. Gentleman and wish to be totally and utterly dissociated from his words.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Lady agree that Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family do a service to this country that could not be done as well or as efficiently under any other system of government, and that the nation prefers a monarch and prefers to pay the monarch the proper rate for the job?
The Prime Minister: The deal under the original civil list was a good one for the Treasury, and we must now make proper provision for Her Majesty and the royal family, which I believe has widespread support.
Mr. John Evans: Is the Prime Minister aware that I fully support the principle of the royal family being protected from the ravages of inflation, but can she explain why, in its standard spending assessment last year, St. Helens council was given an allowance of only 4 per cent. for inflation? Surely the people of St. Helens are entitled to the same treatment as the royal family?
The Prime Minister: As I told the Leader of the Opposition, Her Majesty the Queen's civil list expenditure during the past three years has increased by 18 per cent., but during the same period local authorities' expenditure has increased by 34 per cent.
Mr. Ian Gow: Since my right hon. Friend formed her first Administration 11 years and more ago, has she not stressed the importance of getting value for public expenditure? Is there any area of the nation's life where value is better secured than the value from the expenditure to which my right hon. Friend has referred in her statement?
The Prime Minister: The value from the expenditure of this money is supreme. It will be much easier for the Royal Household to look after the occupied palaces under the new arrangement than under the old. It will be much better for them to plan for the future with the 10-year arrangement to which we have now reverted.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does not the Prime Minister agree that it has been the policy of this Government and of previous Governments that, when the state is handing out benefits, they are subject to a means test? Does she not think that, if that is the case, it should be applicable to the civil list?
The Prime Minister: I have set out the new arrangements for the civil list. They will be overwhelmingly welcomed and accepted in the House.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at a time when there are many instabilities and insecurities in different parts of Europe and of the rest of the world, the royal family provide a rock with which the British nation can identify and that those hon. Members who seek to pour scorn on them show how little they care about the tranquillity of this realm?
The Prime Minister: I believe that the royal family are a focus of patriotism, of loyalty, of affection and of esteem. That is a rare combination, and we should value it highly.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I press the Prime Minister on the question of any memoranda that Sir Terence Heiser may produce? May we have an assurance that such documentation would go before the Public Accounts Committee?
The Prime Minister: It will come, as now, in the Department of the Environment estimate in the published supply estimates, and in the same form as it does now, because the property sum for the occupied palaces has to be negotiated each year between the palace and the Department of the Environment. Instead of it going through the Property Services Agency and the Department of the Environment, that sum will go to the palace after agreement, and details will be published, as now, in the supplementary estimate.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most of us think that this is a proper and dignified way in which to deal with the problems of sovereignty and with the way in which the royal palaces are run? There is something terribly undignified about having almost a row each year about how much money is spent on maintaining a superb system of royal government. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be even better if the private wealth and private income of however high a person, even the sovereign, were taxed, as is the case for everyone else? That would seem proper, just and laudable government.
The Prime Minister: No, Her Majesty the Queen has not been subject to tax for a long time. It would require a major change, and that is not a change that I would support.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In light of what the Prime Minister has said this afternoon, has not the time arrived for the House to modify the Crown Estate Act 1961 and, in particular, should we not be arguing the case for a curtailment of the power exercised by the Crown Estate Commissioners, especially in maritime communities and in the management and ownership of the sea bed? Many people in Scotland living in maritime communities, who are loyal subjects of the Queen, actively desire such a change in the power of those shadowy figures in Edinburgh's New Town.
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to debate that, I am sure that he will request to do so. It has nothing to do with my announcement this afternoon.
Mr. Ron Brown: We live in a democracy. Is not that the case? Who elected the royal family? I will answer that question for the Prime Minister: no one. Why should they get a penny, bearing in mind that they live in splendour while millions of people live in poverty, thanks to the policies of the Prime Minister and of the ruling class?
The Prime Minister: I will refrain from answering the last point of the hon. Gentleman's question. As he knows, all people of all incomes have increased their standard of living under this Government. I am amazed by what he says in the main part of his question. Most of our actions, whether under the law or as Government, are taken in the name of the Crown.
Following is the note:

THE CIVIL LIST PROPOSALS: REVERSION TO THE 1972 Act
1. Subject to the preparation and passage of the necessary order, the yearly sums proposed for Her Majesty's Civil List will be about £7·9 million. This is the simple average

305
of the estimated annual provision over the period 1991-2000. Provision, in round terms, for Her Majesty is as follows:

Her Majesty's Civil List

£ million (rounded)

1991

5·9

1992

6·2

1993

6·6

1994

7·0

1995

7·5

1996

8·0

1997

8·5

1998

9·1

1999

9·8

2000

10·4

79·0

£7·9 million a year

2. The annual estimates are arrived at by adopting the 1990 Civil List of £5·09 million, allowing for necessary current and capital expenditure on information technology, and increasing the total by 7·5 per cent. a year. The result for each year is then adjusted downwards by a percentage factor each year to reflect efficiency.
3. The proposed yearly sums for the other members of the royal family have been calculated consistently with the approach adopted for the Queen's Civil List.
The sums are:

£ million

The Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother

0·64

HRH The Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh

0·36

HRH The Duke of York

0·25

HRH The Prince Edward

0·1

HRH The Princess Royal

0·23

£ million

HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

0·22

HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester

0·09

HRH The Duke of Kent

0·63

HRH Princess Alexandra

HRH The Duke of Gloucester

2·52

As the Queen has agreed to continue to refund the annuities made under section 3 of the Civil List Act 1972, the annual net cost to the Consolidated Fund for the other members of the royal family is thereby reduced to £1·88 million.

BILL PRESENTED
  TAMPONS (SAFETY)
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe, supported by Ms. Jo Richardson, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Joan Walley and Ms. Joyce Quin, presented a Bill to make provision for tampon packaging and advertisements for tampons to carry certain warnings and information, and to require the Secretary of State to make regulations for these purposes; to lay upon the Secretary of State duties with respect to research into, and publicity for, tampons and health; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Poverty Statistics
3.54 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday at about 6·30 in the evening the Government placed in the Press Gallery a copy of the latest poverty figures for which the House has waited more than five years. The figures were sneaked out without reference to the House, without a press conference and without even a single ministerial comment on the press statement.
They are sensational figures. They rebut what the Prime Minister said a few moments ago about all sections of the population having gained. They show for the first time that the 10 million people in this country on the lowest incomes—[Interruption.]—were worse off in real terms in 1987 than they were in 1979—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point for me? Does the hon. Gentleman think that I can do anything about it?
Mr. Meacher: The Minister has so far refused to come to the House, and I am raising this point of order in an endeavour to ask you to use your good offices, Mr. Speaker, with the Government to ensure that they come forward with a statement urgently tomorrow so that the Minister who has evaded the House may now answer for his deplorable record.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows, as I think the whole House knows, that that is not a matter for me. But it will certainly have been heard by the Patronage Secretary on the Government Front Bench, and I am sure that it is a matter that he will calculate tomorrow.

Local Authorities (Elections) Bill
3.56 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for annual elections to all local authorities; for one third of the members of each local authority to stand down each year, by rotation; and for connected purposes.
The electoral pattern of local authorities in England and Wales is, to put it bluntly, a mess. It is not governed by logic or reason, and it is overdue for reform. That fact was recognised by the Widdicombe inquiry into the conduct of local authority business, the report of which was published in 1986. It pointed out that, for county councils, elections take place every four years, with all members retiring simultaneously. Of the shire districts, about 60 per cent. have whole council district elections, while the remainder have elections by thirds. Whether district councils fall into one category or the other essentially seems to depend on whether or not they were boroughs before the 1974 reorganisation.
The metropolitan districts already have elections by thirds, but since the abolition of the metropolitan county councils, there is curiously now an off year, every fourth year, when no elections take place. Finally, in the London boroughs, all members retire simultaneously every fourth year, although, as in other councils, there is considerable variation in the number of members per ward.
This lack of uniformity owes nothing to recent ideas, being attributable to provisions laid down in the Municipal Corporations Act 1835 and the Local
308
Government Acts 1888 and 1894 and being dependent on the changing fashions of the time. It has been criticised by successive committees of inquiry and royal commissions.
The Widdicombe committee considered the choice between elections by thirds and all-out contests, and got it wrong, almost certainly because of its possibly misplaced attraction towards single-member wards, which are at odds with annual elections for a proportion of each authority. The Government wisely rejected all-out elections every four years but failed to substitute any other system in its place.
The House now has an opportunity to consider an alternative, the time for which has truly come. Conversations that I have had with colleagues suggest that electing a third of all authorities each year would enjoy great support.
Perhaps the strongest argument relates to accountability, a case made stronger by the introduction of the community charge, although not exclusively linked to it. In all too many cases, councils can arrange their programmes, and distort their spending, in such a way as to match the electoral cycle. They can ensure that any overspending hits the community charge payers' pockets at a time when the electors have no opportunity to cast a verdict on what is done with their money. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) recently proposed the introduction of a referendum on overspending. In my view, annual elections are a more realistic and more viable alternative.
Perhaps Widdicombe unconsciously put the strongest case against his report's own conclusions when he pointed out that, in Liverpool, a preoccupation with annual elections was a factor in the period 1974–83 when rate levels were kept under tight control, but when important expenditure decisions were deferred. I suggest that a greater preoccupation with the attitudes of charge payers could only be beneficial.
Another factor is continuity, which would surely be greater if all-out elections ceased. There have been numerous examples of the exaggerated effects of swings in political opinion. Is it really beneficial to the democratic process that in Greater Manchester, for instance, the Conservatives swung from 82 to 19 seats between the 1977 and 1981 elections, while Labour jumped from 23 to 78 seats? In similar circumstances, new controlling parties have sometimes had to appoint to their senior committee chairmanships people with no local government experience.
It is argued that annual elections discourage forward planning. However, local authorities do not have powers to legislate. Annual elections would be nonsense for the House of Commons, because there would never be an opportunity to assess the effect of a new law before it had to be judged. Nobody is talking about elections each year for the whole council, but the fact that a proportion of members was answerable to the electorate would concentrate minds wonderfully. A similar benefit would flow from a change from four-year to three-year terms for councillors.
Others claim that annual elections would put too much of a burden on party machines. In essence, however, political party organisations have no other purpose than to nominate candidates for election and to campaign for their success in those elections. Everything else is subsidiary to that aim. If they cannot contest elections

309
once a year, they are not worthy of their role. I am sure that annual elections would encourage all parties to keep their machines in good trim.
In short, the reform that I propose would create a system that is simple and uniform, encourages continuity and, above all, accentuates accountability. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gary Waller, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Graham Riddick, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Donald Thompson, Mr. Chris Butler, Mr. Cecil Franks, Mr. Gerald Bowden, Mr. Richard Alexander, Mr. William Powell and Mr. Simon Coombs.

Local Authorities (Elections) Bill
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ELECTIONS)
  Mr. Gary Waller accordingly presented a Bill to provide for annual elections to all local authorities; for one third of the members of each local authority to stand down each year, by rotation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 15 October and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
Opposition Day
[I8TH ALLOTTED DAY, SECOND PART]
Opposition Day

  The Economy
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.2 pm
  Mr. John Smith: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the mismanagement of the economy which has resulted in crippling interest rates, damagingly high inflation, and the largest balance of payments deficit in history; condemns the neglect of investment in the public sector and in public services, which has damaged the economy and diminished the quality of life of the nation; urges the Government to adopt a strategy for economic recovery which promotes innovation in industry through the application of science and technology and the promotion of new products and processes, which realises the potential of the whole of the United Kingdom through an imaginative and sustained regional economic policy, and which, by means of a thoroughgoing commitment to the improvement and expansion of education and training, aims to develop to the full the skills of the people; and concludes that if the decline in the economy and in public services is not halted and a programme of recovery embarked upon, Britain will continue to fail to reach the levels of economic success and social progress enjoyed by other nations in the European Community.
  On the verge of the summer recess, we look back on a parliamentary Session that has been bad news for the Government. Perhaps the announcement last week, that the plans for improving community care had to be shelved for years because of the poll tax, was symptomatic of a Session in which the Government have become increasingly entangled in snares of their own making. As the Chief Secretary has already warned his colleagues, there will be fierce struggles over the summer between the Treasury and other Departments because inflation has disrupted the Government's spending plans.
  As I look at some of the disappointed faces on the Government Back Benches, I am reminded that yesterday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not many."] Indeed, there are not many of them, because some hon. Members are concealing their disappointment elsewhere. Yesterday we had the diversion of yet another ministerial shuffle, a rather purposeless rearrangement of the chairs on the middle and lower decks. With no disrespect to the feelings of those included—or of those excluded—that was small beer compared with the other changes that we have seen over the Session.
  It all started in a different tone when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster addressed his first Conservative party conference as chairman. Last October, under the banner
  "The Right Team for Britain's Future",
  the right hon. Gentleman had stirring words for the delegates:
  "this is not the time for fretting, this is not a time for poring over opinion polls. This is not a time for being faint-hearted. The fight is on. And, in the words of Henry, before Agincourt, 'he which hath no stomach to this fight, let him depart."'
  That is just what they have done. The first to depart was the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), trailing Sir Alan Walters, that other family concern of the Prime Minister, in his wake. The process ended just a few days

  311
  ago with that spectacular display of teamwork which marked the exit of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr Ridley) from the Cabinet. In between, it is worth noting that so right was that team for Britain that only nine months later we have a new Chancellor of the Exchequer, a new Foreign Secretary, a new Home Secretary, a new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, a new Secretary of State for Employment, a new Secretary of State for Wales and even a new Chief Whip. So imbued was the team with the spirit of Agincourt that four of them have left the Government completely, demonstrating a novel facet of the new concern for family life.
  Bad though the personnel position is, demonstrating the confusion and disarray in the Government, the Government's main problem and the nation's main concern is their woeful mismanagement of our economy. We hold the Government to account for bringing Britain to a position in which we are the worst of all performers among the leading industrial nations. The facts are clear and they cannot be seriously in dispute. I take the OECD as a objective source. I understand that the statistics for the individual countries which that organisation deploys are approved by individual member Governments.
  Let us look at the growth league. The growth in real gross national product for 1990 predicted for Japan is 4·7 per cent. That for West Germany was 3·9 per cent., now revised upwards to 4·4 per cent. The figure for France is 3·1 per cent.; for Italy 3·1 per cent.; for the United States 2·3 per cent.; and for Canada 2 per cent. For the United Kingdom, it is 0·9 per cent., against an average of 3 per cent.
  Let us consider the league table for the projected increase in investment in 1990. The figure for Japan is 10·2 per cent.; for Germany 6·6 per cent.; for France 6·5 per cent.; for Italy 5·7 per cent.; for Canada 4·1 per cent.; and for the United States 3·2 per cent. For the United Kingdom, it is minus 1 per cent.—a negative projection for investment in the United Kingdom, against an average for the G7 countries of 5 per cent.
  What about inflation? We are top of the league with 9·8 per cent. The figure for Italy is 5·7 per cent.; for Canada 4·5 per cent.; for the United States 4·4 per cent.; for France 3 per cent.; for Japan 2·7 per cent. and for West Germany 2·3 per cent. Britain has an inflation figure of 9·8 per cent. against an average of 4·3 per cent. Those facts show our position among the G7 countries.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in case he wishes to challenge.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so keen on OECD figures, he will be aware that the latest set shows that, during the 1980s, productivity in British manufacturing rose at the fastest rate of any industrial country and that manufacturing output in Britain rose by one quarter—the best performance in Europe. That compares with the experience under the last Labour Government, for which OECD figures show that manufacturing output fell and
  312
  that during the 1960s and 1970s, our manufacturing output and productivity rose more slowly than those of all other European countries.
  Mr. Smith: First, let me correct the hon. Gentleman on one fact. Productivity in the manufacturing sector did not fall under the Labour Government. However, it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman takes much the same line as the Government appear to do in their amendment. They look back to what they claim as some credits during the 1980s. There was a one-off improvement in productivity caused by running down the work force at the beginning of the decade, but the problem is that it is not sustained productivity. If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not pursue the point about productivity because the figures are already turning against the Government, and will continue to do so.
  I noted that the hon. Gentleman did not challenge any of the OECD figures on Britain's relative position on growth, investment and inflation—three important criteria.
  Sir William Clark rose—
  Mr. Smith: No doubt the hon. Gentleman wishes to correct me, so I shall give way to him.
  Sir William Clark: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure that he wishes to be fair. If we are to compare like with like on inflation, the underlying rate of inflation in Britain is 6·9 per cent., not 9·8 per cent.—[Interruption.] It is. Indeed, it is unfair to take different arithmetical calculations in the retail price index than other countries that do not include mortgage and housing costs. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with that.
  Mr. Smith: I intend to deal with precisely that point during my speech. If the hon. Gentleman or the Government think that there should be some other means of assessing the rate of inflation, they should make representations to the official committee that regulates the basis on which the RPI is composed. I understand that the Government put to that committee the questions of both mortgage interest and the poll tax, and the committee said that they should be included, as most of us think they should be.
  As Conservative Members would judge other Administrations on the basis of the RPI figures, I hope that they are prepared to be judged on that same basis. The whole reason for the exercise is because the hon. Gentleman, like his colleagues, is acutely embarrassed that inflation is knocking 10 per cent.
  There has been a steady increase in inflation since 1988 —two years of remorseless increases. I shall remind the House of the Government's technique with economic problems. From their foundation, the Government have always been about hype rather than reality; about presentation rather than achievement. When inflation had almost doubled in 1988, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer told us not to worry because it was just a blip, a temporary phenomenon. The Government's first approach to the problem is to claim that it does not exist. Unfortunately for them and for us, inflation has continued to blip upwards, until it is now knocking 10 per cent.
  The next technique is to rejig the figures, and that was most blatantly shown in the perpetual readjustment of the unemployment figures in the Government's favour. We

  313
  had another example of that yesterday, which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security—drew to the attention of the House on a point of order only a few minutes ago. The Government surreptitiously had to admit that their figures for poverty in Britain were hopelessly out of line with reality. I remind the House that, once again, the Government's defence was to say that increasing poverty did not exist in Britain, although Opposition Members knew from their constituency experiences that increasing poverty was precisely what was happening.
  The Government not only claimed that the trickle-down from those whom they favoured at the top benefited the poor, but that their relative position had improved. The trouble with using statistics to belie reality is that reality has a disconcerting habit of breaking through. That is what happened in the new figures that were so shamelessly and covertly issued last evening. They revealed the extent of the Government's error and the fact that the living standards of 10 million people in Britain have declined while the Government have been in office.
  All the figures to the contrary that were issued previously, and which were the basis not only of criticism but of justification of the Government's position, have turned out to be bogus. At the very least, a Minister should come to the House as soon as possible to explain why the Government have misled both Parliament and the nation for so long, and why it has taken them three years to admit that. Those of us familiar with the Government's techniques are not surprised by the way that they have dealt with the matter.
  The handout from the Department of Social Security last night stated:
  "Net incomes of the population as a whole rose by about 20 per cent. in real terms over the period 1981–87. The incomes in the lower income groups also rose in real terms, but less rapidly."
  The actual figure for the average was 20 per cent., but for those in the lower income groups it was 2 per cent. What a euphemism for the difference between 20 per cent. and 2 per cent. to say "less rapidly". That shows the technique, the Government's sleight of hand and how they choose to deploy their statistics.
  Mr. Conal Gregory: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that, under the Labour Administration, inflation rose to about 27 or 28 per cent. Does he share the view of the Leader of the Opposition, who, when asked on "The World at One" how he would control inflation, said:
  "To cut a long story short, we don't know."
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman has a selective memory. Under this Administration, inflation reached 22 per cent. and, in case he wants to blame the last Labour Government, his party doubled VAT from 8 to 15 per cent. We have persistently and consistently set out our policies to control inflation, which we believe are an important objective of Government policy. We are not in a mood to take lectures from a Government who have so lamentably failed to control inflation.
  The statistics on inflation and the balance of payments show once again that the Government's first reaction when things start to go wrong is to claim that it is only temporary, a blip for inflation. The Prime Minister told us, the first time that the balance of payments deficit for the
  314
  month was more than £1 billion, that they were freak figures. Almost every month, those freak figures have reasserted themselves. Every month has been a freak month since the Prime Minister announced that that was the explanation for our deteriorating balance of payments.
  The next stage is to misrepresent the figures—the exercise on which the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) was embarked. Because the high RPI is embarrassing, two other versions are being introduced—RPI minus mortgage interest and RPI minus mortgage interest and the poll tax. Those two alternatives are being trailed across the scene. The hon. Gentleman selected the first alternative, and with a bit of encouragement he would probably adopt the second.
  In the first version for which the Treasury produces figures, mortgage interest is struck out as though it did riot exist, as though it were not paid and were not afflicting families in this country. Unfortunately for the Government, the figures are still embarrassingly high—too high for presentation—so what do they do? They fiddle the figures again. They briefed and encouraged willing participants in the press to devise a new method of assessing it—RPI minus the poll tax.
  The Government know that the official committee which regulates the basis of the RPI thinks that mortgage interest rates and the poll tax should be included. If the Government have nothing to do with this, I hope that they will take the opportunity to criticise the Sunday Times and the Institute of Fiscal Studies and tell people not to believe them.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Government are not only trying to fiddle the figures downwards but have succeeded in fiddling the RPI because it does not take account of exchange rate changes, which would have put it well over 10 per cent., and perhaps up to 11 per cent.
  Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for a wise and apt observation, which adds to the strength of the attack that we are making on the Government on this point.
  The Government cannot exclude mortgage payments, because the public cannot exclude them. Other countries include different housing statistics because they are organised on a different basis. There is a different pattern of house ownership in comparable countries, with much more rented accommodation, but they take account of them in their prices index and do not strip them out, as the Government propose.
  To try to remove the poll tax from the RPI is the worst example, because rates were always included in it. What is embarrassing for those who argue that the poll tax should not be included because it is alleged to be a tax is that they called it the community charge. They want to call it the community charge, and when we say "poll tax", they wince and say "community charge" back at us. If it is a charge, it is a charge and it should stay in the RPI.
  Mr. Tim Smith rose—
  Mr. Smith: It is a short debate; I must get on.
  The Chancellor is adopting a new approach, a wholly new wheeze, the "proximate" rate of inflation. That applies solely to our relationship with other European Community countries. Proximate is not exactly precise; it

  315
  gives the Chancellor a certain amount of flexibility and movement, because he has only approximately to meet his figures.
  That is just as well in relation to the so-called Madrid conditions for joining the exchange rate mechanism. I remind the House that inflation had to come down to the Community level before Britain could contemplate joining the ERM. As inflation is now higher than it was when those conditions were outlined, the Chancellor has a bit of a problem, so that is why we are into the "proximate" dodge.
  The Chancellor cannot dodge the fact that inflation is higher than it was when the conditions were set. When we consider the Government's record over the decade, we go back to their early days and to the setting out of the medium-term financial strategy of happy memory. We hear little about it today. The truth is that there is now no effective strategy. The medium-term financial strategy did not even rate a mention in the Chancellor's Budget speech.
  The Government are now involved in a new stratagem—the STES, or short-term election strategy. The plan is to maintain high interest rates—as indeed the Government must—until Britain joins the ERM and then, in the period of lower interest rates which may occur following entry, to encourage a boomlet to coincide with the election at a time when, for statistical reasons, the headline RPI is falling, although the underlying rate may be rising.
  The Government do not reveal that all the economic commentators who have speculated on this outturn of events—which they note will be a politically favourable scenario for the Government—point out that not long afterwards the problems get worse, and that every economic indicator goes in the opposite direction, contrary to the national interest. Why? There is a simple reason: because the underlying problems will not have been tackled by that device. That is the heart of the matter and, I hope, of our debate.
  The Government have not tackled the underlying problems of the British economy, although their hype proclaimed until relatively recently that they had overcome them. The Government started the decade with the bonus of North sea oil. Eleven years and £91 billion-worth of North sea oil revenue later, we are at the bottom of the G7 leagues for growth and investment and the top for inflation.
  There was a period when Conservative Members almost believed their propaganda. On 26 April 1988, speaking in the debate on the Finance Bill, the Chancellor, who was then the Chief Secretary, said:
  "During the 1960s we praised and envied the German economic miracle. In the 1980s the situation has been precisely reversed."—[Official Report, 26 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 214.]
  Note the careful words "precisely reversed". There can be only one meaning for that—Britain now has the economic miracle, and Germany has to learn from the British model.
  This reminds us that the fascination with West Germany goes back some time before the inglorious seminar at Chequers which received extensive publicity recently. That seminar revealed some curious attitudes to West Germany, with an obsession with German history and a patronising and insulting identification of so-called German characteristics and habits. The habits relate to the economic success and the characteristics to the foreign
  316
  policy fears that the Government detect at every hand. These characteristics were identified, in the careful hand of the Prime Minister's perpetual private secretary, as
  "angst, aggressiveness, assertiveness, bullying, egotism, inferiority complex, sentimentality".
  Many might think that, with the exception of sentimentality, all those characteristics could be applied with some appropriateness to the present British Administration and its head.
  In the record of that seminar, was there any substantial reference to the German economic success, still less to how it had been achieved? Going through what I am sure was the full record, I noted that any notion that Britain had overtaken Germany was not mentioned in those private discussions. That was for the House of Commons. When one gets down to the real discussions at Chequers, one does not delude oneself with any of that nonsense.
  The seminar did not spend time considering that matter, because the Chancellor's claim is absurd. If we have precisely reversed the position with West Germany, why is its projected growth rate for this year 4·4 per cent., while ours will be lucky to reach 1 per cent.? Why is its inflation rate 2·6 per cent., while ours is 9·8 per cent.? Why are its interest rates 8 per cent., while ours are 15 per cent.? Why has its growth in output since 1979 been twice ours? Why is the percentage of its work force who are skilled 62 per cent.—according to the European Commission—while our figure is only 38 per cent.? Why did a British balance of payments deficit of under £1 billion in 1979 become a balance of payments deficit of £9 billion today?
  The Government have been hoist by their own petard: they chose Germany as the comparison, but the most cursory analysis confounds their claim, and reveals that the weakness of the British economy is alarming in comparison with German success. I hope that the Government, in their slightly more subdued mood of recent months, will appreciate the point.
  To establish that, it might be sensible for the Prime Minister to organise another seminar at Chequers—this time, to examine German economic achievement; this time, not to patronise but to learn. In the course of such an examination of the experience of West Germany since the war, the seminar would learn that the keys to a modern successful economy are—as Opposition Members maintain—to initiate supply-side policies, to increase investment in research and development, education and training and regional economic development, and to give proper and sustained priority to manufacturing industry.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Surely, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions the German success in interest rates and inflation rates, he should not omit from the list the existence of an autonomous central bank with a responsibility for price stability?
  Mr. Smith: I do not believe the superficial analysis of the position indulged in by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The German success in countering inflation has been achieved over a much wider front than the existence of an autonomous bank. It has much to do with popular culture and a partnership economy—
  Mr. David Shaw: Are you in favour of that?
  Mr. Smith: No, I am not in favour of having an autonomous bank. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt about that, as we have stated clearly that

  317
  we are not in favour of an autonomous bank in Britain or in Europe. On that, we disagree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr Beith) and his colleagues. It is taking superficiality to excess—I know that that has long been a habit of the Liberal party, but it should not persist in it—to think that there is a casual connection between an autonomous central bank and a low rate of inflation. After any serious analysis, I do not think that that idea can be maintained.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Should the proposed Chequers seminar examine the contribution that socialism has made to the German economic miracle?
  Mr. Smith: I think that it should. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for adding an interesting extra half-hour to the discussion. It would he constructive for the Prime Minister and her colleagues to examine the success of the SPD-led coalition Government Germany, during whose time in office a great deal of German economic success and social partnership was achieved. If the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) gets any more bright ideas, will he speedily communicate them to me? I feel almost like writing to the Prime Minister, saying that this is not my suggestion but that of her former Parliamentary Private Secretary, and that it must therefore be treated with some respect.
  When we compare West Germany's investment in research and development with that of Britain, we discover what a state Britain is in. West Germany spends £432 per employed person, compared with £265 in the United Kingdom; in industrial development, its Government funding for research and development is 61 per cent. higher than that of the United Kingdom; its investment in pure science is 135 per cent. higher, its spending on transport and communications research is 194 per cent. higher; and its spending on environmental planning is 225 per cent. higher.
  Worst of all is the comparison on training. Germany really does invest in training: more than 2 million people in West Germany are constantly in training. That is why it has technicians and craftsmen who are paid well because they produce well and sustain a productive and competitive economy.
  More than 70 per cent. of engineers in West Germany have recognised qualifications, compared with only 40 per cent. in Britain after 11 years of Conservative government. Only 30 per cent. of our work force have recognised qualifications equivalent to at least one O-level, compared with 70 per cent. in West Germany. I hope that Conservative Members will ponder that—only 30 per cent. of our work force are qualified to the standard of one O-level. How are we ever to compete with the new circumstances in 1992 if we neglect education and training on that scale? I do not need to go into the figures in more detail.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has an important point about education and training. I notice that the Opposition motion refers to education and training as an Opposition commitment. To what extent would the right hon. and learned Gentleman finance that expansion of education and training, to which he attaches such importance, from taxation or borrowing? If it is the latter, as I suspect it would be, what would be the implications for interest rates?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is making a valiant effort in that respect, but he must know that we have made it absolutely clear that our spending programme will be related to the capacity of the economy to sustain it. For education and training, I believe that that is an absolutely fundamental investment which must be made by this country. I suggest that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) should read an editorial which I believe appeared in The Independent yesterday, which attacked the Labour party for not promising to spend more than we had announced.
  It is absolutely crucial that the investment is made. We will consider how best that investment can be made when we become the Government in the light of the economic circumstances that we inherit. If the concern of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for education and training is genuine, what does he think about the record on that over the past 10 or 11 years? Does he believe that it has been a good deal for Britain to neglect our investment in education and training so that we have the most demoralised teaching force ever this century, and when our industrial training is pitiful when compared to training in other countries? As an important part of our investment programme, we must finance education and training which will at least raise us to the level of our industrial competitors.
  In addition to education and training, we could add as a subject for the seminar the value of social cohesion, indicated by German support for the social charter which the Government always attack. Our most successful competitors embrace and endorse the social charter. It is not even a matter of political controversy. The German Chancellor, head of a CDU-led coalition, went to the German trade unions and told them that he would support their claim for a social charter. Would that our Prime Minister espoused something in the national interest like that. The value of partnership between management and the trade unions in creating a successful economy might also be studied with profit at the seminar.
  However, I fear that such a process of self-education is unlikely to happen, demonstrable though its advantages would be. I fear that, in the spending cuts in store over the summer, regional investment which has already been cut by 70 per cent. over the decade will once again be the victim of the foolish priorities of the disastrous Department of Trade and Industry. I fear that the cuts of £190 million in the training budget at a time when our training is pitifully inadequate will not be restored.
  Now that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who has been asking me about expenditure on education and training, has been liberated to some extent by changes in the Administration—although I commiserate with him on the fact that he has not yet joined it—will he use his freedom to ask the Government why they cut the training programme by £190 million? Why on earth, at this stage in our development, we should be contemplating cutting one penny from the training programme is hard to understand. I hope that that cut will be restored.
  On 31 May 1990, the Financial Times published some comparative figures with regard to publicly funded training for employed adults, which show how disastrous is Britain's record on training. I will pick the figures at random. The figure is $1,000 per trainee in France, $3,500 in Germany, $5,000 in Greece, $1,000 in Japan and $600

  319
  in Spain; but it is $400 in the United Kingdom. We are not only bottom of the league again, but we are bottom by a very long shot.
  Why is it that, every time we look at international comparisons, Britain is at the wrong end of the league? It is at the bottom of the league when we should be at least halfway up, and it is at the top of the league when we should be half way down. It will not do for us to enter the 1990s unless we secure an economic base that can sustain our standard of living and finance our hopes of social progress.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: I have given way enough.
  The Government claimed that they made a breakthrough to a competitive and productive economy in the 1980s. Anyone who looks at any of the statistics can see at a glance that that manifestly has not happened. One thing is certain—it had better happen in the 1990s, or there will be no economic future for this country.
  I do not believe that that can happen under a Government with such a lamentable record for the 1980s. However, it will occur under a Government who recognise the problems we face, but who believe that, with effort and determination, we can overcome them; who face reality—even awkward reality—rather than seek to abolish it by statistical sleight of hand; who recognise the problems but are prepared to develop opportunities; and who, by adopting the policies outlined in the motion, can create a better economic future for this country. The Conservatives have failed. It is Labour's chance in the 1990s.
  4.35 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the improvement in economic performance over the last 10 years, with the United Kingdom's growth of output, manufacturing productivity, employment and investment since 1980 exceeding that of almost any other major European Community country; and endorses the priority the Government attaches to reducing inflation, in order to safeguard and build on these achievements."
  For all its customary charm, the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) had a familiar ring. Perhaps a touch scaled, it is an old favourite that the House has heard on a number of occasions. It is no wonder that the right hon. and learned Gentleman delivers it so well, for he has delivered it so often. None the less, as ever, we enjoyed it. Despite that, it was an empty speech because it was empty of the alternatives that he and his colleagues would bring into operation were they in government.
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to be taken seriously as a potential Chancellor, he will need to produce in some detail policies that, when examined, can be seen to be capable of being carried out and to add up in economic and political terms. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will achieve nothing if he continues to condemn the disease and also condemn the cure, which he should know must involve monetary policy of the sort that we are using at the moment.
  320
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has no policies to curb the central problem that exists at present—the problem of inflation. Neither does he have any policies to prevent it from recurring in future. All that he has to offer are the same old traditional recipes that have been handed down from generation to generation in his party—looser monetary policy and looser fiscal policy, that is lower interest rates and higher spending. Where does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that that would leave him and his party? That is the classic recipe for the debt and devaluation that have been the legacy of every Labour Government.
  I was intrigued a few weeks ago to listen to the leader of the Labour party when he appeared on "Panorama". He said then that, when monetary policy was loosened at the end of 1987 in the wake of the stock market crash, "We"—that is, the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party—"were saying steady, steady." In retrospect, it would certainly have been right to say, "Steady, steady." However, I was not sure whether that was how I remembered the Labour party's posture at the time, so I had a brief look to see what the right hon. Gentleman was advising at the time, and I certainly did not find "steady, steady" among the right hon. Gentleman's pronouncements. Indeed, I offer a prize to anyone who can find the term "steady, steady" used in any context by the right hon. Gentleman at that time. I found what I had expected to find. Then, as now, the right hon. Gentleman was arguing for lower interest rates and described the modest cuts we had made as "inconsequential". He told us:
  "This is a time for judgment, and that judgment should be a big cut in interest rates."—[Official Report, 29 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 446.]
  No "steady, steady" there.
  Perhaps, I thought, the right hon. Gentleman leads a collegiate team and is remembering the words of his colleagues, so I checked those too. I found that his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) spoke in the House on 5 November, but he did not say "steady, steady" either. He said:
  "If the Americans were to follow the Chancellor's monetarist advice, and if the interest rates and taxes were to be raised or social security benefits were to be cut, it could only bring the threat of worldwide recession so much closer."—[Official Report, 5 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 1154.]
  It is clear what the hon. Member for Dagenham had in mind. He was not saying "steady, steady"; he wanted a reduction in interest rates too. I then wondered whether the Leader of the Opposition had remembered the words of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East—that pillar of fiscal rectitude. I checked and I found it as I remembered. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say anything in the House that I could find, but he went to Paris to talk to the OECD on 13 November 1987. Did he tell the OECD that things should be taken "steady, steady"? Did he heck. He called for
  "A stimulation of the economy by cuts in interest rates".
  Just to make sure that there was no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to loosen policy he said it again the next day at Airdrie:
  "Now is the time for cuts in interest rates to stimulate the economy".
  So much for "steady, steady". "Steady, steady" is fiction, fiction. In retrospect we all acknowledge that it was the relaxation of monetary policy that helped cause the difficulties.
  Mr. John Smith: As we are trailing over the years since 1987, let us look to the Budget of 1988. Will the Chancellor tell us—given that the situation was so obvious in 1987—what on earth was the justification for the huge tax cuts in 1988, which were attacked by me and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, but which the right hon. Gentleman defended?
  Mr. Major: I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just taken economic advice from the leader of the Labour party, and if that is so, he has just made a material mistake. The underlying problem that generated many of the difficulties that we faced was, in retrospect, a relaxation of monetary policy because of fear of a recession. One could see that, with credit growth of £40 billion in the subsequent year, the problems were not caused by the cuts in income tax that amounted to only £4 billion, as a supply-side measure. The figures do not remotely add up and I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should get a new and better economic adviser than his right hon. Friend.
  Mr. John Smith: With the benefit of hindsight, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government were right to let a credit boom rip to the extent that he has just described? If so, what on earth was the justification for making tax cuts in such a situation?
  Mr. Major: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that one of the things that generate a credit boom is lower interest rates, which he was precisely calling for? The reduction of taxation was on the back of a huge fiscal surplus in 1988—a point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have momentarily overlooked.
  Given that the Leader of the Opposition has criticised us for causing inflation, the uncomfortable truth is that, judged by his words and those of his colleagues, he would have made bigger mistakes on monetary policy than anyone else. The problem of the credit boom would have been materially worse. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has remembered that only latterly, but it is about time that he admitted that he was wrong in 1987. The uncomfortable truth—
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: As a matter of history, it is important to refresh the Chancellor's memory, as I believe that he is trying to offer the view that the difficulties, to which, presumably, he will own up, only began with the relaxation of policy in response to the slip in the stock markets in the back end of 1987. The right hon. Gentleman should understand that, before the 1987 election, in order to make a contribution to try to win that election, policy was greatly slackened with the intention of tightening it up after the election. The Government, however, were taken by surprise and made an utterly incompetent response to the events on the stock markets. Until now I thought that the Chancellor was a candid man; if we are to have a story, let it be the whole story.
  Mr. Major: I shall not only provide the whole story, but remind the right hon. Gentleman of the other element he has overlooked.
  Just before the November stock exchange crash, in August, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), unexpectedly increased the interest rate by 1 per cent. because of concern about the growth of credit. That was a considerable shock and
  322
  surprise to people, but he acted so because he wanted to restrain what he thought might be an incipient growth of credit. If the Leader of the Opposition would also care to come to the Dispatch Box again to give me chapter and reference of when he said "steady, steady" in 1987 I shall happily give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] I should be happy for the right hon. Gentleman to advise the House on that.
  Mr. Kinnock: I shall do so on the understanding that my reply will be given in exchange for the right hon. Gentleman's readiness to get on with addressing the present problems. He is the Chancellor and we want to know what he will do about dealing with the problems, because that is what will most interest the British people, business and anyone else concerned about the future of our economy.
  The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, in 1987, and definitely as we came up to the Budget of 1988, which he has defended, we proffered urgent counsel that everything possible should be done—it should also be done now—to assist the supply side of British industry. We included in that the reduction in interest rates and the avoidance of the type of tax cuts the Government were then making. That was the policy for stability, steadiness and production, but instead the Government pursued their policies that have resulted in a disastrous balance of payments deficit and an inflation rate of 10 per cent. "Steady, steady", John.
  Mr. Major: That was an amazingly skilful reinterpretation of events, as one would have expected from the right hon. Gentleman. If he will forgive me for saying so, it was more slippery, slippery than "steady, steady". Let me be sufficiently unkind to quote again what the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "This is a time for judgment, and that judgment should be"—
  as Leader of the Opposition, his judgment is important—
  "a big cut in interest rates."—[Official Report, 29 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 446.]
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman said in October 1987.
  Let us leave it to stand on the record between us whether that judgment was "steady, steady" or slippery, slippery. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about inflation?"] I am about to deal with that, because the uncomfortable truth for Governments of whatever complexion is that inflation does not respond to soft options. It certainly does not respond to speeches. It takes tough measures, which are inevitably unpleasant, to defeat inflation. There is no choice in my mind about the necessity to defeat inflation.
  It was difficult and often painful and unpopular measures that brought inflation down at the beginning of the 1980s. I understand that monetary policy is often unwelcome to people, but that is how every other major industrial country deals with inflationary pressures. That is why we are using interest rates and that is why the Leader of the Opposition should know that we shall continue to use them. We shall use them for one simple overriding reason: they work. No one should doubt that, and that is the only recipe for getting inflation down.
  Mr. John Smith: The Government will ruin industry.
  Mr. Major: So the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not use monetary policy, but let inflation rise. That is excellent.

  323
  The evidence that interest rates will work is indisputable. It is now there to be seen in the housing market, which has cooled down. It is evident in the high street and in sales of new cars. In recent weeks, it has been evident in slower money growth, in the easing of capacity constraints in industry and in a better export performance.
  Mr. John Smith: What about imports?
  Mr. Major: Imports are down. They are higher than I would wish them to be, but they are down, and in the past 10 months, exports have grown five times as fast as imports. When did that happen under a Labour Government?
  Perhaps the real concern in the Opposition's mind is that the policy is working. In this, unusually, they are right. No doubt that is why the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East is so concerned and agitated. But it is perfectly true that although the policy is working, its job is not yet done. I readily concede that the inflation rate is still too high and, because of the time that it takes for policy to have its full effect, it may move a little higher yet before it begins to turn down. But turn down it undoubtedly will, towards the end of this year and on through next year—although perhaps a bit more slowly than we had hoped.
  We are determined to keep a tight policy in place to secure this fall in inflation. There should be no doubt about that. I have made it clear before—and I willingly do so again in view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—that this policy is not a short-term attack on inflation. It is not a question of bringing inflation down by a few per cent. and then letting up. There will be no pre-election boomlet of the sort sketched out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The policy is a long-term attack on inflation. First, we must get our inflation down to our competitors' average level. Then we must get it down further still, then down to the level of the best and onward down beyond that. That is clearly the policy.
  Perhaps I may attract the attention of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. [Interruption.] I shall endeavour to do so, and I shall certainly give way to the Leader of the Opposition if he wishes me to do so.
  My remarks about inflation do not mean that I am unaware of, or insensitive to, the difficulties that high interest rates cause. I am fully aware of the feeling that they arouse and I do not ignore them or weigh them lightly. But there is another consideration which any Government are bound to take into account and which, in my view, is decisive: the damage that inflation does if it is permitted to entrench itself. If it entrenches itself and goes unchecked, it can cause long-term damage to the economy, as we saw only too clearly in the 1970s when the Labour party did, indeed, leave it unchecked. The legacy of that was acutely painful.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has Mr. Leigh-Pemberton made any representations to the Government about a pre-election boom?
  Mr. Major: I think that the conduct of monetary policy, and economic policy generally, is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not for the Governor of the Bank of England, however distinguished. Moreover, Mr. Leigh-Pemberton's discussions with me, whatever
  324
  they may contain, are a matter for Mr. Leigh-Pemberton and me and not for the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Steady, steady."] I am entirely steady and, as I have been reminded of the matter, I still look forward to the Leader of the Opposition telling me the time and the place at which he voiced that extremely interesting proposition.
  I know that some people who are struggling with high interest rates may think that nothing could be worse, but the banana republic rates of inflation in the 1970s were definitely worse. To return to that at a time when—once inflationary problems are stripped away—the prospects in every other respect are extremely promising would be quite unforgivable. Under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's prescriptions, of course, a return to high inflation would be inevitable, for reasons to which I shall come in a moment. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, the leopard has certainly not changed its spots, even if it has developed a Scottish accent.
  I find it truly astonishing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman argues for a let-up on inflation—that is implicit in what he says—on the grounds that that is what business wants and needs. That is the way in which the Labour Government acted and we saw what that did to the condition of British industry. The success that British business men and women have made of their enterprises in the past decade has represented the clearest possible rejection of the misguided economic policies and industrial strategies that the Labour party left to us in 1979. Individual business men and women have shown beyond a doubt the results that can be achieved if Governments spend less time interfering, less time regulating and less time feather-bedding them.
  It was precisely because the Labour Government neglected their real duties that business and commerce entered the 1980s in such a fragile and pathetic state. Contrast that with the resilience of the economy today: even with interest rates in double figures for two years, business starts still exceed stops by a massive margin, week after week. That is the clearest illustration of the revitalisation of British industry. We have more people in work than ever before. We have managed to halt decades of decline in our share of world trade, actually increasing it in the past year. None of those points managed to find a place in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's familiar speech, but I offer them to him for the future.
  The strong growth in exports over the past year, itself a result of strong investment in recent years, is, in my judgment, the best possible omen for the long-term future of the British economy. I note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no acknowledgement of that performance, although I am sure that he would welcome it. Our performance did not fit in with the picture of doom and gloom that the right hon. and learned Gentleman sought to paint. As I said a moment ago, in response to a sedentary comment, in the past few months, British exports have been growing five times as fast as imports. In fact, exports have been growing faster than imports for the past 10 consecutive months.
  For the future, the prospects opening up in the single market in the next few years will massively increase the opportunities for British firms to trade abroad. There is still more to come as we free up the areas that remain for the completion of the single market. There is still a considerable amount to be done to achieve that. It is in no sense a remit that we can put on the back burner. Britain

  325
  is determined to make sure that the laggards in the Community—and we are not among the laggards when it comes to implementing Community directives—keep up with implementing the single market measures and do so with all possible speed.
  We face even more far-reaching questions as we consider proposals by our Community partners to enhance economic and monetary integration beyond what has become known as stage 1. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that at present that is the most important issue facing the whole Community. But so far, the debate in Europe has not fully covered the many important issues at stake, and in the months to come, we are determined to ensure that it does.
  There are undoubtedly significant points of disagreement within the Community about how we progress beyond stage 1. But I believe that there are some important areas of general agreement. First, we agree that it is desirable to move forward together—if we can.
  Secondly, I believe that it is generally accepted that to make a premature attempt to introduce monetary union while levels of inflation in the Community are as disparate as at present and before we have much more flexible markets would be to risk great strains and tensions.
  Thirdly, I think that we all share the ultimate aims of greater price and currency stability and more fully integrated economies.
  We think that it is essential to bring out the key criteria that we should be aiming to meet as we examine options. We believe that it is desirable to achieve a greater economic convergence on the performance of the best in the Community. We must also respect the principle of subsidiarity which—to avoid doubt in anyone's mind—specifically means that nothing should be done at Community level that could better be done at national level. Above all, there is an overriding need to ensure that any future arrangements have a strong anti-inflationary character.
  The proposals that we have developed, which are now being studied across the Community, will, I believe, meet those criteria, and we shall be advancing them very forcefully throughout the coming months. The United Kingdom's proposed approach centres on the creation of a new anti-inflationary currency, which we have called the hard ecu, and which would be managed by a new Community institution, a European monetary fund.
  We believe that the hard ecu would provide an attractive common currency for the whole Community. It would be for people, businesses, and Governments to choose whether and how much they wished to use it. Our approach is new and different in one important respect from the parallel currency proposals that were examined and rejected by the Delors committee: it has been designed in a way that would strengthen, not weaken, the anti-inflationary forces in the Community. It could not lead to extra money creation. We believe that that is essential, since the concern that a parallel currency would lead to undue growth in the money supply is a legitimate one, which we share.
  First, the new currency would be part of the exchange rate mechanism, but, by definition, it would never be devalued at exchange rate mechanism realignments against any European Community currency. It would therefore set a stiff standard of competition for national monetary policies and would reinforce monetary discipline.
  326
  Secondly, the hard ecu could be purchased only by surrendering national currencies. Thirdly, the requirement on national central banks to buy back national currency from the European monetary fund would oblige them to run a tight ship. This is a novel requirement which was not considered when previous parallel currency ideas were floated.
  Mr. John Smith: And rejected.
  Mr. Major: And rejected for good reasons—that absent from the proposals were many of the features that are included in the proposals that we have now put forward. It was right to reject those ideas.
  Our proposal avoids falling into the trap of blurring responsibilities for monetary policy. Responsibility for the hard ecu would clearly lie with the European monetary fund, while national monetary authorities would still retain overall responsibility for their own currencies. In particular—this is a point that I shall be making very clear to my colleagues in other European nations—our proposals respect the roles of national Parliaments and, as such, are entirely in tune with the overwhelming consensus in this Parliament, as expressed in our debate on these matters last November.
  Mr. David Howell: Is not my right hon. Friend right to emphasise that the scheme he is outlining is for the whole Community? Would not the alternative idea of a single Eurofed currency certainly exclude some countries whose convergence with the Community's monetary policy had not been fully achieved, which would lead to the divisive two-tier Europe that most good Europeans do not want?
  Mr. Major: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. It would either exclude some Community countries or, if they were included, create considerable economic turbulence within the Community. On that basis, therefore, they would clearly in reality be excluded, as my right hon. Friend said.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Does the Chancellor agree that if there were to be genuine competition between the pound and the hard ecu, the hard ecu would need to have the same legal status, the same access and the same ability to be transferred, which would lead to the hard ecu having to be made legal tender? Will the Chancellor confirm that in answer to me he said that the hard ecu would not be made legal tender?
  Mr. Major: The hard ecu does not have to be made legal tender in any member state of the Community. If, however, it were to be adopted, many states might choose to make it legal tender. Provided that it were accepted by the parties who consented to a transaction, the hard ecu could perfectly legally be utilised without formally being made legal tender. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I may be able to debate this matter at length at the meeting tomorrow of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. I much look forward to that bi-annual encounter.
  On the point of our debate last November, there seems to be some common ground between us and a number of Opposition Members. I find it not surprising, although perhaps a little sad, that there is little common ground between us anywhere else. There is certainly no common ground between the parties on public expenditure. Despite

  327
  the appearance of rectitude and virtue that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East seeks to establish, shadow Ministers vie with one another almost daily to pile up more and more spending pledges.
  The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made a valiant effort, but her claim that Labour has only two spending commitments—increased child benefit and higher retirement pensions—is, frankly, ludicrous. She says that other spending proposals would be fulfilled only when the money was there. She knows, as everybody else knows, that she has no chance whatsoever of convincing the country of that while the leader of her party, the shadow Chancellor and assorted colleagues implicitly and explicitly commit themselves to extra spending in nearly every speech that they make. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the restoration of cuts, but he must surely realise that to restore something means that expenditure must be increased from its present level. Even today he referred to the restoration of expenditure.
  The hon. Lady's trenchant message clearly has not got through to her spending colleagues in the shadow Cabinet. With the solitary exception of the armed forces—and how well we understand that—all Labour spokesmen shadowing a spending Department have promised massive increases in expenditure for their client groups. They have not told us, of course, where the money is to come from. In essence, however, it can come from only two places. It can be funded by increased borrowing, with inevitably higher interest rates, or by increased taxation. We know some of the bad news already. The Opposition are pledged to phase out the married couple's income tax allowance. That would make every married couple in the country worse off. Labour would abolish the upper earnings limit on national insurance, thereby making nearly 3·5 million people worse off.
  Mr. John Smith: Where does the Chancellor get that from?
  Mr. Major: I get it from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own commitments.
  That would add 9 per cent. to the marginal tax rates of nearly 3·5 million people. Labour would extend national insurance to what it has the temerity to refer to—rather inelegantly, I think—as unearned income: what the man in the Monklands high street might conceivably call savings. So much for the encouragement of thrift.
  Mr. Smith: Apart from the fact that there is no Monklands high street—the Chancellor ought to understand that it is a district, not a town—on the question of the upper earnings limit for employees national insurance contributions, what is the justification for asking everybody earning up to £18,200 to pay national insurance on the whole of their salary while those who earn more than £18,200 pay national insurance only on part of their salary, with employers having to pay it in every respect?
  Mr. Major: The progressive nature of taxation is in the income tax system, not in the national insurance system, and has been there from the moment that the scheme was first conceived. I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having assumed that there was a
  328
  Monklands high street. I now know that there is not, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt wishes that there were.
  What is perfectly clear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policies is that his message to the individual is to spend now and pay later—just like Labour's policies would be as a Government. We know precisely where their policies landed us last time.
  The fact is that, if Labour spends as it promises to do, it cannot tax as it implies. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will absorb that point. If Labour sticks to its tax pledge, its spending pledges are meaningless, for the two are wholly irreconcilable. If they are not irreconcilable, let the Opposition show us their arithmetic. If they cannot do so, we shall assume that the Opposition would do what they have always done: have their hands in taxpayers' pockets more often than taxpayers have their hands in their own pockets. That is precisely the way in which Labour Governments have always behaved.
  The Labour party called this debate out of a mixture of timidity and desperation—timidity because it was too timid and nervous to call a censure motion, desperation because its fleeting hopes of last spring are disappearing before its eyes.
  Mr. Sedgemore: Go on; let us have more of this.
  Mr. Major: Yes, there is more of it. The hon. Gentleman, who clearly had an extremely good lunch, must know that in their heart of hearts the Opposition realise that they will not win and that they cannot win. The Opposition have seen their best days in this Parliament and they have now passed.
  When inflation comes down, as it will; when, in due course, interest rates can prudently be brought down, as they will be; when 11 years' improvement to the economy brings more prosperity, as it undoubtedly will, the electorate will know where to turn. They will put their trust, once again, in a Government who believe in the market rather than in paying lip service to it; a Government who deliver freedom rather than just talk about it, and a Government who can deliver prosperity rather than seeking merely to redistribute it. That is why, after the next election, Opposition Members will be precisely where they are now—opposite—and Conservative Members will be on the Government Benches.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. John Battle: Despite the television coverage of our proceedings in the House and the need to cultivate our media personalities, a curious paradox seems to be emerging in our politics which could be encapsulated in the words, "Whatever you say, say nothing." That is precisely what the Chancellor has done today and it is precisely what the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), discovered to his cost from the article in The Spectator.
  I was interested to note on the midday television news yesterday that, when asked to comment on the deteriorating trade figures, the Chancellor had nothing to say. The Chancellor does not seem to have a word to say either to those who have lost their jobs in the basic manufacturing, textile and engineering industries. I suspect that it is the silences, the gaps, the absences in

  329
  Government statements, press releases and the words of Ministers, that show the real underside of the Government's economic policies.
  Has the Chancellor nothing to say about the increasing unemployment that is becoming a daily experience with closures and redundancies in many constituencies? We now have the new Cityspeak, with redundancies being described by the euphemism "down sizing". For real people it means losing their source of income.
  On 14 June the Department of Employment issued a press notice which said:
  "The rise in unemployment is not unexpected".
  It went on to say that unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside is falling. But according to the figures in the Library, at the same time the rate in my constituency was increasing. It had risen to 6·9 per cent. If we take into account the 30 changes in calculating unemployment figures, the real rate in my constituency is 10·4 per cent. —4,478 people without full-time work. That is double the Government's figures of 2,965, twice the rate that the Government calculate and, I assume, on which they base their policies.
  Has the Chancellor nothing to say? Perhaps he has said nothing about unemployment because unemployment has never been a priority, an election issue, with the Conservative party in the past. The unemployed can simply be written off because they cannot determine the outcome of an election. Their stake in an election is too low. The unemployed do not matter. They can be made, statistically, to disappear.
  I am interested that the Chancellor had nothing to say today about the increase in poverty. He gave not a word of apology for the fact that the Government have repeatedly used figures in the House against our arguments which they have now revealed to be completely wrong and misleading. Only yesterday, a document entitled "Households Below Average Income 1981-87" was published which showed that the number of people living on less than half average income rose by 50 per cent. to 7·7 million in the two years 1985-87.
  When they are discussing a policy for the family, I hope that the Chancellor will remind the Prime Minister that in 1981 the number of children living in households on below average income was 1·8 million. In 1987, it was 2·4 million—20 per cent. of children. If we were to look at the facts of poverty, we might start to have policies for the family which address that issue rather than the rhetoric that we have heard in recent weeks.
  The facts in the document "Households Below Average Income" show that, in 1979, 9·4 per cent. of the population had incomes below half the average. In 1987, 19·4 per cent. of the population had incomes below half the average. The poorest 10 per cent. saw their real incomes reduced by almost 6 per cent., and that in the face of the overall average going up some 23 per cent.
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: To put the figures in context, will the hon. Gentleman say what the average incomes were in the two years to which he refers, and what the real increase in average incomes was during that period?
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the average income was £239 a week, well above the incomes of many of my constituents. They would be glad to be on the average income. The Government base their calculations on averages, but some Conservative Members
  330
  do not seem to realise that, if incomes at the top go up, they will pull that average up at precisely the same time as the incomes at the bottom are going down. They have a Heineken theory of economics. It is as though the adverts have taken on real life.
  The document "Households Below Average Income" shows beyond a shadow of doubt that there has been no trickle-down effect in our society, by which with wealth generated in our economy is supposed to reach the poorest. The Government used to claim—the hon. Gentleman might care to reflect on this—that the incomes of the poorest 10 per cent. grew faster than those of the rest of the population. Then, in a footnote to a written parliamentary question, it was revealed that the statistical basis of that calculation was wrong and that the incomes of the poorest 10 per cent. did not grow as fast as those of the rest of the population.
  It may be of interest to hon. Members to know that annexe 1, table d, of "Households Below Average Income" shows that the real income of the poorest 10 per cent. between 1979 and 1987 was—wait for it—minus 5·7 per cent.; in other words, a reduction in income, not an increase, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) made plain. How can we hide that behind the euphemism that their incomes are increasing less rapidly? They are decreasing, yet the Government's press release which accompanied the publication of that document yesterday claimed:
  "More people had below half the average 1987 income, reflecting a wider income distribution."
  What a euphemism for the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. At last the Government acknowledge the fact, but the next Labour Government will be looking for policies which address that fact.
  We effectively have two Budgets. We have the real Budget and we have a statement on benefits some time in advance of that each winter which has always reduced the incomes of the poorest. Yet the Chancellor has the nerve to tell us today that £4 billion of public money was given back in tax cuts and that is now seen to have been a mistake by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Yesterday, the first edition of the new Treasury bulletin was published, for which we are grateful. In the foreword to that document the Chancellor says:
  "It is important for public debate that we have accurate statistics and accurate information."
  I urge the Chancellor to insist that such accuracy should apply to press releases, answers to written questions and answers at the Dispatch Box. It is all right for Mr. Jim Hibberd, who works for the Treasury, to point out in that bulletin that there were misleading indicators which
  "clearly underestimated the buoyancy of the economy."
  That underestimate may have misled the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. It also resulted in millions in Britain paying the price for this Government's economic policies and in the rash, tax-cutting, classic Tory, old-fashioned methods which unleashed the consumer boom for which this Chancellor is now having to pick up the pieces.
  I noticed that the Treasury bulletin also said that there would now need to be "judgmental revision". I hope that that does not mean that we shall be told that the Government will make judgments about unemployed people. I also hope that that does not mean that the decision will be, as was suggested by one of the institutes,

  331
  that the unemployed should no longer receive unemployment benefit and that people should take out private insurance against times when they might lose their jobs. There would, in other words, be no unemployment benefit as a basic national social security cover. The Treasury is forcing people to pay the price for the decisions of the previous Chancellor.
  Over the past 10 years, we have experienced the sustained and systematic statistical abolition of poverty, unemployment, low pay and housing need. Blindness has been deliberately fostered in Government policy to the very existence of the unemployed and of the poor as real people. There has been an insistent silence when appeals have been made to tackle the increasing structural poverty in our society. There have been denials that the divisions have been increasing.
  The Treasury bulletin says:
  "There are clearly very different stories".
  I hope that Conservative Members will listen carefully to some of the stories that they may hear in the recess from their constituents who struggle to pay their mortgages, struggle to pay the poll tax and struggle to find homes that are appropriate to their needs. The poor should not be derided as freeloaders, as one Minister referred to them recently in a televison interview on the poll tax. It may not occur to Ministers when they say that people on rebates are freeloaders that they receive a rebate precisely because their income is too low to enable them to pay their own way. The Government should raise their incomes and we might then tackle the problem of rebates. I remind Conservative Members before they go on television and castigate the poor as freeloaders that the poor are all means-tested before they have access to those rebates.
  It is fair to point out that the Chancellor did not refer to the unemployed or to the poor. However, he also says nothing about the report in the Financial Times yesterday that, according to the latest surveys, Britain's managers are all on course for a 13 per cent. rise in total pay. The Chancellor says nothing about the fact that former state-owned organisations reacted to their newly found private status by awarding large increases in earnings to their best-paid directors. In four of them—Enterprise Oil, British Airways, the British Airports Authority and Jaguar—the directors all received an initial year's increase in salary of 100 per cent. The Chancellor says nothing about the recent report on City fringe benefits, which include that special perk of a cheap 5 per cent, mortgage. This year alone, for 200,000 people it is estimated to be worth £380 million. The Chancellor says little about how the £91 billion benefits of North sea oil revenues of the past decade, which the Government had at their disposal, have been squandered.
  The Chancellor has nothing to say about the recent regional inequality. The regional trends survey published this month showed a widening of the north-south division in terms of regional differences in income, share ownership and the growth in second jobs. The number of people with second jobs increased massively in the south-east—between 1981 and 1988 it increased from 162,000 to more than 300,000. The increase in second jobs is far smaller in Yorkshire and Humberside. The increase in income disparity between 1985 and 1988 was 30 per cent. per head in the south-east, 32 per cent. per head in the south-west and 24 per cent. in Yorkshire and Humberside. If we use
  332
  an index under which national average income is taken as 100 in 1988, the south comes out at 117, and Yorkshire and Humberside at 89·9, lowest of all and only just above the figures for Northern Ireland. The region that I represent is a low-wage, part-time job area and the Government's policies are intent on keeping it that way.
  The Chancellor may be quietly trying to lay the ghost of Professor Sir Alan Walters. The new Treasury bulletin says that the Central Statistical Office will be shifted from the Cabinet Office to the Treasury. The Prime Minister may be quietly undermining that strategy by ensuring that one of the Chancellor's new junior Ministers is a member of the "No Turning Back" group. What characterises that group is that it has a classic formula for turning its back on whole sections of the British population.
  When a Government adopt a policy of "whatever you say, say nothing", I am reminded of a comment that was shouted out by Conservative Members about the phrase in the United States election, "Watch my lips". That is the say nothing politics and the ultimate in economic and political body language of 1988. What happened? Last month, President Bush carried out that long-awaited U-turn. He acknowledged that he needed to increase some taxes to bring his runaway budget deficit under control. There will now be new taxes and it is interesting to note that they will be indirect taxes, which are precisely the taxes about which this Government forget to tell the people. They have increased indirect taxes to almost double the level that they were when they came into office.
  The people of Britain should be reminded that the overall tax burden of personal tax under this Government has risen from 34 per cent., which it was under Labour, to 37 per cent. of personal income. Yet the Chancellor has nothing to say about the fact that people are paying more tax now. The Government still deny that the Tories tax people; that is not even to be whispered.
  The time of the monetarists and of the Chicago school has come and gone. I hope that, when we have a new Chancellor in a Labour Government, the policies of this Government will be rejected and that those who have been marginalised and left out of the Budget will be included.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on his appointment to the Treasury Bench. I met one of his constituents last night who was bathing in the reflected glory. His constituents have every right to be proud, as he will make a most valuable addition to the Treasury team.
  I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his speech. I congratulate him especially for one reason. He succeeded in ensuring that the Leader of the Opposition finally conceded that, in late 1987 and early 1988, the Opposition called for substantial cuts in interest rates. I recall that a motion on the Order Paper at that time set out that demand. Everything that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) says now should be seen in that light. There is no credibility in his position now because of his position then. If we had followed his policies then, we should have been back to the 27 per cent. or 28 per cent. inflation that we had in 1975-76. We should have had a complete re-run of the record of the previous Labour Government. We should address ourselves to that record and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words at that time, and not

  333
  to the hot air earlier in this debate, with little specific information about what he would do to address the country's current problems.
  Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman rather pooh-poohed this, there is an important point about the construction of the retail prices index. When the index looks at housing costs, it concentrates on mortgage interest and not on house prices. If house prices were included in the index, we should have had an earlier sign of the inflationary problems to come. Rising house prices are in themselves a useful early sign of coming inflationary problems. If we gave more weight to house prices in the RPI, that would give a better impression of inflationary trends in the economy.
  Another important reason why we should address that problem is that the figures that the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted, as the Chancellor said, are not comparable. Rates throughout the rest of the EC show that the inflation indices of other countries are compiled on a different basis, a subject which the Public Accounts Committee examined recently and to which, in due course, the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee will have to return.
  We must consider the construction of the index in relation to the community charge. The reference on the community charge was made to the advisory committee before transitional relief was announced in the autumn of last year. As a result, the decision to take no account of transitional relief was made not by that committee but by the Central Statistical Office.
  It is wrong not to take account of transitional relief, because it is not an income-related relief. It is available automatically to people, regardless of their income, depending on the rateable value of their homes under the previous arrangements. I hope that Treasury Ministers will examine that point, because the committee will soon be publishing a report recommending that the matter be referred to the RPI advisory committee.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has taken part in the debate, because he was unwell recently and was unable to attend some of the Standing Committee meetings on the Finance Bill. I am pleased to see that he is better. He said that Conservatives did not care about unemployment. To suggest that a Government who have presided over a larger increase in the number of jobs in the economy do not care about people without jobs is absurd.
  We also share the concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed about people on low incomes. What better solution is there to unemployment or low incomes than to create more jobs? More people now have jobs, providing them with a standard of living that they have not previously enjoyed.
  Mr. Battle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.
  Although the Government claim that the total number of jobs has increased, that may be because part-time jobs are included in the statistics. Is it not a fact that the total number of unemployed people has been consistently high under Conservative rule, higher than was ever the case under Labour? In other words, there are more people unemployed now, even though more people may be working in part-time jobs.
  Mr. Smith: I would not dismiss part-time jobs as of no value. They are not normally the sole source of a household's income. Indeed, a second earner normally has the part-time job, and such jobs provide a considerable improvement in the standard of living of the avarage family. In the last 10 years, average earnings of the average man with two children have risen by about 30 per cent. That has been an outstanding achievement, especially compared with the situation under the last Labour Government, when the increase was only 1 or 2 per cent. over six years.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leeds, West derided the performance of some privatised companies. Privatisation has made a tremendous contribution to the supply side of the economy in recent years. A major improvement during those years has occurred in productivity. The Library recently published a background paper which examined British manufacturing productivity. A table on page 1 showed that, from 1980 to the third quarter of 1989, manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom rose by 28·5 per cent. whereas the figure for West Germany, about which the hon. Gentleman made such a song and dance, was 13 per cent.
  I appreciate that we are still some way behind, but we have narrowed the gap considerably. One example—admittedly an outstanding one, but it is worth considering the best—is the record of the British Steel Corporation, and that document looked into its performance. There are three reasons for the huge increase in manufacturing productivity. The first is the restructuring of British industry, so that it is more efficient. The second is the much higher rate of capital investment—and the main source of funds for that investment has been retained profits, with profits now back at levels not seen since the early 1960s. The third is the degree of improved capacity usage.
  That record has been aided and abetted by the many supply side changes that the Government have made in the last 11 years. For example, we have not interfered with business. We have got off the backs of business and have allowed management to manage. I believe that to be the main reason for privatising companies—getting rid of unnecessary bureaucratic regulations.
  Also important has been our low corporation tax regime since 1984. That has been attractive for investors at home and abroad. Another factor was drawn to my attention at lunchtime by a business man who said, when I told him that I would speak in the debate, "Don't forget to mention the massive improvement in industrial relations in Britain in the last 11 years, and the fact that we have had a record low number of days lost through strikes."
  All those factors have enabled British industry to operate so much more efficiently that we have such a good record on productivity. We have much increased profitability and, as the Chancellor said, we have a good export story to tell. Figures for the last year show that, although we still have a large trade deficit, the trend is now in the right direction. While the volume of exports is rising at about 12 per cent. per annum, the volume of imports is rising at about only 3 to 4 per cent.
  What should we do to maintain the momentum in the 1990s? We must maintain our attractive tax regime and not fiddle with it, because it has encouraged much inward investment. We must continue to examine Government regulation, deregulate where possible and make further supply side changes to make the economy more efficient.

  335
  I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East that we need to invest more in education and training, although he should not pretend to the House that it is somehow a short-term solution. I fully support the introduction of the national curriculum, but that is only just getting under way and the first school kids to have gone right through the curriculum will not emerge from our schools for another 10 years. So it is wrong to pretend that the investment will pay off in the next year or two. It is important that the curriculum is adequately resourced, and I hope that that will receive attention in the context of the current public expenditure round.
  Most important—this is why the Chancellor paid such attention to it—is the need to get inflation down. That is why I support the tough monetary policy that he has adopted in the last year. In my view, it must be supported by an equally firm fiscal policy.
  There are signs, to which my right hon. Friend referred, of a slowdown in the economy. This is a difficult time for public spending, but it is vital that it is kept under firm control. The only Departments that should be allowed a real increase are the Department of Health and the Department of Education and Science, for the reasons I have given. There is room for cuts to be made in the expenditure of other Departments' budgets, such as the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Energy.
  The Labour party is always trying to pretend that, in some way, the period 1964 to 1970 was a fine time for public spending, and that since then we have done nothing but cut public expenditure. A significant table in the Autumn Statement sets out trends in public spending over the last quarter of a century. In 1973-74, in real terms, spending was £150 billion, at 1988 prices. In the following year—the first year of a Labour Government—it shot up to £169 billion, an increase of over 10 per cent. in one year.
  In every successive year from then on, public spending was cut, and by the end of Labour's period in office it was back down to £165 billion, £4 billion less than it had been five years previously. That was the starting point for this Administration—£165 billion—and this year public spending is £192 billion. That gives the lie to anybody who suggests that in overall terms this Government have cut public spending. They have not. However, what they have succeeded in doing—this is the trick—is to decrease public spending as a proportion of our national income. At the low point under Labour, it was about 48 per cent. of GDP; today, it is 38 per cent.
  336
  We should be quite clear about Labour's policy. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has said that his only spending commitments are to increase child benefit and to increase pensions. However, when asked on "Panorama" where he would find the money for the extra spending commitments, the Leader of the Opposition said that any other spending commitments must depend on the economic situation and on securing economic growth. He was then asked, "That is all very well, but how are you going to secure economic growth?" The answer was, "Ah, well, we must invest more money in education, training and the infrastructure." If that is not public spending, I do not know what is.
  The Labour party must make up its mind about what comes first: are we to have more spending followed by economic growth, which is fuelled by that spending, or are we to have the growth first—and if so, where will it come from? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered that question. As long as he fails to do so, his policies have no credibility.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has said that £3 billion will be spent in the early days of the next Labour Government, which he foresees, on the high-speed rail link, which would be financed totally by borrowing, which he seems to believe will have no effect on the capital position, let alone on the revenue costs?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw my attention to today's spending commitment from the Labour party—another £3 billion on the high-speed link—
  Mr. Battle: From where?
  Mr. Smith: I do not know—presumably from the channel to London. I think that that is what is suggested, but it is £3 billion—
  Mr. Battle: Where is the money coming from?
  Mr. Smith: That is the question that the Labour party should answer. There are only two possibilities: either the money is borrowed, in which case interest rates rise, or taxes are increased. There are no other sources of revenue for a Labour Government or for any other Government. It is about time that Opposition Members had the honesty to recognise that and to tell the country how they will finance all their projects.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Although the debate began with good-humoured contributions, it seems to be degenerating into an exchange of insults about who will spend what. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) did not really refer to the purposes—and perhaps the achievements—of the Government's economic policy on a broader canvas. If one were looking for some examples of what one thought the Government had been trying to achieve—it is not an easy task—one could pick out certain things.
  The hon. Gentleman did refer to the improvement in industrial relations that was brought about when the Government took on some of the measures that we have been pressing on them for years—such as holding postal ballots before strikes and putting unions more effectively under the control of their members through that postal ballot system. However, he could also have turned his attention to the reassertion of the role of private enterprise as the primary engine of economic success in the public mind.
  That is one of the most useful things that has happened in the lifetime of this Government. However, there has been a signal failure to tackle the monopoly prevalence in our system. Indeed, the Government have converted public monopolies into private monopolies by the way in which they have carried out their privatisation policy, and have failed to address the consumer protection issues or the social issues, to which the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred, without which the success of private enterprise seems hollow to the people who do not have the means to purchase the goods that are produced.
  There seems to be no sense of the Government having any continuing overall purpose to their economic policy, which is a strange thing to have happened after so long. However, perhaps it is not all that surprising, when one considers the way in which the Government are bogged down in their economic failures and the consequences of their mistakes. No one can look at the trade figures, the inflation figures, or the balance of payments figures without seeing a history of failure, which owes its existence to a series of mistakes made by the Government in their economic management, which is the focus of this debate.
  The Conservative party now likes to place much emphasis on the failures of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is always somebody previous who is responsible for inflation. It used to be the previous Labour Government or the preceding Conservative Government—the Heath Government—but now the former Chancellor of the Exchequer is recognised as having made mistakes. Some of the most significant mistakes were made in the 1988 Budget, some of which the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) has now admitted. He has admitted, for example, that it was a mistake to stage the ending of multiple mortgage tax relief until the August of that year because, along with the expansion of the credit, the right hon. Gentleman added another engine of increase.
  There is a whole series of mistakes, of which the major one must be the tax cuts themselves—
  Mr. Major: I do not recall the hon. Gentleman mentioning those matters as mistakes at the time. I do not recall him criticising the reductions in interest rates in late 1987, and I expressly do not recall him criticising the four
  338
  or five-month period in which people could keep multiple mortgage interest relief—for the very good social reason, which the hon. Gentleman should understand, that it enabled young people who were purchasing to complete the transactions into which they had entered.
  Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman must look at the record. He will then find that I did indeed criticise his predecessor on that count. Interestingly, when his predecessor appeared before the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service to explain why that had been done, he did not give the good social reason that the right hon. Gentleman has just advanced. The right hon. Member for Blaby said that he had been advised by the Revenue that the computer system could not cope with the change as rapidly as he had intended to make it. He did not have a social reason: he had a technical and administrative reason. I pointed out the effects of that measure and of the other measures in the Budget at that time.
  However, the present Chancellor himself has made mistakes. In a debate only last week, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) pointed out that the Chancellor should have raised taxation in his last Budget, and said that, by not doing so, he had made the current inflationary problems worse. The Chancellor has been slow—his predecessor was also slow—to take any of the voluntary steps to dampen credit that should have been taken, but he has now advised the banks that they should stop their high-pressure circulars that encourage people to take out loans that they cannot afford. That could have been done long ago.
  Alongside those management mistakes, it has also been a mistake on the Government's part constantly to encourage high expectations of the Government's success. Even now, the Chancellor seems to have private meetings with Conservative Members, at which he tells them that things are not really going all that well, that it will be a tough winter and that the public expenditure round will be extremely difficult; but he does not often say such things in public.
  The Government's practice—this applies even more to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor than to himself—has been to lead people to believe that everything is fine and that they can reasonably take out large borrowings, because everything will get better and interest rates will come down in due course, although they will have to be kept high for a little longer. All those expectations, which are generated by rosy economic statements, do not help to bring about the self-discipline for which the Chancellor is asking and which he knows the economy requires.
  Perhaps the most remarkable errors of all are those that the Government are making over Europe. The Government seem incapable of any clear, settled or united policy towards Europe. The plans for the hard ecu, which the Chancellor has devised with the assistance of Mr. Butler and others, has the singular merit that it enables one set of people in the Conservative party to believe that it will never lead to a single currency, a European central bank and full monetary union, and another set of people in the Conservative party to believe that it is a constructive and significant step along that road, which I suspect is the Chancellor's own view.
  The right hon. Gentleman is assisting the Labour party in the same respect, because a number of Labour Members take the same view of the conditions that the Labour party has set down for joining the exchange rate mechanism. I

  339
  believe that it was the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) who said that he was quite satisfied with the Labour party's attitude to the exchange rate mechanism, because the conditions were such that they could never be satisfied. He is probably right, because the condition that the whole exchange rate mechanism should become a reflationary process, which is effectively one of the four conditions, will not be satisfied. Those conditions also have the merit that they can mean different things to different people.
  Mr. Major: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which in essence is entirely right. People must understand that the specific circumstances under which the Labour party has said that it will join the exchange rate mechanism would mean nothing other than the destruction of the exchange rate mechanism itself. It is a piece of flimsy oratory to cover the fact that the Labour party has no policy. The hon. Gentleman may be right in his implicit criticism that I should have made that point earlier.
  Mr. Beith: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the beam in his own eye, or that of the Government. Setting up structures which mean different things to different people makes a wide political impression.
  I was fascinated by the response from the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's Questions the day after the Chancellor's plan was unveiled. He said to the Prime Minister:
  "I have read the speech. I wonder whether the Chancellor explained to the right hon. Lady that if the idea that he put forward were accepted, with the European Monetary Fund and the hard ecu, it would be the final.surrender of monetary sovereignty by Britain".—[Official Report, 21 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 1107.]
  I was most intrigued by that, as it was not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman was saying to the Prime Minister, "How outrageous it is that you, the Prime Minister, should even contemplate the surrender of monetary sovereignty which I, as the Leader of the Labour party, would never contemplate"; or whether he was simply pointing to an obvious inconsistency in the Prime Minister's attitude. I suspect that, when he said that, he thought that the Labour party would never contemplate such a move in any circumstances, so the ambivalence surrounding the Labour party's attitude to Europe is similar to that of the Government.
  It is carried through in their attitude to a European central banking mechanism, which is part of the all the plans put forward so far, except that proposed by the Chancellor. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) made Labour's position quite clear in his response to my earlier intervention. He said that the Labour party would have none of that and did not want an independent autonomous central bank. He is at one with the Government in that. There are stages in serious prospect in the minds of our major partners in Europe which neither the Conservative party nor the Labour party is prepared to contemplate. They are key elements in European monetary union.
  The refusal to accept what is happening in Europe seems to sow the seeds of downfall for any policy pursued by the Conservative party or the Labour party as long as
  340
  they retain those prejudices. I do not understand what role the Government or the Labour party envisage for Britain in future. I do not believe that the rest of Europe will accept the Chancellor's plan. It has been accepted by many of our European partners as evidence that he is in earnest about trying to find a basis on which Britain can play a part in the future economic development in Europe, and he has dragged the Prime Minister into that testimony of earnestness. However, I shall be most surprised if his plan is preferred to the proposals in the minds of the Germans, the French and our other European partners.
  What will the Chancellor do if our European partners decide to go ahead and we are left out? The obvious conclusion is that we will remain in the second division, eventually to be joined by Hungary and Czechoslovakia in years to come, when they become supplicants to join the European Community, and that we shall remain outside the major developments in Europe. That would be disastrous for Britain. It would be disastrous for Britain's industrial position and for the hopes of the City, which could reasonably expect to be the financial capital of Europe when financial and monetary union is achieved. It would leave Britain in a very much weaker position.
  Within that argument about our future there has suddenly broken out the row about what we think about the Germans—a most extraordinary episode. The remarks subsequently disowned by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), which seemed to be fuelled by a mixture of malevolence and jealousy against a nation that has succeeded where Britain has failed, were given substance by that extraordinary Chequers seminar and the assortment of prejudices drawn up there.
  Why was there no serious analysis about what has made Germany a successful economy in the post-war years? The writings of the commentators on what has happened in Germany show common agreement on a number of key elements. Some of those elements are political, such as having a decentralised system of government with centres of power away from the capital and the consensus produced by a fair electoral system which ensures that Governments have to carry wider support than that of their own party. Some of them are about economic decision-making, in particular having a central bank which has an autonomous responsibility for price stability and therefore effective control of monetary policy.
  That is not a superficial claim about the German economy. No serious economist would not regard that as having played a major part in Germany's success in fighting inflation. Yet today the Chancellor made it clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not the Bank of England will have responsibility for monetary policy in future. Can he or the official Opposition pretend that Britain can demonstrate that it has been more successful by leaving the control of inflation solely in the hands of the Government than has a country which has given its central bank a major role in the control of inflation? Of course they cannot.
  Among the other features which have been important in Germany's success is the record of training through the education system and in employment. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred to the budgets of Government Departments. He should remember that the Department of Employment's budget was one of the casualties of the last public expenditure round. Just when we should have been increasing expenditure on training, it was cut.

  341
  In Germany, trade unions have played a more constructive role than has traditionally been expected or encouraged in Britain. I took part in a discussion in Germany in which a Labour Member asked, "Surely what you say will happen in East Germany will not happen because the trade unions will insist that they do not suffer all those job losses as the firms are made more efficient."
  The German officials to whom we were putting those questions were amazed, because the idea that a trade union would not understand the need to increase efficiency had not even crossed their minds. In Germany, the trade unions traditionally have operated a more progressive approach to industrial change, and that has been a major factor in Germany's success. Germany has also recognised the need for essential public investment in the transport system, for example.
  We are not learning the lessons of German success. Instead, we are complaining about that success. Decentralised government, a fair electoral system, an autonomous central bank with responsibility to deal with inflation, training, investment and constructive trade unions do not form a package that the Government or the Labour party can accept in its entirety. They should be part of a package of change for Britain. They have long been part of the policies of my party. That is why our approach to Britain's economic policies has proven marks of success.
  Why do those who believe that leaving the field open to German dominance in the European Community poses a danger to Britain persist in supposing that the proper response is to keep Britain on the sidelines, to resist the development of the policies that I have described and to leave Britain in Europe's second division? That would be a recipe for economic failure.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. John Browne: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on a quite outstanding speech and support him and the Government's policies in the proposals submitted to our European partners on economic and monetary union. As the Chancellor said, they are based on the so-called hard ecu. Our economy has been and will be vitally affected by currency and interest rates.
  At the outset, I declare a financial interest that may be affected by European monetary union or the strength or otherwise of the European economy. At the heart of European monetary union lies the political and economic integration of Europe. Economically, the forces are for integration in economy of scale and flow production, and the lowering of customs barriers. These factors force us towards economic integration.
  But the key to integration is political. The political elements often hold back for understandable reasons, such as the protection of jobs and prices, and even for cultural reasons. These are two competing forces—one to integrate and one to hold back. Political integration is all about sovereignty, but sovereignty is an emotional matter of the heart. We must ask why politicians would willingly yield sovereignty. I submit that the answer is similar to that given by entrepreneurs when they yield equity or sovereignty in their companies—that it is survival. The survival of Europe must mean the yielding of sovereignty. It is a question of how far and how much at any time.
  342
  European monetary union is mainly dependent on the outlook for Europe. What are Europe's prospects until the turn of the century? The evolution of the 1990s in Europe has been already dramatically affected by one man, Mr. Gorbachev—or Gorby, as he is known at the grass roots. He has unlocked the static trench warfare of the cold war and has challenged the world to mobile competition. Gorbachev has issued the world a new challenge which, unusually, is not of war but of peace. He proposes to change the nature of peace itself, from the peace of nuclear deterrence under which we have lived for 45 years, to a peace of detente. It is to swap mass mutual destruction for the hope of mutual trust.
  Mr. Gorbachev's new challenge has successfully removed the bogey man from the strategic scene. It has also had other interesting consequences, which will crucially affect the future of Europe.
  First, it has heralded the end of the second world war. I sometimes find it hard to remember that the losers of the hot part of that war were Japan and Germany.
  Secondly, it has catapulted Europe back to the centre of gravity in world politics. The main question is, what Europe? Is it a Europe that ends in Berlin, or a Europe that ends in Moscow? Thirdly, Gorbachev's new challenge has catapulted Europe back on to the centre stage of world politics. But it is an uncertain Europe. It has changed so much. The two clenched fists—the Warsaw pact and NATO—have now opened. At one time they faced each other antagonistically, with great forces for union within their membership. Now, individual nations wish to do more of their own thing.
  Mr. Gorbachev has also lit the fire of freedom throughout central and eastern Europe. When the Governments of the west lit the fires of freedom in the western economies, the problem that had to be faced was greed. With the lighting of the fire in totalitarian states, the problem that must be faced is revolution.
  Europe is at the centre of a world stage that is showing signs of an ominous growth in trade blocs. I am thinking especially of the United States and Canada, of Japan and China, and of the European Community. There is potential for those three trade blocs to become isolated from each other. However, there is the counter force of globalisation. The lesson of Chernobyl is that to love one's country is no longer anywhere near good enough in itself. If we really love our country, we must watch and take interest in what is happening in neighbouring countries.
  Fourthly, Mr. Gorbachev's new challenge has exposed a change in the super-power structure. In 1945, Great Britain was replaced as a super-power by Russia. Now, 45 years later, Russia itself is being replaced as a super-power. The question is, by whom? Will it be the new Europe or the new Germany? The new Europe is big—some 350 million people and an economy of $4 trillion accounting for about 20 per cent. of the world's free trade. What is more, that trade is balanced, with about $400 billion of exports and $400 billion of imports a year. That is a powerful bloc.
  What form will the new Europe take? Economic and monetary union is crucial to that decision. Will it be a Europe of member sovereign states; will it be a Europe of one federal state; or will it be a Europe dominated by a single member state?
  Germany is a country of about 100 million people. Even the Romans failed to conquer it. The praetorian guard was heavily Germanic. It was the protector of

  343
  Europe for many years under the Teutonic Knights. The West German miracle is a modern example of the strength and vibrance of the German nation.
  What has Germany already achieved and what will it possibly achieve now that it is united? What will it achieve as a member of the EEC and adjacent to central European and Soviet Union markets? A major force has suddenly erupted within the EEC. The vital question that the whole of Europe must answer, including the Germans, is how Europe can best assimilate Germany in the longer-term interests of Europe in general. At the heart of that answer will lie our policies towards European monetary union.
  I beleve that the headlines of history will record this time as one of legend, of great opportunity and of risk, of unprecedented change, and of uncertainty—almost the fog of a sudden peace. At a time of such great uncertainty, risk and opportunity, the House and many like it throughout Europe are being asked to make a dramatic decision about something that is dear to us and to the hearts of our constituents—the future of our national sovereignty. In this uncertain world, we are being pressed to go ahead with European monetary union or a single European currency, yet that proposition is being put to us before the establishment of a single European market, let alone a single European economy.
  We are being asked to join the exchange rate mechanism. It is clear that it is dominated by the deutschmark. An illustration of that is the Government's action in the wake of the financial near-crash of October 1987, when there was a risk of a resultant economic crash. The Governments of most western nations correctly injected a great deal of cash into their systems. It is easy with hindsight to say that that was incorrect, but at the time we all believed that it was correct. That cash injection was highly inflationary. Germany, with a much more disciplined economy, brought its inflation under control much more rapidly than we did, and it started to drop deutschmark interest rates. However, Britain had shifted its focus from the Unites States dollar to the deutschmark, and to keep the sterling-deutschmark parity we also started to drop our interest rates. Economically, it was far too soon and inflation kicked up yet further and brought the Government under great strain. It even called into question the future of the Prime Minister. The "Thatcher factor" in the value of sterling should not be underestimated.
  The vital lesson of that example was that the interests of the deutschmark are not always or necessarily the same as the economic interests of the other member countries. While joining a deutschmark-dominated bloc may be seen as anti-inflationary on the surface, we must question whether that is true in terms of members' individual economies. The answer is far from clear and can often lead to an inflationary impetus in a domestic economy within the EEC. The ERM is certainly no panacea for sterling or the United Kingdom economy.
  European monetary union is the ultimate surrender of sovereignty. History shows that the old Saxon capital of England, Winchester, was taken over by the Normans in 1066 or thereabouts. Winchester and London were then the joint capitals of England. When the Treasury and the mint were moved from Winchester to London in 1240,
  344
  London became the undisputed capital. There is a lesson in that, because where the mint, the Treasury and the money go is where sovereignty goes.
  At this time of uncertainty, we must question how much sovereignty we should yield, particularly as European monetary union is based not on gold, which is supranational, but on paper currencies, which are geared to politics and over which politicians have influence. There is not even a single European market, let alone a single European economy, and paper currencies tend to reflect the political aspects of economies. Before we reach that stage, is it wise to contemplate moving to a single European currency?
  The deutschmark is strong and reflects an extremely strong German economy. If the economies of less competitive nations of the EEC are exposed to the full gale of German economic competition in one sudden blast, many companies, even entire industries, will be blown away, causing massive unemployment in some regions, and Britain will become a region. There could be massive unemployment and much suffering. It is in the interests of member states to bide their time not only to allow members to grow more competitive but to adjust our economies. In other words, we need an economic shield, an economic greenhouse, such as we use for young plants. The Government discriminate quite heavily in favour of small and new businesses in terms of employment legislation and tax, and we should do that in Europe. We need time to allow for the evolution of European currency and to avoid European currency revolution.
  We are at a crossroads in Europe. We face the options of an EEC of sovereign nations, a federal state or a state dominated by a single country. We are an amalgam of widely disparate economies reflecting different strengths and weaknesses, and until the disparity of EEC nations is resolved we should avoid any sudden or abrupt move to a single currency.
  The EEC is young, it is not yet a single market and it is facing uncertainty. It needs time to develop, by evolution rather than revolution. At the same time, there is pressure to do something because, if Governments do not do so, the grass roots may take the initiative and select their own single currency, which is likely to be the deutschmark.
  The British proposal for evolution based on the hard ecu is good. It is non-inflationary and I particularly welcome the buy-back provisions for the central banks. It allows time for EEC members to adjust to the international competition of a single market and to harmonise or converge their economies in the single market of 1992. It will allow for politically humane economic adjustment within EEC countries and it offers the flexibility which any prudent person or banker would demand when facing an era of such change and uncertainty. Most important, it is in the best interests of Europe in general.
  The British proposal should be adopted by all EEC members and I wish my right hon. Friend the Chancellor good luck in persuading his colleagues in the EEC to adopt it.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: I shall make an astounding revelation for tomorrow's Financial Times by saying when interest rates will change. There will be a full 1 per cent. cut at 3.30 pm on Thursday 11 October, and it will be announced at the Conservative party conference.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: That is my birthday.
  Mr. Ashton: Mine is the day before, and it is the Prime Minister's two days afterwards, when she will be 65 and ready for the old-age pension.
  It will be announced then because the only economic plan is to get the Tories elected at every election and it does not matter a damn what happens in between. If they have their eyes set on October next year, they will try to reduce interest rates by 5 per cent. between this October and next October to give them a chance in the general election. I think that they have left it too late and that they will have to wait until 1992, but that is obviously their plan. Let us not hear any nonsense from Conservative Members; the Government are rigging the economy.
  That put us in the mess that we are in now. Immense numbers of credit cards were given out in 1985 and 1986 to get the Tories elected in 1987. Anyone, whether they were unemployed, had tuppence in the bank, could not read or write or had a long history of bad hire purchase payments, was allowed to walk into Debenhams, Marks and Spencer or Rackhams and take on a credit card.
  Newspapers sent 17 and 18-year-olds to see how much they could borrow. They bought £10,000-worth of high-fashion clothes, and that was all geared to the Tories winning the 1987 election. Industries were sold off, British Gas was sold to Sid, who never bought a share in his life, and we were allowed to believe that he was becoming rich. People were allowed to take on massive mortgages until it all collapsed.
  What happened when we were younger? There was no such thing as a credit card, but we had normal, old-fashioned hire purchase. You could not borrow more than a certain amount of your wages and had to pay a deposit to show that you had cash to start off with. It was paid back over two years a little bit at a time, and you could not get one thing without paying for the first. If you wanted a fridge, you had to wait until you had paid off the carpet. That system discouraged people from getting into debt.
  When I bought my first house, I could borrow two and a half times my annual income and had to have 10 per cent. to put down. That worked, house prices increased with wages and we did not have a rocketing boom as in 1986 and 1987. People could afford to buy a place to live.
  What happened? The Tories removed controls in 1986 and people were allowed to borrow £50,000 or £60,000 when they were earning only £10,000. The two-and-halftimes annual income limit for borrowing on mortgage went through the window. People were allowed to borrow three, four or five times their annual income. No wonder house prices rocketed.
  I shall reveal another secret of the universe. Everybody wants to know the magic moment in time when house prices take off. It is about three months after the Prime Minister buys one. If hon. Members want to buy a house and see its price double, they should wait until the Prime Minister buys one. They all do it. Harold Wilson bought
  346
  one in 1969, Denis Healey bought one in 1977, the Prime Minister bought one in 1985 and within months prices rocketed.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
  Mr. Ashton: I am sorry; I am limited for time.
  The Tories are always attacking the Labour party for the inflation of the mid-1970s. That inflation was caused not by the Labour party but by oil prices, and they know it. They kept on blaming the Labour Government until it stuck in people's minds. The Arabs fought the Israelis, the price of oil trebled and it caused inflation in every country in the civilised world. It was not just the Labour Government. We reacted to that inflation with the co-operation of the unions and with an incomes policy until we reduced inflation from 25 per cent. to 8 per cent.
  The Government cannot blame other countries, because we have had the benefit of oil. Inflation, which is much higher than in other countries in Europe, must have been caused by the Government. It was caused in 1985, 1986 and 1987 by indiscriminate borrowing from anyone, for anything, at any interest rate. Gullible people borrowed.
  Many people were encouraged to buy their council house. I am not knocking that, because the authorities in Bassetlaw sold council houses long before the Tories thought of it. Many people paid £6,000 for a house worth £20,000, but then the loan sharks came knocking on their door, asking, "Do you realise that your house is worth £20,000 and that you owe only £6,000 on it? Why don't you borrow with an additional loan?"
  Cedar Holdings used that approach on many people in mining areas who bought National Coal Board houses. Some gullible people thought that they could borrow £2,000 or £3,000 and that it did not matter if they could not pay it back. They thought that, somehow, the difference between the £6,000 and the £20,000 would be reduced a little. They thought that they could not be turned out of their house. Many families were turned out of their houses because they did not realise that they had to make repayments each month to Cedar Holdings and similar companies.
  There was a Niagara of debt. Obviously, such a debt will mean that more people will demand bigger wage rises, especially given the massive profits made even today by many firms. The Government complain about inflation, but they do nothing about bringing down prices and controlling inflation. They do nothing to alter the rate of VAT. Why is there a flat rate of 15 per cent? Why do not the Government cut the VAT on British fish and chips to 4 per cent. and increase the VAT on Japanese microwaves to 25 per cent? In that way, we might save a few jobs. That might be a better way of functioning. I offer those ideas because new thinking is needed, and nothing comes from the Government.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Conal Gregory: We have the opportunity of an important, wide-ranging debate on the economy. It might be prudent at the beginning of my short speech to remind ourselves of the economic indicators which have been the success of our strategy.
  Britain has had some eight years of sustained economic growth, averaging over 3 per cent.—a period unmatched since the second world war. The growth rate in the United

  347
  Kingdom has been faster than that in France, West Germany and Italy. In the 1960s and 1970s, Britain was at the bottom of the growth league of the major European states.
  The average family of a husband, wife and two children have seen the real value of take-home pay increased by one third under the Conservative Administration. Under Labour, there was an increase of 0·6 per cent. That is not a comparison which I should like to take with me into the next general election if I were a Labour parliamentary candidate. Fortunately, I shall not do so, because I shall be proud of our record. Industry is more effective and more competitive than ever. Manufacturing productivity has increased by 60 per cent. In the three months to May there was an increase in production of 1·5 per cent. on the previous three months.
  Any hon. Member can see that, with such a catalogue of success, a prosperous economy is necessary to ensure investment in British Rail, which is the highest for 29 years; an increase of more than 60 per cent. in road building, after allowing for inflation; almost 350 major hospital schemes finished since 1979; and a real-terms increase of almost one quarter in benefits for the family. An expanding economy needs innovation and new companies. I praise the net increase in business start-ups. Between the end of 1981 and the end of 1988, business start-ups exceeded stops by 238,000, with an average net business start-up of 1,600 each month last year. What a contrast with the Labour party.
  The Labour party's policy document "Looking to the Future", which in many ways is a misnomer, as it looks to the past, contains 81 spending commitments. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is not in the House at present, gave another major commitment today, making it 82. Even allowing for the 81 commitments, Midland Montagu has calculated that Labour's pledges will cost £50 billion—equivalent to doubling the basic rate of income tax. That is the message from this debate, apart from the great address by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. That is a scandalous amount, as I hope the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will confirm.
  There are two taxes about which the ordinary man or woman must be concerned. The first is Labour's savings tax, which would penalise the thrifty. It would be levied on the investment of anyone who has more than £3,000 in a piggy bank, or £5,000 a year for pensioners. The second is Labour's jobs tax, which would be a cost on the payroll. It would punish British industry and increase unemployment. Fixed capital expenditure in my region of Yorkshire and Humberside increased from £346 million in 1979 to more than £606 million by 1987. Private sector manufacturing investment increased by £1,981 million in 1979, when we took over from Labour maladministration, to £3,288 million in 1987—staggering figures.
  We should nail four Labour myths, the first of which is that rising inflation shows that the supply side of the economy is in poor shape. In fact, inflation and the trade deficit are symptoms of excess growth in demand. British industry is now more efficient, and is producing and exporting more than ever before. As John Banham of the CBI said:
  348
  "We enter the 1990s with the supply side of the British economy in incomparably better shape than at any time in our history."
  The second myth is that credit controls are the best way to curb inflation. We frequently hear that statement made by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Credit controls could easily be avoided by borrowing overseas. To be effective, they would have to cover 85 per cent. of all borrowings in the form of mortgages. In the 1970s, credit controls failed to prevent inflation reaching Labour's figure of 27 per cent.
  The third myth is that Britain has under-invested. British investment has risen faster than investment in the other European countries to which I referred earlier.
  The fourth myth is that British industry cannot compete in world markets. Britain exports more per head of population than Japan. In the 1980s, Britain held on to its share of world markets after decades of decline. Over the three months to March, exports rose by 6 per cent. compared with a year earlier, while imports rose by just 2 per cent.
  How can one understand a leader of a major party who says that 14 out of 15 taxpayers would not have to pay more under Labour? I am, of course, referring to the Leader of the Opposition. He meant, being sloppy in his language, that 14 out of 15 basic rate taxpayers would not have to pay more. The 1981 pledges will mean that everyone will have to pay more. He referred to social security pledges of £2 billion, but he meant £3·3 billion.
  Labour is as hostile as ever to denationalisation. Labour is still wedded to clause four of its constitution which its marketing jargon now describes as "social ownership". Does Labour really believe that it will take back British Airways—which, 10 years ago, was rated lower than Romania Airlines—British Telecom, the British Airports Authority and National Freight? Am I going to go back to the constituents of York and say to those employed in British Rail Engineering Ltd., in station catering and Travellers Fare, in British Gas and Yorkshire Water that their profit in the future will be taken from them and that we will face the socialist threat to reimpose the dead hand of the state?
  The message is stark. Labour mismanaged the economy. Its proposals make no sense. The right way forward is Conservative control of the economy and our vision of a country in which the individual has freedom and in which investment comes through enterprise.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Stuart Randall: The only thing that I have in common with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) is the county area that we both represent. I think that his perception of how well the economy is being managed by the Government is extraordinary.
  The motion before us is a good motion. It is accurate in the way in which it refers to the "mismanagement of the economy" and the "quality of life", and says that we need more innovation as well as regional policy.
  To obtain a reasonable measure of the Government's performance in handling the economy, one should talk to business people. I regularly do that, and I know that they are all fed up with the Government. They are people who have traditionally always supported the Government, but I now find that, certainly in Hull—
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): Labour win!
  Mr. Randall: That is for sure. If a Tory were to be elected in Hull, I think that he would be lynched and hung from a lamp post. The business people of Hull are waving a red light: they are saying that they are not happy with the way in which the Government are managing the economy, especially the way in which they are dismally failing to come up with a policy to provide industry in our region with the right skills and education to ensure that we can be innovative.
  Hull contains a number of hi-tech companies, notably Kingston Communications. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I have discussed this topic in the past; we are very proud of the way in which that company has brought high technology into our area. I would like similar companies to come to our region, but that will not happen unless there is a good skilled work force.
  I wish to discuss the motion in the context not solely of my constituency and its region, but also within that of the EC. No one would dispute the fact that our performance, compared with Germany's in particular, is nothing short of abysmal. Our balance of payments and balance of trade, and all the major economic indicators, are remarkable. They augur badly for Britain in the 1990s, unless the British economy is fundamentally reshaped to mould it into a form that will make our industry innovative and competitive—and, above all, equipped with the appropriate skilled people.
  Terrific neglect has resulted from the Government's "hands off" ideology, and their view that we should not intervene in industry. The Department of Trade and Industry is now a shell organisation with no role to play. I believe that Government should manage their affairs to help industry to perform effectively. That light touch could remove many of the bottlenecks that are currently inhibiting the performance of the British economy and British industry in comparison with our European competitors. Until we do that, the quality of life of the British people will deteriorate. The gap between rich and poor has already widened since the Government came to power, and I condemn that totally: it is not something we should be proud of.
  Over the weekend, I discovered that 400 eye operations will no longer be carried out in my constituency, because of the poor performance of the national health service. To enter an eye clinic in my district health authority, one must now wait for 10 to 12 months. In our region, the performance of the economy is crucial to ensure that industry generates the wealth that will enable us to provide the services that are necessary to secure an effective and efficient public sector that will improve the quality of life of the people of Britain. That is what we are after.
  The motion that my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled today encapsulates many of our concerns about the way in which the Government have miserably mismanaged the economy of Britain.
  6.35 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: It is just two years since, in July 1988, the rhetoric of the economic miracle—used so much by the Government—was at its height. Those were halcyon days, when inflation was running at 4·6 per cent., interest rates were at 10·5 per cent. and the balance of payments was heading for what was
  350
  then thought to be a worrying deficit of some £12 billion at an annual rate. In those days, it was within memory that the Government had been talking of achieving nil inflation, repaying the national debt and other grandiose schemes.
  Even as recently as July 1989, there was still optimism. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) pointed out, the problems were said to represent a mere blip. Inflation was then running at 8·3 per cent. and interest rates at 14 per cent., and the balance of payments was heading for an even more worrying annual deficit—then expected to be some £18 billion, although the outturn was worse than that.
  Today, when the Government have been in power for 11 long years, we have before us the record of their economic policy as it now stands: headline inflation at 9·8 per cent., interest rates at 15 per cent., mortgage rates at their highest ever and a balance of payments that is again heading for a yearly rate of some £18 billion—although, so far this year, the outturn has been worse than it was for the same period last year. Yet the Government still want us to believe that those are temporary difficulties, because we have had an economic miracle.
  Certainly, the events that have passed before our bewildered eyes have been, if not miraculous, "wonderful"—in the sense that they are full of wonder. We have seen the squandering of what—in today's terms—would be £91 billion of income from the North sea. We have seen the disappearance—with nothing but three election victories to show for it—of the proceeds of the sale of the family silver. Speaking from memory, I think that that is about £40 billion or £50 billion of taxpayers' money lost. We have seen about £20 billion of savings made at the expense of pensioners, with total savings nearer £30 billion if we take account of other social security cuts. The Government have cut earnings-related benefits, while not just retaining but increasing earnings-related national insurance contributions.
  In those and a variety of other ways, there has been a substantial movement of substantial resources. What have we to show for it? We have a worse-trained work force than any of our major competitors, one of the poorest records in research and development and in investment and one of the most rundown systems of transport—and one of the most uncaring, unthinking, unlistening and arrogant Governments we have ever had. The Government have been re-elected three times through the ruthless manipulation of resources that should have been used to secure the future of the country, but instead have been used to try to secure the future of the Conservative party. If I may paraphrase John Fitzgerald Kennedy "ask not what you can do for your country—ask what your country can do for you."
  We have also seen a decline in the Government's probity. The Secretary of State for Health spends as much—for the second time—on propaganda to sell his health service reforms as he is prepared to spend on a drug abuse programme that was saved from the cancellation of the community care programme. What sort of a sense of priorities is that? The Government have repeatedly sold off public assets at knockdown prices, to the benefit of their friends—for "friends", of course, read "large contributors to Tory party funds".
  The fruits of growth have been steadily diverted into the pockets of the wealthy; but there has still been an overall increase in the tax burden. A two-child family on average

  351
  earnings is £300 a year worse off when against their income tax cuts are set the increases in national insurance contributions and value added tax. That is the other side of the coin. That is without the costs of a mortgage, the poll tax, electricity, gas, water and fares, and all the things that have made such a family between £11 and £34 a week worse off under this Government.
  What about the future? Well, we heard very little about that from the Chancellor. Over the lifetime of this Government, there has been no serious investment in the future, and none is planned now. In fact, further cuts are planned, for example in the training budget, the importance of which is universally acknowledged—universally, that is, except among the ranks of the Government.
  Unfortunately for the Government, the future stops at the next general election. The factors which interest the Government about the future involve the level of mortgage interest rates, the level of inflation and, to a lesser extent, the balance of payments. There has been much talk lately—we have heard a little tonight—about the inadequacies of our measurement of inflation through the retail prices index. Of course, we have heard that before; the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) invented the new tax and prices index, only to discard it when it inconsiderately started to show higher levels than the retail prices index.
  Over recent months, as the RPI has slowly but inexorably risen, we have been told that what really matters is not the headline rate of inflation but the underlying rate once mortgage costs have been stripped out. We were told that that is a better approximation to the way in which the rest of the European Community measures inflation. Indeed, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) repeated that today.
  As a matter of fact, that is not really true. Other members of the European Community include measures of housing costs in the way in which they measure inflation. A number of studies recently into how they measure inflation have revealed the differences between the way we do it and the way they do it. However, the sad fact is that it does not matter how we measure inflation: once any measure of housing costs is included, our inflation is still many points ahead of our competitors.
  The Government's measure of the underlying rate of inflation, which they have been talking about for so long, simply left out the cost of mortgages. Unfortunately, that figure is rising as well. Last month, it was 8·1 per cent., and that was the highest rate for eight years. Therefore, last month the Government redefined the underlying rates of inflation. This time they left out the poll tax cost as well as mortgage costs. That gave a figure of 6·9 per cent., but unfortunately that was still three points above the ERM average for inflation.
  Now we know what the Government mean when they say that they will bring inflation down no matter what it takes. They mean that they will do that no matter what they have to take out of the index to make inflation appear to come down. Inflation, like unemployment, can be as high as it likes. This is a resolute Government; we all remember their resolute approach. The Government had to change the unemployment statistics 30 times to get them
  352
  down to a reasonable level, and if they have to change the inflation statistics 30 times to get inflation down to a reasonable level, they will do so. They are not afraid.
  I can offer the Government a new index. They desperately need a new one, because they are not doing very well with the one they have. I suggest that they have an index which I call the NBG index—the "not by Government" index. That index would enable the Government to leave out what the Governor of the Bank of England has called the administered price rises, which he correctly identified as directly due to political decisions.
  The Government are already leaving out mortgage interest rates and the poll tax. If they adopt my index and deal with inflation as it is not influenced by the Government, they can leave out the cost of the electricity price increases which they forced through as a result of privatisation. They can also leave out gas price increases and the fare increases upon which they insisted. They can also leave out the rent increases which they insisted upon. They would then have a very low inflation figure.
  Why are the Government so anxious to get the figures down? Whatever they leave out of the index, people cannot leave those things out of the household bills which they must pay. We all know how good the Government are at selling their case. Although all this sounds good, any changes to the figures can have only a limited impact while people must still pay their bills.
  Of course, the figures matter for two reasons related to entry into the exchange rate mechanism and to the election. The first reason is that they are part of the Madrid conditions that inflation must be lower. When the Madrid conditions were set, inflation was at 8·3 per cent. and the underlying rate was 5·9 per cent. Far from getting nearer to the Madrid conditions, we are actually moving away from them. The gap between the ERM average level of inflation and our own is the widest that it has been for a decade.
  Secondly, the inflation figures are also important because of the Chancellor's definition that inflation in this country must be proximate to that of our ERM fellows for us to enter the mechanism. Whenever we have asked the Chancellor to define "proximate", he has said that it means what it says. I think that it was the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll's books who said that something meant whatever she wanted it to mean. That is an excellent definition of "proximate" as the Chancellor uses it.
  It is not the record, but the forecast for inflation, interest rates and the balance of payments that so worries the Government and makes them so eager to secure entry to the exchange rate mechanism sooner rather than later. We have heard much lately of the golden scenario, in which the rate of inflation, interest rates and the balance of payments deficit all come down. That was scheduled for the spring and summer of 1991. Unfortunately, the one-club golfing has been slow to take effect. Interest rates have been used as the mechanism since 1988, and the window in which the golden scenario is to occur has been receding steadily—from the summer of 1991 towards the autumn of 1991 and perhaps to the spring of 1992.
  Horror of horrors, that will never do. The Government need that window of six months when things are improving to manipulate things for the election so that they can convince the general public that things are looking good for longer than just the period of the election. It must all be carefuly timed. Entry into the ERM is necessary to bring the figures within the proper scope

  353
  before the Government can hold the election. Of course, the nature of the improvement in the figures is causing the Government so much concern.
  The universal prediction is that the improvement in inflation, in interest rates and in the balance of payments, will be temporary and that the improvement will last at the most six or perhaps nine months. As soon as the squeeze has been lifted, gradually and steadily things will deteriorate again.
  In essence, we are on a roller coaster. We are on the long steep slope and we are gradually approaching the top. We will then run at roughly the same level for a little while and then, as the excessive mortgage increases and the poll tax figures are taken out of the main figure, inflation will fall dramatically. However, having done that, it will start slowly but inexorably to rise once more.
  After the election, the people and the Government will face some harsh choices. I have a very interesting question for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and it is one which people continually ask. The Government in power will face harsh choices. The Chancellor says that the Conservatives will be in power. What are the Conservatives planning? We have said that we believe in prudent control of spending. We have set out the need for investment and we have said what we think the needs are.
  What are the Government's plans? Are they still in favour of income tax cuts? If so, how much will they cut public expenditure to go with it? Where will the cuts fall? Will they fall on training, transport, education or health? We want to know what the Government are promising after the next election.
  That is the truth that the Government seek to hide from the electorate. The Government have mismanaged the economy. They know it, we know it and the country knows it.
  6.48 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): The surprising thing is not that we are having this debate but that we did not have it some weeks ago. With some less than brilliant economic indicators, we might have thought that we would have a full-scale economic debate, not a half day just at the end of the Session. We would have thought that such a debate would be led by the alternative Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, who does not seem to want to speak on the economy these days. That is not very surprising after his disastrous appearance on "Panorama", explaining the Labour party's tax policy.
  We have heard a certain amount from hon. Members and from the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about competence. Of course, "competence" is not a word which comes naturally to mind when one thinks of the Labour party, either out of office or in office. Competence, for all his endearing features and fine qualities, is not the Leader of the Opposition's strongest suit. Was it competence when the Leader of the Opposition made his remarks about 14 out of 15 working taxpayers, and the shadow Chancellor had to rush out a statement correcting his leader? One could almost hear the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) saying, as Hardy used to say to Laurel, "That's another fine mess you've gotten us into."
  We have heard much in recent debates and in Treasury questions about the Government's errors in forecasting.
  354
  Of course, forecasting always involves judgments about human behaviour. Will people borrow more? Will they save less? If they run down their savings, at what rate will that happen, and how quickly will it feed into consumer spending?
  I discovered that there is an infallible guide to the future. We would have done very well if we had got rid of our statisticians and the Treasury model. We should have relied on the predictions of the Labour party. What the Labour party says will happen is always a good guide to what will not happen. In fact, going right back to the early 1980s, Labour Members have an infallible record of forecasting. There is practically not a single year in which they have not got it precisely wrong. We would have done very well just to follow the opposite of their advice right from the early 1980s.
  In 1981, they sided with the 364 economists—recovery was just not going to happen; it was impossible. In May 1983, the shadow Chancellor said that inflation would go into double figures. A year later it was 5·1 per cent. In November 1984, the shadow Chancellor forecast a slump. In 1985, we grew faster than any other major European country. In October 1986, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) predicted that unemployment could not fall. Since then, unemployment has halved. At the time of the stock market crash, the Leader of the Opposition told us that we should cut interest rates further than we did. If we had followed that advice, inflation today would be far worse.
  I criticise the right hon. Gentleman not just for his judgment but for pretending on "Panorama" that that was not actually what he said. To call his words on "Panorama" incompetent is perhaps the politest thing that one can say about them.
  Opposition Members have put their case—we have had high interest rates, high inflation and a large current account deficit. As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) said, we should note the selectivity of the statistics and the indicators. Opposition Members do not tell us that we have had the fastest growth rate of any major EC country in the past decade. They do not tell us that we have had the fastest growth of total investment of any major country other than Japan. They do not tell us that we have had the highest level of profitability in British commerce since the 1960s. They do not tell us that our level of unemployment today is well below the EEC average. They do not tell us that this year we have had the lowest number of stoppages in industrial relations for 35 years.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a number of comparisons with Germany—one was misleading and one was incorrect. On the misleading one, the right hon. Gentleman told us that, this year, output growth would be less in this country than in Germany. That is true on a one-year basis, but it is not true if we look— [Interruption.] Opposition Members scoff. In six out of the past 10 years, German output growth was below ours. They did not tell us then, "You are doing very well compared with Germany." The right hon. Gentleman got it totally wrong. In the 1980s, output in the United Kingdom grew by 2·7 per cent. per annum compared with 2 per cent. per annum in Germany. The right hon. Gentleman did not get it right, and in another respect was misleading.
  Of course inflation is too high—far too high. After all, our present rate of inflation, which we hope is about to

  355
  peak, is about two thirds the average rate that was achieved under the previous Labour Government. Two thirds of the average rate under the previous Labour Government is far too high for us.
  We might take the Opposition's criticisms of the rate of inflation more seriously if they had acknowledged some of our success in getting down inflation over the past decade. Since 1983 the differential of inflation between this country and the EEC has actually narrowed. We do not hear a word from the Opposition about that. We might take them a bit more seriously on inflation if they had not actually elected as deputy leader of their party a man who had the grand title of Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when inflation rose to more than 26 per cent. They pretend to care about inflation, but their spending plans show that they are merely arsonists dressed up in firemen's uniforms.
  We might take Opposition Members more seriously if the Leader of the Opposition did not keep telling us that the way in which to deal with inflation is to increase spending and to cut interest rates. To do the right hon. Gentleman justice, when he says "cut interest rates", he does not mean some time in the future, he means now. Of course, to cut interest rates now would have a cosmetic effect on the retail prices index. But that would be at the cost of setting off another surge of borrowing. Just when inflation is coming under control, it would inflate house prices and set off consumer spending yet again. The position of the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party on inflation is incredible. I find it incredible, but, as P. G. Wodehouse used to say, there are limits to every man's imagination.
  Despite the Leader of the Opposition's gaffes, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has been trying his best in the City to tell us that Labour has changed. He promises us prudent control over public spending, but for years he has been telling us and the nation that we should spend billions more on hospitals, schools, roads, training and education. For years he has been accusing us of being miserly with education and social spending. For years the Opposition have been encouraging public sector workers to seek the moon in pay settlements. For years they have been encouraging Labour councils to spend more, more and more. The truth was told us by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We know that he does not represent only the beastly tendency in the Labour party. During Treasury questions, he shouted, "Just because we haven't got any money doesn't mean we won't spend it." He speaks more truthfully than Opposition Front-Bench Members.
  The Labour party has yet again relaunched its policy document. We have all been waiting to hear what the big idea is in that policy document. We now know what the big idea is. The big idea is our idea. Opposition Members are all in favour of the market. The Leader of the Opposition tells us that he favours market forces and competition and that he wants to take steps to make the market work. In the profile to the policy document, he said:
  "Helping to make the market work means creating the conditions for enterprises to be more successful, enabling them to take a greater market share at home."
  Ten years ago—was it the same man?—he said:
  356
  "The answer to the weakness, injustice and rottenness of capitalism is not more of the same. That is like trying to clean a wound with handfuls of filth."
  That is the language of the Leader of the Opposition. Can anybody really believe that anyone who said that about the market is really a convert to competition, open trade, free enterprise and the market system? We know that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind on the European Community and unilateral disarmament, but those words show what his convictions are and what he really thinks about the market system and free enterprise.
  Opposition Members are not convincing when they use phrases such as "the market". They do it because the intellectual case for, and the experience of, their political philosophy has collapsed throughout the world. They do not believe in it and we know it. They know themselves that they do not believe in it. The Labour party is an organised hypocrisy and we intend to expose it.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 309.

  Division No. 311]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Allen, Graham

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

  Alton, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Anderson, Donald

  Dixon, Don

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Doran, Frank

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Beith, A. J.

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bell, Stuart

  Fearn, Ronald

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

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

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fisher, Mark

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Flannery, Martin

  Blair, Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  Blunkett, David

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Boateng, Paul

  Foster, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Keith

  Fraser, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Buckley, George J.

  George, Bruce

  Caborn, Richard

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gould, Bryan

  Cartwright, John

  Graham, Thomas

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hardy, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cohen, Harry

  Haynes, Frank

  Coleman, Donald

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Doug

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Crowther, Stan

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  357

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Illsley, Eric

  Radice, Giles

  Janner, Greville

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Kennedy, Charles

  Richardson, Jo

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Robertson, George

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Lambie, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Lamond, James

  Rooker, Jeff

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leighton, Ron

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Terry

  Salmond, Alex

  Litherland, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Loyden, Eddie

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McAllion, John

  Short, Clare

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sillars, Jim

  McCartney, Ian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

  McKelvey, William

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Snape, Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Soley, Clive

  Madden, Max

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Marek, Dr John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Straw, Jack

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Turner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Vaz, Keith

  Meale, Alan

  Walley, Joan

  Michael, Alun

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Morley, Elliot

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wilson, Brian

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Winnick, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Nellist, Dave

  Worthington, Tony

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Parry, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Patchett, Terry

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. John Battle.

  Pike, Peter L.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Amos, Alan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Atkins, Robert

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Atkinson, David

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Baldry, Tony

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brazier, Julian

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bright, Graham

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

  Bellingham, Henry

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Benyon, W.

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Budgen, Nicholas

  358

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, John

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butler, Chris

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hill, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chope, Christopher

  Holt, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Hordern, Sir Peter

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Cran, James

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Critchley, Julian

  Jack, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Janman, Tim

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Kilfedder, James

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Durant, Tony

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Eggar, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Evennett, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Favell, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lord, Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  McCrindle, Robert

  French, Douglas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gale, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gardiner, George

  Maclean, David

  Gill, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Madel, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Maples, John

  Gorst, John

  Marland, Paul

  Gow, Ian

  Marlow, Tony

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gregory, Conal

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Grist, Ian

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Ground, Patrick

  Mills, Iain

  Grylls, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Roger

  359

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Speller, Tony

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Squire, Robin

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mudd, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stern, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stevens, Lewis

  Neubert, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Sumberg, David

  Norris, Steve

  Summerson, Hugo

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Paice, James

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Patnick, Irvine

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thorne, Neil

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Portillo, Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tracey, Richard

  Price, Sir David

  Tredinnick, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Trippier, David

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Redwood, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Riddick, Graham

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Walden, George

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Waller, Gary

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Ward, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rost, Peter

  Watts, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Ryder, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wilshire, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Shelton, Sir William

  Yeo, Tim

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shersby, Michael

  Sir George Young and

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 191.

  Divison No. 312]

  [7.18 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Amos, Alan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Benyon, W.

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Ashby, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkins, Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  Atkinson, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  360

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gregory, Conal

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Grist, Ian

  Bright, Graham

  Ground, Patrick

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

  Grylls, Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hague, William

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hannam, John

  Budgen, Nicholas

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

  Burns, Simon

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butler, Chris

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Cash, William

  Hill, James

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hind, Kenneth

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Holt, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

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

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cormack, Patrick

  Irvine, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

  Critchley, Julian

  Janman, Tim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jessel, Toby

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

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kilfedder, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dover, Den

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Tony

  Knapman, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knox, David

  Evennett, David

  Lament, Rt Hon Norman

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Fallen, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Favell, Tony

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lilley, Peter

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lord, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Forth, Eric

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Freeman, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, David

  Gale, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gardiner, George

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Madel, David

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Malins, Humfrey

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mans, Keith

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maples, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marland, Paul

  Gorst, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Gow, Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  361

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Sims, Roger

  Mills, Iain

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Speller, Tony

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Spicer, Sir James (Dorset W)

  Moate, Roger

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Squire, Robin

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Steen, Anthony

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Stern, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stevens, Lewis

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Neubert, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Sumberg, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Paice, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thorne, Neil

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tracey, Richard

  Portillo, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trippier, David

  Price, Sir David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Raffan, Keith

  Viggers, Peter

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Redwood, John

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Walden, George

  Riddick, Graham

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Waller, Gary

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Ward, John

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Watts, John

  Rost, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Ryder, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wolfson, Mark

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Yeo, Tim

  Shelton, Sir William

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Sir George Young and

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

  Buckley, George J.

  Anderson, Donald

  Caborn, Richard

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Beith, A. J.

  Clelland, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cohen, Harry

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

  Coleman, Donald

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Blair, Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Blunkett, David

  Crowther, Stan

  Boateng, Paul

  Cryer, Bob

  Boyes, Roland

  Cummings, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Darling, Alistair

  362

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dewar, Donald

  Martlew, Eric

  Dixon, Don

  Meacher, Michael

  Dobson, Frank

  Meale, Alan

  Doran, Frank

  Michael, Alun

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Fearn, Ronald

  Murphy, Paul

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Nellist, Dave

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

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Fisher, Mark

  O'Brien, William

  Flannery, Martin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Parry, Robert

  Foster, Derek

  Patchett, Terry

  Foulkes, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Fraser, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Prescott, John

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Radice, Giles

  George, Bruce

  Randall, Stuart

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Redmond, Martin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Gordon, Mildred

  Richardson, Jo

  Gould, Bryan

  Robertson, George

  Graham, Thomas

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Grocott, Bruce

  Rogers, Allan

  Hardy, Peter

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Haynes, Frank

  Rowlands, Ted

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Ruddock, Joan

  Henderson, Doug

  Salmond, Alex

  Hinchliffe, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hood, Jimmy

  Short, Clare

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Sillars, Jim

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hoyle, Doug

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Snape, Peter

  Illsley, Eric

  Spearing, Nigel

  Janner, Greville

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Stott, Roger

  Kennedy, Charles

  Straw, Jack

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Turner, Dennis

  Lambie, David

  Vaz, Keith

  Lamond, James

  Walley, Joan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Leighton, Ron

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Lewis, Terry

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Litherland, Robert

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McAllion, John

  Winnick, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  McCartney, Ian

  Worthington, Tony

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Wray, Jimmy

  McKelvey, William

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  McNamara, Kevin

  McWilliam, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Madden, Max

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mr. John Battle.

  Marek, Dr John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the improvement in economic performance over the last 10 years, with the United Kingdom's growth of output, manufacturing productivity, employment and investment since 1980 exceeding that of almost any other major European Community country; and endorses the priority the Government attaches to reducing inflation, in order to safeguard and build on these achievements.
  7.31 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your attention will not yet have been drawn to the tragedy in South Armagh this afternoon when three members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, serving the community, and a Sister of Mercy were done to death in a bomb explosion allegedly caused by the IRA. I believe that the House will join me in paying tribute and extending sympathy to the families bereaved and at the same time suggesting that investigative journalists might do a better job for the community if they exposed the perpetrators of such crimes instead of disguising them.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I extend my sympathy and that of the people whom I represent to the relatives of the three police officers and the nun who were brutally murdered this afternoon. The one message from this House and from Northern Ireland is clear—that decent people everywhere, regardless of religion, condemn those murderers.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not aware, until the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) spoke, of the events of this afternoon, and I should like to say, on behalf of the Government, how much we regret the senseless and apparently ceaseless murders, and to offer our warmest sympathy to the bereaved and their families.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was in Dublin this afternoon talking to members of the Dail and I know that they will join this House in condemning what has taken place. It is outrageous and must be opposed.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who not only speaks for the party but is our spokesman on Northern Ireland, had to leave early and he asked me to associate him and our party with the sympathies of hon. Members from Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sure that what has been said will be felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and thank the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for having raised the point of order with me.

  London Underground Bill (By Order)
  [Relevant document; Third Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) of Session 1989–90, New Parliamentary Building (Phase 2) and the Jubilee Line Proposals (HC334).]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [12 July], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question again proposed.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has already selected the instruction standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He has now selected the instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). Mr. Simon Hughes had the Floor.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: In the last sentence recorded in Hansard in the debate on 12 July I say that other hon. Members wish to speak. I understand that, with the passage of time, that is still the case, so as I have told the Minister, I shall be brief and conclude my remarks and allow other hon. Members to do just that.
  It is 12 days since we last debated this matter and that is a long time in politics. Some people who were here yesterday are gone today. I am happy that the Minister for Public Transport remains the same as yesterday. I do not know about for ever. I am sure that he would not wish that himself. But I am glad to see that our proceedings have not been further disrupted by any change on the Front Bench in this debate and higher up in the same Department.
  I have not had a chance to check the precedents, but it struck me as amazing that the Bill came back so quickly. Private Bills sometimes take a long time to return. I just observe—it may be an appropriate metaphor for the debate—that there can be wheels within wheels when matters are thought important enough.
  Two points were made in our debate 12 days ago. The first, made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, was about the effect of the Jubilee line on and around Westminster. The second, made particularly by Members from docklands and detailed in the instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and other dockland Members which was selected, was about the effect that the Jubilee line would have south of the river and in docklands.
  For many of us, and I think for the majority of people, the second is the more important issue. Without in any way wanting to interfere with or alter the effect of the contributions made so far and to be made by many hon. Members about the effect on Westminster, when the history of the proposal comes to be written we will see that the great issue was whether the Jubilee line should be extended to become a community line or a developers' line. I think that the Minister and others agree with that.
  Since our previous debate, in the light of publicity and reports of the debate, I have received some unsolicited correspondence, as, I understand, has the Minister. I shall quote one or two letters to confirm that it is not just those of us with a vested interest—although being an elected

  365
  representative of the people is a pretty justifiable vested interest—who would argue for stations for local communities.
  I received a copy of the letter sent by the Jubilee and Bakerloo Line Users' Committee to the Secretary of State for Transport, a copy of which has also been received by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and others, about the Southwark and Bermondsey stations. It says:
  "On the matter of the proposed stations at Southwark and Bermondsey, we do most strongly represent that they be retained in the Bill. Though inclusion of Waterloo and London Bridge was the largest single factor in influencing us some seventeen months ago to propose the Westminster route (as against the Aldwych version—then the only one on offer), the second highest consideration was that it would serve areas of London that greatly warranted an Underground service. Inner Cities revival greatly relies on such provision. Our Line would be opened up to entirely fresh usage and thus make its contribution to the relief of congestion in London."
  The committee also wrote to me separately to say:
  "We very much support retention of Southwark and Bermondsey stations in the extension plans (as well as Canada Water)."
  I also received a letter from the British Property Federation headed "Transport Infrastructure" and dated 13 July. Its director general, Sir Peregrine Rhodes, said:
  "I note that you are campaigning to oppose any decision to omit stations at Southwark and Bermondsey on the proposed Jubilee Line extension. The British Property Federation has for some time been urging on the Government the need for immediate and decisive action to cope with the problems of transport infrastructure both in London and throughout the country. I thought that you would like a copy of the enclosed press release which we have just issued following a meeting of those associated with our initiative. You will see that there is specific reference to the point about Bermondsey and Southwark".
  I also have a press release dated 13 July, which I shall not cite in its entirety. This is from a federation representatives' meeting on 11 July, attended also by the City of London corporation, Westminster city council, the Confederation of British Industry, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Chartered Institute of Transport, the Westminster Property Owners Association and the Associated Owners of City Properties. It ends:
  "They were also concerned about reports that the Government are for short team reasons to abandon plans for the Bermondsey and Southwark stations on the proposed Jubilee Line extension. These stations would make a valuable contribution to the urgently needed urban regeneration in these deprived areas.
  Delay in coping with London's problems will create an image of London as outdated and failing to grasp the need to modernise existing systems."
  The letter continues in similar vein. The British Property Federation, as well as the users, came out clearly in favour of the two stations—about which there was some doubt—after our previous debate.
  One letter reflects that there was even internal lobbying among those professionally concerned. It would be improper for me to reveal the source, although I am happy to show the Minister the letter later. I had a letter from somebody who is involved in the process of getting the Bill round the circuit here who said that behind-the-scenes lobbying has been going on because people recognise the importance of the issue.
  have a copy of a more personal letter sent to the Secretary of State for Transport. Copies were sent to me and also to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who is a constituent of mine and who lives within walking distance of where Bermondsey station would be if it were
  366
  built. The letter is from a woman constituent who lives in Wrayburn House, which is a Southwark council block near the river in the middle of Bermondsey. She says:
  "Dear Mr. Parkinson,

  London Underground Bill (By Order)

    JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION
    I read with dismay the article published in the Times newspaper on Tuesday, 10 July 1990 revealing that the proposal to build two stations on the Jubilee Line extension at Southwark and Bermondsey may be dropped.
    As a daily commuter I regularly struggle the two miles from my home in Bermondsey to my place of work near St. Paul's. This journey, which usually involves the use of two buses, can take anything from forty minutes to an hour and a quarter—I can walk it in thirty-five minutes. You might ask why I then do not walk daily. This is because the route passes various men's hostels and poorly lit railway arches—mugging territory. A direct link by tube would put women's minds at ease.
    A radio news bulletin this morning stated that a recent report into road usage in London showed that it had increased significantly, marking a trend away from the use of public transport towards private cars. I should have thought that the new Jubilee Line extension, including the stations at Southwark and Bermondsey, was one way of enticing the public away from private car usage and onto public transport by giving them a better choice of travel facilities.
    I take exception to the opinion that the cost of these two stations cannot be justified on cost grounds because there are no associated property schemes. Surely public transport is just that—for the public. Both the sites for new stations are in highly residential areas. Bermondsey in particular has seen a spate of riverside development, which is poorly served by the current public transport infrastructure. Surely there is also the possibility that if proposals for these stations are confirmed then property developers may look favourably at these areas with a view to investment, especially as a new link would provide easy commuting to the West End, and the new industrial base in the Isle of Dogs.
    I do not think it is fair that the population of a basically older residential area should be penalised because of a lack of new money.
    I therefore urge you to put the considerations of the people before monetary considerations and proceed with the building of stations at Southwark and Bermondsey on the new Jubilee Line extension."
    I cite that letter in full because it contains a very ordinary request. It asks that public transport be provided where the public are, to make the whole of life—not just getting from A to B by an improved method of transport—better.
    The Minister said—I accept this—that the stations do not depend on private contributions. It is important that that is confirmed and I hope that the Minister will be able to do so. The Minister has also said that the money has been provided and that there would be no need to go to the Treasury for more. I hope that that, too, can be on the record. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) has confirmed that we are in any event to have substantial work sites in north Southwark at Ewer street and at Old Jamaica road whether we have the stations or not. We are to have the disbenefit irrespective of whether we have the benefit. That is all the more reason why we should have the benefit as well.
    One view is shared by all of us who are docklands Members and by the hon. Members who represent the City of Westminster, who also see a benefit for their constituents from stations at Southwark and at Bermondsey. Southwark especially would relieve the congestion from Green Park to Charing Cross. I hope that tonight the Minister will go as far as possible. I hope that he will say, "You can have your stations." He may not

    367
    quite be able to say that. However, I see my job as ensuring that the Bill does not reach its final stage unless we have our stations.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about supporting the instruction which he and some of my hon. Friends have signed. Does he recall that London Regional Transport has a statutory duty—little known and not always universally acclaimed—to co-ordinate transport in London? London Regional Transport is the promoter of the Bill. How can the Government, therefore, throw doubt on the question of funding when they, in legislation that they promoted, put the duty of deciding what co-operation should be on London Regional Transport? Is not that a point that the Committee might consider if the Bill receives a Second Reading?
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. Perhaps I am sometimes a bit unfair to Ministers in that this is not a Government Bill—as I shall no doubt shortly be told. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are whipped."] It is clear that the Government have an interest in the Bill, which is welcome even if hon. Members are whipped—which they deny. People certainly appear from strange places at the right moment, which seems to be more than coincidence. Just as some people regard you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the fount of all knowledge, I take the general view that in the public sense, the Government are the fount of all money. If they are persuaded, London Regional Transport will deliver the goods as well. The hon. Member for Newham, South is right to say that, formally, I should address my remarks to the hon. Member for Ilford, South so that, when he winds up, he can say, after the arguments of last week, that the case is even more persuasive than we had previously thought.
    We have had one bit of good news south of the river today. I suspect that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) will want to expand on this. We have heard that the Secretary of State for the Environment has not approved the developers' plans for county hall. I hope that tonight we shall have a second bit of good news and we shall hear from the Minister and the sponsors that, before the Bill gets much further, we shall have our stations in Southwark and in Bermondsey. When we hear that news, I will vote for the Bill. Until then, I reserve my judgment. I shall wait, hoping that we shall get the right answer, but threatening all sorts of mayhem if we do not.
    7.47 pm
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I sought to defer my remarks to the House when we debated the issue a week or so ago because certain important points had to be made. I have no doubt that more points will be made which may be addressed more appropriately by the sponsor of the Bill. However, it may be helpful to the House if I set out briefly some of the issues that should be addressed properly to the Government. I admire the eloquence of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in drawing his remarks to a close and taking 30 minutes to do so. I shall seek to address some of the points that he and other hon. Members raised.
    368
    I compliment my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) as the sponsors of the Bill. They work diligently. The House will not be surprised to learn that we strongly support the Bill. It is a private Bill, but on behalf of the taxpayer, the Government have provided more than £1 billion to ensure that the Jubilee line is built. I place on record our strong support for the Bill and I hope earnestly that it receives a Second Reading tonight.
    The Jubilee line is clearly needed. We know that passenger traffic on the London underground has increased significantly in recent years. It is 60 to 70 per cent. up in passenger miles travelled since 1982. The line will bring a welcome new service to docklands, where employment is forecast to rise by between 90,000 and 150,000 by the turn of the century—a significant increase. The line will also bring welcome benefits not only to south London—I shall say more about Southwark and Bermondsey later—but to east London.
    The instruction of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is in accord with the sentiments that I express—that we wish to see economic and social benefits brought not only to south London but to east London by this line. The hon. Gentleman and I would not be at odds on that score.
    The line will open up docklands to a wide catchment area, from the north and north-west on the Jubilee line from Baker Street and Green Park; from the west and south-west by interchanging from the District and Circle lines at Westminster; from the south-west counties via the Waterloo main line terminal, where it will provide access to Europe via the channel tunnel terminal—
    Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
    Mr. Freeman: I will give way shortly to my hon. Friend. I was about to refer to the area from Kent and south-east London on British Rail lines into London Bridge; and from the east and north-east on lines into Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street via Stratford and West Ham.
    Mr. Greenway: Is the Minister aware of concern in Westminster Abbey, for example, about the interchange being at Parliament square? There are strong suggestions that the fabric of the Abbey could be damaged by the interchange. It has been suggested that, while it might be more expensive to have the interchange located at St. James's Park, that should be faced by the developers. In other words, it would be better to have a more expensive interchange there than a cheaper one at Parliament square, where great institutions of that nature could be damaged.
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and, as the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) rightly said, the arguments for and against location at Westminster or at St. James's Park—or, indeed, continuing the tube line whence it cometh at the present time, which is Green Park to Charing Cross—should be examined properly in Committee so that the Committee and the House may be clearly convinced of the arguments.
    That is not a matter which the Government should address. The arguments have been set out in detail in the report of the Select Committee on House of Commons Services, having examined some of the advantages. The hon. Member for Ogmore and my hon. Friend the

    369
    Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) drew attention to the disruption to Parliament Square, and I shall come to that shortly.
    In addition to supporting the rapid growth in the docklands, the new line will relieve congestion on roads and the existing rail network, including the docklands light railway, will strengthen public transport links with BR lines at Waterloo and London Bridge, and improve accessibility in areas poorly served by public transport south of the Thames, and, in the east end, in Tower Hamlets and in Newham. So not just docklands will benefit. The benefits will be felt across London as a whole.
    A number of points have arisen which are properly addressed to the Government. The hon. Member for Newham, South asked questions about where the finance would come from and about the contribution by developers. I have said that £1 billion has been appropriately provided by the Government to construct the line. Olympia and York will contribute £100 million in the next three years—that is, payments in April 1992 and April 1993 and a further £300 million in subsequent years—towards the construction of the line. Further, British Gas is to contribute £25 million in cash and benefit for a station to be constructed on the Greenwich peninsula.
    Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Minister clarify the contribution from Olympia and York? He mentioned £100 million, which I understood him to say he would get soon. When does he expect to get that? When will the other £300 million be paid?
    Mr. Freeman: I am sorry if I did not make the position clear. The position is that £40 million is payable on 1 April 1992, £60 million on 1 April 1993—that is, £100 million in the next three years—and the balance, £300 million, is spread in relatively small payments over 10 to 15 years thereafter. I think that the facts are on record, but if the hon. Gentleman tables a question, I shall be pleased to spell out precisely—I do not have the figures in my head—the payments and the time scale.
    Mr. Spearing rose—
    Mr. Freeman: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
    The hon. Member for Newham, South then asked from where the public moneys would come, and he mentioned that he had heard it referred to as a contingency fund. The funds are firmly provided for in the Government's expenditure profile. It is taxpayer's money and it comes by way of grant from the Department of Transport's vote to London Regional Transport in a non-repayable, non-interest bearing form. It is a once-and-for-all grant of money which will be used to construct the line.
    If there is any excess of expenditure over the amount provided, the sums will have to be negotiated in the normal course of events with the Treasury. Any additional sums provided over and above that needed to provide for inflation—any real increase in sums—would come, presumably, in the same way, by way of taxpayer grant.
    Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for spelling out almost the full picture of financing and for the clarification he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). It appears to be a novel method of financing. In respect of the moneys that
    370
    the Government will provide, will he give information on two matters? If he cannot do so tonight, perhaps he will give it by letter.
    First, if there is a cost overrun, which is not abnormal in matters to do with tunnels, will it be entirely a pro rata additional payment, discounted for inflation on the long-term 15-year period that he mentioned, or will public funds have to carry any additional estimate over the relatively modest sum of £1 billion?
    Secondly, despite what the Minister said about its not being a contingency in the normal way, may we be assured that the funding of the line, other than in relation to the private sums which he mentioned, will not differ in any material respect from that which might go either to the Chelsea-Hackney line or to the projected cross rail link, an announcement about which may perhaps be expected after the House has risen?
    Mr. Freeman: If there is a cost overrun, it will be borne in the same way as cost overruns are borne in any other public sector project—by the Department of Transport's vote and not by the developer contributions, which are fixed in money terms.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to allude to the fact that we should take the present value of the stream of payments, and I calculate that the developer contributions, in present value terms, amount to about 15 per cent. of the total cost of the line. That may not seem a great percentage, but it is the largest percentage of developer contributions to any public sector project of which I am aware anywhere in the world.
    However, it is not £400 million as a proportion of £1 billion. One should take the present value as alluded to by hon. Members at today's prices and compare that with the present value of the total construction cost. The public sector contribution of £1 billion is being provided in the same way as provision would be made for any other underground line. As and when a decision is made, it would be financed in exactly the same way.
    Four important points have been made and I will deal with them because it is appropriate that the Government should answer them. The first, raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South, concerned the extension to the royal docks. He asked where that was in the Government's thinking. I can confirm, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) confirmed in his opening remarks, that there will be a step plate junction built south of Canning Town to facilitate an extension to the royal docks. That seems a logical extension for the future. Clearly, as the future development of the royal docks will take many decades, whichever Government are in office, that seems a sensible option to consider. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to make any commitments beyond that at the moment, but it will be facilitated.
    Secondly, the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is not in his place, and for Newham, South asked me about the environmental impact study. I confirmed that I have placed copies of that document, which is dated January 1990 and is headed "London Underground's Proposed Jubilee Line Extension—Environmental Assessment", in the Library for the convenience of hon. Members. I hope that I have placed sufficient copies there, and if any hon. Member has any difficulty obtaining a copy, I shall be glad to write to him or her and to send a copy.

    371
    Thirdly—this is one of the two most important points that have been raised—I turn to the impact on Parliament square and Parliament buildings. I know that several hon. Members who are present served on the New Building Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on House of Commons Services. My hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Ogmore have drawn my attention to the disruption to Parliament square. As the hon. Member for Ogmore has said, this is a matter for detailed examination in Committee. One cannot build an underground railway line without disturbance.
    On behalf of the Department of Transport, I can say that we shall be accommodating toward whatever sensible accommodation is reached during the progress of the Bill to minimise disruption both in terms of the number of construction vehicles, length of construction and the location of the ticket hall—and there is some flexibility about the location of the ticket hall. It is most important that those issues are examined in detail in Committee. I commend London Regional Transport and London Underground for being so flexible so far.
    The important point relates to phase 2 of the new parliamentary building and the payment for the concrete raft. The New Building Sub-Committee recommended that that should be paid for in its entirety by London Underground. Clearly, London Regional Transport should pay for the concrete rafting over the part of the station area that is covered by the prospective phase 2 parliamentary building, because that will be built over. London Regional Transport has budgeted for and is prepared to pay that cost, which, I understand, amounts to between £2 million and £3 million. However, at issue is the rest of the building which has nothing to do with the construction of the Jubilee line. As the hon. Member for Ogmore fairly put it, in terms of a payment on account of the disruption created not only for Parliament but in Parliament square, LRT should pay for the concrete rafting for the whole building.
    The Department of Transport and I are seized of the significance and importance of that and of the fact that, although we hope that there will be no delay, some considerable delay could occur if Parliament, in exercising its role as, essentially, the planning authority, took a considerable time to consider the Bill because this issue has not been resolved. That would not be in anyone's interest. Clearly, if the parliamentary building is to go ahead, it would make a great deal of sense for LRT to construct the concrete raft in its entirety because, one way or another, the cost of the raft would be paid for out of public funds. If the parliamentary building is to go ahead, I am sure that sensible arrangements could be reached in terms of which vote the money comes out of and when construction takes place.
    I am sure that the House would not wish to put London Regional Transport in the position of having to find the extra funds from its funding for transport services in London and of having to ask members of the travelling public to fund the £7 million or £8 million to build the entire concrete slab. That would be unreasonable.
    372
    Nevertheless, although I cannot make any concrete proposals or guarantees this evening, I am seized of the importance of this matter.
    The hon. Member for Ogmore is in his place. I say to him again, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I understand the seriousness of this issue. He implied that this issue should be addressed in Committee. I believe that it must be addressed in the autumn, and, I hope, before any Select Committee considers the Bill. I give the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues my assurance that I will treat this matter with the utmost seriousness. It is in the interests of London Regional Transport that that matter is resolved.
    Mr. Don Dixon: Will the Minister explain why the Committee that will deal with this Bill should take any more notice of London Underground than did the New Building Sub-Committee, on which I serve? The first time that we saw London Underground, we asked its officials whether there was a feasible alternative site. The obvious site was St. James's park. They told us that on engineering grounds that site was not feasible. We then appointed our own advisers who said that it was feasible. When that point was put to London Underground, it accepted it—after our advisers had advised us. Why should London Underground be any more forthcoming to the Committee that will consider the Bill than it was to the New Building Sub-Committee that is dealing with phase 2 of the parliamentary building?
    Mr. Freeman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but surely that is a matter for the Select Committee that will be appointed to consider the Bill. That Committee is the appropriate body further to consider the evidence and to reach its own conclusions. Although I note the conclusions of the New Building Sub-Committee, it is not for me to argue that point tonight.
    I understand and accept that the Select Committee will examine that issue and will doubtless wish to take into account the consequences for other buildings, including Westminster Abbey, the alignment of the route and the deviation that would be entailed in any other station than Westminster, and the ease with which the line can come into Waterloo. For the benefit of commuters coming in to Waterloo, it is important that the underground line runs smoothly and squarely into Waterloo and that it does not approach Waterloo from a difficult angle, which I gather would be the case with Charing Cross.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again and promise that I shall not interrupt him again. Is my hon. Friend concerned about the suspicion that is felt both in the country and the House on this matter? Does he not remember that in the 1930s people were told that they were in poverty and that although the judge's heart bled for them, it was better for them to go to the workhouse? Others have said that it would be terrible to demolish Westminster Abbey, but that that may have to be done one day for a housing estate. Such arguments are devastating. We should face up to this now and put first things first.
    Mr. Freeman: As I understand it, a station at St. James's would entail severe disruption and difficulty for Westminster Abbey. A station at Westminster involves problems for Parliament square. As the spoil from the

    373
    tunnel running from Green Park to Waterloo would come out at Jubilee gardens, there would thus be some inconvenience there. The hon. Member for Ogmore put me in my place when I intervened earlier and he is right to say that the spoil from constructing the ticket hall would have to come out at Parliament square if that is the location.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Minister give way before he leaves this point?
    Mr. Freeman: I have not left it yet.
    Mr. Powell: The Committee has put its objections to the Bill on record, but we must bear in mind the fact that the New Building Sub-Committee was already preparing for the development of phase 2 of the building around Bridge street and had undertaken a lot of work when London Underground came up with these proposals months later. We are concerned not only about the rafting and its cost, but about the inconvenience and the delay that have been caused to the building of new office accommodation for hon. Members. I assume that the Minister appreciates all the problems that hon. Members are suffering in terms of office accommodation and that he will therefore appreciate also the inconvenience of new phase 1 being developed before phase 2 had been started. A great deal of inconvenience will be caused to hon. Members by the further development of phase 2 and the building of the raft. Given all those considerations, London Underground should be responsible for the raft covering the building. That is why some of the objections that I have outlined were made in Committee.
    Mr. Freeman: I understand the strength of that argument. If the parliamentary buildings on Bridge street are to go ahead—that is not clear in terms of financial provision, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows more about that than I do—there is a great deal of common sense in the proposal that London Regional Transport should finance and execute the entire raft in one go. Sooner or later, the cost of the construction of that raft will come out of the taxpayers' pocket. I accept the logic of that argument.
    As a Transport Minister, I must also protect the position of London Regional Transport. It would not be reasonable for the travelling public in London to pay for rafting which is not strictly required for the line and the cost of which may be irrecoverable. When it becomes clear that the building is to proceed, sensible accommodation can be made.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Let me stress one or two other points to clear the issue. We have already appointed architects and the building will already be approved when we have permission for it to proceed. The delay has been caused by the London Underground Bill. Had the Bill had not come about, we would have been a long way ahead with the development. I should make it clear to the Minister that the phase 2 development of the building on that site has already been approved.
    The Minister referred to the travelling public. The Sub-Committee has as much sympathy with the travelling public as anyone else. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said, we have already appointed advisers to suggest and recommend a different route so that the line could avoid Parliament square and all the disruption that will be caused to the House and to the
    374
    travelling public. People travelling by tube, car, coach or bus will be disrupted. Surely the Minister has some responsibility in that matter.
    Mr. Freeman: I regret the possible disturbance as much as the hon. Gentleman does. He, I and other right hon. and hon. Members have much to lose in terms of convenience, as have our guests visiting Parliament. Design approval of the new parliamentary building is one thing; funding is another. Funding is not my responsibility. I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument about construction in one fell swoop, possibly by London Underground. That may well facilitate or accelerate the construction of the building.
    My final point concerns the south London stations at Southwark and Bermondsey. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey knows, as I have given him a commitment personally and in writing, that it is the Government's policy that stations should be built at Southwark and Bermondsey. He will remember from the east London rail study that they were firmly in the plan. He also knows that there were question marks over both those stations and the proposed stations at Greenwich and at other points on the line, which suggested that there was further analytical work to be carried out.
    I am not backtracking on the Government's commitment to a policy that stations should be built at Southwark and Bermondsey. I confirm that the construction of those stations is provided for and is not dependent on developer contributions. If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey were standing at the Government Dispatch Box, he would be the first to say that, in order to assure the Public Accounts Committee and the House that those decisions were soundly based, there should be a robust justification. I am grateful to him and to the borough of Southwark for helping to provide that justification. That exercise will conclude by 1 October, well in advance of the Committee stage of the Bill. I am committed to meet him and Southwark when that exercise is concluded. I have no reason to believe that the cost benefit appraisals—not the financial justification—for building those two stations will be anything but positive.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: I really should have got in before the Minister moved on from his point about the costs. He said that he thought that the cost of the concrete rafting would eventually fall to the taxpayer. Can he assure the House that the cost will not be met by increased fares to passengers or through poll tax bills across London, but that the taxpayer will pick up the bill directly?
    Mr. Freeman: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that it will be paid for by the taxpayer in the form of a grant voted from the Department of Transport. It will not fall on the fare-paying passenger who pays a proportion of the operating cost. It certainly will not fall on the community charge payer in London. It will come from the national taxpayer, who will be paying for an enhancement of transport facilities in London. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and will note the assurances and promises that I have given.
    8.15 pm
    Ms. Joan Ruddock: Before I start my speech, let me associate the Labour Front Bench with the condemnation, during the point of order before

    375
    the debate, of the atrocities committed this afternoon on the outskirts of Armagh, and express our sympathies to those who have been bereaved.
    I give the Bill on the extension of the Jubilee line a general but qualified welcome. In the previous debate, several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), clearly expressed the concerns of the House about Parliament square. I shall not dwell further on that issue or reiterate the points made on behalf of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, but will deal instead with the wider transport issues.
    The Bill comes before us at the behest of a Government who have repeatedly failed in their duty to plan strategically for our capital city. It comes before us despite the evidence of the Government's own central London rail study, which found the extension of the Jubilee line the least likely of the proposals studied to relieve the extreme congestion experienced by users of London Underground in the central area. Even the borough of Newham, which stands to benefit from the Jubilee line extension, agrees with all other expert and interested parties in London that an east-west cross rail would have done more for London. London Regional Transport, in its latest annual report, maintains the position of the central London rail study—that the east-west cross rail and the Chelsea-Hackney line are essential if there is to be any real solution to the problem of central area congestion.
    The Bill comes before us because the free-market, profit-first priorities of the Government have determined that new transport infrastructure in London is development-led. That is why it is so important that, as the instruction in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) says,
    "the Committee on the Bill … have regard to the need for regeneration of local communities and local industries in and around the areas of London Dockland and Lower Lea Valley."
    Only by proper strategic planning can the needs of all our communities in London—not just the needs of developers—be met. The Bill must be set in the context of the extent and scale of the transport crisis afflicting London and the Government's response to it. Only then can we assess its merits.
    It is remarkable that, with such a powerful consensus about the extent of that crisis, the Government continue to make a complete mess of transport in the capital. In London, the chorus of criticism about the Government's inaction comes from all sides. For example, the CBI states in a recent report:
    "The problems exemplify the need for a co-ordinated, integrated, intermodal approach."
    The London Regional Passengers Committee, in its annual report, was scathing in its criticisms. It said:
    "On the Underground, more miles were lost, waiting times grew and while the chance of a train running on time rose, so did the chance of it not running at all. More lifts were working, but escalator stoppages hit bottom before improving gradually. The performance targets set for LRT require an improvement in all these areas."
    The director of planning summed it up when he said:
    "If you regard London grinding to a halt as a crisis, then we're not there—yet. But if you regard wasting billions of pounds a year through congestion at a time when we face increasing competition, then I think you would say that we are."
    376
    Against that background, the Jubilee line extension begins to appear a little like the proverbial fig leaf. However, as the Minister said, it will give additional tube capacity. It will provide much-needed access to docklands and it will be a much-valued public resource in a city that is increasingly privatised, unplanned and lacking in co-ordination. As a result of lobbying by myself, my colleagues in Greenwich and others, it will also provide a loop into north Greenwich, bringing an important tube link into an area that is poorly served by public transport.
    For those reasons, and despite some reservations, the Opposition generally support the Bill. We do so also because we believe that investment in the public infrastructure in London is now an urgent task. It is the only answer to the crucial need to begin to limit the use of private cars in the city. The Bill at least shows some commitment from the Government improving and extending the capital's public transport. However, they must demonstrate their wholehearted commitment to those who do not have the developers' chequebook to hand. It appears that developers can obtain the stations that they want, but can the ordinary citizens of London?
    The Minister has made some response to the representations about the construction of the Southwark and Bermondsey stations. As we heard previously in our debates, above all those stations would benefit the established residential communities that currently have to travel on inadequate public transport. Some of my constituents would be among those who would use the stations, as would the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who regrets that she cannot be here tonight.
    It is significant that the technical officer in the borough of Southwark could demonstrate that, on the estimates provided by London Underground, those stations would be used by more people than use some of the stations on the present Jubilee line. Given all the evidence, I should have thought that the Minister would agree that it is not just financial considerations alone that should determine the building of stations such as those in south London, but the important grounds of social justice and economic development for very poor areas with very poor people. They would benefit enormously from job opportunities that would be more accessible if they had stations nearby at Bermondsey and Southwark.
    The Minister has not removed all doubt that those stations will not, in some way, be dropped from the plans. I urge him to think again. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, there will be public outrage if those stations are not built when developers with their cheque books can get what they demand.
    There are further questions about the Bill with which the Minister has not dealt. Clause 29 allows London Underground to close a section of the Jubilee line from Green Park to Charing Cross at a future date, without going through the usual consultation procedure. Consumer interests are protected by law and if London Underground wishes to close a section of line, at present it is required to notify the London Regional Passengers Committee. That committee may then hold a hearing and report to the Secretary of State for his decision. It feels that there is no justification for changing that procedure.
    I appreciate that London Underground intends to keep open the line nominally and use it for football specials, for example, but that is hardly a reassurance for the 20,000

    377
    commuters who use that section of the line every day. London Underground believes that many commuters will benefit from the change in the line, but those matters should be subject to a proper hearing. I urge the Minister, London Underground and the sponsor to reconsider denying transport users a voice and the opportunity to consider the implications of the proposed changes.
    Mr. Spearing: Did my hon. Friend notice that the Minister referred to the alternative alignment—which was not considered by the advisers to the Services Committee—of maintaining a Charing Cross terminal and extending it via Temple to Waterloo, as being for the convenience of passengers? He did not deny that it was impractical and had certain limitations. Is not that something that the passengers committee should consider?
    Ms. Ruddock: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Indeed, all his points about London transport are excellent. I am sure that the committee will consider carefully what he has said.
    We want clause 14 to be removed because there is no justification for taking away standard procedures. After the defeat on the King's Cross Railways Bill, I hope that the promoters of this Bill will reconsider.
    We are disappointed by London Underground's apparent unwillingness to make the new section of the Jubilee line fully wheelchair accessible. I understand that it is technically feasible to do so, even in deep tunnels, by building a walkway. Given that London Underground has said that new lines will be wheelchair accessible, it would be a missed opportunity not to start with this section of line. I urge London Underground to reconsider, and I ask the Minister to clarify the Government's policy on access to public transport for people with disabilities. I shall give way to him if he wishes to intervene.
    Mr. Freeman: I do not wish to duck the question, because it is extremely important. I regret that I cannot answer a question on the adaptation of the design of the Jubilee line to accommodate wheelchairs. Although the Department does not plan the details of the line, I undertake to make inquiries of the chairman of LRT about accommodating disabled people.
    If the hon. Lady reflects on the performance not only of LRT but of British Rail, I think that she will agree that it is a great deal better than has been achieved in the past, and a great deal better than other European countries. We have a great deal to be proud of, but a long way to go.
    Ms. Ruddock: I invited the Minister to intervene because, as is so often the case, when judgments are made on technical matters there is always the question of finance. We are all aware that the line is primarily to be financed out of the public purse, so these considerations are relevant to Government. I am grateful to the Minister for his response.
    Millions of potential travellers nationwide are denied access to many modes of public transport through lack of foresight in planning and design. When a major operator such as LRT begins construction of a new system that is essentially for the 21st century, we should insist that those who are wheelchair-bound have equal access to the system.
    I noted that the promoter concluded his remarks by referring to the substantial contribution of Olympia and York and British Gas to the project. In fairness, he did not over-emphasise the important of their contributions;
    378
    Minister, however, have been much more fulsome, as was the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), about the value for money of the scheme. Many of my hon. Friends and I have already said that the Governmetn's central London rail study did not consider the line such good value. It gave it a negative rate of return, computing its benefit to cost ratio at 0·6:1 compared with 1·6:1 for the east-west cross rail.
    The Government do not have a programme for rail investment that is truly analogous to their trunk road programme. If they did, the inclusion of a scheme that does not represent the best value for money might be acceptable on the grounds that other preferable schemes would follow without hindrance. However, no such programme exists and we fear that the scheme may lead to other schemes being starved of capital. Despite the invitation extended by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the Minister has not satisfied us that there is no jeopardy to other schemes, and we hear persistent rumours that the Treasury might veto the introduction of a Bill this autumn to build another new line in the London transport system.
    We hope that the Government will soon make clear their intention for the cross rail and the Chelsea to Hackney line. Without those two new lines, there will be no answer to the major problems of congestion.
    New public investment and public transport provision in London is welcome, but yet again we debate a piecemeal provision in isolation. London cries out for a strategic plan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South reminded us, British Rail's review of alternative routes for rail links to the channel tunnel keeps open the possibility of Stratford becoming an international station. It is symptomatic of Government action on planning that the clearly related issues of international passenger traffic and cross rail are not part of our considerations. It is hardly surprising that London's transport is in a mess if this is the nearest to sensible planning that the Government can attain.
    There can be no doubt that in the two debates on the Bill, the promoters and the Government have received clear warnings of the diversity of interests involved and the necessity to respond to the needs and aspirations of the travelling public in London. We believe that the Jubilee line should be extended, but only in an environmentally sensitive way, which must include consideration of the parliamentary area of London. It must have maximum access for local residents and, I hope, full access for wheelchair-bound passengers. With those provisos, we can support the Second Reading.
    8.33 pm
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: The Bill raises several complex issues, including compulsory purchase and compensation. My name appears on the blocking motion to the Bill on behalf of only one of my constituents, Mr. Michael Downey, whose land and business will be compulsorily purchased.
    I make no apology for concentrating on one man, because any hon. Member's constituent is as important in this respect as is the House of Commons putting its objections to disruption in Parliament square. My constituent, like me, has no objection to the general

    379
    principle of the extension of the Jubilee line and agrees that it would be beneficial. His agreement means that I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Although I generally enjoy following the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), I would have wished to follow a more gracious welcome for the principle of the line.
    My constituent believes, and again I entirely agree, that those whose land will be purchased should be treated fairly. He and his sister own some land near the proposed Canning Town station in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who spoke when we last debated the Bill. They have two businesses, a petrol station and an engineering business. The first, Fleet service station, has been in business on the site for about 60 years and has built up a large clientele, mostly with local businesses. Indeed, 60 per cent. of its turnover is with account customers in the immediate vicinity. Moving that business would considerably damage that account business.
    Therefore, to minimise the damage, Mr. Downey must find replacement premises as near as possible to his present premises. His business requires a prominent road position. Replacement premises that fulfil both those requirements will obviously be extremely hard to find. One must not overstate that problem, because he may find new premises in a more prominent position or he may gain in passing trade what he loses in account customers, but, nevertheless, the problem exists and it is serious. Compensation would give him not the reinstatement value of his premises but its current market value. If he had to find premises on which to reinstate his business, he would have to compete with the Essos and Shells of this world, which would regard the business and the area as a major money-spinner. They would be able to provide much more money in bidding for new businesses, and the likely result is that he would be forced out of business. That would be an unreasonable result of the Bill.
    It strengthens the case that many hon. Members feel that the structure for compensation for road and rail development should be reconsidered by the House and that a new structure should apply not only in general but in particular to the Bill.
    The third and most important point in Mr. Downey's case is that to be able to keep his account customers, who comprise 60 per cent. of his turnover, any replacement business must open at the same time as his existing business closes. If there is any gap between closing and opening, his account business will melt away. It might trickle back in later years, but it would be severely damaged by the hiatus.
    A new business must be bought and equipped before Mr. Downey is forced out of his old business. I understand that it takes many months to equip a petrol filling station. Planning applications, and possibly planning appeals, would lengthen the time during which the equipment would have to be installed.
    J. and J. Downey is an engineering business and it raises similar concerns, although they are not identical. It needs not prominent premises but premises equipped to an exceptionally high standard. It has a large overhead travelling crane weighing 5 tonnes. Obviously, that takes
    380
    much time to build and install. To avoid a hiatus, it must be installed long before Mr. Downey has to move out of his existing building.
    The business needs to be situated in an area where Mr. Downey could expect his business to last, because it works on long-term contracts. The Bill has already affected the type of contracts that he has been able to attract, because they sometimes require guarantees by means of performance bonds. If my constituent's business is under threat of compulsory purchase, he will obviously find it more difficult to attract more contracts. That should be taken into account in the compensation granted to him.
    I am talking about my constituent, but this matter applies as well to the many other businesses that face compulsory purchase.
    Mr. Spearing: This matter affects not only businesses and proprietors but the many people living and growing up in Newham who might be or hope to be employed by those businesses.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: That is right. Serious consideration should therefore be given to the hon. Gentleman's instruction.
    I said that, unlike the petrol station, the engineering business did not need prominent premises, and it does not. However, my constituent has found it helpful over the years to be able to manage the two businesses from the same site. If he finds a reinstatement site with the same benefits from managing the petrol station and the engineering business, resulting in a reduction in the number of staff, there will be cost savings in terms of manning, office space and efficiency gains with respect to control and management. Any loss of that benefit should be taken into account in any compensation.
    The possibility of finding the right replacement site, at the right time, with appropriate compensation, is central to my constituent's business. It is not overstating the case to say that, unless that is done, there is a possibility that my constituent will go out of business. Not surprisingly, therefore, he has been looking hard for replacement premises. He has instructed Grant and Partners to pursue this matter on his behalf. It has looked hard, but there has been little reaction in the area. Property owners appear to take the view that in the present state of the property market they would do better to hang on to their property rather than sell, perhaps in order simply to see what happens.
    There is one site that my constituent has identified as suitable. The land is currently owned by the British Rail Property Board and consists of disused rail sidings next to the southern roundabout of the Connaught crossing. Although British Rail was asked about the site in January this year, so far it has said that it is under review.
    My constituent clearly needs help from someone like London Underground, British Rail or the London Docklands development corporation—someone with more clout than he has alone. I am pleased to say that London Underground has offered some help, for which I am grateful because it goes in the right direction, but it does not solve the problem. I am afraid that more needs to be done. London Underground has said that it is prepared to offer to buy the Fleet service station in advance of Royal Assent. I have been told that it would agree to allow Mr. Downey to trade from his existing premises even after that acquisition until London Underground needs it for the

    381
    railway. That would give Mr. Downey the chance to take his compensation money and to find other premises and, if he found them, to use the money to re-equip them without any hiatus in the business.
    The problem is not the money—money can be borrowed and the loss of money can be compensated for with replacement money. The problem is that Mr. Downey by himself cannot find the replacement site. He needs help, and that is the sort of help that so far he has been refused. It is at this stage that my constituent begins to wonder if the compulsory purchase is needed.
    Is too much land being taken? The hon. Member for Newham, South raised that point. In the Bill, London Underground is taking powers to take a great deal of land. The question must arise whether it is taking more than it needs for the purposes of building the Canning Town station and building a Jubilee line station and a bus interchange. All the evidence possessed by my constituent suggests that London Underground is taking too much land, but that evidence is extremely sketchy. The plans for the station and the bus interchange are unclear. The risk is that they will remain so. The injustice from my constituent's point of view is that he does not know what case he will have to answer. That goes against all the principles of British justice and will, I hope, be seriously considered by the Committee.
    I hope that London Underground will lean over backwards to prove to my constituent that it is not taking too much land and to give him the information that he needs to satisfy himself to that effect. I said in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, South that if London Underground took too much land it would benefit from the uplift in value which would follow. I do not suggest that London Underground has any such motive, but it should make it plain that it has no such motive by giving the information that my constituent and others in a similar position need to satisfy themselves that not too much land is being taken.
    8.46 pm
    Mr. Stanley Orme: I intervene in the debate as a member of the New Building Sub-Committee and as a provincial Member, and I make no apology for speaking as a provincial Member. Hundreds of millions of pounds of public expenditure will be invested in this development and we are entitled to question it. This development in the capital will affect many people—not just those who live there but those who visit it—and will be important to them.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) that the development of new undergound links in London is crucial. Public transport must be promoted if we are to discourage the use of the motor vehicle, thereby easing traffic congestion and lessening environmental damage. I start from that point. I am not opposed to the extension of the Jubilee line. As other hon. Members have said, when we look at London Transport 2000 and transport forecasts, this is not necessarily the first priority that comes to mind; it is third or fourth on the list of what is needed in the capital.
    Faced with the Bill, we must examine it on its merits. The Minister said that the Government were not promoting the Bill although they were very much in favour of many aspects. Questions were raised about the siting of stations in Southwark and the use of Parliament square as
    382
    the junction for the new Jubilee line extension and the Central and District lines. It is extraordinary that the Minister did not discuss these matters with London Transport. He said that they were a matter for the Committee. The New Building Sub-Committee discussed these matters in detail with London Underground. First, we were dismayed at its proposals for a Bill preceded by no consultation.
    Mr. Dixon: The report by the Services Committee states, in paragraph 17 on page ix,
    "We must put on record at this point our regret that neither the Services Committee nor the authorities of the House were consulted during preparation of the bill. We find it astonishing that neither London Underground nor the Department of Transport realised that the parts of the bill relating to Westminster would cause considerable concern to Members of Parliament."
    Mr. Orme: Neither the actions nor the attitude of London Underground have been to its credit. Following our initial discussions with its officers—including the chairman—we went to see the Secretary of State for Transport, who told us that the Government would support the Bill. We asked, "What about all the criticisms of your proposal to put hundreds of millions of pounds of public money into a project that your Department has not examined?" We were told that the Government would go ahead, using private Bill procedure—which is, of course, the subject of a good deal of criticism in the House at present.
    Mr. Dixon: Not only the private Bill procedure but the rotation of Chairmen is under close examination. It has not gone unnoticed that all the Committees debating controversial Bills have had Conservative Chairmen. Moreover, all those Chairmen have, with their casting votes, opposed the introduction of any amendments in Committee, making a Report stage impossible.
    Mr. Orme: I hope that the House will indeed examine private Bill procedure. The conduct to which my hon. Friend has referred is most regrettable, and we must hope that it will not be repeated.
    In the past, the purpose of private Bill procedure was to assist the railway industry, in particular, with the purchase of land that crossed many estates and many counties. That was done on an individual basis; what is so regrettable about this and other recent Bills is their use by the Government as a vehicle to push through legislation. I hope that the Minister will tell his Department that, if the Bill is given its Second Reading, we shall be watching the way in which it is handled very carefully, for we have serious misgivings.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is it not worrying when the Minister says that it is up to the Committee? Traditionally, with private Bills, efforts have been made to negotiate away most of the problems so that the Committee is left with only the minimum of residual difficulties and not much time is taken up. We have already seen how much time—hon. Members' time—has been taken up by the King's Cross Railways Bill: I understand that the Whips have encountered considerable difficulty in persuading hon. Members to serve on the Committee. I hope that my right hon. Friend will press the promoters to find ways of resolving the outstanding problems, so that the length of the Committee stage can be minimised.
    Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is quite an expert on this kind of procedure; I hope that note will be taken of what he has said.
    We cannot but suspect that enthusiasm for the Bill has a great deal to do with the fact that a private development is under way on Canary wharf and in the east end. Of course, I accept that others will benefit. I have received a letter from Rita Bensley, secretary of the Barkantine tenants association, expressing regret that some of us do not support the Bill. She writes:
    "I am sure that you must be aware that this extension is vital to the regeneration programme for Docklands. The worst possible scenario for the local people of Docklands is for this programme to fail".
    She adds that she and her neighbours live in an area that has been used as a building site for 10 years, with another seven to come. I understand her feelings; our criticisms are intended not to stop the Bill, but to ensure that it is substantially improved.
    The interchange of Parliament square is not a little local issue. We are not talking about the self-interest of Members of Parliament; we are talking about the centre of the capital, which attracts millions of people. As has already been pointed out, this area contains not only both Houses of Parliament but St. Margaret's church, Westminster abbey, the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, the Methodist Central hall, Whitehall and the Thames and its immediate surroundings. Phase 1 of the new building programme is in progress; it is behind schedule, and members of our Committee are being severely criticised by hon. Members for allowing the delay.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford is one of our strongest critics. If, however, we allow the Bill to proceed unchanged, we shall have to take people out of the new building. Occupation may be delayed for two or three years, depriving hon. Members and staff of necessary accommodation. This is not special pleading; we are continually told that the accommodation is essential, and that anything that stops or delays its completion is detrimental to the working of the House. We have an alternative to London Underground's proposals.
    Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the use of county hall might provide a temporary solution to the problem of accommodation for hon. Members?
    Mr. Orme: That proposal has often been put forward and the next thing we will see is a proposal for an underground link from County hall to Westminster.
    If we can complete phase 1 and start phase 2, we can begin to provide the kind of accommodation which some of the newer hon. Members who are present in the Chamber now are crying out for. We want to see that development proceed.
    The interchange at Westminster will delay phases 1 and 2 and it will add an extra 30,000 people a day to Westminster. Westminster city council, in its petition against the Bill
    "expressed considerable concern for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and other passengers leaving the station in such numbers."
    The council believes that congestion in the area could be increased with a
    "concentration of passengers requiring interchange with private cars, taxis and buses."
    An extra 30,000 people a day is an extra 10 million a year travelling into this centre.
    384
    It is clear from the present congestion in Westminster as people pass through the square on public transport and in other ways what would happen if Parliament square were to become a building site. We have an alternative to London Underground's proposals.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: My right hon. Friend described the conditions that would exist after the building works were concluded and the number of people in Parliament square had increased. However, he has not explained to the House that the building work could occupy the site for between five and seven years. The environmental impact statement explains that the National Heritage Act 1983 provides powers for an archaeological inspector to apply for a suspension of constructional activity if any areas of archaeological interest are discovered during the excavations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are likely to be many areas of archaeological interest in Parliament square and the building period may be extended for a longer period?
    Mr. Orme: Bringing this interchange into Parliament square is not in the interests of the capital and it is certainly not in the interests of the general public. Because of that we examined the proposal and we suggested an alternative to London Underground. We suggested that the interchange should be at St. James's Park. London Underground told us that that was not feasible. London Underground told us that its engineers said that that was not possible.
    Therefore, we employed our own engineers to examine the site. They said that it would be feasible for the interchange to be at St. James's Park. London Underground then accepted that, but it still objects to our proposal. I wonder whether it opposes that because London Underground's headquarters happens to be over St. James's Park tube station.
    We are driven to the conclusion, after the very reasonable case that we put to London Underground, that there are obviously other forces at work that are opposed to the interchange being moved.
    If the Bill is passed and the development begins in the next Parliament and Parliament square becomes a building site for five or six years, I hope that hon. Members do not come screaming to the New Building Sub-Committee wanting to know why we allowed the development to proceed when an alternative was available.
    Mr. Dixon: Does my right hon. Friend accept that our prime concern in the New Building Sub-Committee was to provide adequate office accommodation for hon. Members and staff? While we may have the finest car park in central London, this House has possibly the worst office accommodation. That is why the New Building Sub-Committee was concerned about the connection at Westminster and its effect on phase 2 of the new building.
    Mr. Orme: The development will probably put phase 2 back into the next century. Phase 2 will take between eight and 10 years. Phase 1 is nearly complete and it would be an outrage if, because of the development, people had to be decanted from the new development and moved back into a crowded Palace of Westminster.
    I hope that the Government will consider this matter. We are not being Luddites. [Interruption.] The promoter of the Bill wants to be careful about the way in which he handles the matter. We can make the passage of the Bill

    385
    very difficult. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted co-operation and would not laugh when I say that we are not Luddites. We have a solution to the problem. We want his and the Government's co-operation, and we shall continue to press for it.
    9.4 pm
    Sir John Stanley: I intervene briefly in the debate, as have other provincial Members, but my constituency is rather closer to London than that of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). Thousands of my constituents come to London every day and are then dependent on the efficiency and capacity of London transport to be able to get to work. I earnestly hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading on two grounds—first, because of the general transport situation in London and, secondly, because of the specific area of London the transport needs of which the Bill is designed to help. The Bill deserves support.
    As has been said, London is in a very serious transport position. The seriousness of London's transport position is undoubtedly already having some effect on its attractiveness as a place for tourists and on the general perception of London as a capital city compared with other European capital cities, and must have an impact on the long-term attractiveness of our capital as a major international financial and commercial centre.
    I am in no doubt that, if there is to be a significant improvement in London's transport, it must be through a public transport system. The only way in which we can make a satisfactory improvement in the public transport system in a way in which we can provide sufficient capacity and is environmentally acceptable is through rail systems, in particular through sub-surface rail systems. I very much welcome the Bill.
    On the Bill meeting the needs of the east end and docklands, I share with the House one of the most remarkable aerial experiences that I have ever had. It was about 10 years ago, shortly after we came into government, and when I was in the Department of the Environment. At the time, we were considering the powers that were to be included in the first Local Government Bill, and, in particular, powers to establish the urban development corporations. Along with my right hon. Friends the Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Bridgwater (Mr. King), now Secretary of State for Defence, I took the helicopter journey down the Thames towards the docklands. That was the first time that I had had that aerial view of the east end of London. It was a staggering spectre of enormous desolation on a vast scale 10 years ago—miles and miles of waste, dereliction and abandonment. It is one of the most signal achievements of the Government that, in that dramatic period of just 10 years, there has been a total visual and built transformation of that crucial part of our capital city.
    The creation of better homes, new homes and jobs on an enormous scale has outstripped the provision of transport capacity. That process is continuing: indeed, it looks like becoming worse, with the further development of the Isle of Dogs and the enormous development of Canary wharf. Almost certainly the process, which I welcome, will spread further east, eventually into the development of the royal group of docks. Therefore, it is vital that we begin to provide that area with a proper mass transit system of which the Bill is a crucial component.
    386
    The Bill is vital to docklands and the east end, and I hope that it will be a precursor to the Government introducing the first of the London cross-rail links in the forthcoming session. The Bill relates to the extension of one tube line, but the cross-rail links are even more important than the Bill as a means of solving London's transport problems.
    The Bill is important, and I hope that the House will support it.
    9.9 pm
    Mr. Ron Leighton: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), who, as a latter-day Dr. Livingstone, discovered the east end in a helicopter. That is about the only way in which one can get around London these days.
    Those of us who represent the east end believe that we should evaluate the proposal to extend the Jubilee line against the background of London's crisis of traffic and transport. The congestion in London is now deplorable and one gets the impression that London is almost strangling itself.
    Things are getting worse. Public transport is dirty, squalid and congested. Surface traffic is slower moving than in the days of the horse and cart. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing ever travels on the underground—
    Sir John Stanley: Every day.
    Mr. Leighton: In that case he will be aware, should he travel at rush hour, that the overcrowding is obscene. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that such conditions are completely unworthy of a European capital city. It is vital that our transport infrastructure is internationally competitive. The French would not allow similar conditions to develop in Paris, and should Berlin become the capital of the united Germany, just watch the transport infrastructure that will develop.
    Congestion leads to inefficiency. The Confederation of British Industry has said that congestion in London costs £10 billion—that is a big bill, which must be paid by every London family. Some of the costs of that congestion are obvious and can be quantified—for example, the late arrival of staff. Vehicles that are constantly stuck in traffic jams must be serviced more frequently than others and are subject to extra repairs. Those traffic jams also lead to an increased consumption of fuel. One must also consider the overtime payments to staff who are delayed as well as the cost of those inordinate delays.
    Other costs faced by Londoners are less tangible. Many of our constituents find their journeys to and from work a twice-daily nightmare. No one can cost the frustration and sheer physical discomfort with which those people are obliged to put up every day. Millions of people who work and live in London must endure that and we cannot gauge easily the effect of that on their health and productivity. We are aware, however, that more and more days are lost to mental and stress-related illnesses. Many of those illnesses are related to the strain of getting to and from work. The congestion and the hours that it adds to the working day also add a huge cost to the social and family lives of Londoners.
    The problem is that no one is responsible for transport in London. The Secretary of State for Transport has told

    387
    us that he is not responsible. London must be the only major city in the world, east or west, without an elected authority responsible for transport. There is no co-ordination, coherence or strategy. Everything is piecemeal and ad hoc.
    The London transport infrastructure has been subject to decades of neglect, but our forefathers built a first-class transport system when they established the tube lines. That development took place when the country was not as wealthy as it is today. Now we hear about the economic miracle and all the rest of it, but in the past decade we have done nothing serious to improve our transport systems.
    On a previous occasion the Secretary of State told us that there was over-demand in London and that therefore he intended to put up fares—such was the policy behind the increases in fares. In recent years, fares have increased above the rate of inflation.
    For the foreseeable future, the policy is to increase fares higher than the rate of inflation. The idea is to price people off London Transport services. I know that London Transport quibbles about that and says that its policy is to put up fares to constrain the increase in the use of its services. I had lunch with the management last week and we discussed the matter. London Transport is playing with words. Constraining the increase in the use of London Transport services amounts to the same thing as pricing people off them.
    When the docklands light railway was first thought of—a Mickey Mouse elevated tram which was to cost £70 million—some of us said that it would not be sufficient and that we should have a proper railway. Now, the whole thing is being rebuilt and there will be no docklands light railway service of an evening or of a weekend until 1992. Incidentally, I agree with the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing that the solution to our transport problems lies in public transport rather than in making arrangements for the private motor car.
    Studies have produced three ideas. The first is the east-west cross rail, the second is the north-south Chelsea to Hackney line and the third is the extension of the Jubilee line. That third idea has been given priority. I represent the London borough of Newham, to which the line will come. I cannot oppose the line coming to Newham, but I have to ask whether this should have been the priority if our main aim was to end congestion in London. The answer to that is a clear no.
    The line is being built as a developers' railway. It is being built because of the Canary wharf development by Olympia and York, which will be importing people to 50,000 jobs. The developers need that railway and they have been leaning on the Government. The development in that area has been market-led. No infrastructure was built and there has been no planning. So what happens? Olympia and York leans on the Government with its cheque books or whatever. It has more power and more clout than the rest of us, so we get the extension of the Jubilee line. I asked the Minister what Olympia and York was to put in and was told that it would be £100 million over three years and the rest in a period of up to 15 years. Bearing in mind inflation, what are we talking about here? Very little. We are not talking about putting money up front. The truth is that Olympia and York has had an extremely good deal.
    388
    The House is familiar with the Public Accounts Committee's report on the development of Canary wharf, which said that Olympia and York had bought the land very cheaply. At the time, the land was changing hands at £5 million an acre but Olympia and York got its for £440,000 an acre. The PAC also said that there should have been an arrangement whereby the community should have reaped the benefit had there been super-profits. There has been no such arrangement.
    The idea of the Jubilee line has been around for 40 years; it is not a new idea. We are told that this is not the Government's Bill, although the Minister spoke for half an hour on it and so more or less took paternity for it. Why should he have spoken for half an hour on a Bill that had nothing to do with him?
    The truth is that the Government are always doing too little, too late. The idea of the Jubilee line first surfaced in 1948, when the London planning working party approved proposals for a number of new tube railways in the capital. They included a route J from Moorgate to New Cross and on to Woolwich and Plumstead and a line D, which included a section from Trafalgar square to Ludgate circus. For four decades the link to docklands has refused to die, although it has appeared in a number of guises. At one time it was called the River line; then it was called the Fleet line; now it is an extension of the Jubilee line.
    In 1970 London Transport sought powers to construct a line from Stanmore to Lewisham. The necessary consents were obtained for the first section to Charing Cross, which included a new tube tunnel from Baker Street, via Bond Street and Green Park. Debate continued about the line's future beyond that point.
    In October 1973, a study reported that the line could be a catalyst for the rejuvenation of docklands, so there is nothing new about the proposal. Sir Richard Way, who was then chairman of London Transport, observed:
    "transport and land use planning could work together so as to give maximum economic and social benefits."
    One of the main planks of the study was that the provision of homes, employment and commerce should be integrated with rapid transit to minimise the use of the private car. What, therefore, was being talked about then is our instruction now.
    A year later, Sir David Barran, who chaired the London rail study, described as "speculation" newspaper reports that the Fleet-Jubilee line would not run beyond Trafalgar Square-Charing Cross. There were doubts about that then.
    In 1976, the strategic study of the docklands joint committee—a committee of local authorities that the Government knocked on the head—described the line as
    "the key to the transformation of Docklands and east London."
    In 1976, therefore, the local authorities in east London asked for an extension of the Jubilee line.
    By 1979, the Greater London council said that it was prepared to go it alone by extending the line from Charing Cross to Fenchurch Street. Sir Horace Cutler, who was then leader of the Greater London council, said that the line was an integral part of the investment in London's future.
    The coup de grace seemingly fell on the Charing Cross to docklands link in July 1980 when the Government came out in favour of a £100 million programme of road improvements. The then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N.

    389
    Fowler) and Sir Horace Cutler set out in a joint statement what they called a "firm" programme of docklands transport improvements over the next 15 years.
    The total cost of the roads programme was then put at £359 million. It included the docklands northern relief road, a new east London river crossing and road improvements on the Isle of Dogs.
    Nine years later, the Jubilee line extension to docklands has suddenly sprung back into the frame, but at something like five times the estimated £200 million cost of the proposed 1977 link to Thamesmead and Woolwich. All these ideas were on the stocks during the last 40 years. Had they been carried out then, they would have cost only a fraction of the total cost now. Our instruction asks that this development should take into account the economic and social benefits and the provision of homes and employment.
    My last and most important point is that the Jubilee line will not be the main means of solving London's congestion. There are two other proposals: the east-west crossrail and the north-south Hackney to Chelsea line. When we raised the matter with the Secretary of State for Transport, especially after he had abandoned his roads programme which would have cost £3 billion—so arguably that sum of money would have been available—we said that both proposals should be carried out, not just the one. However, he told us that it could not be done technically; it would be impossible to cope with the disruption and the spoil.
    Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I met the management of London Transport and asked whether both proposals could be carried out simultaneously. They said that without any doubt both could be carried out. Last week, London Transport gave evidence to the Select Committee on Transport and said that it wanted both simultaneously. I asked the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, whose members would have to carry out the work, and asked whether it could be done, technically. The answer was yes. Therefore we support the extension of the Jubilee line to the London borough of Newham and understand why it has been given priority. But we want those other two lines as well and we want them carried out at the same time. That is technically possible and that cannot be denied. They are needed now to ease London's congestion.
    9.24 pm
    Mr. Hugo Summerson: I shall not detain the House for long and I shall confine my remarks largely to the Bill. It is a good thing to have extra underground lines in London, not merely because they are a good thing in themselves but because some areas of London are not well served and the Jubilee line extension will serve them well.
    The Jubilee line extension will also serve Canary wharf. Those two words are guaranteed to drive many Opposition Members to apoplexy. To them Canary wharf is a temple of capitalism, a place where large profits will be made. It is because of Canary wharf that many Opposition Members cannot bring themselves to offer a completely unequivocal welcome to the Bill.
    Ms. Ruddock: Let me put it on record that we have no objection to Canary wharf in principle. The developers have a job to do and their business is to make a profit. What we object to is that the Government's transport
    390
    policy and the transport of London is developer-led, and the Canary wharf developers are among those who appear to be able to set priorities.
    Mr. Summerson: I am delighted to hear the hon. Lady say that she does not object to Canary wharf. That is certainly not my impression from the speeches of several Opposition Members.
    I attended a debate in the early hours of this morning, or rather yesterday in parliamentary terms, on the subject of global warming and I spoke about the internal combustion engine and how I hoped that the day would come when it would be banned from our towns and cities. But before that can happen we need a good public transport system—not a publicly owned transport system.
    My constituency in north-east London, arguably in the lower Lea valley, is served by the Victoria line, but I am sure that many of my constituents would find the Jubilee line extension irresistible.
    I have heard a great deal, especially from Opposition Members, about the effect that the Jubilee line extension will have on Parliament square. I have listened to them with complete incredulity. The line is needed, yet we hear complaints about the effect that it will have on us and our work. I am sure that we can manage perfectly well to get on with our work. Our facilities are appalling, but we still manage to do our work. We would be displaying ourselves to the public as people who think more of their own interests than of the interests of the travelling public and of London itself if we opposed this.
    I also believe that we would get a new station. The present Westminster station is grotty. It is a disgrace. It is a place through which many people pass when they come to visit this famous and historic part of London, yet it has a horrible concourse and in heavy rain the underpass drips. It is revolting. We need a new station.
    Some hon. Members have said that the proposals will bring in more tourists and that that would be appalling. It may bring more tourists in but, my goodness, it will take them away again just as quickly. A new station and a new line may encourage tourists to come by underground and that would mean fewer coaches bunging up Parliament square and parking in the surrounding streets with their engines running.
    The new line will be to my convenience as well. I use the tube frequently to reach my constituency. At the moment I have to make a detour. I have to go from here to Victoria station and then on the Victoria line. To travel from Westminster up to Green Park and then straight on up the Victoria line will certainly cut my travelling time. The opposite side of the coin is that my constituents will have a quicker journey down to see me—and very welcome they will be.
    It is most important for London to maintain its position as a world capital and as a world financial centre. If we do not do that, we shall drop behind other places in Europe. We need the financial centre at Canary Wharf. We need a better transport infrastructure. The Bill will provide both, and I support it.
    Mr. Thorne rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put—
    Question put, That the Question be now put—
    The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 65.

    Division No. 313]

    [9.30 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Amess, David

    Harris, David

    Amos, Alan

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Arbuthnot, James

    Holt, Richard

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

    Ashby, David

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Atkins, Robert

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Irvine, Michael

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Jack, Michael

    Batiste, Spencer

    Janner, Greville

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Jessel, Toby

    Bellingham, Henry

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Key, Robert

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Kilfedder, James

    Benyon, W.

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Knapman, Roger

    Body, Sir Richard

    Knowles, Michael

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Lang, Ian

    Boswell, Tim

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Bowis, John

    Lightbown, David

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Lord, Michael

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Brazier, Julian

    Maclean, David

    Bright, Graham

    McLoughlin, Patrick

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

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Mans, Keith

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Maples, John

    Burns, Simon

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Burt, Alistair

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Butterfill, John

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Mills, Iain

    Carrington, Matthew

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Cash, William

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Chapman, Sydney

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Chope, Christopher

    Moss, Malcolm

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

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Conway, Derek

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Couchman, James

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Norris, Steve

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

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Devlin, Tim

    Page, Richard

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Paice, James

    Dover, Den

    Patnick, Irvine

    Dunn, Bob

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Durant, Tony

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Portillo, Michael

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Redwood, John

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Fallon, Michael

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Favell, Tony

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Fraser, John

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Freeman, Roger

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Gale, Roger

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Gill, Christopher

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Squire, Robin

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Gregory, Conal

    Steen, Anthony

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Stern, Michael

    Hague, William

    Stevens, Lewis

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    392

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Sumberg, David

    Waller, Gary

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Ward, John

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Wells, Bowen

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Thorne, Neil

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Thurnham, Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Tredinnick, David

    Yeo, Tim

    Trippier, David

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Viggers, Peter

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Miss Ann Widdecombe and

    Walden, George

    Mr. Hugo Summerson.

    NOES

    Anderson, Donald

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Lamond, James

    Beith, A. J.

    Lewis, Terry

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Loyden, Eddie

    Callaghan, Jim

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    McWilliam, John

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Meale, Alan

    Cohen, Harry

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Coleman, Donald

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Cryer, Bob

    Nellist, Dave

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Neubert, Michael

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

    O'Brien, William

    Dixon, Don

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Parry, Robert

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Pike, Peter L.

    Eadie, Alexander

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Eastham, Ken

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Redmond, Martin

    Fearn, Ronald

    Ruddock, Joan

    Foster, Derek

    Skinner, Dennis

    Fyfe, Maria

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Vaz, Keith

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Gordon, Mildred

    Wilson, Brian

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Home Robertson, John

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

    Hood, Jimmy

    Mr. George J. Buckley.

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time—
    The House proceeded to a Division:—
    Ms. Gordon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I shall take it after the Division.
    The House having divided: Ayes 188, Noes 50.

    Division No. 314]

    [9.42 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Bendall, Vivian

    Amess, David

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Amos, Alan

    Benyon, W.

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Ashby, David

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Body, Sir Richard

    Atkins, Robert

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Boswell, Tim

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Bowis, John

    393

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Leighton, Ron

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Bright, Graham

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

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

    Lightbown, David

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Lord, Michael

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Maclean, David

    Burns, Simon

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Burt, Alistair

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Butterfill, John

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Mans, Keith

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Maples, John

    Carrington, Matthew

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Cash, William

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Chapman, Sydney

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Chope, Christopher

    Mills, Iain

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

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Colvin, Michael

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Conway, Derek

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Couchman, James

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Needham, Richard

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

    Neubert, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Devlin, Tim

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Dover, Den

    Norris, Steve

    Dunn, Bob

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Durant, Tony

    Page, Richard

    Dykes, Hugh

    Paice, James

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Patnick, Irvine

    Fallon, Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Favell, Tony

    Portillo, Michael

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Redwood, John

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

    Forth, Eric

    Ruddock, Joan

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Fraser, John

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Freeman, Roger

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Gale, Roger

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Gill, Christopher

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Spearing, Nigel

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Gregory, Conal

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Squire, Robin

    Ground, Patrick

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hague, William

    Steen, Anthony

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Stern, Michael

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Stevens, Lewis

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Harris, David

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Holt, Richard

    Sumberg, David

    Home Robertson, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

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

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Thorne, Neil

    Irvine, Michael

    Thurnham, Peter

    Jack, Michael

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Janner, Greville

    Tredinnick, David

    Jessel, Toby

    Trippier, David

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Key, Robert

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Kilfedder, James

    Walden, George

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Waller, Gary

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Ward, John

    Knapman, Roger

    Warren, Kenneth

    Knowles, Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Lang, Ian

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    394

    Wood, Timothy

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Yeo, Tim

    Miss Ann Widdecombe and

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Mr. Hugo Summerson.

    NOES

    Anderson, Donald

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Lamond, James

    Beith, A. J.

    Lewis, Terry

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

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Loyden, Eddie

    Blunkett, David

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Callaghan. Jim

    McWilliam, John

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Meale, Alan

    Clelland, David

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Cohen, Harry

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Cryer, Bob

    O'Brien, William

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

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Dixon, Don

    Parry, Robert

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Eadie, Alexander

    Redmond, Martin

    Eastham, Ken

    Skinner, Dennis

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Fearn, Ronald

    Turner, Dennis

    Foster, Derek

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Fyfe, Maria

    Wilson, Brian

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Mr. Harry Barnes and

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Mr. George Buckley.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
    Ordered,
    That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to have regard to the need for regeneration of local communities and local industries in and around the areas of London Dockland and Lower Lea Valley.—[Mr. Spearing.]
    Ordered,
    That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that in its consideration of the Bill it take account of the findings and recommendations contained in the Third Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) of Session 1989–90, New Parliamentary Building (Phase 2) and the Jubilee Line Proposals.—[Mr. Ray Powell.]
    Ms. Gordon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Only two hon. Members were waiting to speak at 9.30 pm, both of whose constituencies are affected by the Bill. Both hon. Members sat through the whole of the debate on 12 July, and again today—yet the debate was closed at 9.30 pm when it could have continued till 10.30 pm. I hope that my constituents, who support the extension of the Jubilee line but have suffered from years of disruption because of the building of the docklands light railway, Canary wharf and the docklands highway, will be treated with more consideration during the building of this extension than their representative was tonight.
    Miss Kate Hoey: On a similar point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the reason why the two hon. Members were not called was not that they are women. I am sure that that is not so. My constituents are concerned about Jubilee gardens and the effect of it. I hope that London Underground will treat them with more respect than the promoter treated the two hon. Members tonight.
    Mr. Cryer rose—
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall deal with the points of order by the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). I am sorry that they were disappointed and that time ran out, but if it helps I can confirm that they were here for the majority of the Second Reading debate.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the debate on 12 July, I mentioned the environmental statement that London Underground had produced. The promoters have provided a statement for the Bill, and this links with the two points of order that have been made. I was sent a copy of the statement through the post, but only because I had said that the statement was not available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. Will you, through your good offices, Mr. Deputy Speaker, draw the attention of promoters to the desirability of making environmental statements readily available? I know that they are expensive, but compared with the hundreds of millions of pounds that are being poured into the line, a small amount of money is involved. Hon. Members who will serve on the Committee that considers the Bill should be provided with it as a matter of right. I know that this is not a Standing Order obligation, but I hope that you can use your good offices to ensure that that is done.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, as he has raised this with the Chair before, it is the job of the Chair to be satisfied that the relevant parliamentary documents are available. His comments about documents being provided by promoters will be heard in the appropriate quarter. As he recognises, it is not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you consider how the Chairman of the Committee will be appointed? My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) mentioned how Chairmen have been appointed to Committees in recent months. The feeling in some quarters is that there has been manipulation of the order in which Bills have been taken to ensure a Conservative Chairman for controversial Bills and an Opposition Chairman for non-controversial Bills. As I understand it, the tradition of private business is that hon. Members are totally independent and are not involved with the Bill. Are you satisfied, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that any hon. Member can be totally impartial on a Bill that will affect our access to and from the House?
    If the tradition of hon. Members being independent is to be maintained—four of them will consider the Bill, one of whom will have a casting vote—careful inquiries must be made to discover whether the Bill was set down for consideration a fortnight ago and again today to secure a
    396
    Conservative Member as Chairman of the Committee. I think that that would have serious implications for the impartiality of that Committee and of hon. Members.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
    Mr. Hughes: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is further to and in support of the point of order made by the hon. Member of Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I ask you and your colleagues to reflect on the matter. I do not make a personal comment when I say that the Bill's sponsor is a Conservative Member—[Interruption.] No, that is not an offence. The issue of the impartiality of the Chairman of a Committee is relevant in view of the direction of the promotion. For understandable reasons, London Transport chooses—as it is entitled to do—which Member sponsors its Bill. Surely that should be a factor in influencing the choice of Chairman of the Committee, by having someone other than a Conservative Member as the Chairman. I hope that a balance can be sustained to show that the Committee is truly impartial.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the points of order that have been made by the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The House recognises the onerous task of hon. Members who chair and serve on Opposed Bill Committees. I do not believe that any of the points raised are issues for the Chair, although of course I shall carefully consider the hon. Members' comments. This is a matter for the Committee of Selection. I feel sure that the two hon. Members will wish to draw their points to the attention of the Chairman of that Committee.

    Redbridge London Borough Council Bill
    Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.
    9.59 pm
    Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In a moment. Lords amendments to be considered what day?
    Ordered,
    That the Lords amendments be considered tomorrow.
    Mr. Redmond: That answers my question, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Contracts (Applicable Law) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day

  Contracts (Applicable Law) Bill [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Bill reported, without amendment; not amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  [Relevant document: European Community Document No. 5962/90 on conclusion of the Articles of Agreement establishing a European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.]
  10.2 pm
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
  That the draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Subscription to Capital Stock) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.
  I understand that it is agreeable that the House should consider at the same time the other motion on the Order Paper:
  That the draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): If the House agrees, so be it.
  Mrs. Chalker: The explanatory memorandum circulated on the EC proposal—Document No. 5692/90—for a Council decision on the conclusion of the articles of agreement establishing a European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is most relevant and I greatly welcome the interest of the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation, which has recommended a debate at an early stage.
  I spoke with the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and explained that, in the short time available, it has not been possible to arrange the separate debate recommended. I look forward tonight to a thorough debate on the orders and on all aspects raised by establishment of the new bank. It may be helpful to the House if I also deal with points arising from the Community document.
  The House will acknowledge the extraordinary change in central and eastern Europe. Yesterday's dictatorships have been replaced by today's reborn democracies. The spurious certainties of centrally planned economies have given way to the opportunities and disciplines of the free market. The free world has reacted quickly to this momentous process, and must continue to do so if it is to help and influence events. It would be difficult to find a clearer example of quick reaction and long-term commitment than this new European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, or EBRD, which we are to discuss today.
  It was only in December last year that the European Council decided at its meeting in Strasbourg to establish, as soon as possible, a new European bank to further the implementation in central and eastern European countries
  398
  of democracy and economic reform. I shall have more to say about the purposes of the new bank in a moment. That decision in Strasbourg set in train a process of urgent, but careful, diplomacy. Preparatory discussions began in Paris in January this year, and continued almost unbroken until the articles of agreement establishing the bank were signed by representatives of its 42 prospective members in Paris on 29 May.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether, during the course of the negotiations, any of the European countries involved ever consulted any of their Parliaments, or presented any document to any of their national Parliaments or to the European Parliament?
  Mrs. Chalker: I remember that, after the European Council meeting at Strasbourg, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to the House on the sort of procedures that would be undertaken. Further to that, we got on with the basic organisational work—which was purely organisational. Subsequently, we have presented an explanatory memorandum to the Select Committee on European Legislation, and have carried out the work that was necessary to enable us to implement the decisions made at Strasbourg last December.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and our ambassador in Paris signed the articles of agreement for the United Kingdom, and the European Commission and the Irish presidency signed on behalf of the Community. However, the House's approval of the two draft orders is requested tonight before the Government move to ratify the agreement. The agreement could not even have been considered further unless it had been signed by all the members back in May. Equally, the scrutiny aspect will need to be resolved to the satisfaction of the House, and it was on that matter that I consulted the Chairman of the Select Committee.
  Members of the new bank will include the world's leading economic powers—all members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—including Japan, the United States and, of course, all European Community member states, the European Economic Community itself and the European Investment Bank. All the emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe have signed and are potential recipients. Assistance from the new bank will be an important element in their continued progress towards political and economic reform.
  However, the new bank has attracted support not only from the free-market West, but also from the old communist East. Egypt, Israel, the republic of Korea, Mexico and Morocco have also signed the articles; so it is truly an international effort, and we must ensure that the impetus of that effort is maintained.
  The articles of agreement will come into force—and the bank will come into existence—only when ratified by signatories representing two thirds of the total voting power, including at least two countries from central and eastern Europe. It is thus imperative that the process of ratification be completed thoroughly but quickly: France has already done that.
  We want to exercise our vote when the first decisions are made on bank strategy and investment proposals. As host nation, the United Kingdom wishes—with the consent of both Houses of Parliament to the draft orders

  399
  —to be among the first to ratify, so encouraging early ratification by others. The president-designate, Mr. Attali, wants the agreement to enter into force early next year, so that the bank can begin quickly to make its vital contribution to the development of eastern European economies, and hence underpin the emerging free-market democracies. That would be consistent with the leading role that the Government have taken in encouraging reform in eastern Europe, and in ensuring that the Community responds positively to it.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Why does my right hon. Friend use the word "vital"? Is that a mere pun to try to excite us about the size or does it really mean that this will be a substantial and subsidised institution which will be spreading a lot of the taxpayers' money around eastern Europe?
  Mrs. Chalker: I follow precisely what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said in the matter. We intend that the bank should provide the stimulus for private investment in eastern Europe and not be a drain on the resources of the British or any other taxpayer. Instead, it should stimulate the development of the central and eastern European economies that we know they are well capable of.
  The need to have capital to start up is obvious and understandable. However, I cannot divert from anything that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in that respect on 1 May in the House, when she reported back from the European Council in Dublin which also discussed the matter, as did the European Council in Strasbourg last December.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: As the money will be invested in eastern European economies as seed money and so forth, is it sensible for the Government to spend £10,000 million on Trident nuclear weapons which will presumably be aimed at those economies? Are the Government not investing money with the threat of mass extermination and destruction of that investment?
  Mrs. Chalker: If I strayed into the realms that the hon. Gentleman tempts me into, I do not believe that I would have your support, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Therefore, I will not follow the hon Gentleman's path.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: I want to get on with the debate. I have already given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and I want to continue, because we have only one and a half hours to debate the subject. I do not want to cut the time available for Back Benchers.
  It would be helpful if I set out the Government's view on the proposal for a Council decision on Community ratification of the articles.
  As I mentioned earlier, it was the Strasbourg Council of 8 and 9 December last year which set in train the detailed negotiations which led to the articles of agreement. It is thus very much an initiative of the Heads of Government of the Twelve. This is acknowledged in the majority shareholding specified in the articles for the member states of the Community, the Community itself and the European investment bank.
  400
  The board of governors of the EIB has already authorised its membership as it is entitled to do under the EIB statute. If approved, the proposed Council decision will authorise Community membership of the EBRD. As is usual in these cases, we think that the Community should ratify only when all member states have done so. The draft decision is presently before the European Parliament, and we expect it to come to the Council in the autumn. It will require unanimous approval by the Council of Ministers.
  Under the proposal, the Commission would have the right to appoint the Community's own governor and director, and would represent the Community within the EBRD, alongside member states and other shareholders, including the European Investment Bank. The Community and EIB will each hold 3 per cent. of voting power.
  The House will want to know the financial implications. The Community's capital subscription will be for 300 million ecu—about £225 million, of which the paid-in element will be 90 million ecu—about £65 million. Our share of the EC capital subscription—based on our current share of the EC budget—will be approximately £45 million, of which £15 million would be paid in.
  I hope that the House will agree that it is important that the Community becomes a member of the new institution quickly, so giving it a voice in the new institution. The Community and its 12 members can take much of the credit for the bank's existence and future.
  It is possible that the draft Council decision may come to the Council in the autumn while the House is still in recess. The United Kingdom may thus be asked to give agreement in the Council before Parliament reassembles in October. As host nation and a leading member of the new bank, the United Kingdom would not want to delay unduly its entry into force. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree, after tonight's full debate, when hon. Members have had the opportunity recommended by the Scrutiny Committee to examine the matter in detail, that we should proceed.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I thank the Minister for mentioning that point. As she will know, for reasons that she has explained, the orders have come before the final decision and ratification of the articles in the regulations, which we are not formally discussing tonight. Does she agree that, if discussions are necessary, there might be another debate after the measure is set up, which will not be before the decision but perhaps after, when the full details are known?
  Mrs. Chalker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I shall certainly bear in mind what he says. At present, the proposed Council decision is not likely to come back perhaps even until the October session of the Foreign Affairs Council. Obviously that is a matter that I shall consider with great care. It is subject to negotiation, but, given the work that has been done earlier in the year to prepare for this stage, I suspect that there is unlikely to be any great diversion from what we have already seen and what we know.
  I should now address the significance of the two orders that I ask the House to approve tonight. The articles of agreement signed by the Chancellor on 29 May were presented in Parliament as Command Paper 1116 on 28 June. The orders commit the United Kingdom to certain

  401
  obligations which I ask the House to approve tonight before we can move to the ratification of the articles of the agreement.
  I should like to discuss the subscription order first. The total authorised stock of the bank will be worth 10 billion ecu. The United Kingdom will subscribe to 85,175 shares in the new Bank—a total subscription of 851·75 million ecu, or about £600 million. That makes us equal-second largest contributor, along with France, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy—that is, the four largest European Community members—and Japan. The largest shareholder will be the United States of America, with 100,000 shares
  Much consideration was given to the question of what share of the capital should be paid in if the bank was to make an effective contribution to economic development. We think that the agreed figure of 3 billion ecu, or 30 per cent. of the capital stock, is the right one for the bank's initial operations, given that bank finance is intended to act as the catalyst for the generation of private investment.
  Thirty per cent. of our subscription will thus be paid in, and the remainder will be callable, so our paid-in shares will be for 255·5 million ecu, or about £190 million. That will be payable in five equal annual amounts, the first of which must be made within 60 days after the articles have been ratified by the necessary two thirds of members and the agreement enters into force. Half our subscription can be paid in cash, and half in promissory notes. Each cash payment and each note would therefore be for just under £20 million.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) told the House on 2 July, we agree with the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in its recent report on Foreign and Commonwealth Office/Overseas Development Administration expenditure that our subscription to the EBRD should be paid out of the aid vote for eastern European support and not from the money voted for our contributions to multilateral organisations. Those funds, like our other assistance for eastern Europe, are additional to and quite separate from our traditional aid programme. I can assure the House that our support for eastern and central Europe is not at the expense of developing countries. The Government entirely agree that this should not be so.
  As the House is aware, the new bank is to be based in London. There was a great deal of interest by other members in the question of location; and good cases were indeed made for several other European cities. I am very pleased, however, that London's advantages were clearly acknowledged to be compelling, when the final choice was made. I am sure that this will be good for London and for the bank. I should like to pay tribute to the negotiators, who put so much hard work into ensuring that the bank should come to London.
  As a member of the bank, we shall, of course, need to grant it certain immunities and privileges. The draft order will give effect to the immunities and privileges set out in chapter VIII of the articles of agreement, and attested to by all signatories as necessary to enable the bank to fulfil its purpose and functions. All member states will grant the bank these immunities and privileges. The order will confer legal status upon the bank and give it certain exemptions from duties and taxation; its property will also enjoy certain immunities from seizure.
  402
  The officers and employees of the bank will be exempt from taxation on the salaries paid to them by the bank, although they will pay an internal tax for the benefit of the bank, and they will be immune from suit and legal process in respect of their official acts.
  While the order cannot come into force until the date on which the agreement establishing the bank comes into force—that is, after ratification by members with two thirds of the total voting power—it is important that the draft order be approved now so that the United Kingdom can ratify as proposed.
  We shall also need to negotiate a headquarters agreement with the bank, as an international organisation to be established in this country. This headquarters agreement will set out in detail the immunities and privileges of the bank and its employees, within the limits imposed by the International Organisations Act 1968, and will require a further order to be approved by the House when negotiations are completed.
  The headquarters agreement, once approved by Parliament, will not have effect until the bank comes into existence, but as host nation, we would of course wish matters to be settled before entry into force of the articles of agreement. We would therefore expect to return to the House with the second order as soon as possible in the autumn.
  The United Kingdom is already home to several important international organisations, but this is the first multilateral development bank to be established here. In basing the bank in London, the international community acknowledges and signifies its intention to make use of London's continuing pre-eminence as a financial centre. The bank will be able to draw on unrivalled banking expertise, and will be a part of the most important financial market in Europe.
  This is not only to the advantage of the bank; we think that it is of tremendous benefit to the City also. Even the healthiest of bodies can benefit from new blood; and great institutions must attract important new players if they are to stay out in front. The location of the bank in London, with close access to its investors and its customers, is to our mutual credit and advantage. I look forward to the further strengthening of British financial involvement in central and eastern Europe.
  That is why the Government have pledged support to the new bank in finding a home in London. We have already, at Mr. Attali's request, arranged a lease on temporary premises at Broadgate in the City, and the bank's transitional team of experts will start operations from there next month. We have also engaged a firm of London surveyors to help the bank locate a permanent headquarters, and I understand that steady progress is being made. The choice of a building is for the bank itself; I hope that an announcement will be possible soon on the bank's permanent location.
  I should like now to put these detailed comments into context, by saying something of the purpose of the new bank. The EBRD is a notable first in another area too, which is of greater historical significance than those mentioned so far. The Government have insisted from the start of negotiations to establish the bank that it should make an explicit commitment to promoting democratic principles and acknowledging the importance of economic and political progress.
  That commitment is clearly stated in the bank's articles. The countries of eastern and central Europe have missed

  403
  out on 40 years or more of the developments which we have experienced in the free world. Events of the past year have confirmed the essential health and vigour of the democratic spirit; but economic well-being is not easily or quickly restored.
  It is worth a brief look at article 2 of the new bank's articles of agreement to see how it is intended to help. It intends
  "To promote, through private and other interested investors, the establishment … of productive, competitive and private sector activities, in particular small and medium size enterprises … To mobilise domestic and foreign capital and experienced management"—
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: I shall give way once more to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Budgen: The central question here is why the private sector cannot do these things. My right hon. Friend is using exactly the same language that the Labour Government used in promoting the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. We are talking about a state bank interfering in European affairs.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: A joint state bank.
  Mr. Budgen: A joint state bank perhaps, but a state bank nevertheless.
  Mr. Wells: An unaccountable state bank.
  Mr. Budgen: Yes, an unaccountable state bank.
  Will my right hon. Friend please explain why private merchant banks cannot do the job?
  Mrs. Chalker: It is interesting to be taking part once more in a European debate of the kind that so excites the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). I find it slightly strange, after all the months that have gone by during which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear to the House—
  Mr. Budgen: Never mind the Prime Minister.
  Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend may not mind what the Prime Minister says; I happen to support my right hon. Friend and agree with her.
  I believe that it is a good thing to have a bank that fosters and encourages private investment in the region because it will give a lead in eastern and central Europe. But the bank will not be in competition with the private sector. It will not lend when funding is available for project proposals from other sources on reasonable terms, but it will lend for a number of activities, one of which I should have been coming to shortly had my hon. Friend given me the opportunity to reach that point in my remarks.
  The bank will enable things to be done which might otherwise not have been done but which are in the international interest. I refer, of course, to the control of pollution and the improvement of the environment. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe that it is right that the developed nations, which are economically active in a free market, should give help to the developing economies of central and eastern Europe to improve the environment, which knows no geographical bounds.
  404
  Let me return to what I was saying a few moments ago. It is important that the new bank's articles of agreement are well understood. I quoted one of them and I should like to mention two others. The second is the one that refers to
  "environmentally sound and sustainable development".
  The other refers to fostering
  "productive investment in related infrastructure where that is necessary to support private and entrepreneurial initiative".
  Only people who have travelled in central and eastern Europe and who know of the dearth of such infrastructure will fully understand that that is necessary before certain other developments can take place which will involve, and be wholly funded by, the private sector. That is why there is a need for a mix of private and public sector involvement in advancing the economies of central and eastern Europe.
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: The organisation is termed a bank, yet it is apparent from the documents that a significant proportion of the moneys may be applied to equity investment. Can my right hon. Friend explain why it is necessary to devote funds for risk capital being put up by the nation states? I am wholly in favour of the concept of a bank and if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to argue for that. But I cannot quite see why the bank needs to be investing in risk capital and equity participation.
  Mrs. Chalker: If I may, I shall come to that point later.
  It is important to understand that the bank has a broad and demanding remit. It is not to act alone; it is to act as a catalyst. It will not substitute for or supplant private finance. However, it will have a major part to play in promoting, co-ordinating and encouraging the investment of private capital and expertise without which economic regeneration cannot be achieved.
  I draw the particular attention of the House to the new bank's stress on environmentally sustainable investment. As we all know, decades of under-investment have brought eastern Europe close to an environmental catastrophe that is not limited to the boundaries of central and eastern Europe. The west has learnt and is still learning from its own environmental experience. We have much to offer by way of industrial processes and expertise. We want the new bank to make a contribution from the very start to environmental regeneration.
  Britain is already helping eastern Europe through our know-how fund. British electricity utilities are co-operating with Poland on ways of conserving energy and reducing the environmental damage done by burning brown coal. Similar help is envisaged for Czechoslovakia, and a reconnaissance team from the Department of the Environment recently visited Czechoslovakia for those purposes.
  The priority now, then, is twofold. First, it is to establish the investment needs in eastern and central Europe; secondly, it is to get the new bank up and running as soon as possible, with a sound operational structure. As host nation and one of the principal shareholders, we undertake to play our full part. That has been our aim since we first became involved in the process.
  Of course, while reports confirm that, throughout central and eastern Europe, private entrepreneurs have responded to the challenge to meet newly released consumer demand, it would not be realistic to expect a fully functioning private sector to emerge overnight on the scale required, which is enormous.
  Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend referred to the scale of the resources required. Will the German Democratic Republic have access to these funds, having regard to the enormous cost of providing adequate finance for the nuclear reactors, which are of Chernobyl proportions? How much will that cost? To what extent will it absorb the funds that are available?
  Mrs. Chalker: According to the envisaged time scale, the German Democratic Republic is likely to be part of a unified Germany. If that happens, she will not have access to the funds of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. However, she will have access to the funds of the European Investment Bank. What my hon. Friend has described is highly unlikely to happen in the time in which that matter will have to be dealt with. There are many other aspects that will need to be dealt with, in conjuction with other eastern and central European countries. I am convinced that the bank will be able to play a full role and that it will leave the European Investment Bank, and possibly the German banks, to cope with the enormous problems that exist in the current German Democratic Republic.
  The bank will have to work hard to help its borrowers to reach the goal of emerging from the old regime into a new and fully-fledged market economy. Investment in the public infrastructure will be needed. That is why up to 40 per cent. of the bank's total committed loans, guarantees and equity investments will be available to the state sector for investment in the infrastructure that is necessary for the development of the private sector.
  The greatest promise has already been shown in the smaller recipients with a previous tradition of economic initiative. Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in particular have already made significant progress, and Poland is already implementing a programme of structural adjustment.
  The needs of the Soviet Union are not yet clear, nor yet is the extent of its commitment to economic reform. I am glad to say that the Soviet Union itself acknowledges the potential problem. It has agreed for the first three years of the bank's operations to limit its access to bank resources to no more than the total amount of capital paid in by the Soviet Union. The arrangements thereafter will need to be decided by the governing board of the bank.
  The reform process in central and eastern Europe poses one of the great political challenges of our time. Political courage and fortitude from within and firmness of purpose from without have combined to end the political impasse of the cold war. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development can now help to provide the economic prosperity necessary to underpin that political freedom. We are certain that it can help turn swords into ploughshares. I commend the two orders to the House as modest but essential components of the United Kingdom's contribution to this great positive change in Europe.
  10.35 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). As a former member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which he is Chairman, I know how frustrating it is to find so often that a full debate in the House is not possible and that decisions are taken without the Committee's decisions being discussed first.
  406
  As the Minister said, the EBRD was agreed in principle. The decision of the European Council was reported. It did not arrive until late, and the Minister has given the Committee an explanatory memorandum dated 21 June 1990. The Committee considered that on 21 July, but its report has not yet been published. Therefore, the House has not yet formally agreed the principle of the bank. The orders are before us tonight because it will be set up before October and the Government need these measures in order to be party to the bank. I hope that the Government will take note of my hon. Friend's comments, which he has made many times before.
  The amount of money involved is not that big compared with other international banks, but it could provide a useful focal point for expertise and coordination. As the Minister has admitted, many of the details are still quite vague—
  Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I should like to begin my speech before I give way. I have not completed one point yet.
  Many of the details are still vague, so this is a good opportunity for us to press for what we think is important. This debate on the United Kingdom's financial contribution is being counted as a debate on ratification, so it is our only chance to comment before the United Kingdom ratifies the bank agreement.
  The BERD—I use the French initials of the bank because I think that they will be more commonly used in future—will not be a major institution in the reconstruction of eastern Europe in purely financial terms, because its initial capital of $12 billion is small, less than half the estimated cost of cleaning up Poland's power industry alone.
  This is not an institution on the scale of the Marshall plan; its significance lies in the fact that it is a new and rapidly created bank with the specific purpose of promoting the reconstruction of eastern Europe. The speed at which it has been set up reflects the importance that both east and west attach to the task. As Mr. Attali described it in a recent interview,
  "BERD is the embryo of a confederation of Europe, as the European coal and steel community was the embryo of the Common Market in the fifties.".
  It is the political commitment, as much as the economic funding of BERD, that is significant. As M. Attali is well grounded in socialist principles, the next Labour Government will have no difficulty in working well with him.
  As the Minister said, BERD is the first multilateral bank to have environmental protection written into its articles of agreement, which is very important. However, it is vital that strong environmental conditions are written into the byelaws and manual of operations, which are still being negotiated. The United States Congress has passed implementing legislation which says that the Government can subscribe only if the strictest environmental standards are used. I suggest that the United Kingdom Government too should not ratify the bank's statutes until they are sure that strict environmental standards are to be upheld.
  The byelaws and operating manual must require environmental impact assessments of all projects before they are approved. Careful monitoring of projects will also be needed. This Government and others know full well that public participation and disclosure of information are essential for environmental concerns to be expressed and

  407
  to be taken into account. Yet there is no mention of that in the articles of agreement. Article 35 states that there will be an annual report on the environmental impact of BERD's activities, but it also states that copies of all reports, statements and publications made under that article shall be distributed to members. We know how secretive member Governments are about such reports once they have their own vested interests, so it must be agreed from the start that information about BERD's proposed projects will be publicly available, especially to those most affected by the proposals and to those best placed to provide information on their likely environmental impact.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Lady is prattling on about the extent to which the bank will operate in future. Has she looked at article 14? Has she looked at the terms and conditions for loans and guarantees? That is the crucial point in relation to this proposal. The terms and conditions on loans and guarantees lay down and prescribe the basis on which loans are to be made. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will know the basis on which the loans will be enjoyed by the recipient countries. Does she know what the basis of those loans and guarantees will be? I think that she is talking through her hat.
  Mrs. Clwyd: If there is any expert on prattling in this House, it is the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). If he had allowed me to develop my speech, he would have had answers to his questions. However, I suspect that he does not want to stay to make his own contribution to the debate.
  In May, the Czechoslovak Government produced a report on the country's environment which made clear the devastating effect of decades of uncontrolled production. As the Minister knows, almost one third of that country is ecologically devastated, according to the report. More than 70 per cent. of pregnancies in northern Bohemia result in miscarriages. Water supplies are contaminated with radioactivity from land fills and with phosphates, with nitrates and with a host of other chemicals which make it unfit to drink.
  In Poland, 70 per cent. of the drinking water is polluted and an estimated 100 million trees have been destroyed, mainly by acid rain due to sulphur emissions from industry. Modern technology is desperately needed. Decades of third-rate technology have wreaked havoc on the health of the environment and on the people who live in it. We must ensure that that technology is replaced, but not with second-rate technology from the west which is sold cheaply to the east because it is too dirty for the west.
  Although the development of the private sector is clearly an essential part of the reform process in eastern Europe, BERD must recognise that this will take time. It may prove difficult to meet the condition that 60 per cent. of all loans go the private sector in the first year. The BERD must avoid over-emphasising the free market simply for ideology's sake, if the practical situation calls for continued state involvement. That is particularly true of achieving environmental aims.
  The private sector, based on western experience, does not deliver green, clean goods. Nor does the private sector worry much about social costs. As the Deutschebank stated in its special report on eastern Europe:
  408
  "Now that virtually all Eastern European countries are dismantling the system of planned economy, we need to ensure that the social costs accompanying such a major transition will not be aggravated by some of the less desirable features of market economies."
  It has taken a decade to learn the bitter lesson of developing countries, that economic adjustment must be combined with special attention being paid to the needs of the most vulnerable, and that ignoring investment in people carries long-term costs as well as short-term suffering. That lesson must be applied in our work in eastern Europe.
  In its publication "Economic Outlook," the OECD warns that eastern Europe risks being asset-stripped by western investors. In promoting private sector participation, we must ensure that ventures are truly joint ventures and not just a way of subsidising western countries into buying up the best assets of eastern countries.
  The bank's emphasis appears to be on large companies rather than on small firms, but the development of a range of small companies is equally important to their economic development, and I hope that we may have an assurance from the Government that small firms will not be ignored. In particular, we must be assured that when BERD assists in the development of capital markets, the capital needs of the smallest firms, as well as those of large companies, are taken into account.
  Hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in hoping that the bank's location in London will encourage British firms to widen their horizons to eastern Europe. So far, the Germans, Italians and French are there, but where are the Brits? In his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, Mr. Crockett of the Bank of England—an institution hardly known for its recklessness—stated:
  "British companies are erring too much on the side of caution in their approach to Eastern Europe."
  We know the markets are there, so where are the Brits?
  Mr. Cryer: Could a possible explanation be that the British know that we have a warmongering Prime Minister who is spending £10 billion on new nuclear weapons, and they are worried about the investment because they are not sure that she will keep her finger off the button?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I share my hon. Friend's sentiments on that. We should like to hear more from the Prime Minister, rather than from some of the Government's more obscure Ministers, about the likelihood of a peace dividend. We need that information quickly because when we are talking about additional aid for eastern Europe this year, we need assurances about aid in subsequent years. We want some of the savings resulting from the peace dividend to go to developing countries and eastern Europe.
  The leaders of the European Community, at their summit in Dublin recently, asked the Commission to see how the EC could help provide aid and credit to the Soviet Union to buy time for perestroika. At their summit in Houston, the leaders of the western world called on the IMF and the World bank to see how they could help. The leader of the Labour party outlined his plan at a meeting with President Bush to help the Soviet Union. We expect BERD to co-ordinate its efforts with the various institutions and, where possible, to provide expertise.
  Numerous agencies and banks are now setting up work in eastern Europe, and co-ordination is essential. The World bank is lending between $5 billion and $7 billion over the next few years. The bank's international financial

  409
  corporation is already promoting private sector investment along the lines planned for BERD. The IMF has set up stand-by agreements with Poland and Yugoslavia.
  All this makes it essential that there is close co-ordination between the banks. It also shows that BERD needs to be quite clear about its own role. Clearly, it will not be a massive new source of funds to overshadow all the others. Nevertheless, it could make a distinctive contribution by becoming the focal point for co-ordination among agencies and banks supporting eastern Europe and for providing expertise in the region. That will require strong leadership and commitment from BERD members.
  For the Soviet Union, which is not a member of the IMF or the World bank, BERD provides an important stepping stone into the international financial community. It was thanks to the insistence of the United States that the amount that the USSR can borrow is strictly limited and that a minimum of 60 per cent. must be lent to the private sector. What attempts did the Prime Minister make to oppose those limitations that were imposed by the United States? How can she tell Mr. Gorbachev that we all support his attempts at reform and that we are delighted that the Soviet Union is a founding member of BERD but that, because we do not trust him to use the money well, the Soviet Union cannot be a net borrower?
  Indeed, BERD must take care not to burden the east with eager loans. With a debt of $40 billion, Poland alone cannot afford to take out that new loan. Poland's ratio of debt to exports is overwhelming at over 500 per cent. Annual interest payments amount to nearly half a year's exports. Poland's biggest creditors are official—that means that it is Governments who now could and should give considerable debt relief.
  In evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, the report of which is published today, Mr. Crockett of the Bank of England said:
  "I think there is no question, however, but that normal services, that is to say, regular amortisation and interest payments on debt, is not possible given the size of Poland's debts."
  However, we have heard nothing from the Government about promoting debt relief. We all know that the Paris Club has rescheduled Poland's debt, but why not reduce it? Surely now is the time for a bit of imagination and initiative, if ever there was one.
  Do the Government accept the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, paragraph 74 of which states:
  "A sizeable chunk of Poland's debt should be written off"?
  As the east European countries still have a severe shortage of hard currency and their own currencies are not yet convertible, making loans in those conditions could present many problems.
  I support the call in a recent European Parliament resolution that it is extremely important in allocating funds that specific attention should be paid to effective monitoring of the projects funded and the capacity of the economies of central and eastern European countries to absorb the investment.
  I am sure that all hon. Members recognise that the development of market economies will take quite a long time. After all, it took 13 years for western Europe's major currencies to become convertible after the second world war. We cannot expect more of eastern Europe in the 1990s than we achieved in the 1940s and 1950s. As hon.
  410
  Members know, after the war, western Europe received a great deal of concessional assistance for our reconstruction. We must now give eastern Europe the same chance that we had.
  Of course, BERD is only a small part of the massive west-east effort that is necessary. We must not allow it to divert attention from the need for grant aid, technical aid, debt relief, a re-examination of EC trade policies and other vital assistance.
  There is obviously some confusion about BERD's terms of lending, and that is evidenced in the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. Mr. Crockett of the Bank of England stated:
  "A good project would probably finance itself from the BERD with a lower spread than a merchant bank in England would be able to offer."
  Can the Minister confirm that it is intended that BERD will be profit-making, but that, thanks to Government backing and AAA-rating, it will offer slightly lower interest rates than commercial banks? Can she explain why the issue has not been fully resolved when it is obviously of great importance? Can she say what the Government are doing to ensure that sufficient concessional aid is provided? The Select Committee's report questions the lack of clarity in the lending criteria of BERD.
  Another grey area is the funding of Britain's contribution to BERD. On 15 June, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury said in reply to a written question that the United Kingdom's contribution would be additional to the overseas aid budget until 1993–94, and that future contributions would be discussed in public expenditure surveys. Will the Government guarantee that not only will the initial cash instalment come from an additional line in the aid vote, but so will the encashment of promissory notes that the ODA's memorandum says will be met as they are incurred from sums voted for overseas aid?
  Will the Minister also guarantee that contributions will continue to come from additional money after 1993? In particular, do the Government accept the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee that BERD contributions should come out of the eastern Europe line, and not from funds for multilateral institutions?
  In conclusion, I wish to say how much the Opposition welcome the setting up of the bank. I am pleased that it is to be in the United Kingdom, although I would have wished cities other than London to be considered. I hope that it means that the United Kingdom will play an important role in European Community development. That is what the public want. Alas, I fear that it is not what the Government intend—but it is certainly the role which the next Labour Government will adopt.
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: I welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I wish to say a few words about the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It is proper to begin by declaring what might be considered to be an interest in the matter, as I am consultant to a company that has explored some opportunities in Bulgaria and the Soviet Union, and also the director of another company that has explored some investment opportunities in Hungary. I do not think that it would be revealing any secrets to say that I strongly

  411
  advised those companies not to make such investments. They have not done so—not because of that advice, but for other reasons.
  It is extremely difficult to make investments in some of those countries, as it is difficult to establish a title to corporate assets and to real estate. Quite frankly, it is difficult to envisage how one can get one's money out in hard currency. When investing private or corporate money or shareholders' funds as an entrepreneurial company, there is a duty to see light at the end of the tunnel and not just to invest on the wing of a hope. There must be a real prospect of a return. If there is not, other markets and other returns offer an immediate prospect for the funds deployed.
  I hope that I will not offend those who intrinsically may find the bank's very existence offensive if I ask: if communism has failed those countries, and if capitalism then fails them, where will they go? Those countries face enormous problems, and if we fail them there will be either a return to nationalism or a militant solution. If their best aspirations are repressed, there may be anarchy. We have not only an opportunity but a major and immediate responsibility.
  Although these loans may not compare with the best available on the international markets and with those in developed countries, they will undoubtedly offer a decent rate of return. The fact that an investment fund is devoted particularly to the eastern European countries will concentrate minds on investment and banking opportunities in those countries, because one is not having to compare investment in a chemical company or a loan to an agrochemicals company in Hungary with what it may make in other parts of the world. By setting up the bank, we are devoting it specifically to these countries as a sector, and as such it will make a contribution.
  There will undoubtedly be—this point was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Minister—a significant element of pump-priming. Given all the attendant uncertainties in these countries, it is comforting for a private company making a major investment to be lent money or offered equity participation—although later I shall argue against that—by a major international bank such as this. A certain amount of money will sponsor substantial amounts of private capital investment. In principle, and in politics, the bank is necessary and a good idea.
  However, I have two broad reservations about how the bank is being set up. First, I am concerned that 40 per cent. is being allocated to the public sector. If the idea behind the new bank is, as it says in the first sentences of the articles, to sponsor, encourage and lend money for entrepreneurial activities and free market processes in those countries, why allocate 40 per cent. of those enormous funds to the state sector? I have no interest in voting my limited taxpayers' money to propping up state-owned organisations in the eastern bloc.
  Secondly, I have misgivings, as my earlier intervention showed, about the equity activities of the bank. Banks are not allowed to invest. Investment is an entirely different activity from lending money. The prudential judgment that one makes about a loan is different from the judgment
  412
  one makes about a risk equity investment. The bank should not be involved in equity investments, because that is the role of the private sector.
  Mr. Wells: There are investment banks.
  Mr. Nelson: I know that there are investment banks and that sometimes they are forced—
  Mr. Wells: This is not a bank.
  Mr. Nelson: But it is called a bank and the understanding is that a substantial proportion of its resources will be deployed on a commercial basis. The criterion in article 14 is the commercial basis of its loans.
  If we want to give those countries money, let us have the intellectual and political honesty to say that we are giving them a loan. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) mentioned ecology, impure water and environmental aspects. As a business man or as an hon. Member voting my taxpayers' money for loans, I do not see how we will get a return. Setting up the bank may be a wonderful thing to do, but let us be honest and say, "We will not get a return on that investment." If we are giving the money or lending it only to write it off five years later in changed circumstances, let us recognise that reality from the beginning.
  If we fail to do so, we run the danger of doing exactly what we and the commercial sector have done with the United Nations and numerous other multilateral fund agencies—lending money only for everyone to say, "Write off their debts," without any understanding of what that means for future indebtedness. It has a major impact on the willingness of banks and multilateral agencies to lend money in the future. It simply increases the cost of any loan made to developing countries. We should be honest from the beginning: we should work out whether we are giving money away, lending money or investing risk capital.
  Mr. Budgen: That is particularly relevant to Poland. It would be ridiculous to pretend to be lending more money to an already grossly indebted Polish public sector: Poland would only say at some later stage that it wished to resile, and would find it extremely difficult to borrow money in the future.
  Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend may be right; but the bank's potential activities extend well beyond a single loan to the state of Poland.
  It must be appreciated that much of the money will not find its way into the eastern European bloc. I do not know whether that is good or bad, but we must face the commercial reality: much of it will find its way into western commercial pockets, and rightly so. Investors seeking subsidy, a guarantee or, perhaps, foreign hard-currency collateral and support for their investment are interested in keeping that money outside the country. I suspect that a substantial portion of the funds will be recirculated within the investments of such countries.
  Nevertheless, we should consider where the money will go; some of tonight's intervention have been relevant to that. I am very concerned about long-term heavy infrastructural loans and investments to be made by the new organisation. If we are to spend money in the best possible way, I believe that it should be directed first towards trade credit and secondly towards management expertise.
  Mr. Budgen: The know-how.
  Mr. Nelson: Indeed: it should be directed towards the know-how that can assist developing countries with some of their logistical problems—for instance, the problem of transport to deliver their goods to the market.
  I do not believe that the bank should lend money directly to such countries; it should not do what states should be doing. We should make international, or national, political decisions to extend sovereign loans or, indeed, grant the countries money in the form of a gift. If we could be more honest about that from the outset, I believe that the bank would make a real contribution towards sponsorship of entrepreneurial activities in new countries. If we fail to do that, however, we shall be left with a deadweight of an international bank which, 10 years later, will be asking the House of Commons for more money to pay off the debts that it has incurred. Let us pursue the same principles as we apply to our country and our entrepreneurial companies.
  11.7 pm
  Sir David Steel: The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) made an interesting speech; I agreed with parts of it and disagreed with other parts. I hope that he agrees with me, however, that, when the House has only an hour and a half to discuss the orders, it is a bit unfair for the Front-Bench spokesmen between them to take up most of an hour, leaving the rest of us only half an hour between us. I shall try to be as brief as possible, in fairness to others.
  I think it right to give the measure a general welcome, and also to note the speed with which it has progressed from original promulgation to completion. I believe that President Mitterrand first suggested it in October last year; by May this year, the organisation was agreed on. This, surely, is a sign that the European Community is working with a sense of unity and urgency to tackle the serious problem of further aid for eastern European countries.
  The hon. Member for Chichester made a valid semantic point: I, too, do not regard the organisation as a bank. It is not what is meant by a bank in normal parlance. Speaking from my experience, and having read the articles, I would say that it is much more like the Scottish Development Agency than anything else. That agency, which survived under successive Governments until very lately, has some quasi-banking functions, but it is an agency of government—in this case, we are discussing an agency of Governments in the plural—set up to carry out a specific programme of assistance.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It has been very successful.
  Sir David Steel: It has been very successful indeed. The SDA has acted in mixture of ways to assist the private sector and to carry out some public sector investments. The new organisation is such a body, even though it is sailing under the banking flag.
  There are some valuable lessons to be learnt by pursuing the SDA analogy. Like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), I hope that this new, great organisation will set up within it a small firms unit—as the SDA did—thereby giving valuable assistance not only to the great elements in investment but to the small entrepreneurs who will wish to emerge in the new companies in eastern Europe. I hope that joint ventures will be encouraged. I was interested in the comments by
  414
  the hon. Member for Chichester, because I have seen, from my limited experience in travelling in eastern Europe, the great scope that exists for joint ventures.
  I take issue with the hon. Member for Chichester in that I believe that the private sector in these countries cannot be expected to thrive so long as elements of the public services are so woefully deficient—I think of telecommunications and transport facilities, both of which will require great improvement if private sector investment is to pay off. The hon. Gentleman talked about the return that some investments would get. Looking at the environmental perspective of the new bank—or agency, as I prefer to call it—I believe that the return will come not necessarily in financial percentage terms but in creating a healthier environment for the whole of Europe.
  A few months ago, I had an interesting conversation with a West German politican who pointed out that there would be a serious problem for the Exchequer in a united Germany. It could continue to spend a fixed amount of money on environmental improvement in what was the Federal Republic for, say, a 2 per cent. improvement in the environment, whereas the same investment in the former German Democratic Republic might produce a 6 per cent. improvement—so bad has been the legacy of those Governments.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley criticised the private sector record of lack of care for the environment, but she should have a care—the public sector in eastern Europe has the worst such record of any area. The problems of brown coal burning, pollution of the rivers—many of which flow from eastern Europe into western Europe and into our North sea—and the dangerous state of some nuclear power stations must be cleared up. I do not believe that that can be done on a straight commercial banking, percentage return basis. That is why, although the new organisation is called a bank, I support it. It will have a wider purpose in tackling these serious environmental issues.
  The Minister has almost answered my first query. I hope that this and other items of assistance to eastern Europe will not affect the general ODA budget for assistance to underdeveloped countries. It is important to assert that reassurance. As well as approving of this new organisation, it is important to make it clear that the obstacles to east-west trade will be eliminated so that the new economies can benefit from export-led growth.
  What have the Government done to get rid of COCOM? I do not see how the co-ordinating committee on multilateral export controls, as it is still called, with its restrictions on high-technology exports from west to east, can be justified when we are trying to persuade industries in the east to modernise. I hope that the Minister will comment.
  Like other hon. Members, I believe that it is important that the western economies should come clean on our proposal to deal with the writing off of established debt. I agree that there is no point in piling on a new organisation that is willing to lend money on top of debts that are going to be resiled on in future. Although the bank positively does not have within its remit the tackling of existing debt, that should be cleared up before the bank gets going at full steam.
  Two other points that have not been raised so far in the debate genuinely puzzle me. What will be the rates of interest and how are they to be determined? Are they to be determined by general European levels, or will they

  415
  operate in the London market? It is important that we know how the Governments imagine that the rates of interest will be determined.
  The first article of the bank states:
  "the purpose of the Bank shall be to foster the transition towards open market-oriented economies and to promote private and entrepreuneurial initiatives in the Central and Eastern European countries committed to and applying the principles of multiparty democracy, pluralism and market economics."
  Will priorities within the bank be determined by the European Governments or by all Governments contributing to it? Will it be made clear, for example, that Romania, so long as she continues to persecute leaders of opposition parties, will be low down the queue for assistance from the bank? How will article 1 be put into practice now?
  I just want to reinforce a point made fleetingly by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. While I welcome the creation of this bank in the United Kingdom, there is another great financial centre, as opposed to London, in a city called Edinburgh. I hope that the Government will avoid the trap of implanting all European institutions here in the south-east when there is a great opportunity for organisations and the offices and the employment that they bring to be located outside the City.
  11.16 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I want to make a few constitutional points. It is an outrage that an agenda-less European Council should take decisions to create a bank which has no reference to the European Parliament or to national Parliaments and for the constitution of the bank to be presented to the House tonight in an hour-and-a-half debate in which we are supposed to ratify the entire principle of its establishment. That leads on directly to the problem that we will encounter in future with the institution as I understand it at present. To whom is it accountable? How will it be called to account?
  The World bank and the regional development banks in other areas have proved disastrously unaccountable to the nations that established them, other than to a few civil servants in one or two ministries of finance or administrations for overseas development. For example, it is impossible to see the minutes or agenda of the World bank institutions in this country. To find out what it is discussing or what loans it has agreed or its policy, we have to go to the United States, which is the only country that deposits the agenda and the papers of the World bank in the trade development bank in that country. I suspect that this new institution will be equally secretive and unaccountable.
  As I understand the constitution of the new bank, it will be similar to that of the other regional development banks, in that it will have a committed capital only part of which will be drawn down. The rest of the money to be made available to the eastern European countries will be raised on the open market value. That answers the point of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) about interest rates. Of course, there will have to be a difference between the rate at which it raises money and the rate at which it lends it and, as with the open market—possibly on a AAA basis as in the World bank—we can rest assured that the interest rates will be
  416
  about 2 or 3 per cent. above the London inter-bank offer sale. That is in order to make a return on the bank's capital and to ensure repayment.
  Mr. Budgen: It is all very well to say that, but, if this agency, as I prefer to call it, has the objectives that are being suggested—to support democracy and help environmental improvements—it is difficult to see how many of the projects can pay the interest rates that my hon. Friend suggests. It must mean that at least some of the profitable activities will have to subsidise some of the politically desirable activities. None of that is clear. It is all left in fairly socialist and interventionist vagueness.
  Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend gives a good illustration of why the thinking of this bank is extremely woolly and is the result of an enormous rush to establish it, about which we have been told tonight.
  If one is to borrow money at the rate of interest that I have suggested and then on-lend it, the question arises how one will make money out of promoting environmental issues, which I fully support. But one cannot be made to pay if one is borrowing money at high interest rates.
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: My hon. Friend makes a little too much of this. He should remember that the European Investment Bank will be one of the largest shareholders of the bank, and that for several years the European Investment Bank has been doing very much the same type of operation, with perhaps less environmental or political content, in a quite excellent fashion. It has entered the Euro-markets and has raised money. It has lent at very competitive rates and very successfully for some time. My hon. Friend could take that as a model of how the bank should work.
  Mr. Wells: That leads me to another point. This institution will duplicate the efforts that the European Investment Bank and the World bank were established to undertake. As I understand it, large portions of the personnel of the eastern European branches of the World bank and the European Investment Bank have applied to join the bank. We shall have international civil servants who are accustomed to such matters simply joining the bank, thereby triplicating the effort of those institutions. That is why the bank is unnecessary. It could have been arranged through the World bank quite easily, and probably better, with greater expertise and understanding and with a higher and more secure financial base. The European Investment Bank is probably one of the least development-oriented of all the institutions. It is conservative in the way in which it lends. It certainly has not lent for environmental purposes and in promoting democracy.
  The European Investment Bank's restraint in the light of the articles of association will be difficult to exact. In fact, I do not think that it will be able to do so in accordance with the articles of association. I envisage the bank losing a large amount of money. There is no way in which it can avoid doing so, given its objectives and the way in which it will be financed.
  I accept that there is a need to assist the development of private enterprise and environmental concerns to be supported and cleaned up in eastern Europe. I agree with that. However, I cannot agree that this is the right institution to do it. The thinking is muddled. I do not believe that it is accountable in any way. When it begins to

  417
  make losses, presumably it will call on a guarantee of the country to which it has lent. It will lend money to an institution that it will think will be profitable. That institution may lose money or go bankrupt. The bank will then call upon the national Government to repay the unsound investment, and thereby add to the indebtedness of that country.
  Although I welcome the objectives that the concept is trying to put into effect, it is disastrous and ill-considered. It is the product of ill-thought-out, rushed consideration without any in-depth understanding of what is required in eastern Europe.
  11.24 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I shall concentrate on the procedural matters that face the House, rather than on any of the merits of the new institution unveiled before our eyes.
  It is necessary to consider the procedural matters, because, as the Minister said, the Select Committee on European Legislation has recommended a document produced by the Commission—a decision, 5962/90—for debate in the House. That document contains all the articles of the proposed bank.
  I must correct my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) because, on 27 June, we recommended that that document should be debated at an early date. Unfortunately, that has not happened, partly due to the dates of sitting in the House and the fact that Her Majesty's Government are also a party to the treaty as the United Kingdom, as distinct from being a member of the European Community, which is also a party to the treaty. That means that the Government must bring the statutory instruments before us for ratification this evening. Without that, participation in the venture will not be possible.
  I will not venture too far into the reasons why we have got the orders before the debate, but we understand that, at this time of year with the long recess before us, difficulties arise. The report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments says that this is not a new situation. It states:
  "There is no technical reason for the House not to approve the draft".
  It said that there had been similar circumstances early in the year,
  "to which attention was drawn in the Select Committee's Sixth Report of this session. The House should merely be aware that it is acting, as before, on a ministerial undertaking."
  Mrs. Chalker indicated assent.
  Mr. Spearing: I note that the Minister is nodding. I understand that she will undertake that the orders will not be made until after the bank is established. I believe that that is the case, but if I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will intervene. If I have got it right, I hope that she will nod again, as that undertaking is of some constitutional significance.
  I am not sure that the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I have the privilege to be Chairman, will regard the resolution of the House about debates before decisions as having been discharged by this debate. The House has heard enough from Conservative Members, especially from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), to understand that the
  418
  constitution of the bank and the way in which it will operate—the political and economic objectives that it will set itself—are of enormous significance. I suspect that, in years to come, people will look back on this debate to discover from which acorn that particular oak, well developed or not, grew. They will realise that the speed with which matters developed on the continent and in the bank presented us with some difficulties.
  Reference has been made to the proposals for the bank that were made some time ago. A decision was taken in the Development Council or the Finance Council on 8 May to the effect that decision 5962/90, which includes 63 articles, should go ahead. That decision was sent to the Government on 8 May and on 21 June an explanatory memorandum was provided for the Select Committee on European Legislation. We reported on its contents on 27 June. The orders are now before us and no doubt they will be considered in due course.
  This is a most unfortunate state of affairs. Although it is a matter for the Committee and not for me, I think that at some date we may need to have a look at the articles themselves and at the EEC regulations, which have received comment but no close examination.
  11.29 pm
  Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply.
  It would be impossible in two minutes to reply to all the points made in the debate. However, I shall write to those hon. Members whose questions I cannot answer in the time available.
  I welcome the political commitment shown by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) to the establishment of the bank. It is right that we should show our commitment to the democratic processes that are now occurring in central and eastern Europe.
  The decisions that have been reached are a considerable improvement on the original proposals that came before the European Council at Strasbourg last December.
  When a Government have vested in them—as the Governments of member states have by the Acts that have been passed—the responsibility to discuss matters of this nature at Heads of Government level, it must be true that no work could proceed if every detail were brought back at every stage. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has reported to the House at every stage on what is going on and had my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) had a major objection, I should have known about it then. But my hon. Friend did not express his views. He waited until tonight's debate to come forward with them.
  I have a good deal of sympathy with much of what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said. Of course, it would always be better if we had more time to make decisions such as these. But we are not alone in reaching decisions. What we have to do is to ensure that the Council machinery is properly and thoroughly used. The debate has explored a number of the issues. We have made our position very clear and I hope that we shall be able to satisfy the needs of scrutiny—as the hon. Member for Newham, South knows full well I intend to do.
  We can work through the process but only under the laws that we have been given. Moreover, all the negotiations on the establishment of the European Bank

  419
  for Reconstruction and Development have been undertaken according to what was decided at the heads of Government meetings. The resulting banks, about which hon. Members are concerned—
  It being one and half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 [Exempted business].
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Subscription to Capital Stock) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 13 July, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 13 July, be approved.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

EC Merger Control
Motion made, and question proposed,
That the draft EEC Merger Control (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.—[Mr. Redwood.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The Question is—
11.33 pm
Mr. Alan Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am having some difficulty in knowing which motion we have reached.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have reached the motion on monopolies and mergers, which has just been moved formally.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The monopolies and mergers motion has been moved formally. Do I take it that that is because it is being taken in Committee? Is it not a debatable motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to answer that. If the Government choose to move a motion formally, it is their affair, but that does not prevent hon. Members from speaking on it.
The question is—
Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Taylor rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am on my feet.
Mr. Beith rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Alan Beith.
Mr. Beith: It is very odd that the Government should seek to move formally a motion on a matter of such importance. I should not have ventured to speak first in the debate. I should have listened to what the Minister had to say on the matter.
The issues with which the regulations are concerned are of considerable importance for British industry and the British economy. I start from the assumption that it is desirable to have a European mergers policy—
Mr. Nelson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) agrees that it would be better if the Minister introduced the regulations and explained what they are all about. Then, by leave of the House—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have passed that point. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is on his feet.
Mr. Nelson: But do you not recognise—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Beith.
Mr. Beith: I should have preferred that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but were I to stop speaking to enable the Minister to explain the regulations, I should be unable to continue my own speech without the leave of the House. Having

421
started my speech, therefore, I hope that I shall be allowed to finish it and that thereafter the Minister will reply to the points that have been made.
Mr. Nelson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I suggest that we ought to proceed in a common-sense fashion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House. I cannot stop him and then require someone else to speak.
Mr. Nelson rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that I am on my feet. If the Minister subsequently seeks to catch my eye, he stands a chance of being called, but until then the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has the Floor. I suggest that we should allow him to get on with his speech without bogus points of order.
Mr. Beith: There is no disagreement between me and the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), apart from the fact that I believe that we have now passed the point of no return. Like him, I would have wished the Minister to speak first, but I do not think that the Minister had the slightest intention of speaking first, or even at such an early stage in my speech. Were I to encourage him to do so, I should jeopardise my chances of completing the relatively few remarks that I wish to make. Therefore, we must hope that the Minister will intervene later in the debate and deal with the points that we seek to raise.
I was about to say that I believe that there should be an effective European mergers policy, not least because it is important that British industry should enjoy the same protection from hostile takeovers as may be available in other member states of the Community, and that it should be able to seek to make acquisitions on the same terms in other countries as acquisitions can be made in this country. That is the level playing field argument, which is of considerable importance to British industry.
All hon. Members have views about what should be the general thrust and character of a mergers policy. I begin with the prejudice that the preservation of competition and the discouragement of monopolies call for an aggressive policy on mergers that is likely to make hostile takeovers difficult if they would result in a considerable reduction in competition. There are many circumstances in which takeovers can stimulate efficiency. The absence of any takeover pressure can lead to slack management. I am not sure that takeovers are an ideal tool for the disciplining of management, but they are one of the mechanisms that have that effect. Therefore, I want the machinery for the referral of takeovers to be effective and to be triggered sooner than is at present the case in the United Kingdom.
However, when we seek to have a level playing field, we come across striking differences between present practice in this country and that in other member states of the European Community. The Coopers and Lybrand report produced for the Department of Trade and Industry showed that, in 1988—admittedly, a peak year for mergers —73 per cent. by value of mergers in the European Community took place in the United Kingdom and that 85 per cent. by number of mergers in the European Community took place here. The report also demonstrated that United Kingdom companies tended to acquire
422
companies elsewhere in the European Community that were smaller than those which other member states' industries acquired in the United Kingdom.
That was dramatically demonstrated when French companies acquired the private water industry. Companies such as the Newcastle and Gateshead water company, Sunderland and the South Shields water company and many of the other South Shields water companies were sold to French companies. Characteristically, the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry slammed the stable door immediately after the horse had bolted by not referring the north-east takeovers to which I have referred and by not putting in place a procedure whereby such takeovers could be restrained until after French companies had acquired those companies. That is characteristic of what I might describe as the sleeping policeman role of the Secretary of State, who did not aggressively seek to promote competition.
Mr. William Cash: As is well known, the hon. Gentleman advocates economic and monetary union, political union and all the accompanying paraphernalia. Does he not accept that at the heart of his point is the fact that the figures show that it is German companies that are making the major United Kingdom acquisitions and that their investment in the United Kingdom has increased by 200 per cent. over the last nine or 10 months?
Does he not also accept, despite the strictures that he imposes on the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by his remarks, that it was those very points which, whatever language he may have used, raise some important questions about the manner and extent to which his party, and others on the Opposition Benches, are actively encouraging a state of affairs in which Britain is subordinated to the dominance of that country?
Mr. Beith: I thought that that was what the hon. Gentleman wanted to intervene to say, but that is not what the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said. He did not criticise individual takeovers that had taken place while he had the power to prevent them: he criticised the success that Germany had enjoyed and the extent to which that placed Germany in a prominent position in the EC, and he did so in language that he was forced to withdraw, but in terms that were echoed in the Chequers seminar. But all that goes rather beyond the terms of the regulations, to which I shall return.
The effectiveness of the regulations and the European procedure is obviously undermined to some extent by differences which exist between practice in the United Kingdom and practice in other member countries. For example, there are differences in the level of information available in Britain and other member countries. Information about shareholdings and the financial state of companies is more readily available here than in a number of other member countries.
Major differences arise from the character of shareholding in Britain compared with other member countries, in many of which there is substantial shareholding by banks, families or the Government. In France, family ownership or Government ownership of substantial tranches of company shares make it much more difficult, and in many cases impossible, for acquisitions to take place on French soil of French companies. The structure of ownership in Germany, with

423
the banks playing such a large part, presents a fairly major limitation to acquisitions in Germany by British companies. The two-tier company structure in Germany and the Netherlands also makes it more difficult.
There are arguments in favour of some of those restrictions, not least the two-tier board structure, but they mean that we must assess whether we are achieving a level playing field in competition policy. The Minister has addressed himself to some of those considerations in all the negotiations that have taken place, but we are not quite there yet. We are not at a level playing field, not are we at the point where we can say that the kind of merger policy that Europe will have will be a significant improvement on present British merger policy, which I would like to see.
In addition, there are practical problems about the measure before us which the Government have sought to reduce over the months of discussion, such as the complexity of the form which companies will have to complete and the possibility of insider dealing because of the processes that will be gone through. There are also anxieties about whether the European Commission directorate involved has the staff necessary to carry out the work.
It is in no sense the view of someone hostile to the existence of European merger policy to say that some of those things are not yet properly in place. Therefore, I address those concerns to the Minister from the standpoint of someone who wants an effective European mergers policy which in time, I hope, will become more effective even than the one that Britain has had so far. I hope that the Minister shares some of those objectives and will address some of the concerns that I have mentioned.
11.43 pm
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I declare an interest, having worked for some time for, and still being a consultant to, one of the banks that is most interested in and affected by merger policy in Britain and in Europe. I have worked on many mergers in France, Germany and other European countries.
I share with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) the concern that we should attach importance to the concept of the level playing field. I should not go as far as the hon. Gentleman in saying that my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was a sleeping policeman. However, I emphasise that I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for the concept of a level playing field.
There is also room to look in the regulations for some evidence that we are also considering reciprocity. When we consider United Kingdom companies being acquired by foreign companies or being merged into foreign companies, we are struck by how difficult it is for United Kingdom companies to buy into, for example, Swiss or non-EC companies. French companies have also made that comment to me: it is equally difficult for United Kingdom companies to inquire into the finances of a French company.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take the opportunity to say a few words to us, because I am sure that people whose business it is to work on mergers would be instructed by his remarks.
11.45 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am not sure whether it is because it is the end of term, but I sense that the importance of the issues that the House is debating becomes greater as the night grows longer. I suppose that to any hon. Member, the prospect of a new underground railway in his constituency and the success in obtaining an instruction on the same are major events. That debate lasted three hours and many hon. Members voted. We then moved on to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, on which I am sure that we shall hear a great deal more. We now come to regulations which may, in the course of time, prove to be even more important than the previous debate on the bank.
I should explain the background to this debate, which has not yet been described. If I get it wrong, I am sure that the Minister will correct me in his winding-up speech. I want first to make a small suggestion on the future of draft statutory instruments. We know, of course, that draft statutory instruments have to be placed for approval before this House—and sometimes before the other place—under various Acts of Parliament. However, one of the disadvantages of chasing these bits of paper is that they do not have a number on them. A number is allocated to them only after the draft has been approved—as, no doubt, this order will be approved tonight.
My modest suggestion is that such drafts could be issued with a D in front of their number, which might not be the same number as they would eventually receive as statutory instruments. That would at least be a means of identification other than the date on which they were issued. Important instruments such as this one could therefore be found more easily.
The background to the order is that we have now undertaken, in various treaties, to cede the control of mergers from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the Commission in Brussels. The irony is that Sir Leon Brittan, the relevant Commissioner in Brussels, is a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I understand that these regulations are the bit of paper that passes that into British law. I am not sure that anyone would gain that impression through reading the statutory instrument. Unless he was expert in these matters, he would not understand what it was about at all.
I shall address my remarks to the explanatory note, and I think that that is in order. In my submission, the explanatory note does not explain the regulations. Over my years of membership of the House, I have pointed out this lacuna from time to time. Nothing seems to be done about it. In respect of the regulations, the Select Committee on European Legislation has had a part to play. I will sketch in the background and then make a constructive suggestion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The proposal before the House does not implement the merger system agreed by the member states into British law. It is already in British law by the merger regulation itself, because it is a regulation, not a directive. This is a technical matter relating to our fair trading legislation, as the explanatory memorandum makes clear, designed to protect two modest powers in our

425
merger control procedures, consequential on the imposition of the merger regulation system from Europe, and in addition to our normal legal system.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for intervening. It seems that I was on the wrong track. Although I understand that this EC regulation, when it comes into force on 21 September, is the definitive instrument, even in British domestic law, it is a consequential statutory instrument which adjusts various provisions and may be helpful.
The main provision that seems important in that context is that which changes section 75 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. It says, in effect, that if a matter has a Community dimension, the Office of Fair Trading cannot look at it. Do I see the Minister shaking his head in dissent, meaning that I have got it wrong? I understood that matters with a Community dimension were excluded from his remit, at any rate up to 21 September.
Mr. Redwood: The idea is to give the director general power not to operate the pre-notification procedure, so that the time limits are not exceeded by the process in Europe, thus preserving the British jurisdiction.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I had hoped that some of what we have discovered in this brief dialogue could have been included in the explanatory note. Although the note says that the regulations
"make provision consequent upon Council Regulation EEC 4064"
concerning the control of undertakings, it might have been useful for it to have gone on to say—this is my constructive suggestion—"But, of course, it has direct effect without further enactment." It could then even have spelled out the criteria, which I believe have been adjusted.
The Select Committee had Lord Young before it some time ago. He explained that Britain was trying to ensure that the threshold of reference to Brussels would be different from that in the original regulation. I understand that success was achieved on that, and we debated the matter some months ago. It might have been useful for the explanatory note, without being too definitive, to have explained that and the need for British law to be adjusted.
I am not sure whether the law is being adjusted to make it clear what the criteria are. Would somebody looking the matter up in the Library find that the law on merger control was being changed? Perhaps the Minister will explain the position. The note could have gone on to say, for the avoidance of doubt and in view of the time scale to which the Minister referred, that it was advantageous to have an additional piece of paper which changed British law in certain respects, and those changes could then have been described.
Perhaps even now, as what is before the House is but a draft, the explanatory note, which is also but a draft, could be expanded—there is plenty of space—so that an ignoramus such as I am not misled by an extraordinary note that is not as clear as it otherwise might be.
11.54 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: All that I should like to say briefly is that it would be helpful if we stopped talking about this altogether. This debate shows how absolutely ludicrous, pointless and wasteful is our consideration of such measures. First, it is now 11.54 pm;
426
secondly, only a handful of hon. Members are present; thirdly, we are considering complex regulations affecting mergers. In addition, this is basically a small amendment to section 79B of the Fair Trading Act 1973. If an hon. Member went to the Vote Office to ask for the Fair Trading Act, he or she would be told that, sadly, the Vote Office does not have it. In fact, even if one did find the Act, it would be an utter waste of time because the section that we are discussing is not in the Fair Trading Act, but in the Companies Act 1989. If an hon. Member tries to see a copy of the Companies Act—
Mr. Tim Smith: They will get it.
Mr. Taylor: Yes, as my hon. Friend says, they will get it, but sadly, we cannot get the Fair Trading Act.
The provisions refer to a proposal as regards the Community undertaking in Council regulations 4064, which are the merger control regulations. Although, because of their busy lives, not all hon. Members will have had time to read those regulations, they will have seen that one of the principles of the merger control regulations is that, before the director-general or anyone else can take action, they are under an obligation to have full consultation with management, supervisory organs, and recognised worker representatives of the undertaking concerned, together with third parties shown to have legitimate interests. In my understanding, these are not the measures put forward by Her Majesty's Government.
I therefore suggest that we are bringing forward a consequential United Kingdom measure to a complex series of regulations, which are a load of rubbish, as we also know from the figures that have been published, which show that 84 per cent. of mergers that have been permitted within the Community over the past year have been in the United Kingdom. We also know that it is almost impossible to buy a public limited company in Germany, and difficult in France. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why on earth we are discussing this regulation on a minor technical point, on which the papers are not available, when major regulations are not being adhered to in the European Community.
Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a problem in relation to 1992, in that, if the Germans manage to acquire a sufficient number of our companies before the deadline of 1 January 1993, and we are not allowed in there, there will be substantial problems in relation to the single market thereafter, because they will have acquired the domination in advance and we shall never be able to catch up?
Mr. Taylor: It may indeed be a problem, but it could be an advantage, because if the Germans owned all the British companies, we might be able to get access to the German market for the products of those German-owned British companies and they would have more success than the Japanese-owned British car firms. I wonder whether we shall one day have an explanation of what deal is presently being negotiated for those firms that were assured that they would have open access to the Community when we know that a complex deal is now being undertaken that will ensure that we get rather more of their products going to the continent in exchange for a reduction in the Japanese quota. Nothing more bogus in terms of free trade could ever be envisaged.

427
I apologise sincerely to the Minister for taking up time in what I know is a busy day, especially when we were hoping to get away early, but I honestly suggest that this discussion has shown the utter pointlessness of the so-called supervision of EEC documents and of United Kingdom documents such as this, which are related to Community documents.
Finally, the regulations are being made under the powers of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, a copy of which I have with me. I ask the Minister and the clever Clerks whether they can find any way in which this could be placed within section 2(2) which relates to Community obligations or to things related to Community obligations; that is not the case.
We are wasting our time. We are insulting the British public by giving the impression that we are playing a meaningful role in this. We should admit that, on such issues, the House is completely wasting its time in trying to pretend that we control anything at all.
11.59 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: With due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), there is a substantive point of issue—not a major constitutional point, but nevertheless important. The regulations amend a provision in the Fair Trading Act 1973. Those of us who took part in the proceedings on the Companies Act 1989 will recall the importance attached to the pre-notification procedure. The whole idea behind those provisions was to expedite or enable certain takeovers to go ahead without having to go through all the paraphernalia of references where pre-notification was given.
To the extent that any amendment to the law prevents those takeovers from going ahead or denies the shareholders or owners of an asset the right to determine the future of that asset, it is proper that the House should consider it. We should be reluctant to endorse any restriction on the rights of shareholders or owners of an asset to decide how best to dispose of that.
The regulations will enable the director-general to dismiss or reject a merger notice if it appears that there is a concentration with a Community dimension. I make no complaint about that, but we should not let it go through on the nod. We should pass it on the basis that we are satisfied with the procedures under European law, both for time and for scrutiny of such matters. Employees of companies will be affected, as will shareholders, debtors and so on.
When the House and the Committee considered the Companies Bill, it was on the basis that the pre-notification procedure would expedite matters. If there is a good case for change, the House should endorse it. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will make that case, albeit at the end rather than at the beginning of the debate.
12.1 am
Mr. Alun Michael: I apologise for the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), who had to leave the House because of illness. I am sure that we all hope that it is not serious. I know that she would want me to
428
apologise for any embarrassment caused to the Minister, who moved the motion formally in her absence. His courtesy is appreciated and he should not be embarrassed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) seeks the truth and wants the Minister to explain why the issue is being approached in this way. I am sure that my hon. Friend would have welcomed the opportunity to discuss the matter in its wider sense, but it is a technical measure relating to the policy agreed for safeguarding the position in British law.
Hon. Members who said that the matter was important were correct. The significant point about inequalities between different countries and the need for a level playing field is very important, and is especially important when British law applies. There is a British regional dimension. Those in Wales and the north of England have experienced head offices, often in the manufacturing industry, moving away from their regional base, where they have been greatly valued, because of mergers or takeovers.
I ask the Minister to recognise that there are occasions when the European merger policy allows Britain to take into account a number of factors, such as the research and development being carried out by a company and the way in which the regional dimension is affected. There is a question about how much that policy is implemented to the full.
Will the Minister explain to the House not only the technical nature of the statutory instrument but how it falls within Government policy on mergers and how they intend it to operate within the system? What view do the Government take of mergers, both in the European context and under British law? Following GEC, Ferranti and the takeover of ICL, what is the Government's policy?
I am sure that the Minister and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will appreciate the short notice that I had of this debate, but I understand that this statutory instrument and British law become relevant to mergers and takeovers involving less than £5 billion. Those mergers are particularly relevant and important to British regional policy.
Will the Minister do more than simply say that there are technical regulations implementing minor measures that have already been agreed? As questions have been asked by several hon. Members, will he explain the context in which the statutory instrument is being enacted, the practical policies that the Government intend to follow and the use to which they will put the statutory instrument?
12.6 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for stepping in to give the Opposition's view. As he said, I felt that, as the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) was ill and had to go home, and as this is a technical matter, it was reasonable to move it formally. I told Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen that it is the right of hon. Members to make points and that I would reply to them because I strongly believe in Members' scrutiny of legislation.
The statutory instrument is technical and is designed to produce two cases where the United Kingdom can continue to use its jurisdiction in mergers. It was thought

429
that there was European jurisdiction, but process discovered that it does not apply and we wish therefore to preserve our jurisdiction.
The general context of the statutory instrument is the merger regulation, which was debated in Europe over many months. My predecessors and I made available explanatory memoranda. The scrutiny process was undertaken and a debate was held so that the House could express its views in good time before the final Government negotiating position was arrived at and before we finally agreed with our partners.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) implied, the time has long since passed when the House can make a useful contribution to the debate on the merger regulation. That was discussed and we negotiated it in good faith, taking into account the feelings of the House. We agreed it with our partners and it is now good law in this country, which will come into effect on 21 September.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: It is bad law.
Mr. Redwood: I can tell my hon. Friend that it is good law because it is effective law, whatever he may think of it.
Mr. Tim Smith: One or two of my hon. Friends seem to think that it is bad law, but there was a satisfactory consultation process involving a debate in the House. Points were made on the content of the statutory instrument and as a result the outcome is quite satisfactory for the United Kingdom.
Mr. Redwood: Indeed.
The United Kingdom had four principal negotiating objectives. The first was to ensure that if we reached agreement there was clarity on whether EC jurisdiction or United Kingdom jurisdiction applied, and we have achieved that.
The second objective was that the system should be driven with competition as the criterion. The aim should be to create competitive marketplaces in Europe and to protect them from predatory mergers that might damage them. Again, that was accepted by our partners, and it is written into the mergers regulation.
The third goal was that the merger regulation should introduce a system that was timely and fair. We have certainly got the timeliness into the system, in that a maximum of five months can be taken up by the European Commission in settling its views on a particular merger, and in most cases it would take one month for the Commission to decide that there is no case to be answered.
Fourthly, we wished, along with several other member states, to have certain national interests protected, in that there could be a reversion to national jurisdiction in important cases involving defence, public scrutiny, prudential control of financial institutions and the media. Again, they are written into the merger regulation.
By any standard, this was a successful negotiation with our partners, and our thinking and the views of the House are well reflected in the final text of the regulation which was adopted some time ago.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth asked me about the regional dimension. He suggested that that was important in terms of the statutory instrument because it involves the smaller mergers. I fear that it is the other way round. The regulations are concerned with larger mergers which were thought to have European
430
dimensions: those with aggregate turnovers of more than 5 billion ecu and with—this is the other criterion on EC turnover—at least two of the merging parties having more than 250 million ecu turnover within the EC. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point is not quite fair.
We have frequently stated our general attitude to mergers in documents and in debates in the House. The position remains the same. We believe in pursuing a vigorous competition policy. The main criterion that we use when receiving advice from the Director General of Fair Trading and deciding on merger references is competition. Reference policy in recent years demonstrates that well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) made a relevant point when he asked whether it is right to modify the pre-notification procedure in the Fair Trading Act 1973, as laid down in the Companies Act 1989, in the way that we suggest. I urge the House to accept this modification because it is the only way that, in those circumstances, we can work as intended. I can see no other way of doing it. That is the reason for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East thinks that a larger issue is important—whether we can buy companies in Germany, France or other European states. That question was asked by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The Government believe that this is important. That is why, over the past year, my colleagues and I have persistently raised it at Council meetings in the European Community. We have made it clear that, if our markets are to remain open and other European companies take advantage of that, we expect reciprocation in market-opening measures in those other European member states. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I shall tell my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East what progress we have made and how he can help us to make further progress. We raised the issue and obtained a Commission statement that it was important. We then got a Commission statement that there should be a work programme. Action is being taken to put suitable provisions into the draft fifth and 13th company law directives to address some of the legal problems that were identified in the Coopers and Lybrand report, which the Government commissioned and took to our partners in Europe to show the seriousness of the problem.
Mr. Cash: Given the importance of these matters and knowing that I would make a helpful intervention, would it be possible for my hon. Friend to encourage enforcement proceedings to ensure that our friends and colleagues in Germany and elsewhere in the EC realise that we are not making a negative, obstructionist point, but that there is not much point in having a European Community if there is no level playing field? Could they not take that on board?
Mr. Redwood: When we meet our opposite numbers in Europe, my colleagues and I make the point that we need market-opening measures of all kinds, including measures relating to the market for company control. Our companies often enlarge their businesses by acquisition, and it is important that they should be able to grow them in European Community countries as well as in the United States. In the past four years, it has been very noticeable that United Kingdom companies have engaged in a massive programme of corporate acquisition and

431
expansion in the United States: they have found it easier to buy companies there than in France and Germany, where the markets have been less open. That is why we take our work so seriously.
We are making progress with our partners on the legal issues. There are, however, many other barriers—cultural barriers, for instance—which the study has identified. This is where hon. Members on both sides of the House can help, as can businesses and other opinion formers.
We believe that a more open market for corporate control will benefit our European partners. There are already signs that in France, for instance, business interests want a more active takeover market in their country and are beginning to support the British position. Any help that hon. Members can give by arguing the case, both in this country and with our partners in Europe, will be very helpful. We are trying to change the climate of opinion in Europe—to direct it towards the nature of the takeover market, and the way in which companies can grow and increase their business.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister tell my hon. Friends and me what real progress has been made by all these massive steps forward, and all these commissioned reports? If he could find time to tell us how many German plcs have been acquired by British companies—say, over the past year—that would give us some idea. Even if he gave us the figure for two years ago, that would be a great help.
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend did not listen quite carefully enough. I said that we were making progress in forming the directives that were needed to change the law; we have not yet completed the process. More progress is required, which means more pressure and more debate with our partners. Such things work by gathering momentum: the more the House expresses its view, and the more others throughout the Community do the same, the more likely we are to make progress in securing the new instruments that will surmount the legal barriers.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned not only the level playing field—which I have just addressed—but the structure of the procedures that will be entered into by British companies and others when the new EC regulation comes into effect on 21 September this year. He is right that the British Government have been worried about the length and complexity of the form to be sent to merging parties; we have made some progress with the Commission, which has welcomed our suggested amendments intended to simplify it.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about staffing. We and other member states are seconding staff with expertise in competition and merger policy to the Commission, to give it the assistance and strengthened staff resources that it will definitely need when it has sole responsibility for very large mergers.
I must stress, however, that there is another side to the merger regulation itself, which hon. Members have not taken fully on board tonight. Although the regulation clearly gives sole main powers to the European Community for the small handful of very large mergers with cross-border business involved, it also suspends regulation 17—the regulation that enforces articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome on all other mergers. That means
432
that, in the case of all the smaller and medium-sized mergers, there is no longer doubt about whether United Kingdom jurisdiction could be exercised wholly and solely, or whether the Commission also had jurisdiction under those two treaty articles.
It is not possible to give an entirely accurate forecast, but our calculations at the time of the negotiation suggested that, of about 300 potentially referrable mergers in this country in any given year, perhaps 10 or 12 would fall to be decided solely by the European Commission. The other 280-odd would fall outside that, and would therefore be entirely within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
Our negotiations on the merger regulation took place against the background of the Commission's statement that, if member states did not agree to the division of jurisdiction under the new merger regulation, it would become more interventionist in its use of treaty articles 85 and 86—which it seemed to be entirely entitled to do, according to the legal advice available to us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) asked about reciprocity for those in countries outside the Community. He will find that article 24 of the merger regulations sets out a procedure on reciprocity which gives the Commission some modest rights and duties when member states believe that states outside the Community are not reciprocating and opening their markets in the way in which we would like and in the way in which we are opening ours in the Community.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was right to stress the need for a clear explanatory note. I sympathise with him. The explanatory note could be clearer and I will draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of those who write explanatory memoranda to see whether in future we can have more helpful ones. This one has foxed some of us at this late hour.
Perhaps the explanatory memorandum should have made it clearer that the proposal has nothing to do with implementing the merger regulation itself into United Kingdom law. That would be a major item were that the way we proceeded, and it would have warranted a major debate. As I have tried to suggest—I hope that I have satisfied hon. Members about this—the regulations are a minor matter concerned with our powers under the fair trading legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft EEC Merger Control (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committee on European Community documents).

MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10139/89, relating to municipal waste water treatment; and supports the Government's efforts to secure appropriate treatment standards for all significant discharges of sewage.—[Mr. Wood.]
Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMISSION
  That the draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  MERCHANT SEAMEN (REDUNDANCY)
  That the draft Redundancy Payments (Merchants Seamen Exclusion) Order 1973 (Revocation) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 14th June be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (FEES)
  That the draft Department of Trade and Industry (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.[Mr. Wood.]
  Question agreed to.

  Newbattle Abbey College, Dalkeith
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  12.21 am
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: This is the second Adjournment debate that I have had on Newbattle Abbey college. The first was in March 1989. One thread will run through this second debate that I am inaugurating in these small hours of the morning, and that is the appalling discourtesy of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland announced the withdrawal of funding without consulting the college, the governors or the trustees from the ancient Scottish universities. As I outlined in the first debate, there was a comedy of errors as to how I was informed, as the hon. Member representing the constituency in which the college is located.
  I regret having to spend valuable time in this Adjournment debate with this introduction. However, we are nearly back to square one. The Secretary of State has refused to meet the governors or the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the academic plan that has been submitted and so allow the governors the opportunity to put their case. The Secretary of State has refused to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) to discuss the matter. My hon. Friend is the Opposition shadow spokesman on education in Scotland.
  I am approaching 25 years' membership of this House. In that time, I have had dealings with many Secretaries of State for Scotland, Ministers and parliamentary colleagues. I have never had any problems if I have asked to meet them to discuss matters affecting my constituency. I was always treated with great courtesy as a fellow parliamentarian. During my five years as a Minister, I never refused to meet a fellow parliamentarian if he requested a meeting to discuss matters affecting his constituency.
  I deeply regret having to say that, for some peculiar reason, the present Secretary of State for Scotland refuses to uphold the traditions set by his predecessors. He refuses to meet me. It is not my first such experience with his Department.
  I must quote what the Secretary of State said in his letter of March 1989, when he officially made it known that he would withdraw funding from the college, and setting out his reservations. He said:
  "I have all along made it clear publicly that a prerequisite to continued Government funding of Newbattle would be that the education authorities and higher education institutions in Scotland were themselves convinced that the College could form an integral part of their own efforts to widen access. My Private Secretary's letter of 25th July therefore advised the Governors that before I could consider continued funding of the College, I would want firm and specific undertakings from authorities and institutions backed up by appropriate financial support to use Newbattle in support of the Government's commitment to widening access to higher education. I emphasised, when we met, that my concern was not primarily financial—but rather to be satisfied that the education world at large regarded Newbattle as being an important part of efforts to widen access, despite the changing circumstances since it was founded before the war."
  Because of the pressure of time, perhaps it is not appropriate that I relate the history, which is cherished in some parts of Scotland, of how and when the college was formed.

  435
  The college's case is that the Secretary of State's prerequisites have been fully met and that the case for a resumption of grant aid has been met. That view is supported by the advisory group, which included university representatives, local authority representatives, residential college representatives, the Workers Educational Association, and by the ancient universities, which have given encouraging support for the proposals to give accelerated entry to those who successfully complete a Newbattle diploma course. The local authority contribution to the college will have exceeded £250,000 by the end of the 1990–91 fiscal year.
  Parliament must be informed that, after spending six months drawing up the proposals, having first sought the agreement of the Scottish Education Department, the only responses to the detailed proposals are two brief letters. The first was sent on behalf of the Secretary of State and is dated 29 May this year. It stated that, after careful consideration, he had concluded that the plan did not provide a basis for reconsidering his decision to terminate direct funding support to the college.
  The second letter came directly from the Secretary of State in a reply to a request from the chairman of the board of governors for a meeting to discuss the matter. He stated that he did not consider that there had been any significant change in the factors that had led him to reaffirm in March last year his decision that the current funding of the college should cease. He therefore saw no advantage in having the requested meeting. As I have already explained, the right hon. and learned Gentleman also refused to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie.
  Although the changes proposed in the academic plan are extremely significant, no formal meeting to discuss the submission has been held and no formal statement has been made by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State. That is more than a sad state of affairs: it is deplorable. That is one reason why the college and the rest of the educational world feel that its treatment has been discourteous and offhand.
  In respect of public accountability, statements have been made to the effect that the grant aid previously given has now been reallocated to SWAP—the Scottish wider access programme. Given the limited resources at his disposal, it is maintained that the Secretary of State believes that that reallocation gives better "value for money".
  In Scotland, it seems, we are to have either Newbattle as the country's sole adult residential college—Scotland's equivalent to Ruskin college—or SWAP. I hope that I have the opportunity to argue that there is room and finance for both.
  Newbattle is now an integral part of SWAP provision. More than 250 students from SWAP west—Strathclyde Consortium—have attended short residential courses at the college since October 1989. The college has been prevented from adding to that number by the curtailment of grant.
  For the record, I must state that the amount of grant requested is £361,000 per year for a full range of activities for unqualified adults. That would include access courses for those that the education world know as "returners", as well as long courses. That required sum represents one
  436
  quarter of 1 per cent. of the Scottish education budget for higher and further education. SWAP has its own separate budget.
  I must remind the House what the Secretary of State said in the letter that I quoted earlier. He said that his concern in relation to Newbattle was "not primarily financial". Whatever reasons the Secretary of State has for his decision on Newbattle, we are entitled to hear them, and the people of Scotland are entitled to hear them. That is why it is pertinent to ask why the Secretary of State advocates for those from Scotland who attend Newbattle's sister college in Wales and the six colleges in England while denying the people of Scotland the opportunity for a similar facility to operate in Scotland, where there is a clear need. More than 80 unqualified adults have expressed their intention to attend Newbattle.
  I believe that I have made a restrained speech this evening, although I have found it difficult to quell my dismay and some anger at the way in which the Secretary of State has handled this whole affair. Let me briefly explain why. I do not intend to be too personal about it.
  My full-time education ended when I was 14 years of age. I started work in the coal mines in 1934. All my adult life, I have been extremely conscious of the need for, and value of, education, although my own full-time education was limited. I have been very conscious of the fact that many people in life need second chances—another opportunity to try to gain qualifications or to profit from education. One of the most exciting and rewarding experiences of my life was when I was appointed chairman of my county education committee. Before I came to Parliament, I played a leading role in the furtherance of education in many national committees in Scotland. I am a former governor of Moray House teachers' training college, and was one of the very few laymen appointed to the committee in Scotland dealing with research into education. So my interest and activities in education are of long standing.
  My experience has taught me the value of education not only to the individual but to the nation as a whole. To let Newbattle Abbey college wither as an adult education college would be nothing short of educational vandalism. It is for some of those reasons that I have inaugurated the debate. I appeal to the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter. At least let us meet him and discuss it; in my view, those who drew up the document deserve no less. I hope that I shall get a favourable response to my request when the Minister comes to reply.
  12.37 am
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on his success in securing this debate on the subject of Newbattle Abbey college.
  The hon. Gentleman started his speech with a criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on the grounds of discourtesy. May I at once address that charge and wholly reject it on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend. During the 21 months since this issue first came into the public domain—between the announcement of the decision in December 1987 to cease recurrent funding and its coming into effect in 1989—the views of all those who had expressed an interest in the future of Newbattle were considered. My right hon. and learned

  437
  Friend met the chairman and representatives of the governing body on 24 February 1989 in the course of considering the matter further.
  The hon. Gentleman has told the House that Newbattle Abbey college is a residential adult education college whose main purpose is to prepare mature students for entry to higher education. In the past that was achieved by a two-year diploma course that was accepted by the Scottish universities for entry purposes. That course, however, ceased a year ago. Perhaps I may begin by summarising the main events relating to Newbattle and wider access to higher education in Scotland.
  In December 1987, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced his intention to withdraw recurrent grant from Newbattle. This followed consideration of funding of the college as part of a normal review of Government expenditure. He felt that he could no longer justify spending taxpayers' money on the college as the best way of implementing the Government's policy of wider access to higher education. To meet this objective more effectively, we launched in April 1988 the Scottish wider access programme—SWAP, as it is usually known. SWAP is aimed at increasing significantly the number of mature entrants to higher education in Scotland.
  In July 1988, the governors of Newbattle were given an opportunity until the end of that year to demonstrate a specific commitment from education authorities and higher education institutions to support the college as an integral part of the Scottish education system and of their own efforts in wider access. My right hon. and learned Friend met the governors in March 1989 to consider what commitments they had secured and to hear their case for him to reconsider his decision to withdraw grant. The governors were able to show only limited commitments from other bodies and to hold out rather distant hopes of raising funds by the disposal of assets at Newbattle. That did not persuade my right hon. Friend to change his decision, and recurrent grant ceased at the end of September 1989.
  In March 1990, the governors submitted to us an academic plan as a basis for possible renewal of grant. I should emphasise that this was done at the governors' own initiative and not at our invitation. This plan showed a modest increase in external support, but the college would still have been reliant mainly on Government funding to produce a relatively small number of entrants to higher education. The governors were told that the plan did not provide a basis for reopening our decision. Meanwhile, SWAP had been very successful in improving opportunities for mature entrants to higher education, so in May we announced that its funding would be extended until 1994.
  I respect the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the importance of adult education opportunities. We share that priority. However, I believe that our initiatives during the last two or three years have been enormously successful in opening up such further education opportunities to adults.
  Mr. Eadie: It is all very well for the Minister to say that he respects my lifetime commitment to adult education. However, he has not addressed the question why the Secretary of State has been so discourteous in refusing to meet not only me but also my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, who is the shadow spokesman on education. That is unheard of.
  Mr. Lang: I have already answered the charge of discourtesy. In the rest of my speech, I shall address the other points that the hon. Gentleman made.
  The decision was originally made known to the college on 10 December 1987 and confirmed on 9 March 1989. It was further confirmed on 29 May 1990. Therefore, some two and a half years have elapsed, during which that decision was consistently confirmed, although further consideration of it took place during that time. To seek further to develop the argument only creates uncertainty and does not serve the interests of adult education.
  In considering whether continued funding of Newbattle was justified, we had to have regard to the other avenues which now exist for those seeking a "second chance" to enter higher education. We had to consider whether, in educational terms, Newbattle had the same role to play in Scottish education in 1990 as it had when it was founded before the second world war. We recognised the achievements of Newbattle in the years following its foundation in 1937. We acknowledge the foresight and generosity of the 11th Marquess of Lothian in leaving the estate in trust for use as a residential adult education college, but we also looked at the considerable changes which have occurred since Newbattle's foundation.
  In 1937, there were four universities in Scotland; now there are eight, together with the Open university, the central institutions and colleges of education. Those institutions do not simply provide places for students who have just left school with three highers. They cater willingly, indeed they compete increasingly fiercely, for entrants of all types, regardless of school achievements or age. In 1988, there were nearly 7,500 mature entrants to full-time higher education in Scotland—more than a quarter of the total—plus nearly 2,000 new entrants to part-time degree courses in the Open university. There are also throughout Scotland about 50 further education colleges, catering for around 200,000 students up to diploma level.
  In the light of that wide range of opportunities for mature students in further and higher education, we concluded that expenditure on Newbattle to provide about 50 out of more than 25,000 Scots entrants to higher education each year was not justifiable.
  The Government's policy is to increase opportunities for entry to higher education, especially for adults without the conventional entry qualifications. It is also our policy to ensure that public funds are used most effectively; indeed, it is our duty to do so. It appeared that annual expenditure of more than £450,000 on Newbattle was not the best way of using those resources to improve opportunities for entry to higher education. In announcing withdrawal of grant from Newbattle, we emphasised our view that the college's job had largely been done and that funds released from Newbattle would be devoted to encouraging wider access in ways more relevant to current. needs. That we set out to do.
  We were aware of initiatives in the west of Scotland, involving Strathclyde regional council and higher education institutions, whereby mature students would be guaranteed places in higher education on successful completion of an access course at a further education college. We considered that those initiatives were worthy of imitation throughout the country in the interests of both employers and students.
  In April 1988, the Scottish wider access programme was launched. Since then, four wider access consortia have

  439
  been established, involving all education authorities and higher education institutions, and covering the whole of Scotland. In 1989, the consortia attracted to access courses almost 750 potential entrants to higher education, and that number is expected to rise by half as much again in 1990.
  I understand that success rates on access courses have been high and we expect several hundred new students to enter higher education in 1990 as a result of SWAP. The resources for SWAP are being used for exactly the same purpose as they were at Newbattle—preparing mature students for entry to higher education—and I believe that it is clear which offers better value for money.
  But SWAP is not only about student numbers. The consortia are aiming to ensure that wider access will become an intrinsic part of our education system—another aspect of Scottish education which we believe will be worthy of imitation elsewhere. This is why we recently renewed our commitment to fund SWAP.
  We are constantly reminded of three particular themes in support of Newbattle. First, it is said that a long residential course is necessary for many students. But how do our critics know that? As I have just said, there were nearly 7,500 mature entrants to full-time higher education in 1988. On the basis that the college provided each year no more than about 50 entrants to higher education, it can hardly be claimed to have demonstrated that long residential courses are an essential prerequisite of entry to higher education for mature students.
  It has been argued that Newbattle is a national facility serving the whole of Scotland. But the domicile of its students in recent years does not provide much support for that argument. Around 30 per cent. of Newbattle students have come from outside Scotland. Of the students from Scotland, half or more have come from Edinburgh and the Lothians. That suggests that Newbattle has been a regional rather than a national facility, and it is doubtful whether residential provision is essential for all those students.
  There have been very few students at Newbattle from the remoter parts of Scotland, from areas where other educational facilities may be limited and residential provision might be regarded as a more important requirement. I acknowledge that short residential sessions at Newbattle have been a successful element of some SWAP courses, but Newbattle is by no means the only facility in Scotland where such sessions can be provided.
  Secondly, it has been suggested that because there are residential adult education colleges in England and Wales to which the Government contribute in funding, there must be similar provision in Scotland. Opposition Members sometimes criticise us for imitating the English education system, but in this case, they are insisting that
  440
  we should do so. We will plan our provision in the Scottish education system on the basis of what we consider to be most effective for Scotland.
  Thirdly, it has been suggested that we are opposed to Newbattle because of the non-vocational education which it has traditionally provided. But there are now far more opportunities than when Newbattle opened for adults who wish to improve their education for its own sake. The Open university, other universities' extra-mural departments, further education colleges and, indeed, many schools provide facilities for adults who wish to do this.
  The hon. Gentleman reminded the House of the commitment made to Newbattle by local authorities in the academic plan submitted to the Scottish Education Department in March. Great emphasis has been given to the amounts involved—over £100,000—but these sums amount to only 15 per cent. of the college's projected income. The amount sought from the Government is about £500,000 including student maintenance, or 70 per cent. of total income. These figures do not suggest to us that there was an overwhelming commitment to Newbattle from outside bodies.
  In the years immediately following Newbattle's foundation, the Government were not the major shareholder, but only one of a number of benefactors contributing to the college's income. But, over the years, the support from those other bodies gradually declined, until the Government were the only significant funder of the college. Many of those who are now loudly criticising the Government for withdrawing support for Newbattle are those who had pulled their own money out of the venture long before the Government did. Under the governors' plan, the main emphasis of provision at Newbattle would have continued to be on a two-year course producing no more than 50 entrants to higher education each year. I should like to make it clear to the House that at no time has the board of governors been led to believe that there was a significant prospect of renewed funding on the basis of their latest plan. The plan was submitted at the governors' own initiative, so it would have been discourteous not to have given it consideration. We considered the plan very carefully and we acknowledged the efforts which had gone into its preparation, but we concluded that renewed expenditure on Newbattle, approximately equal to what we have committed to SWAP, could not be justified. My right hon. and learned Friend's decision taken over two and a half years ago stands.
  Recurrent grant was withdrawn from Newbattle after we had heard the views of all those involved and after a meeting with the governors. We see little value in further meetings or discussions at this stage. The future of the college is now in the hands of its board of governors and of its trustees.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to one o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Government have continued to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures, and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  To assist in obtaining better value for money through broadening its competitive base, the Ministry of Defence has continued to provide a new suppliers service responsible for encouraging and assisting small firms to compete for defence business. Over the past 12 months the new suppliers service has attended a wide range of seminars and "meet-the-buyer" events and has given advice to about 2,200 companies on how to sell to the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry of Defence has also continued to produce a fortnightly contracts bulletin, which includes notice of almost all contracts the Department expects to place valued at more than £500,000. Since 1 January 1990 clothing and textile requirements have been included in the bulletin at a lower threshold of £250,000. The bulletin will shortly include details of sub-contract opportunities, which will be of particular value to small companies. The success of these measures to encourage a widening of our supplier base is in part reflected by our having placed 67 per cent. of headquarters contracts by value by competition or otherwise by reference to market forces in 1989–90. Details of payments made by the Ministry of Defence to small firms in 1989–90 are not yet available.

  In addition, the small firms research initiative aims to encourage small firms to bid for research work. In 1989–90, 36 research contracts were placed with small firms at a total value of £1·3 million.

  Government Contracts (Profit Formula)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the report by the review board on its sixth general review of the profit formula for Government contracts.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The main recommendation in the report is for an increase, based on comparability, in the overall target rate of return on non-competitive contracts.

  After careful consideration I have concluded that we cannot adopt that recommendation and that the current target rate should remain in force. This decision implies no
  122
  criticism of the review board. It is based on my assessment in present circumstances that the maintenance of the existing target rate for such contracts will ensure adequate industrial resources to meet our current needs.

  The report raises a number of other issues relating to the operation of the profit formula and the pricing of non-competitive contracts. My officials will be pursuing these with representatives of the CBI and with the review board, as appropriate.

  A copy of the review board's report has been placed in the Library.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Interviews (Tape-recording)
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he makes of the effect of tape-recorded interviews of suspects upon the speed of trials, the delays in bringing cases to trial and the number of pleas of guilty being entered.

  The Attorney-General
  The effect of tape-recorded interviews has not been assessed pending the completion of the nationwide introduction of the scheme.

  Armagh Courthouses (Union Flag)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General for what reasons the Union flag is no longer flown on the flagpole on top of the courthouses in Armagh city; whether the Union flag being flown on a pole at ground level at the courthouse has been damaged; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The flagpole on top of the courthouse at Armagh is no longer used for safety reasons. This position affords little or no protection when raising or lowering the Union flag and staff were in danger of falling. The new flagpole was fixed to the inward side of the perimeter wall. A flag was damaged on barbed wire at the new location. Two strands of barbed wire have been removed, and a new flag supplied. It has been flown subsequently without difficulty.

  Factortame
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) of 26 June,Official Report, columns 141–42, if he will make a further statement on the juridical implications of Factortame, in the light of the decision of the House of Lords.

  The Attorney-General
  The Factortame case was reinstated in the House of Lords on 2 July and the hearing concluded on 9 July. It has been indicated that the House of Lords has decided in principle to grant interim relief in favour of the applicants to the effect that the Secretary of State for Transport should not withhold registration in respect of any fishing vessel if the owner is an "original applicant" for interim relief who is disentitled to registration under section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 by reason only of a failure to meet the conditions requiring directors and shareholders of owning companies to be resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom. It would be inappropriate to comment further on the House of Lords' decision until it has determined the form of its order and it has given its fully reasoned judgment.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the achievements of the Lord Chancellor's Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors these achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government have continued to place a high priority on helping small businesses through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures, and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  The Lord Chancellor has implemented a number of policies designed to ensure that all litigants enjoy the greatest possible quality and speed of service from the civil courts. However, as these policies are not specifically targeted on small businesses, no performance indicators are kept in this regard.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department has continued to encourage the use of small businesses as suppliers in line with the Government purchasing initiative. Within the last 12 months guidance issued by the Department of Employment—Central Unit on Purchasing has been circulated to all purchasing and supply staff, and there has

  Item

  To whom allocated

  Conditions—wishes expressed

  Collection of Anglo-Saxon and medieval coins

  Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge

  Conditional

  Collection of modern paintings

  Abbot Hall Art Gallery, Cumbria

  Conditional

  "Allée à Chantilly" by Cezanne

  National Gallery

  Wish to go to the National Gallery expressed

  Painting by van der Heyden

  National Gallery

  Conditional

  Woodcut by Edvard Munch

  University of Manchester-Whitworth Art Gallery

  Conditional

  Items awaiting allocation

  Date of acceptance

  "Farm Cart with Horse in Harness" by Constable

  14 February 1990

  Harpsichord

  14 February 1990

  "Richmond près Londres" by Corot

  29 March 1990

  Portrait by Beechey

  20 April 1990

  Painting by Lucas de Heere

  20 April 1990

  Two portraits by Gainsborough, one by Rubens and a landscape by Seghers

  20 April 1990

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tax System (Indexation)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the amount of revenue that would accrue to the Government from fiscal drag if the tax system were simply indexed in the 1991 Budget.

  Mr. Ryder
  Chapter 2 of the 1990–91 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" shows total taxes and national insurance contributions, including the community charge, rising from £206 billion in 1990–91 to £216 billion in 1991–92, on the assumption that the tax system is indexed in the 1991 Budget. This allows for the effects of real fiscal drag, and also for the build-up of effects of the 1990 Budget and earlier Budgets, including independent taxation for husbands and wives.
  124
  been participation in a "meet the buyer" event. The Department's estimated total expenditure with small firms—fewer than 200 employees—in 1989–90 was £14 million.

THE ARTS

  Works of Art (Disposal)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will specify the allocations made to public institutions in the United Kingdom during the half year ended 30 June of individual works of art and museum objects pre-eminent for national, scientific, historical or artistic interest which have been accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax or capital transfer tax, together with information, where applicable, as to conditions or wishes expressed by testators or executors in the matter of allocation; whether he will list the works of art and museum objects which are still awaiting allocation, with the respective dates of their acceptance in satisfaction of inheritance tax or capital transfer tax; and whether a press notice will be issued from his Department covering the information given in his reply.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: The information the hon. Gentleman requests is as follows:

  Excise Duties
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect of not indexing excise duties in the 1991 Budget, by product, on(a) inflation and (b) revenues in 1991–92 and a full year.

  Mr. Ryder
  The effects of revalorising excise duties on the revenue yield and the retail prices index in 1991–92 and 1992–93 will be published in the autumn statement. The information requested will not be readily available before then.

  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(a) if all income from savings were exempted from the tax and (b) if income tax were chargeable only to higher rate taxpayers on such income.

  Mr. Ryder
  The direct revenue cost of exempting from income tax the investment income received by individual savers, including interest received on bank and building society accounts, national savings and dividends received from companies, is estimated to be about £10·5 billion. If the income from savings of higher rate taxpayers remained chargeable to income tax, at their marginal rate of tax, the cost would be reduced to about £5 billion.

  Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give(a) the gross incomes before tax and (b) the net incomes after tax of each income decile for each year since 1978–79 and also for the top 1 per cent. and the top 5 per cent. of the income distribution, the income level which is the dividing line between the deciles for the top 1 per cent. and 5 per cent. in each case for each year and the average income for each group during each year.

  Mr. Ryder
  The latest available analyses of the distributions of before and after tax incomes relate to the years 1978–79, 1981–82 and 1984–85 and were published in the November 1987 issue of "Economic Trends", No. 409, a copy of which is available in the Library. The additional details and data for other years requested by the hon. Member could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Authority Transactions
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an updated version of table 6·7 in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1990–91".

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest outturn figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are shown in the table. These outturn figures are subject to revision as more information becomes available. It is not the normal practice to publish forecasts other than at Budget time.

  1988–89 outturn £ billion

  1989–90 outturn £ billion

  Receipts

  Domestic rates and community charge

  8·5

  9·5

  Non-domestic rates

  10·4

  11·2

  Current grants from central government

  23·8

  24·7

  Capital grants from central government

  0·8

  2·6

  Other

  5·6

  5·9

  Total receipts

  49·2

  53·9

  Expenditure

  Current expenditure on goods and services

  36·4

  39·1

  Current grants and subsidies

  5·8

  6·3

  Interest

  4·6

  4·8

  Capital expenditure and net lending

  2·6

  4·9

  Total expenditure

  49·5

  55·2

  Taxpayers
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the number of taxpayers divided into basic rate and top rate and by sex.

  Mr. Ryder
  Estimates for 1990–91 are as follows:

  Millions

  Basic rate (but not higher rate)

  Higher rate

  Total

  Males

  15·0

  1·4

  16·4

  Females

  9·5

  0·3

  9·8

  Total

  24·5

  1·7

  26·2

  The estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are provisional.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the expenditure by programme in England to which (a) Scottish block expenditure, and (b) Welsh block expenditure are held to be comparable for the purposes of the territorial allocation formula; and if he will place in the Library a document explaining the implications for the operation of this formula of the introduction of the new planning total.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The annual public expenditure White Paper shows the individual programme elements of both the Scottish block and the Welsh block—table 15·1 of Cm. 1015 and table 16·1 of Cm. 1016: housing and education. It is the corresponding English programmes which are held to be comparable. The introduction of the new planning total affects the programmes within the Scottish and Welsh blocks in the same way as it affects the corresponding English programmes.

  Treasury Model
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effects the Treasury model currently incorporates concerning the impact on the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment of the differences in regional levels of unemployment; and what is the scale of these effects.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In common with other macroeconomic models of the United Kingdom economy, the Treasury model is not disaggregated to a regional level.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about the recent report of the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Major
  As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on 4 July, at column 577, the report examines how the price of holidays might be incorporated into the retail prices index and recommends that the Central Statistical Office should begin to collect relevant data and examine a new methodology which the committee has developed. However, there is no recommendation to include holiday prices in the retail prices index for the moment. I am asking the Central Statistical Office to put in hand the data collection and further work necessary to determine whether it will be possible to overcome the methodological problems associated with incorporating a holiday price index into the retail prices index in due course.

  The report also examines the way financial services are taken into account in the retail prices index. On this it recommends that the annual fees which are being introduced for the holders of certain credit cards should not be covered by the retail prices index, and that any supplements which retailers might charge to customers using credit cards should also be ignored in constructing the index, at least for the present. It is also recommended that charges for personal banking services and transaction charges incurred by households buying and selling investments should be excluded from the index, but that the coverage of insurance should be extended to include personal accident and "protection-only" life insurance. I have decided to accept these recommendations.
  127
  The full report is being published today as Cm. 1156 and copies are available in the Vote Office.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 699, when he will be able to provide up-to-date figures on the same basis as those provided to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East in his answer of 8 January, Official Report, columns 559–64, revising his figures to include an estimate of the effects of the introduction of the community charge; and what estimate he has made to date of the effect on the tax burden of the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: It will be possible to provide estimates of the effects of the introduction of the community charge on the basis requested when relevant data from the family expenditure survey for 1990, the first year of the charge's operation in England and Wales, are available.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show for each stamp duty office in the United Kingdom the income for stamp duty, the number of transactions, the other functions and the other income, for each of the last three years;

  (2) if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show for each stamp duty office in the United Kingdom the sums of stamp duty raised on share transfers in each of the last three years and the number of such transactions in each of those years;

  (3) if he will publish his estimate of the sums saved, in cash and percentage terms, in (a) the sums raised and (b) the number of transactions in each stamp duty office in the United Kingdom when those offices move to a system of paperless transactions in 1992;

  (4) what is the anticipated cost of retraining staff in the Edinburgh stamp duty centre to comply with Northern Ireland stamp duty legislation;

  (5) if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show the functions common to all stamp duty centres in the United Kingdom and indicate any other functions which are carried out in each of the others which are not common, with particular reference to the Belfast office;

  (6) what is his estimate of the number of staff required to handle Northern Ireland stamp duty centre transactions in (a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c) 1993;

  (7) if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show the numbers of staff employed in each of the stamp duty centres in the United Kingdom at present and the total salaries of such staff in the current and past two years;

  (8) which of the functions of the Belfast stamp office he proposes to transfer to Edinburgh;

  (9) if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show how the anticipated saving of £160,000 by the transfer of functions of the Belfast stamp office to Edinburgh arises; whether the calculations take account of (a) extra training, (b) increased postage and (c) the cost of increased liaison between the stamp duty office in Edinburgh and Northern Ireland Government Departments; and if he will show the sums estimated for
  128
  each of the three above headings and for each Northern Ireland Government Department for the three years after his proposed transfer of functions;

  (10) how urgent cases, requiring immediate registration to secure priority under section 4 of the Registration of Deeds Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, will be dealt with after transfer of the functions of the Northern Ireland stamp duty office in Belfast to Edinburgh;

  (11) what estimate he has made of the increased costs to (a) the legal profession and (b) the general public if the proposed transfer of functions of the Belfast stamp office goes ahead.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: More time is needed to collect the necessary information and I shall write to the hon. Member when it is available and place a copy in the Library.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate(a) the number of individual shareholders in the United Kingdom and (b) the number who are direct shareholders in privatised companies.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: There are now nearly 11 million individual shareholders in the United Kingdom and over 5 million who are direct shareholders in privatised companies.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of corporation tax received from privatised companies in 1989–90.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: The companies privatised since 1979 paid about £1½ billion in corporation tax in 1989–90.

  South Yorkshire (GDP)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much gross domestic product per capita in south Yorkshire falls below(a) the Community average and (b) the United Kingdom average.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: In 1987, the latest year for which county figures are available, and taking the Economic Community average as 100, the figures are, based on purchasing power parities—

  Average

  Economic Community

  100

  United Kingdom

  107

  South Yorkshire

  87

  Community figures are based on estimates published by the statistical office of the European Communities.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax relief goes on mortgage tax relief(a) at basic rate and (b) in excess of the basic rate in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: Provisional estimates are given in the table; 1990–91 estimates are based on the assumption that interest rates remain at their current levels.
  129

  Mortgage Interest Relief

  Year

  Total cost of relief £ million

  Cost of relief at rates in excess of the basic rate of income tax £ million

  1989–90

  6,900

  430

  1990–91

  8,000

  510

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government estimate gross domestic product will be in 1990–91 and 1991–92 both in current and constant prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: The information requested can be calculated from table 2·1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1990".

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people would pay more tax than they do at the present time if capital gains tax exemption were at the same level as the personal allowance; what is their average pre-tax income and the distribution of income; and what would be the average and distribution of increased capital gains tax payments;

  (2) how many people would pay more tax if capital gains tax exemptions were £3,000; what is their average pre-tax income and the distribution of income; and what would be the average and distribution of increased payments.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: It is tentatively estimated that about 260,000 individuals and trusts would pay more capital gains tax in 1990–91 disposals if the annual exempt amount were reduced from £5,000 to either £3,000 or £3,005—the 1990–91 personal allowance—assuming a proportionate reduction in the annual exempt amount for trusts. About 100,000 of these 260,000 losers are not expected to pay capital gains tax on 1990–91 disposals under current rules. The full-year yield from this change is estimated to be about £70 million, implying an average additional payment of about £275 per loser, but estimates of the distribution of extra payments are not available. The estimates allow for some change in taxpayers' behaviour in response to the reduced annual exempt amount, but do not allow for possible short-term effects. No allowance has been made for any change in the treatment of capital gains of companies which are taxed within corporation tax.

  Estimates of the income distribution of the 260,000 losers are not available. Some information about the taxable income of capital gains taxpayers in 1985–86 is available in table 11·5 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1989".

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Property
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps are taken to make available properties disposed of by his Department to housing associations or local authorities;
  130
  (2) how many homes have been sold by his Department since the beginning of 1989 and in the last three months; and what criteria are used in deciding to whom the properties will be disposed;

  (3) what policy guidelines exist for his Department in dealing with empty properties.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Department sold 2,575 prison officers' quarters during the 18-month period 1 January 1989 to 30 June 1990, of which 2,415 were sold to officers under the Department's discount sales scheme and 160 were sold as vacant houses on the open market. During the last three months of that period 223 quarters were sold, of which 194 were sold to officers and 29 were sold on the open market.

  Most quarters are sold to officers in occupation under the Department's discount sale scheme. The policy in dealing with vacant quarters is that, unless they are to be retained for essential reallocation, redevelopment or security reasons, they are placed on the open market for sale to the general public at the best price obtainable. No special steps are taken to make such properties available to housing associations or local authorities.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the money realised from any sales of domestic properties by his Department is treated.

  Mr. Waddington
  Receipts from the sale of prison officer's quarters are appropriations-in-aid and, as such, are offset against planned expenditure on the prison service. Any receipts in excess of the anticipated level go to the Consolidated Fund.

  Warning and Monitoring
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what improvements have been made to monitoring posts since the review of warning and monitoring was completed; what the costs of such improvements have been in each of the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90; what further improvements are planned or under consideration; and what the costs of any such further improvements are expected to be in each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since the review of warning and monitoring was completed, a supply of replacement generator sets has been made available to those monitoring posts whose equipment had become unserviceable. The cost was £26,000 in 1989–90. A study has been undertaken into the provision of ventilation systems and field trials are planned to evaluate costs and effectiveness.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what possible replacements for AWDREY and other Royal Observer Corps instrument systems have been identified; and how much such replacement systems are expected to cost.

  Mr. John Patten
  Possible replacement systems for AWDREY and other Royal Observer Corps instrument systems have been identified. The systems are based on seismic, optical and electromagnetic pulse detectors but further development is required before the full costs can be estimated.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what options are being considered for
  131
  the realignment of United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation sector boundaries; and what estimates have been made of the costs of implementing these options.

  Mr. John Patten
  Several options for revising the group and sector warnings and monitoring boundaries to conform with the home defence regions are under consideration. Work is continuing on estimating their costs.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any progress has been made regarding the setting up of new systems to convey data within the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation.

  Mr. John Patten
  A study is being conducted into the use of an enhanced emergency communications network to convey data within the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation. This study will take account of the scope for introducing new information technology for both administrative purposes and wartime operations.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what options are being considered for the collocation of UKWMO and Royal Observer Corps headquarters; and what estimates have been made of the costs of implementing these options.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Property Services Agency has identified three collocation options for basing the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation and Royal Observer Corps headquarters at Cowley, Oxford. A full feasibility study is to be conducted which will include estimates of the costs of each option.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any conclusions have been reached regarding replacement RADIAC instrumentation for monitoring of nuclear fallout; and what costs have so far been identified.

  Mr. John Patten
  No conclusions have been reached on replacing the RADIAC instrumentation for monitoring fallout. The costs will be identified when the customer requirements have been established.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what options are being considered for the refurbishment and replacement of warning sirens; and what estimates have been made of the costs of implementing these options;

  (2) whether any alternative to the use of sirens for warning of air attack is under consideration.

  Mr. John Patten
  A study of the refurbishment and replacement of sirens has concluded that it would be expensive as a warning option. Further research is therefore being conducted on the cost effectiveness of alternative warning options such as the use of radio and television.

  Irish Prisoners
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners from Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic are currently serving a prison sentence in England and Wales.
  132
  Mr. Waddington
  According to the records held centrally, on 31 March 1990 about 320 sentenced prisoners in prison service establishments in England and Wales who were citizens of the United Kingdom or whose citizenship was unknown were known to have been born in Northern Ireland.

  The recording of nationality in the records held centrally for citizens of the Republic of Ireland is not completely reliable because it depends upon information provided by the prisoner. On 31 March 1990 about 440 sentenced prisoners in establishments in England and Wales were recorded as citizens of or born in the Republic of Ireland.

  Police Computer
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the new police computer, known as PNC2, will be operational; and what its capacity will be.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Present plans are for PNC2 to come into operational service by the end of the year. The system's processors will be capable of handling 62 millions of instructions per second. Its main memory will be capable of storing 192 million bytes of data; it will also have sufficient disk capacity to store 80,000 million bytes of data.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what categories of information are considered admissible for entry on the criminal record system; what restrictions are applied; and what is the purpose of information that is not factual.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information included in the national collection of criminal records is set out in form NIB 74. A copy of the form is available in the Library, as part of the memorandum submitted by the Home Office to the Home Affairs Committee in connection with its recent inquiry into the collection and use of criminal records.

  The national collection of criminal records is maintained by the police to meet its operational needs. All the information contained in it is used primarily for this purpose.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when guidelines will be issued to chief constables to assist them in deciding whether or not to allow access to police records; and whether there are any plans to update Home Office circular No. 45/1986.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Guidance to chief officers of police about disclosure of information from police records is contained in a number of Home Office circulars including HOC 45/1986 which is scheduled for revision next year.

  Caledonian Sector
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when full responsibility for Caledonian sector will be transferred from the Scottish Office to the Home Office; whether this will result in staff redeployment; and what is the expected net cost or gain to be made from this transfer.

  Mr. John Patten
  Full responsibility for Caledonian sector will be transferred when the detailed arrangements
  133
  have been finalised. The staff affected and the departmental trade union sides have been consulted, although no staff redeployment is likely to be involved. There is no expected net cost or gain from this proposed transfer.

  Prison Governors Association
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the Prison Governors Association dated 15 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  We have no record of a letter of 15 June from the Prison Governors Association although I understand that a copy of the letter sent by the vice-chairman of the association on 4 June about the reorganisation of the prison service was included in the association's bulletin to its members of 15 June. I replied to the letter on 18 June.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidance to chief constables that the police should use cautions more widely when dealing with mentally disturbed offenders.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A forthcoming circular on provision for mentally disordered offenders will emphasise the need to divert such offenders from the formal criminal justice system wherever possible. Cautioning is included among the recommended methods of diverting mentally disturbed offenders from the criminal justice system, the importance of which is emphasised in the circular.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to facilitate the transfer of mentally ill prisoners from prisons to mental hospitals.

  Mr. Waddington
  The prime consideration is to seek to avoid mentally ill people unnecessarily being sent to prison in the first place. The revised Home Office booklet "The Sentence of the Court" and a circular to be issued soon to the police and probation services as well as the courts have the aim of encouraging the diversion of mentally disordered offenders into the care of the health or social services.

  The recommendations of the working group of Home Office and Department of Health officials on mentally disordered offenders in the prison system, a copy of whose report is in the Library, include measures designed to facilitate transfer to hospital and these have been brought to the attention of prison medical officers. Consolidated guidance on transfer procedures under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 is to be issued soon to the prison medical service in conjunction with a review of the standing order on health care. This guidance emphasises the need for action to be initiated promptly, including arrangements for a consultant to make an assessment visit, when it is thought that a prisoner's transfer to hospital may be warranted.

  The number of mentally disordered prisoners including those who were mentally ill transferred to hospital under section 47 or 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 has doubled over the last six years.
  134
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there has been an increase or decrease in the number of psychiatric referrals of prison inmates in the last two years.

  Mr. Waddington
  The number of inmates referred to visiting or consultant psychiatrists rose from 12,465 in 1986–87 to 16,937 in 1988–89. That represents an increase of 36 per cent.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of mentally ill people who are in prison.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on 5 July at columns 639–40.

  Prison Medical Service
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to incorporate the prison medical service within the national health service.

  Mr. Waddington
  There are no plans to do so. The prison medical service already makes exclusive use of national health service in-patient and out-patient facilities, general practitioners and specialists. However, there will be an opportunity to look afresh at the organisation of the prison medical service when we have the findings of the efficiency scrutiny announced on 20 December 1989 at columns 274–75. The scrutiny team's report is expected shortly.

  Prisoners (Suicide)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners who committed suicide in the last decade underwent psychiatric treatment or assessment before entering custody.

  Mr. Waddington
  The information is not available. Prison medical officers would normally be aware of any previous psychiatric treatment or assessment only if the inmate chose to disclose the details at interview on reception. The only totally reliable source of information would be any confidential report on an inmate's psychiatric condition prepared by a consultant psychiatrist at the request of the court.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what suicide prevention procedure is recommended for Her Majesty's prisons; what changes in standing orders have been made or are proposed to be made to accommodate this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  Circular instruction 20/1989, a copy of which is in the Library, describes the range of measures taken by the prison service in England and Wales to try to prevent suicide and self-injury among prisoners. The main elements are systematic screening and assessment; suitable location and supervision; sympathetic and supportive contact with staff and others; reducing the opportunities for suicide by physical prevention measures; and ensuring staff awareness.

  The prison service is constantly looking to improve its suicide prevention strategy. Among present initiatives are:

  135
  a planned trial of the use of closed circuit television; the continuation of the "family ties" programme, including the installation of cardphones in category C establishments, a proposed experiment at Winchester prison in the use of cardphones by remand prisoners and a pilot scheme to reduce routine censorship in category B—non-dispersal—establishments; and encouraging the increasing involvement of the Samaritans.

  In addition, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons has been asked to review the effectiveness of the prison service's policy and procedures for the prevention of suicide and self-harm, with particular reference to the risks posed by mentally disturbed prisoners. Judge Tumin is expected to report in the autumn.

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to transfer the functions of traffic wardens to the private sector; and if he expects this service to be operated by existing or by new businesses.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to transfer the functions of traffic wardens to the private sector.

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to institute a review of the judicial system in the Channel Islands to fulfil his responsibilities to ensure that good government is being maintained.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have no reason to believe such a review is necessary.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what rights of appeal British citizens have to British courts and Government Departments when they have a grievance against courts in the Channel Islands;

  (2) how he ensures that the United Kingdom citizens have the same rights of legal review of court decisions in the Channel Islands as on the mainland in cases where appeal judges from the English bench are involved.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Channel Islands are not within the United Kingdom. They have their own courts and courts of appeal with full jurisdiction. Senior barristers from the United Kingdom, appointed by the Queen, serve on the panel from which appeal court judges are drawn. There is a final avenue of appeal to the judicial committee of the Privy Council.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Government have continued to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures, and through specific programmes of support and assistance. The success of these policies is 136
  demonstrated by the latest statistics which show a record increase in the number of businesses registered for VAT of 1,700 a week during 1989. Over the decade the overall increase has been 373,000.

  Over the past 12 months, the Home Office has helped small firms by continuing to develop and improve the information, access and opportunities necessary to enable them to tender for our business. We have revised and reissued a booklet entitled "Selling to the Home Office", which, together with the list of contact points for each of our local establishments throughout England and Wales, provides details of our typical purchasing needs and guidance for potential suppliers on where and how to make the initial approach. This has been reinforced by the provision of a central point of contact in the Home Office for general supplier inquiries and representation at exhibitions and seminars held locally for small firms.

  Home Office performance indicators on purchasing are directed to securing better value for the money we spend, and do not differentiate between the size of firms to which contracts are awarded or provide statistical information about the business placed with small firms.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any representations about the quality of the news and current affairs service provided by the managing editors of Greater London Radio, Greater Manchester Radio, and BBC Radio WM for the communities which they serve; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning the future of Greater Manchester Radio.

  Mr. Waddington
  So far this year I have received nine letters from hon. Members and four letters from members of the public expressing support for BBC local radio stations in metropolitan areas.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the current number of listeners to Greater London Radio.

  Mr. Waddington
  Any information on listenership is derived from the BBC which will be able to give my hon. Friend its latest estimates and details of the methodology employed.

  Data Matching
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce safeguards to protect the rights of the individual against the dangers of data matching; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  Not at present. I will consider carefully any recommendation the Data Protection Registrar may make when his consideration of this issue is complete.

  British Overseas Citizens
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances east African holders of former United Kingdom passports, which did not give a
  137
  right of abode in the United Kingdom, who have adopted east African citizenships are permitted to renounce those citizenships and to resume the status of British overseas citizen.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any new appointment has been made to the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Waddington
  Mr. Edward H. Wignall, who retired from the Electricity Council in September 1989, has accepted my invitation to serve as a member of the Police Complaints Authority. He will take up his post on 30 July 1990. This appointment is being made to fill a vacancy created by the departure of one of the members from the authority to take up the offer of a Harkness fellowship.

  Prisoners (Grievance Procedures)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has reached a decision on the recommendations made in the report of the working group on grievance procedures concerning the introduction of new procedures for handling prisoners' requests and complaints and the possible establishment of a prison ombudsman.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have decided that, in the light of experience gained in pilot schemes at Hull, Lindholme and Wakefield prisons, the new procedures which have been developed for handling prisoners' requests and complaints, and which are intended to replace the present petitioning system, should be introduced in all establishments on 25 September to coincide with the reorganisation of prison service headquarters. I have also decided to accept the working group's recommendation that it would be sensible to defer a decision on whether or not to establish a prisons ombudsman until there has been time for the new requests/complaints procedures to bed down and for their impact to be assessed.

  Community Service and Probation Orders
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest information he has on the proportion of community service orders and probation orders successfully completed; and what was the proportion which were followed by reconvictions for further offences, relative to persons discharged from custodial sentences.

  Mr. John Patten
  A total of 79 per cent. of the 43,150 probation orders that ended in 1988 were successfully completed—ran their full course, or were terminated early for good progress or were replaced by a conditional discharge order. The specified hours were completed in 72 per cent. of the 35,600 community service orders which ended in 1988.

  Source: Probation Statistics, England and Wales, 1988.

  The latest available comparative statistics about convictions for further offences relate to 1979— "Reconvictions of those given probation orders", Home Office statistical bulletin 34/86. Comparisons with custody must be interpreted with caution because the figures relate to the two years following release rather than the two years
  138
  following the start of a community-based sentence and because they reflect the characteristics of the offenders involved as well as the influence of the type of sentence. A new study using the most recent data is planned.

  Proportion of persons reconvicted of a standard list offence within two years of starting an order (January-February 1979)

  Males under 21

  Males aged 21 and over

  Females

  Probation order

  56

  43

  27

  Community service order

  58

  46

  37

  Within two years of discharge from a custodial sentence in 1979

  69

  51

  42

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to acquire the information required to total the number of firearms certificates and shotgun certificates which were in force in England and Wales on 31 December 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: The number of firearm and shotgun certificates on issue at 31 December 1988 was published in Home Office statistical bulletin 18/89, a copy of which is in the Library. Information relating to 31 December 1989 will also be published soon in a Home Office statistical bulletin.

  Birmingham Public Inquiry Office
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the most recent estimate he has made of the cost of(a) establishing and equipping and (b) operating the proposed Birmingham public Inquiry office; and when he now estimates it will be opened.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: The estimated total cost of furnishing and equipping the office is £44,000, of which some £14,000 has already been spent. Annual running costs are expected to be in the region of £140,000. We intend to open the office when the necessary funding can be made available.

  Immigration
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a woman European Community student is entitled to bring her husband into the United Kingdom if the husband is not a European Community national.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: European Community law confers right of entry upon spouses and certain other family members of nationals of other EC states who are exercising EC treaty rights in this country. If an EC national is receiving a service which is provided as an economic activity then, under EC law, he or she is exercising those rights. This is normally the case where a student is paying for education at a private college, but not where the education is provided as part of the state education system.

TRANSPORT

  Thornbridge Viaduct, M6
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce an immediate ban on Sunday working on the Thornbridge viaduct of the M6 motorway, Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The contractors are encouraged to complete the work as quickly as possible in accordance with restrictions laid down within their contract.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what form of compensation is available to residents whose homes are covered in dust from the work on the Thornbridge viaduct of the M6 motorway, Birmingham.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department's standard conditions of contract require contractors to be insured against third party claims. The contract for the reconstruction of the concrete verges of both carriageways of the Thornbridge viaduct is a standard one. The contractor has written to local residents giving them a telephone number to contact if problems arise.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has taken any noise measurements of the repair work on the Thornbridge viaduct of the M6 motorway, Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No noise measurements of the repair work have been carried out so far but our agents will take measurements of noise if considered necessary. The environmental health officer for Birmingham has visited the site but as far as we are aware did not take any noise measurements. He is able to take whatever noise measurements he decides.

  Wadebridge Bypass
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress made on the design and consultation process leading to the planned construction of the A39 bypass of Wadebridge, north Cornwall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have almost completed the statutory procedures. Subject to a successful outcome it should be possible to invite tenders next spring in accordance with the national trunk road programme published in the roads report earlier this year.

  Housing (Heathrow)
  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times houses in the vicinity of Heathrow airport have suffered vortex damage from aircraft in respect of which repairs have been carried out or compensation paid under the airport compensation scheme in each year since the scheme was instituted; and how many such houses have suffered from damage once, twice, three times, four times, five times or more than five times.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on vortex damage should be sought from Heathrow Airport Ltd.

  Property Sales
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the money realised from sales of domestic properties by his Department is treated.

  Mr. Freeman
  Proceeds from the sale of properties acquired in connection with the construction of motorways and trunk roads are appropriated in aid of class VII, vote 1—national roads, England. Proceeds from the sale of coastguard cottages are appropriated in aid of class VII, vote 2—administration and transport services.

  King's Cross-St. Pancras Project
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the King's Cross-St. Pancras project to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 22 to 26 October 1990.

  A629-A650 Airedale Route
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the average daily traffic flows for the A629-A650 Airedale route at (i) Kildwick to Steeton, (ii) Steeton to Beechcliffe, (iii) Hard Ings road, Beechcliffe to Victoria Park and (iv) Victoria Park to Crossflatts.

  Mr. Freeman
  The 24-hour average daily traffic flows recorded in 1989 on the A629-A650 Airedale route were:

  Vehicles per day

  Kildwick to Steeton

  18,600

  Steeton to Beechcliffe

  24,200

  Hard Ings Road, Beechcliffe to Victoria Park

  23,500

  Victoria Park to Crossflatts

  16,800

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the vehicle inspectorate executive agency annual report for 1989–90 will be published.

  Mr. Chope
  The annual report has been published today. Copies are being placed in the House Library.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage further private sector involvement in rail freight.

  Mr. Freeman
  I welcome greater private sector involvement in the railways and have today launched "Charterail", a new rail freight joint venture between British Rail, GKN and City investors. "Charterail" plans to offer customers a total door-to-door distribution operation and is primarily aimed at the fast-moving consumer goods market.

  Marchioness (Report)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken to implement the recommendations of the chief inspector of marine accidents' interim report on the collision between the Marchioness and the Bowbelle.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Directly after the tragedy I announced immediate requirements for chartered Thames river craft to record passenger numbers before sailing, and lodge the record ashore, and that passengers should be given proper instructions on where to find emergency equipment and what to do in the case of an emergency. Regulations to make these provisions mandatory for all passenger craft throughout the United Kingdom came into force on 12 April 1990.

  Within 10 days I had received the marine accident investigation branch's interim report, and announced that the six recommendations made in that report should take effect as soon as practicable, with the assistance of the Port of London Authority where required.

  The two recommendations on look-outs and lights on vessels of more than 40m in length were implemented on 18 September 1989 by amendments to the general direction for navigation in the port of London.

  The third recommendation related to the need for those in charge of passenger launches to keep continuous radio watch—implemented in the same general directions for navigation—and look frequently astern—covered in a PLA notice to mariners. This recommendation also proposed that if necessary insulation against noise should be provided on passenger launches. My surveyors are taking action to ensure that launches are modified so that recommended noise levels are not exceeded.

  The fourth recommendation proposed a review of traffic control arrangements, particularly under bridges. This has been considered, and a contractor has been appointed to develop a triggered light system, activated by the passage of ships along the river, indicating priority for larger vessels at bridges.

  The fifth recommendation was that the interim recommendations should be transmitted to port authorities generally. This has been done.

  The final recommendation suggested that the Department should examine the possibility of setting standards for the construction of ships' bridges, with a view to international agreement. This recommendation is being dealt with on two fronts. First, the question of bridge visibility has already been raised at the International Maritime Organisation with a view to incorporating the IMO guidelines as an amendment to the safety of life at sea convention 1974. Secondly, inspections of all relevant vessels on the Thames are taking place to determine existing visibility standards in order to determine necessary action. These inspections are well under way.

  Apart from this action, I should also add that all passenger craft on the Thames were inspected by my surveyors after the tragedy, and the frequency of random inspections has been increased.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to make the chief inspector of marine accidents' report into the collision between the Marchioness and Bowbelle publicly available.
  142
  Mr. Parkinson
  I have received the final report of the chief inspector of marine accidents into the collision between the Marchioness and Bowbelle and have been considering publication in the light of the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute the master of the Bowbelle.

  I have been advised by the director that publication of the report would give rise to a serious risk of prejudice to the current criminal proceedings. In these circumstances, the balance of the public interest lies clearly in favour of delaying publication of the full report and I am driven to the conclusion that the report cannot be published until the prosecution is concluded.

  However, in the interest of ensuring safety on the River Thames, and generally improving the safety of life at sea, I am anxious that the recommendations of the chief inspector should be made available so that action to avoid such an accident in future can be taken as soon as possible. I am therefore today publishing the chief inspector's recommendations in advance of the full report. The chief inspector is forwarding the recommendations to those persons or bodies who in his opinion are most fitted to implement them. I am placing copies in the Library.

  I can assure the House that the chief inspector's report will be published in full as soon as possible after the prosecution is completed.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Freeman
  Overall responsibility for helping small businesses rests with the Department of Employment. The Government have continued to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures, and through specific programmes of support and assistance. The success of their policies is demonstrated by the latest statistics, which show a record increase in the number of businesses registered for VAT of 1,700 a week during 1989. Over the decade the overall increase has been 373,000.

  The policies of the Department of Transport are concerned to ensure that transport infrastructure is adequate and to lift the burden on businesses caused by unnecessary regulation so that all businesses can flourish.

  Much progress has been made on commitments made in the November 1988 White Paper, "Releasing Enterprise", including the change to the heavy goods vehicle plating and testing threshold that the Secretary of State announced at the time of the Budget statement. This change means more sensible rules for business to comply with and understand in a sector of the vehicle market which is expected to expand, and will bring up to 200,000 light goods vehicles out of the HGV plating and testing scheme and into the less costly MOT scheme. This will be of considerable benefit to small businesses using light goods vehicles.

  The Department is also at the forefront of the initiative to create executive agencies. The vehicle inspectorate executive agency was created on 1 August 1988, becoming

  143
  the very first executive agency in Government. On 2 April 1990, three more executive arms of the DTp attained agency status—the vehicle certification agency, the driving standards agency and the driver and vehicle licensing agency. All the agencies share the common objective of improving customer service while providing good value for money. Individual agencies publicise financial and service quality targets in their annual business plans.

  Departmental procurement procedures also encourage the use of small firms. The Department procurement unit encourages small firms to supply the Department—mainly through the pamphlet, "Selling to the Department of Transport" but also by attending "meet the buyer" events. Approximately 1,000 copies of the pamphlet have been issued since the beginning of February.

  Cross-city Rail Line, Birmingham
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received any submissions from British Rail for the authorisation of the electrification of the Birmingham cross-city line between Lichfield City and Lichfield Trent Valley.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that an extension of the cross-city electrification scheme to Lichfield Trent Valley is being considered by British Rail. Such an extension would not require ministerial authorisation.

  Tankers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 83, if he is now in a position to publish his assessment of the review of tanker traffic in the deep water route west of the Hebrides and the Minch.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A survey of tanker traffic using the Minch and the alternative deep water route to the west of the Outer Hebrides was carried out in September and October last year. I am arranging for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library.

  Laden tankers over 10,000 grt are recommended to use the deep water route when weather conditions permit. During the 21 days and nights of the survey, 21 tankers passing through the area off the north-west of Scotland could have used the route. Of these, four used the route, four claimed that they were prevented from doing so by bad weather and 13—an average of only two laden tankers every three days—used the Minch route in weather conditions which appeared to allow use of the deep water route.

  My Department has sought explanations from shipowners on the use of the Minch route. It is clear from the responses that routes were carefully considered taking account of weather conditions and forecasts at the time of route planning.

  My Department will continue to urge shipowners and masters to use the deep water route whenever weather conditions make it practicable. They will do this both directly and indirectly through national flag state administrations, harbour authorities and the International Maritime Organisation. But it will never be possible to eliminate tanker traffic from the more sheltered Minch route, as it is essential that ships' masters retain the freedom to use that route when they judge it to be safest.

  National Bus Company
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received to renationalise the former constituent companies of the National Bus Company.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received no such representations.

  Rent Revenue (Blighted Houses)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that the rents obtained from tenants in houses purchased by the Government which are blighted by projected road schemes maximise the revenue to the Treasury.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is the Department's general policy to contract out the management of residential property acquired in advance of trunk road proposals. It is the responsibility of managing agents to find suitable tenants at appropriate rents. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will write to my right hon. Friend about the effect of these arrangements in his constituency.

  A27
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive details of the economic appraisal and cost benefit analysis relating to the possible construction of a temporary roundabout at the A27/B2132 Arisford junction.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: Very shortly. We shall let my hon. Friend know the outcome of our consideration of the appraisal.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive detailed designs for the proposed equestrian underpass on the A27 at Fontwell; and what prospects he envisages for construction work on this project in the current year.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: We expect to receive detailed designs early this autumn. Subject to this, and there being no difficulties in obtaining the necessary land, we would hope to be able to process a scheme for a start of works next spring.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Ombudsman's Reports
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on how many occasions a local education authority has refused to comply with the principal findings of a report by the Commissioner for Local Administration.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This is a matter for the Commissioner for Local Administration in England who is entirely independent of central and local government. I understand that to date local authorities have refused to comply in a total of 165 cases. Although the commission's records do not permit a breakdown of this total, they have identified three cases in the last two years where local education authorities have failed to comply.

  Wandsworth CTCs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the estimated effect on central Government receipts and expenditure of the proposed opening of two city technology colleges in the London borough of Wandsworth; and what is the effect on the central Government capital and other allocations for Wandsworth of the proposed reorganisation of secondary schools in Wandsworth.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am currently considering a proposal from ADT plc for the establishment of a city technology college in Wandsworth, which has been the subject of consultation with the local authority and others with an interest. Should I decide in favour of the proposal, I would be prepared to fund up to 80 per cent. of the capital costs and to meet all normal running costs thereafter.

  I am aware that the London borough of Wandsworth intends to publish a consultation document on its secondary reorganisation proposals, which include the establishment of a voluntary aided school with CTC characteristics. If such a school were to be established, it would be treated as any other voluntary aided school in relation to bids for central Government contributions towards capital expenditure; and, correspondingly, capital bids for county schools would be treated in the normal way.

  School Meals
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what were the proportions of pupils receiving free school meals in every year since 1979–80;

  (2) what were the proportions of pupils receiving school meals in every year since 1979–80.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The proportion of pupils receiving school meals and free school meals in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools since 1979 is given in the table. There was no school meals census in 1985.

  Proportion of pupils receiving a school meal

  Proportion of pupils receiving a free school meal

  1979

  64

  12

  1980

  48

  10

  1981

  49

  11

  1982

  49

  14

  1983

  51

  16

  1984

  51

  17

  1986

  49

  18

  1987

  50

  18

  1988

  47

  12

  1989

  43

  11

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the gross and net costs of restoring the right to free school meals to those children who lost that right through the Social Security Act 1986.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is not possible to estimate the cost of reintroducing the wide variety of discretionary schemes which existed prior to the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the numbers and proportions of pupils in special schools in classes over 10.
  146
  Mr. MacGregor
  Information on the numbers and proportions of pupils in special schools in classes over 10 is not available centrally.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government have continued to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures, and through specific programmes of support and assistance. The success of their policies is demonstrated by the latest statistics which show a record increase in the number of small businesses registered for VAT, of 1,700 a week during 1989. Over the decade the overall increase has been 373,000.

  It was estimated that during 1989–90 the Department purchased goods to the value of £11·5 million—£6·1 million the previous year—of which some £4·2 million benefited small firms—£2.4 million the previous year.

  Approximately 40 per cent. of our services—minor works, cleaning, transportation, and so on—continues to be provided by small firms.

  Performance indicators and a computerised procurement monitoring system are currently being developed. Meantime this Department continues to operate a policy of including small firms on tender lists whenever an appropriate opportunity arises.

  Student Awards
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students in each England and Wales local authority area received(a) mandatory awards and (b) discretionary awards in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The data required are listed in the table.

  Mandatory and discretionary award holders: academic year 1988–89

  Local education authority

  Total mandatory award holders1

  Total discretionary award holders2

  Barking

  320

  321

  Barnet

  3,946

  506

  Bexley

  1,326

  277

  Brent

  2,796

  568

  Bromley

  2,897

  367

  Croydon

  3,137

  917

  Ealing

  2,716

  710

  Enfield

  2,253

  122

  Haringey

  2,153

  678

  Harrow

  2,504

  729

  Havering

  1,207

  601

  Hillingdon

  1,551

  552

  Hounslow

  1,710

  512

  Kingston-Upon-Thames

  1,455

  237

  Merton

  1,583

  415

  Newham

  1,245

  748

  Redbridge

  1,965

  811

  Richmond-Upon-Thames

  2,067

  274

  Sutton

  1,334

  301

  147

  Local education authority

  Total mandatory award holders1

  Total discretionary award holders2

  Waltham Forest

  1,425

  378

  Inner London

  18,469

  7,972

  Birmingham

  7,534

  2,226

  Coventry

  2,619

  692

  Dudley

  2,025

  1,349

  Sandwell

  1,394

  1,391

  Solihull

  2,229

  189

  Walsall

  1,939

  1,441

  Wolverhampton

  1,968

  71

  Knowsley

  853

  1,238

  Liverpool

  3,733

  2,238

  St. Helens

  1,502

  1,094

  Sefton

  3,556

  138

  Wirral

  3,679

  1,469

  Bolton

  2,442

  1,780

  Bury

  1,781

  1,588

  Manchester

  3,004

  2,688

  Oldham

  1,479

  752

  Rochdale

  1,406

  987

  Salford

  1,177

  789

  Stockport

  3,336

  1,421

  Tameside

  1,179

  938

  Trafford

  2,716

  944

  Wigan

  2,215

  2,716

  Barnsley

  1,245

  1,255

  Doncaster

  1,923

  1,252

  Rotherham

  1,684

  1,726

  Sheffield

  3,994

  3,239

  Bradford

  2,994

  979

  Calderdale

  1,428

  348

  Kirkless

  2,960

  2,844

  Leeds

  5,260

  1,534

  Wakefield

  1,780

  2,201

  Gateshead

  1,188

  174

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  2,047

  911

  North Tyneside

  1,516

  1,184

  South Tyneside

  1,005

  226

  Sunderland

  1,712

  667

  Isles of Scilly

  28

  25

  Avon

  8,333

  2,664

  Bedfordshire

  3,938

  1,666

  Berkshire

  7,010

  1,060

  Buckinghamshire

  6,978

  520

  Cambridgeshire

  5,264

  451

  Cheshire

  10,048

  1,749

  Cleveland

  4,417

  1,136

  Cornwall

  3,655

  2,005

  Cumbria

  3,513

  1,426

  Derbyshire

  6,594

  7,420

  Devon

  8,198

  2,924

  Dorset

  4,743

  1,727

  Durham

  3,833

  482

  East Sussex

  5,332

  635

  Essex

  10,063

  6,701

  Gloucestershire

  4,877

  1,694

  Hampshire

  13,983

  3,404

  Hereford and Worcester

  6,100

  463

  Hertfordshire

  9,975

  1,074

  Humberside

  5,852

  4,229

  Isle of Wight

  875

  291

  Kent

  11,416

  6,706

  Lancashire

  13,452

  5,311

  Leicestershire

  7,523

  3,516

  Lincolnshire

  4,487

  1,099

  Norfolk

  4,217

  2,447

  North Yorkshire

  7,806

  3,490

  Northamptonshire

  3,531

  422

  Northumberland

  2,557

  1,533

  Nottinghamshire

  6,781

  906

  Oxfordshire

  5,530

  473

  Shropshire

  3,456

  913

  Somerset

  3,675

  1,317

  Staffordshire

  7,829

  701

  Suffolk

  4,029

  1,445

  148

  Local education authority

  Total mandatory award holders1

  Total discretionary award holders2

  Surrey

  12,015

  1,306

  Warwickshire

  4,776

  2,095

  West Sussex

  5,684

  671

  Wiltshire

  4,141

  1,111

  Clwyd

  3,618

  1,098

  Dyfed

  3,512

  1,991

  Gwent

  3,687

  3,281

  Gwynedd

  2,985

  2,192

  Mid-Glamorgan

  3,795

  3,441

  Powys

  1,008

  616

  South Glamorgan

  4,314

  476

  West Glamorgan

  3,374

  295

  Total England and Wales

  415,368

  157,273

  1 Excludes sandwich students in their placement year who receive a fees only award.

  2 Excludes sandwich students in their placement year who receive a fees only award. Includes all other higher education and further education discretionary award holders.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will specify the powers under which he proposes to authorise expenditure on access funds in relation to the student loans scheme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Payments of the access funds to the funding councils will be made under the powers available in sections 131(4) and 132(4) of the Education Reform Act 1988. Payments of the access funds to local education authority colleges of further education and to institutions directly grant-aided by the Department will be made under new regulations, to be laid before the House this week, made under the powers in section 100(1)(b) and (3) of the Education Act 1944. The regulations will enable the Secretary of State to make payments of the access funds to such institutions; they will not prescribe how the funds should be disbursed by these institutions to their students.

  University Pay
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce his decision on the university lecturers' salary negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the time taken to reach this decision.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My Department has today notified the chairman of committee A of the Universities Academic Salaries Committees that we accept the pay increases recommended for non-clinical academic staff in the committee's 25th report. My Department has also written to the chief executive of the Universities Funding Council to authorise the release of the £20 million held back against the conclusion of a satisfactory pay settlement. I had to consider the 25th report carefully against the criterion which we set for the release of the £20 million—greater flexibility and differentiation in the salary structure. I have made it clear that I shall be looking for greater expansion of the flexibility element within the pay structure in next year's settlement for non-clinical academic staff.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Esprit Buildings, Brussels
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the amount of British equipment which was supplied for the new Esprit building in Brussels.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department has no information on this matter, which is one for the European Commission in view of its responsibility for equipping the new Bredel building in Brussels, occupied by Esprit together with many other Commission staff.

  Textiles and Clothing
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with Ministers from other European Community countries on the need for barriers to Community exports of textiles and clothing to be reduced, and for subsidies to be ended.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are regular discussions between EC Ministers, both bilaterally and in the Council, on the current Uruguay round of GATT multilateral trade negotiations, in which one of the Community's main objectives is to secure greater market opening and effective rules on subsidies.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives from the Apparel, Knitting and Textiles Alliance; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend's predecessor met representatives of the Apparel, Knitting and Textiles Alliance on 12 June to discuss progress in the GATT Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in negotiations for strengthening general agreement on tariffs and trade rules and disciplines applying to international trade in textiles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The trade negotiations committee is meeting this week in Geneva to take stock of progress in all 15 Uruguay round negotiating groups on the basis of reports from the groups' chairmen. The aim of the meeting will be to narrow differences of view as far as possible and to identify areas where further work is needed. The EC's position—supported by the United Kingdom—is that trade in textiles should be integrated into GATT on the basis of strengthened rules and disciplines.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made in the GATT negotiations on the future framework for world trade in textiles and clothing.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The chairman of the GATT negotiating group on textiles and clothing has produced a chairman's report for consideration by the trade negotiations committee in Geneva this week. This is designed to take into account various negotiating positions and, therefore, contains a significant number of alternative options. Many of these differences of view are unlikely to be resolved until nearer the end of the negotiations in December, but the 150
  European Community continues to press for a progressive phase out of the MFA over a transitional period and on the basis of strengthened GATT rules and disciplines.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made to his Department by the textiles and clothing industries regarding the GATT rules(a) governing subsidies, (b) governing dumping, (c) controlling theft of designs and brand names and (d) on safeguards.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The GATT rules mentioned by the hon. Member are the subject of regular representations to Ministers in my Department, particularly in the context of the current multilateral trade negotiations.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the level of imports of textiles and clothing in the first four months of 1990, and for the same four months in 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The value of imports was £2,662 million in the first four months of 1990, compared with £2,411 million in the same four months of 1989.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made to his Department by the textiles and clothing industries about the trade barriers faced by United Kingdom exporters to countries outside the European Community.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Ministers in the Department frequently receive representations from the textile industry about foreign barriers to United Kingdom exports, both directly and through hon. Members. It is one of the European Community's main aims in the Uruguay round to achieve a reduction by all parties in their tariff and non-tariff barriers.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the level of United Kingdom textiles and clothing(a) imports from and (b) exports to Turkey in the first four months of 1990.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The figures are:

  (a) £80 million.

  (b) £7 million.

  Unpublished Departmental Reports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central of 16 July,Official Report, column 383, he will now list the number of unpublished reports prepared by his Department under the Insurance Companies Acts in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Redwood
  The table sets out the number of completed investigations under section 44(2)(b) of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 since 1980.

  Number

  1980

  0

  1981

  1

  1982

  0

  1983

  2

  1984

  1

  1985

  0

  1986

  0

  1987

  3

  1988

  3

  1989

  1

  Companies House
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what increases there have been in the charge for postal sales of the microfiche records of companies from Companies House since December 1983; what has been the average annual increase; what has been the basis on which the charge has been set; and what effect changes in the efficiency of the Companies House agency have had on the charges.

  Mr. Redwood
  The price of obtaining a company search by post was set at £2 when the service was introduced in December 1983. It was subsequently increased to £4 in July 1988 and to £5 in July 1990, which is equivalent to an average annual increase of 15 per cent. The policy is now that the price of this service should cover its costs, taking one year with another, although in the past it has not done so. The increases would have been much higher without the productivity gains achieved by Companies House over this period.

  Tradeable Information Guidelines
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many persons are awaiting copies of the tradeable information guidelines, based on the European Communities synergy guidelines; and when he intends to send the Department's guidelines to those who have requested them.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department of Trade and Industry published tradeable information guidelines in September 1986. This served in part as the basis for the European Commission publication "Guidelines for improving the synergy between the public and private sectors in the information market". A revised edition of the United Kingdom guide has been published by my Department this month, entitled "Government-held tradeable information. Guidelines for government departments in dealing with the private sector". This is now being distributed to Government Departments and others who have expressed interest.

  Company Information
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what United Kingdom legislation provides for the public right to postal sales of company information from the Registrar of Companies on the price basis required by EEC directive 68/151 article 3, paragraph 3.

  Mr. Redwood
  Section 709 of the Companies Act 1985 provides a statutory right to certified copies of company documents. When this section is amended by section 126(2) of the Companies Act 1989, there will additionally be a statutory right to uncertified copies. There are no express provisions in the Companies Act on the price basis for providing these services or the method of delivery.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what legislative provision he intends to introduce in respect of charges for the postal sales service for company information on microfiche and other forms.

  Mr. Redwood
  The statutory fees for certified copies of documents are prescribed by the Companies (Fees)152
  Regulations 1988. When section 126(2) of the Companies Act 1989 is brought into force, the regulations will be amended to prescribe a statutory fee for uncertified copies, which will cover the postal search service.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how he plans to review the commitment given by the Government in November 1983 that they did not intend to license operators other than British Telecommunications and Mercury Communications to provide basic fixed-link telecommunications for a period of seven years.

  Mr. Lilley
  We will publish a consultative document in the autumn setting out the issues to be reviewed and indicating where appropriate the Government's preferred options. The review will be wide-ranging and will be conducted in close association with the Director General of Telecommunications. It will cover local and trunk telephone services, cable entertainment services and international telecommunications. There will be a period for public comment, after which the Government will aim to announce their decisions early in the new year.

  ECGD
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the number of policyholders with the Export Credits Guarantee Department with an annual export turnover of under(a) £1 million and (b) £500,000 in each of the years 1985 to 1989.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the number of policyholders with the Export Credits Guarantee Department with an annual export turnover of under £1 million for each of the years 1985 to 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: The ECGD insures contracts with buyers in specified countries and does not necessarily require policyholders to inform the ECGD of their annual export turnovers. In addition, some companies insure their business with ECGD through an intermediary rather than direct with the ECGD. Accordingly information is not held in the form required to answer the question. In the financial year 1989–90 a total of 4,720 policyholders each declared business of less than £1 million. This was not necessarily their total export turnover. These figures refer only to the Cardiff-based insurance services short-term business and not to project business.

  Ford Plant (Hungary)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact upon British industry of the locating of Ford's proposed automotive components plant in Hungary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: The siting of investment is a commercial matter for the company. Many overseas companies, particularly in the car and automotive components sectors, including Ford, have invested in the United Kingdom, attracted by the favourable climate for business created by the Government.

  EC Structual Funds
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of European Community structural funds devoted to correcting regional imbalance was devoted to projects within the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 23 July 1990.]: The United Kingdom's share of the European regional development fund over the last five years is shown in column C:

  ERDF commitments

  £ million

  (A) Total EC

  (B) Total United Kingdom

  (C) United Kingdom share Per cent.

  1985

  1,469

  358

  24·4

  1986

  2,227

  368

  16·5

  1987

  2,581

  449

  17·4

  1988

  2,543

  387

  15·2

  1989

  3,020

  343

  11·4

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) to what extent Government policy is compatible with that of the Community in regard to the expansion and use of structural funds within the Unite Kingdom; and what plans he has to achieve full compatibility after 1992;

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom secures a fair and justifiable share of European structural funds up to and beyond 1992.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: Government policy is already compatible with that of the Community with regard to the structural funds, which involve a partnership between national Governments, the Commission and others. The Community support frameworks, which detail the amounts of funding, are agreed between the Government and the Commission.

  The Government will continue to make every effort in their contacts with the Commission to ensure that the United Kingdom obtains its fair share of the structural funds up to and beyond 1992.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the number of projects and the value of the financial support from European structural funds devoted to each region of the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and what is the number which he expects to be supported in each region in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: The number of projects receiving structural fund assistance and the value of European social fund and EAGGF guidance fund commitments by region are not readily available. A regional breakdown of European regional development fund commitments over the last five years is in the table.

  ERDF Commitments

  £ million

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  North

  27

  41

  63

  71

  58

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  24

  47

  32

  25

  30

  East Midlands

  18

  2

  3

  3

  0

  East Anglia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  154

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  South East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South West

  10

  22

  28

  16

  5

  West Midlands

  46

  40

  67

  25

  20

  North West

  77

  55

  40

  41

  80

  Wales

  58

  47

  56

  64

  63

  Scotland

  71

  57

  117

  97

  21

  Northern Ireland

  26

  43

  41

  44

  66

  Multi-regional

  0

  13

  3

  1

  0

  Total United Kingdom

  358

  368

  449

  387

  343

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding has been received from European Community structural funds in the Yorkshire and Humberside steel area programme in each year since 1988; and what funding is expected in 1990–91 and 1991–92 in this area.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: Commitments from the European regional development fund and the European social fund to the Yorkshire and Humberside steel area programme were £7·1 million in the calendar year 1988 and £20·8 million in 1989. Commitments for 1990, 1991 and 1992 are expected to be £28·9 million, £37·3 million and £31·4 million respectively. Commitments by financial year are not readily available.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the sum available from the structural funds of the European Community between 1987 and 1990; and what proportion of that sum was devoted to South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: In the period 1987 to 1990 commitments from the European regional development fund, European social fund, and the EAGGF guidance fund for the whole of the European Community are estimated at £12 billion, £9·6 billion and £3·6 billion respectively, giving a total of £25·2 billion for all three structural funds. Figures for ESF and EAGGF guidance commitments for South Yorkshire are not readily available. ERDF commitments for South Yorkshire in the period 1987 to 1990 are estimated at £59–1 million, some 0·5 per cent. of total EC and ERDF commitments.

  Financial Services
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how often those offences under the Financial Services Act concerning (i) inducing another person to enter an investment by knowingly making a false or misleading statement, (ii) knowingly engaging in any act or course of conduct which creates a false or misleading impression of the market and (iii) inducing another person to enter an insurance contract by knowingly making false or misleading statements have been used.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply.

  Records available to my Department show that no persons had been prosecuted under the Financial Services Act 1986 up to the end of 1988.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding overcrowding in the detention centres for Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The 10 detention centres in Hong Kong have a combined design capacity of 45,000 places. Their current population is 44,200. A new purpose-built detention centre at Tai a Chau will be completed later this year, making available an additional 10,000 places. This will enable the Hong Kong Government to close some of the smaller existing centres, further reduce the populations in the main detention centres, and make more accommodation available to UNHCR and the voluntary agencies to enable them to expand their programme of services.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding the treatment of communicable diseases in the detention centres for Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The majority of patients suffering from communicable diseases are admitted to the infectious disease unit of the Princess Margaret hospital. In 1988 there were 1,491 cases, the majority of which were chicken pox. In 1989 there were 2,583 cases, 20 per cent. of the total number of notifiable diseases reported in Hong Kong. This increase is explained by the arrival of over 34,000 boat people in Hong Kong during that year. Of these cases, 1,271 were chicken pox, 149 dysentery, 685 malaria, 83 measles, 226 tuberculosis, 120 viral hepatitis and 23 cholera.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding current living conditions in each of the detention centres for Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Living conditions in the detention centres have steadily improved as new purpose-built accommodation has become available.

  Considerable progress has been made in expanding the voluntary agency programmes which cover education, medical care, family planning and excursions for children.

  Water supplies are more than adequate, per capita consumption being well above the average for Hong Kong. Food is prepared in central kitchens in each centre by Vietnamese workers, using dietary scales drawn up in conjunction with the UNHCR. Sanitary conditions are satisfactory and have improved with the reduction in overcrowding and as boat people become more familiar with the facilities.

  Visas
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, for each of the last 12 months for which figures are available, the numbers of(a) applications received for visas for visits to the United Kingdom, and (b) such visas granted at the embassy of Her Majesty's Government in Moscow.
  156
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Information is available as follows:

  Visa applications received

  Visas issued

  1989

  27,918

  27,838

  1 1990

  15,643

  15,612

  1 January to May.

  European Community Directives
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has received to his letter to the President of the European Commission proposing regular six-monthly reviews of national compliance with EEC directives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In his reply of 15 June, M. Delors agreed that the Community should redouble efforts to ensure full and correct national implementation of European Community decisions, and referred to Commission consideration of new ways of presenting reports on implementation of Community law.

  At its Dublin meeting the European Council asked the Commission to strengthen its supervisory procedures and agreed to review the matter in December.

  Ilois People
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his responsibilities in relation to the Ilois people from the British Indian Ocean Territories who are currently in Mauritius.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. All are Mauritian citizens, although some may also be British dependent territories citizens.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Agriculture Specialists
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 8 March,Official Report, columns 787–88, concerning the number of Overseas Development Administration agricultural specialists who are women, whether there have been any changes in the figures since that date.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The number of the ODA's own specialists overseas remains at eight, none of whom are women. We still have one woman natural resources adviser on secondment to a technical co-operation assignment in Bangladesh.

  Rihand Power Station
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 19 July, when an appraisal of the Rihand power station project will begin; when it will be completed; and who is carrying out the assessment.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The appraisal of the power station will be taken forward in a series of studies: an initial assessment of issues was conducted in October 1989; if a contract is awarded to a British contractor and British aid
  157
  funding is requested, a further appraisal will be carried out to assess the economic, financial and engineering aspects of the proposed contract and, in the light of the World bank's study of the Singrauli area, of the environmental aspects of the project. As the contract has yet to be awarded, it is not possible to say when these further studies will be completed. The appraisal studies will be led by staff from the Overseas Development Administration and may call on expertise from outside the administration.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 489, what is the value of the provisional offer of aid for the second stage of Rihand power station; what is the total value of the contract for the second stage; which British company has been nominated as the main contractor; and what is the exact megawattage of the second phase.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No commitment has been given to a specific amount of aid. Before making any such commitment, the Overseas Development Administration will need to be satisfied that the proposed contract price and the project as a whole represent a cost-effective and environmentally sound approach to power generation in India. Following international tendering, discussions are in progress between the client, the National Thermal Power Corporation, and contractors, and the value of any contract has therefore yet to be determined. GEC was nominated as the main British contractor in 1987. The proposed second phase of the power station will be for 1,000 M W.

  Contracts (Value-for-money Inquiries)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that no contractual relationship exists between Messrs Biwaters and any firms of consultants Her Majesty's Government have employed on value-for-money inquiries, checks or audits on contracts assisted by the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [pursuant to her reply, 18 July 1990, c. 600]: Not only were there no contractual relationships between Biwater and either the firms or the individual specialist carrying out the value-for-money checks at the time the checks were commissioned, as I have already informed the hon. Gentleman, but there were no such relationships at any time during the execution of the checks.

PRIME MINISTER

  EC Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Prime Minister is she will make a statement on the progress of ministerial interdepartmental co-ordination in preparation for the European Community intergovernmental conference meetings in December.

  The Prime Minister
  Interdepartmental preparations for both intergovernmental conferences continue in the usual way.

  Community Care
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received on community care aspects of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive many representations in correspondence, and Health Ministers receive further representations at regular meetings with organisations about our plans for community care.

  Court Proceedings (Children's Evidence)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to introduce changes to the rules governing the giving of evidence by children in court proceedings involving allegations of physical abuse or sexual abuse; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 19 July at column 674.

  ECGD
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to her reply of 19 July, when the review of Export Credits Guarantee Department medium-term credit will be completed; who is undertaking it; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The availability of Export Credits Guarantee Department medium-term cover is kept under close and continuing review. The reviews are undertaken by ECGD and then in consultation with all the interested Government Departments.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has so far been made by the Cabinet Office efficiency unit inquiry into departmental handling of hon. Members' correspondence with Ministers; and if she will make a statement.
  159
  The Prime Minister
  The scrutiny is now under way. The scrutiny team rightly attaches great importance to seeking Members' views and sent a questionnaire to all hon. Members and is arranging to see a number of Members to discuss their views on this subject. The team is expected to produce its report by the end of November.

  Security Vetting
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement about the procedures for security vetting within the Government.

  The Prime Minister
  The security vetting system continues to form a key part of the protective arrangements for safeguarding national security and countering terrorism. The system that has been used to investigate the reliability of those who are expected to have regular access to highly classified information is known as positive vetting (PV); it has now been in operation for nearly 40 years. A more rigorous form of PV—known as enhanced positive vetting (EPV)—has been applied to all employees of the security and intelligence agencies and to a small number of people on closely associated work in other Government Departments since the implementation of the recommendations of the Security Commission in its report on the Prime case published in 1983—Cmnd. 8876. In addition, it has been the long-standing practice of successive Governments to carry out a more limited range of background checks, including criminal record checks, for access to less sensitive information and, increasingly, for the purposes of countering terrorism: this system has been known within the Government as normal vetting (NV).

  As indicated in the Government's response, published today, to the Home Affairs Select Committee report on criminal records which commented on the use of criminal record checks for the purpose of security vetting, the Government have decided, following a comprehensive review, that the security vetting system should be restructured and operated on the basis of defined and published criteria. From 1 October 1990 all candidates for security vetting will be asked to complete a security questionaire which will explain the purpose of the procedure and invite them to provide the personal details required for the necessary checks to be carried out. Vetting will then be carried out on the basis of the following revised statement of policy.

  The aim is to ensure that checks are carried out only to the extent necessary to safeguard national security and for the purposes of countering terrorism in the light of the current assessment of the threats to security. The changes will not affect the position of any individuals who have been vetted under the current arrangements.

  When the reliability of a public servant is thought to be in doubt on security grounds, there is a right of appeal to the three advisers—the tribunal appointed by the Government to advise Ministers in such cases—where security considerations are involved and to the permanent head of the Department in cases involving aspects of conduct and character alone. These arrangements will remain in force. Copies of a statement of the existing procedure, which will be amended as necessary to reflect the following policy, and the current terms of reference of the three advisers are available in the Library of the House.

  Statement of Vetting Policy: with effect from 1 October 1990.
  160
  In the interests of national security and of safeguarding Parliamentary democracy, it is the policy of HMG that no one should be employed in connection with work the nature of which is vital to the security of the state who:

  (a) is, or has been, involved in, or associated with any of the following activities threatening national security:

  (i) espionage,

  (ii) terrorism,

  (iii) sabotage,

  (iv) actions intended to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means; or

  (b) is, or has recently been, a member of any organisation which has advocated such activities; or

  (c) is, or has recently been, associated with any such organisation, or any of its members, in such a way as to raise reasonable doubts about his or her reliability; or

  (d) is susceptible to pressure from any such organisation or from a foreign intelligence service or a hostile power; or

  (e) suffers from defects of character which may expose him or her to blackmail or other influence by any such organisation or by a foreign intelligence service or which may otherwise indicate unreliability.

  2. In accordance with that policy Government Departments will in future submit all candidates for posts involving access to highly classified information to one of the following levels of vetting clearance, depending on the circumstances:

  (a) PV(S): this level of clearance is required before regular access to SECRET information can be authorised. In some circumstances, where it would not be possible for an individual to make reasonable progress in their career without clearance to SECRET level, it may be applied to candidates for employment whose duties may not, initially, involve regular access to SECRET information. A PV(S) clearance will normally consist of a full record check, that is a check against any relevant Departmental personnel records, a check against the National Collection of Criminal Records, and other necessary security checks, including a check against the records of the Security Service and police forces. In some cases further enquiries, including an interview with the subject, may be carried out.

  (b) PV(TS): this level of clearance is required before regular and constant access to TOP SECRET information can be authorised and for certain other posts involving access to highly sensitive classified information or material. It may also be applied in the following circumstances:

  (i) at the discretion of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before employment overseas in posts connected with British diplomatic or consular missions:

  (ii) at the discretion of Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office and the Scottish Office, in a post in the police service involving regular and constant access to SECRET information held or generated by a Special Branch which relates to espionage, sabotage or terrorism, or to actions intended to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means;

  (iii) at departmental discretion before employment in a departmental security post;

  (iv) at the discretion of the security and intelligence agencies to members of their ancillary staff.

  A PV(TS) clearance will consist of a record check on similar lines to that carried out for PV(S) clearances, supplemented by a formal check on the credit worthiness of the individual and by interviews with the subject and persons familiar with their character in both the home and the work environment.

  (c) EPV: this is the most rigorous form of PV clearance now applied to members of the security and intelligence agencies and to a small number of staff employed on closely associated work in

  161
  Government Departments. It consists of the same sort of enquiries as those made for a PV(TS) background investigation, but to a greater depth.

  3. In addition security checks may also be carried out in the following circumstances:

  (a) for the protection of classified information. Basic security checks, known as Reliability Checks, may be carried out in the interestes of national security before:

  (i) individuals are granted unescorted access to premises or areas where highly classified information or material is held and where there is a risk of accidental access to that information or material; and

  (ii) individuals are authorised to have access to certain categories of information classified CONFIDENTIAL, mostly in the fields of defence and foreign affairs.

  The aim of such checks is primarily to ensure that the character of the individual concerned is such that they can be trusted in circumstances where they may gain access to information of importance to national security

  (b) for the protection of public figures and military and civil establishments at particular risk of attack by terrorist organisations. Irrespective of the degree of access to classified information security checks, known as Counter Terrorist Checks, may be carried out in the interest of national security before:

  (i) individuals take up posts which involve proximity to public figures at particular risk of attack by terrorist organisations, or which give access to information or material assessed to be of value to terrorists;

  (ii) individuals are granted unescorted access to certain military and civil establishments assessed to be at particular risk of attack by terrorist organisations.

  The aim of such checks is to prevent individuals who have connections with terrorist organisations, or who may be vulnerable to pressure from such organisations, from gaining access to certain posts and, in some circumstances, premises where there is a risk that they could exploit that position to further the aims of a terrorist organisation.

  4. A check against the National Collection of Criminal Records is an invariable feature of a Reliability Check clearance; and criminal record information may also be taken into account in a Counter Terrorist Check clearance. Other security checks may be carried out as necessary.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many requests for(a) renewals and (b) variations of firearms certificates have been refused in each of the Royal Ulster Constabulary divisions in Belfast in each of the last three years for which figures are available;

  (2) how many applications for a firearms certificate for (a) shotguns, (b) rifles, (c) handguns and (d) other firearms have been refused in each Royal Ulster Constabulary division in Belfast in each of the last three years for which figures are available, or as much of such information as is available to him;

  (3) if he will publish a table to show by reference to Royal Ulster Constabulary division how many firearms certificates have been withdrawn in each of the last three years; and if he will specify, by type and number of firearms, the firearms to which such certificates related and indicate how many of the certificates were withdrawn because the holder had been convicted of (a) terrorist
  162
  activity and (b) other illegal actions for which he was sentenced in a court of law, or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Cope
  The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has informed me that the information is not held in a manner which makes the statistics asked for readily available and they could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) shotguns, (b) (c) handguns and (d) other firearms have been stolen from the legal owners in each Royal Ulster Constabulary division in Belfast in each of the last three years for which figures are available, or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Cope
  The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has informed me that the information is not recorded in the format sought. The following information is available however for the past two years:

  Bullet firing weapons

  Shotguns

  Other weapons (including air weapons)

  A Division

  1988

  1

  2

  1

  1989

  6

  2

  0

  B Division

  1988

  2

  2

  1

  1989

  4

  0

  0

  D Division

  1988

  8

  16

  2

  1989

  2

  2

  1

  E Division

  1988

  2

  4

  0

  1989

  4

  3

  1

  Education Board Tribunals
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date did each of the appeals tribunals of the five education area boards commence their work in connection with the new transfer procedure; how many appeals have been received in each of the five education areas; and when he expects all appeal hearings to be completed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Education area board

  Date appeals tribunals commenced work

  Number of appeals received

  Belfast

  19 July 1990

  105

  Western

  16 July 1990

  121

  North-Eastern

  16 July 1990

  116

  South-Eastern

  Expected to be 26 July 1990

  91

  Southern

  Expected to be 7 August 1990

  77

  I expect appeal hearings to be completed by the end of August.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many grade 2 pupils were refused places in grammar schools; and how many grade 3 and 4 pupils, including those already attending the preparatory
  163
  departments of grammar schools, were accepted into grammar schools arising from the new transfer procedure this year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information in the form requested is not readily available. In this year's transfer procedure tests 2,789 pupils were awarded grade 2 of whom 1,872 have been admitted to grammar schools. In addition 399 pupils awarded grade 3 and 80 pupils awarded grade 4 have been admitted to grammar schools.

  Teachers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the funding formula for individual schools in Northern Ireland under local management of schools will make provision for the real cost of teachers' salaries rather than the average salary of a teacher in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under the formula the determination of budgets for schools will be based principally on age-weighted pupil numbers. For schools with fewer than 12 teaching staff, the formula may include a factor to provide some protection if the teachers' salaries are higher than average. For all schools, additional teachers' salary costs associated with school reorganisation will be funded outside the formula.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received the 15th report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The report has been published today, and copies have been laid before Parliament. It covers the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990.

  The report covers a wide range of matters which the commission has considered during the period under review. These include discrimination and equality of opportunity including fair employment, education, the law relating to children, police and criminal evidence matters, prisons, emergency legislation, the Broadcasting Bill and electoral law.

  I attach importance to the work of the commission and value the advice it gives me on a range of human rights issues. I am particularly grateful to the commission for having maintained a programme of work in addition to its recent review of the adequacy and effectiveness of existing laws and institutions to secure freedom from discrimination and further equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. I laid the second report of that review before Parliament on 26 June—Cm·1107.

  Copies of my response to the commission's 15th report and of the report itself have been placed in the Library.

  Airports
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Government plan to privatise Northern Ireland Airports Ltd.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government have decided that Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. is a candidate for privatisation. We shall seek specialist advice.

  Terrorist Offences
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were charged with terrorist-type offences following initial detention under Acts other than the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts in 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Terrorism
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons known or claiming to be members of the Irish Republican Army have been killed and injured each year since 1969 as a result of terrorist activities.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: The information is not available.

WALES

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has laid before Parliament under section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  A report will be laid before Parliament within the required period of one year from 18 December 1989, the date of implementation of section 11 of the Act.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any of the district health authorities in Wales have indicated to his Department an interest on opting out of the present national health service structure in their entirety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Pembrokeshire health authority has expressed an interest in self-governing status. If the authority submitted a successful application for such status, this would not involve opting out of the NHS structure. Self-governing trusts will remain firmly part of the NHS.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the number of patients requiring non-urgent treatment as in-patients for traumatic and orthopaedic surgery at Withybush hospital at the latest available date who had waited for(a) up to three months, (b) between three months and six months, (c) between six months and nine months, (d) between nine months and one year, (e) between one year and 15 months, (f) between 15 months and 18 months, (g) between 18 months and two years and (h) more than two years;

  (2) what was the number of patients requiring treatment as out-patients for traumatic and orthopaedic surgery at the latest available date who had waited for (a)

  165
  up to three months, (b) between three months and six months, (c) between six months and nine months, (d) between nine months and one year and (e) more than one year at (i) Nevill Hall hospital, (ii) University Hospital of Wales and (iii) Morriston hospital;

  (3) what was the number of patients requiring urgent treatment as in-patients for general surgery including urology at the latest available date, who had waited for (i) between one month and two months, (ii) between two months and three months, (iii) between three months and four months, (iv) between four months and five months, (v) between five months and six months, (vi) between six months and one year and (vii) more than one year at (a) Withybush hospital, (b) St. Woolos hospital and (c) University Hospital of Wales;

  (4) what was the number of patients requiring non-urgent treatment as in-patients for general surgery including urology at the latest available date, who had waited for (i) between three months and six months, (ii) between six months and nine months, (iii) between nine months and one year, (iv) between one year and 15 months, (v) between 15 months and 18 months, (vi) between 18 months and 21 months and (vii) between 21 months and two years at (a) Withybush, (b) Nevill Hall, (c) Princess of Wales, (d) Prince Charles, (e) University Hospital of Wales, (f) Cardiff royal infirmary and (g) Neath hospitals;

  (5) what was the number of patients requiring treatment as out-patients for general surgery including urology at Morriston hospital, at the latest available date who had waited for (a) between one month and two months, (b) between two months and three months, (c) between three months and six months, (d) between six months and nine months, (e) between nine months and one year and (f) longer than one year;

  (6) what was the number of patients requiring urgent treatment as in-patients for traumatic and orthopaedic surgery at Withybush hospital at the latest available date who had waited for (a) less than one month, (b) between one month and two months, (c) between two and three months, (d) between three and four months, (e) between four and five months, (f) between five and six months, (g) between six and seven months, (h) between seven and eight months, (i) between eight and nine months, (j) between nine months and one year and (k) more than one year;

  (7) what was the number of patients requiring non-urgent treatment as in-patients for ophthalmology for the latest available date at Singleton and St. Woolos hospitals who had waited for (a) between six and nine months, (b) between nine and 12 months, (c) between 12 and 15 months, (d) between 15 and 18 months, (e) between 18 months and two years and (f) over two years;

  (8) what was the number of out-patients requiring ophthalmology treatment at the latest available date at the University Hospital of Wales who had waited for (a) between three and six months, (b) between six and nine months, (c) between nine months and one year and
  (d) longer than one year;

  (9) what was the number of out-patients requiring gynaecology treatment at the latest available date at Prince Charles and Morriston hospitals who had waited for (a) up to three months, (b) three to six months, (c) six to nine months, (d) nine months to one year and (e) longer than one year.
  166
  Mr. Grist
  Information for the ranges of waiting times specified is not collected centrally in the detail required. The latest information available is published in the "Welsh Hospital Waiting List Bulletin 1990: No. 1" and refers to 30 September 1989; a copy is in the Library of the House.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government have continued to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures, and through specific programmes of support and assistance. In Wales the latest available figures show that in 1989 the total number of businesses registered for VAT was 85,200; an increase of 21 per cent. on 1980. The Department's specific policies to encourage enterprise in Wales are:

  Support for Local Enterprise Agencies
  There are currently 23 Local Enterprise Agencies in Wales. Three more organisations have in the year to June 1990 applied to become approved Local Enterprise Agencies and are at present being considered for approval.

  Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs)
  TECs will take over responsibility for delivering the Small Firms Counselling Service from 1 April 1991. The advent of TECs allows an added dimension of local employer-led flexibilities to be built into these services and TECs will be able to integrate these into their other enterprise programmes. The Mid Glamorgan and West Wales TECs commenced operations on 23 July; the five remaining TECs will come on line early in 1991.

  Regional Selective Assistance, Regional Enterprise Grant
  Small businesses continue to take advantage of the help available under Regional Selective Assistance. In the year to the end of June 1990, 145 small firms (employing less than 200 people) accepted offers of RSA totalling just over £11·4 million. These results are almost identical to the previous year. A further 289 small firms (employing less than 25 people) accepted offers of Regional Enterprise Grant totalling £2·52 million. This compares with 261 small firms accepting offers of £2·18 million in the previous 12 months.

  Enterprise Wales
  Launched in January 1988, the Consultancy Initiatives have proved extremely popular in Wales. More than 2,800 companies have applied. In 1989–90 alone, 1,174 Business Reviews were carried out, 27 per cent. above economic weight, and 885 projects were commissioned, 19 per cent. above economic weight.

  WDA Advisory Services—Small business inquiries
  During 1989–90, a total of 13,000 sessions of advisory visits and interviews have been conducted by the WDA's Business Development staff. Small Firms counsellors undertook over 10,000 first time visits to clients during the same period.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the statutory and other requirements which ensure that changes in the ownership and/or management of private establishments for mentally handicapped people are notified to the authorities.

  Mr. Grist
  Under sections 2 and 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 it is an offence for any person whether owner or manager to carry on a residential care, nursing or mental nursing home without being registered.
  167
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what powers to check on the suitability of(a) the proprietor, (b) the manager and (c) anyone with a position of responsibility in respect of a private establishment for mentally handicapped people are currently held by a social services department and by any other authority.

  Mr. Grist
  Under the Registered Homes Act 1984, registering authorities can refuse registration of a residential care, nursing or mental nursing home if any person concerned or intended to be concerned in carrying on the home is considered not a fit person. In assessing fitness, authorities are advised to investigate whether the applicant for registration or others concerned with the

  Average class size in year GCSE classes, Wales

  Welsh counties

  Mathematics

  English

  French

  German

  Welsh as a first language

  Clwyd

  24

  25

  19

  17

  22

  Dyfed

  25

  26

  19

  12

  22

  Gwent

  24

  23

  18

  15

  —

  Gwynedd

  23

  24

  14

  15

  23

  Mid Glamorgan

  25

  24

  18

  15

  24

  Powys

  24

  23

  16

  15

  11

  South Glamorgan

  24

  25

  20

  14

  18

  West Glamorgan

  23

  23

  17

  14

  20

  Source: Secondary Schools Staffing Survey 1989.

  Prescribing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will(a) list and (b) place in the Library a copy of any guidelines or advice his Department has offered to family practitioner committees in Wales in respect of the responsibility assumed by them in April for giving advice to general practitioners on prescribing.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to a Welsh health circular No. WHC(89)68/WHC(FP)(89)22, entitled "Managing the General Medical Services". A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Health Authority Loans
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the loan of £500,000 by South Glamorgan health authority to Gwynedd health authority in the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 23 July 1990.

  BP Chemicals, Port Talbot
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking about flaring and noise from BP Chemicals, Port Talbot.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply given on 20 July at columns 758–59.
  168
  home have preiously committed offences under the Registered Homes Act 1984 or received criminal convictions.

  Teacher-pupil Ratios
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give each county's average teacher-pupil ratio for general certificate of secondary education classes in(a) mathematics, (b) English, (c) modern European language and (d) Welsh.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Teacher-pupil ratios by individual subject are not available, however information relating to the average size of GCSE classes in year five is as follows. In order to give an accurate figure for GCSE in a modern European language, information for French and German has been given separately.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  International Peto Institute
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to the reply of 15 December 1989,Official Report, column 848, how much money has so far been contributed to the International Peto Institute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  In my reply of 15 December at column 848, I indicated that the Government proposed to commit £5 million from Government funds over four years towards the capital costs of the International Peto Institute subject to conclusion of a satisfactory agreement covering access for children and trainee conductors, and to satisfactory progress with construction. I also indicated that we proposed to stimulate interest in the private and voluntary sectors with a view to raising a similar amount from those sources.

  Discussions are continuing on these issues and I hope to make a further statement in the near future.

  Labour Statistics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people the Government estimate(a) are not in full-time work, (b) are not in part-time work and (c) are in part-time but would prefer to be in full-time work, because they remain at home to care for elderly, sick or disabled relatives; and what is the average amount of time they remain out of the labour force.

  Mr. Scott
  There is no information on which to base such estimates.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish his annual report on the social fund; and when he will publish the social fund commissioner's annual report.

  Mr. Newton
  My report has been published today and I have laid it before Parliament. I have also placed copies both of my report and of the social fund commissioner's report in the Library. The social fund commissioner's report is expected to be published tomorrow.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government have continued to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures, and through specific programmes of support and assistance. The success of their policies is demonstrated by the latest statistics which show a record increase in the number of businesses registered for VAT, of 1,700 a week during 1989. Over the decade the overall increase has been 373,000. Specific measures which have been introduced by the Department include:(i) We commissioned external consultants in July 1989 to carry out research on employers' reactions to the new literature which had been issued in April 1989 on national insurance contributions (NICs) and statutory sick pay (SSP). The research showed that the new literature was considered a great improvement over the old. Additional ways of improving our communications package were identified and some of the documents were revised accordingly in April 1990.
  New guidance on statutory maternity pay (SMP) has been produced; a new SMP chapter has been added to the employers' "Quick Guide", which previously contained only SSP and NIC information, and a SMP manual became available in April 1990.
  A fact card, which explains company directors' NICs in a simple way, was distributed to employers in April 1990. A company directors' NICs booklet which gives detailed guidance on this area has also been produced.
  (ii) In January 1990 we launched a free seminar service for employers to help them administer SSP and SMP. This was introduced with the small employer particularly in mind and the national extension of this service followed a successful pilot exercise in Scotland. During the period January 1990 to June 1990, 1,228 people attended 103 seminars.
  (iii) We have commissioned the Institute of Data Processing Management (IDPM) to produce a test pack, for producers of payroll software, to enable them to test the SSP and SMP components against Departmental standards. This is an extension of the IDPM's existing payroll evaluation service and has benefits for software producers and employers alike. Software producers can ensure the accuracy of their product and advertise it accordingly. Employers will be able to purchase, with confidence, software which will greatly assist them in the administration of SSP and SMP.
  170
  (iv) In November 1989 the Department held the inaugural meeting of the new DSS employers' advisory panel. The panel is made up of small business people, representatives of employers' organisations including the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, and payroll managers. The panel advises the Department on policy, procedures and communications with business.
  (v) We give prominence, on our training courses for purchasing staff, to the need to consider using small firms, and give each participant copies of Department of Employment booklets "Think Big Buy Small" and "Tendering For Government Contracts".

  We have not designed performance indicators specifically for monitoring achievements in this area but the Department has a system to monitor proposals which impact on business, to ensure that the needs of small businesses are taken into account. We attach particular importance to action taken to help small firms and will continue to explore further ways of doing so.

  School Meals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children were eligible for free school meals in 1985; and how many are currently eligible.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In 1985, children in families receiving supplementary benefit or family income supplement were eligible for free school meals. The number of children of school age, aged five and over, in such families at that time was:

  Number

  Supplementary Benefit

  1 1,431,000

  Family Income Supplement

  2288,000

  1 February 1986: the nearest date for which information is available.

  2 October 1985.

  No information is available about the number of children eligible under the local authority discretionary schemes which existed in 1985.

  Currently, only children in families receiving income support are eligible for free school meals. The latest information relates to May 1989 when there were 1,309,000 children aged five or over in such families. When family credit replaced family income supplement in 1988 the children's rates were set at a higher level to provide help in cash in place of free school meals. In April 1990 there were 446,000 children aged five or over in family credit families.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now make a statement on the Government's response to the social security commissioners' decision in the case for severe disability premium of Simon Crompton; and how many other severely disabled people have already benefited or will benefit from the decision.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The regulation with which this commissioner's decision is concerned was amended from 9 October 1989. Information on the number of people who benefited under the reinterpretation of the unamended regulation is not yet available.

  Pensioners, Wirral
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether pensioners over 75 years of age living in the Wirral have been paid the additional housing benefit to which they are entitled following the Government's changes in the rules for those aged over 75 years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am aware that the metropolitan borough of Wirral was not able to implement the changes to the housing benefit scheme in October 1989. The authority overcame its difficulty by the end of January 1990 and all pensioners should now be receiving their proper housing benefit entitlement.

  Scottish Pensioners
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many senior citizens in Scotland received state benefits additional to the standard pension in the periods(a) April 1987 to April 1988, (b) April 1988 to April 1989 and (c) April 1989 to April 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest version of the family expenditure survey (1987) shows that in Scotland 65 per cent. of pensioners in receipt of the retirement pension and supplementary benefit received at least one other social security benefit. It is not possible from the family expenditure survey to separate accurately retirement pension and supplementary benefit.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to increase the percentage of departmental Select Committee reports debated on the Floor of the House on substantive motions.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  No. Although only a small number of debates have taken place on substantive motions there have been innumerable debates which have Select Committee reports tagged as relevant to the debate. The number of such reports could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Telephone Services
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether, in drawing up proposals to widen the facilities available to make telephone calls to institutions of the European Commission, he will consider the possibility of using the services offered by Mercury.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The question of introducing the services offered by Mercury Telecommunications to the House exchange was addressed in the first report this Session from the Services Committee; and is to be further considered this autumn by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's request is included in that consideration.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the policies pursued by the House of Commons (Services) Committee to help 172
  small businesses; and what steps have been taken to develop performance indicators by which these achievements can be monitored.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The House of Commons (Services) Committee has no responsibility in these matters.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if there are any plans to arrange for a publicly broadcast trial of provision for the use of subtitling and sign language in televising the proceedings of the House as suggested by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  This is a matter which the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House, and its successor Committee, will be considering in the autumn, in consultation with the broadcasters, once the detailed evaluations of the signing and subtitling trials recently organised by the Select Committee are available.

ENERGY

  British Coal
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the European Commissioner responsible for competition policy regarding the three-year coal contract between British Coal and the electricity generation companies.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no present plans to do so.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from the European Commission regarding the pricing structure of British Coal's contract with the two electricity generators and its impact on private mine operators.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Commission is keen to see the transition to a fully competitive coal market and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has assured it of the importance which the Government attach to private mine operators having a full and fair opportunity to supply the power station market.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the proportion of coal and oil-fired installed capacity for electricity generators fitted with flue gas desulphurisation in Japan, West Germany and Great Britain, the time scale for completion, and the cost per £ kilowatt installed.

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest available published information can be found in the OECD-IEA publication "Coal Information 1990", a copy of which can be obtained from the House Library.

  Coal and Electricity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what requests for information he has received from the European Commission regarding the impact on competition in the coal industry and the electricity generation industry of the three-year coal contract between British Coal and National Power and PowerGen.
  173
  Mr. Baldry
  The Commission has received memoranda and other information both from my Department and from the coal and electricity industries.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his proposals for employees and pensioners of the electricity industry in England and Wales to participate in the forthcoming share offers; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government welcome the opportunity which privatisation of the electricity supply industry provides for employees to become shareholders in the new companies.

  Employees will be offered free shares to a fully paid value of about £140, plus shares at a fully paid value of about £2 for every year of continuous service in the electricity supply industry up to a date close to flotation.

  Employees will also be offered two free fully paid shares for every share bought at the offer price on a matching basis up to a maximum fully paid value of about £440 worth of free shares. Under this element of the package, if an employee bought shares with a fully paid value of £220, he would receive free shares to a fully paid value of £440.

  Employees will be able to buy shares up to a maximum fully paid value of about £1,250 of additional shares at a discount of 20 per cent. from the offer price.

  Employees applying for shares will be treated on a priority basis, over the general public, up to an individual fully paid limit of shares worth about £15,000. This may be subject to scaling down if the number of shares in any one company applied for by employees and pensioners exceeds a prescribed proportion of the total number of shares on offer.

  The free and matching shares will be available to employees who satisfy certain minimum qualification periods on length of employment and hours worked per week. The discount and priority shares will be available to each person employed in the electricity industry at a date close to the flotation date.

  We have also decided that pensioners of the companies should be able to apply on a priority basis, over the general public, for shares up to a fully paid limit of about £15,000, subject to any necessary scaling down.

  We have also made special arrangements for employees of the National Grid Company, the Electricity Association and Nuclear Electric which will not be floated on the stock exchange. National Grid Company employees and Electricity Association employees will receive offers on terms similar to those of the RECs' employees, but in all 12 of the regional electricity companies; Nuclear Electric employees will receive offers for shares in National Power, also on similar terms.

  I announced yesterday, in my statement on PowerGen, that in the event of a trade sale arrangements would also be made for PowerGen employees to receive benefits broadly comparable in financial terms.

  Further details of the share offer arrangements will be made available to employees and pensioners in due course, including those resulting from Inland Revenue, stock exchange and other requirements applying to these offers.
  174
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those companies which have approached him regarding a trade sale of any part or subsidiary of any of the electricity generating or distribution companies.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday,Official Report, columns 39–51.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with the quotations committee of the international stock exchange regarding exemptions for each or any of the electricity supply industry companies from the minimum three-year profit and loss account track record before flotation.

  Mr. Baldry
  No such exemptions have been sought.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government have continued to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures, and through specific programmes of support and assistance. The success of their policies is demonstrated by the latest statistics which show a record increase in the number of businesses registered for VAT, of 1,700 a week during 1989. Over the decade the overall increase has been 373,000.

  In developing and implementing my Department's policies, full account is taken of the needs of small businesses. They have benefited from measures to encourage competition and stimulate energy efficiency.

  The Coal Industry Act 1990 provides a modest, but significant, measure of liberalisation for the United Kingdom coal market by raising the tonnage limit on licensed—non-British Coal—opencast sites and the manpower limit on licensed deep mines. The Government have continued to make available funding for British Coal Enterprise Ltd. resulting in a cumulative total of 61,000 job opportunities, many of which are in small businesses, in 2,865 individual projects—this compares with 41,041 and 2,600 respectively in 1989.

  The new regime for the electricity supply industry will have the effect of opening up the supply of electricity to competition, will give small businesses a choice of electricity supplier and put downward pressure on the prices they pay.

  Officials are encouraged to use small firms for departmental purchases of goods and services where this is consistent with obtaining value for money. About 43 per cent. of purchases have been from them in 1989–90 compared with 38 per cent. in 1988–89. A booklet "Selling to the Department of Energy—a guide to firms wishing to supply the Department with goods and services." has recently been produced and should be of particular benefit to small firms.

  Electricity Sales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with the director general of the Office of Electricity Regulation about the upper limit on direct sales by the generating companies to above 1 MW customers.

  Mr. Baldry
  My officials are in regular contact with the office of the Director General of Electricity Supply on regulatory matters. Before announcing his recent decision on the direct sales limits at the end of May the director wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informing him of his conclusions.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those proposed independent electricity generation projects which incorporate combined heat and power technology.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The proposed projects that incorporate combined heat and power technology and that have been made public are as follows:

  Company

  Location

  South East London CHP

  London

  Forth Energy Ltd.

  Newcastle

  Sheffield Heat and Power

  Sheffield

  Shell

  Shellhaven

  Mobil Oil Co. Ltd.

  Coryton

  ICI/Enron

  Teeside

  British Nuclear Fuels

  Calderhall

  Texaco/Mission Energy

  Pembroke

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the number of independent electricity generation projects which(a) include electricity distribution companies in the owning consortium and (b) do not include any such companies.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend is aware of the regional electricity companies' interest in a number of independent electricity generation projects. Participation in such schemes is a commercial matter and it is for the companies themselves to decide whether they wish to hold an equity interest in any particular project.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding the participation of the electricity distribution companies in electricity generating consortia.

  Mr. Baldry
  Decisions to invest in independent generation projects are matters for the company concerned.

HEALTH

  Iodine 125
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the incidence of iodine 125 in thyroid glands in the London area.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has recently received a draft report of research funded by the Department of the 176
  Environment entitled "Iodine 125—its distribution in the United Kingdom from measurements and biological monitoring, and absorbed doses (individual and collective) derived from measured activities in human thyroids". In accordance with normal practice, the Department has referred the draft report for peer-review. However, I am advised by the Department of the Environment that levels of radioactivity in the River Thames are extremely low and that the levels in drinking water are well below the guideline values recommended by the World Health Organisation and the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

  Dedicated Clinics
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide additional dedicated clinics for family planning and the menopause.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The level of provision of menopause and family planning clinic services is a matter for individual health authorities to determine in the light of local needs and priorities. Guidance issued by the Department asks health authorities to strike a proper balance between services provided by specialist clinics and those provided by GPs, bearing in mind matters such as clinics' wider health role.

  Self-governing Hospitals
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many expressions of interest have been received for self-governing hospitals and other units; and how many formal applications have been submitted.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  So far, 200 units have expressed an interest in becoming self-governing. A total of 59 formal applications have been received to date.

  NHS Reforms
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed national health service reforms on national health service efficiency.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The national health service reforms will introduce NHS contracts—or service agreements—between health authorities and GP fund holders on one side, and hospitals and other units on the other. These agreements will specify the cost, volume and quality of services to be provided. This specification of services in contracts will provide an incentive to ensure that resources go more directly to the hospitals or units which provide the best quality and best value care. This will be an important stimulus in making the national health service more efficient.

  AIDS
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his assessment of the proportion of people with HIV infection who will go on to develop full-blown AIDS.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest estimate on the proportion of people infected with HIV who will progress to AIDS from the San Francisco city clinic cohort study of 489 homosexual men is 53 per cent. at 11·1 years. By 1990, of those known to have been infected between 1977 and
  177
  1980, 61 per cent. had developed AIDS and a further 18 per cent. had AIDS-related complex. Only 14 per cent. of those infected with HIV for 10 years or longer did not show physiological markers of damage to the immune system. Data from studies of other groups of people infected with HIV including injecting drug misusers show similar rates of progression.

  Since 1987 the use of zidovudine has been reducing the rate at which people with early HIV disease progress to AIDS. It is probable that zidovudine only temporarily halts the progress of the disease. Current information suggests that at least 75 per cent. of people infected with HIV will develop AIDS and this figure may eventually rise to over 90 per cent.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what communications he has had with Dr. Perutz and his colleagues concerning the dissemination of information about AIDS since 12 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have not been in communication with Dr. Perutz, but the Department contacted a number of Dr. Perutz's medical and scientific colleagues about the content of the Channel 4 programme "Despatches". The issues raised in the programme, which appeared to be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of AIDS, have subsequently been the subject of correspondence in the medical and scientific press and in newspapers. Dr. Anthony Pinching appeared on television with the producer of the programme and refuted many of its claims. We are grateful to Dr. Perutz for his action in writing to the press drawing attention to the erroneous information contained in the programme.

  Programmes of this kind underline the importance of public education initiatives which have already begun to reduce the spread of HIV infection in the United Kingdom, and point to the need for a continuing programme of education to sustain public awareness and knowledge, and influence behaviour.

  Community Care
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received concerning his plans for care in the community.

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

  Free Prescriptions
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will add pernicious anaemia to the list of chronic illnesses for which free prescriptions are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Eye Tests
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer from the abolition of free eye tests in financial year 1989–90; and what is the estimate for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The estimated saving for 1989–90, in England, is £70 million, and for 1990–91, is £90 million.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific areas of possible need for social care will be included in local authority assessments of mentally ill people in hospital, under the care programme approach; and whether authorities will receive guidance from his Department about this.

  Mr. Dorrell
  For each person suffering from a serious mental illness, adequate arrangements need to be made for that individual's accommodation and meals. In addition, it may be necessary to provide social care services such as the home help service. It is for health and social services professional staff to judge what health and social care services are necessary in each case.

  The Department intends to issue a circular shortly, setting out the requirement to introduce the care programme approach from 1 April 1991, and giving some guidance.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each regional secure unit, the number of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983; and how many were informal patients for the latest available date.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not currently available centrally.

  Bethlem and Maudsley Health Authority
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representation he has received about the plan by the Bethlem and Maudsley special health authority to reduce the range of services it offers, and the closure of Hilda Lewis house; if he will make additional funds available to the authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no plans to close Hilda Lewis house, nor are there any plans to reduce permanently the range of services offered by the special health authority (SHA). Earlier this year we received nine representations about the authority's plans to implement a number of temporary measures designed to make the most efficient use of its valuable clinical resources. We have now received a further three representations about Hilda Lewis house.

  The changes taking place within Hilda Lewis house are part of a movement towards short-stay and outreach services within the community. This reflects a changing pattern of need and is in line with long-term objectives for the configuration of psychiatric care. Child and adolescent services make a heavy demand on resources and the SHA is aiming to continue to provide these very important services in the most effective and efficient way.

  The SHA received a revenue allocation of £27·1 million in 1990–91. It benefited from the national average growth in resources which represents a cash increase of almost £2 million over 1989–90. It is for the health authority to decide how best to allocate these resources in providing the services required to support its national teaching and research role.

  Dental Checks
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer from the abolition of free dental check-ups in financial year 1989–90; and what is the estimate for 1990–91.
  179
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The estimated income from dental examination charges in England in 1989–90 was £50 million. We anticipate revenue of some £55 million in 1990–91.

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric patients have been discharged from psychiatric hospitals in the last year for which records are conveniently available; and how many have been traced to local authority care.

  Finished district spells for NHS hospitals in 1987–88

  (a) Duration of stay

  (b) Intended destination on discharge

  Clinical speciality

  Total

  Less than 12 moths

  12 months or more

  Usual residence

  Local authority residential accommodation

  Elsewhere

  Mental illness

  181,400

  177,500

  3,900

  163,100

  3,900

  14,400

  Mental handicap

  35,000

  32,500

  2,500

  32,800

  700

  1,500

  Total

  216,400

  210,000

  6,400

  195,900

  4,600

  15,900

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government have continued to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures, and through specific programmes of support and assistance. It is the policy of the Department and the NHS to provide equal opportunity to all potential suppliers, of whatever size, to trade on a value-for-money basis. This policy continues to underpin all NHS and departmental contracts with external suppliers. To help small businesses a guide on how to do business with the NHS has been published and is currently being reviewed. Two joint CBI/NHS seminars have been held in the past year where it has been emphasised that quality counts more than size of business. In addition, the NHS procurement directorate and NHS supplies departments respond to a large number of individual requests for advice and guidance from small businesses that wish to enter the NHS market or have other trading problems they wish to resolve. The NHS deals with several thousand suppliers through over 3,000 delivery points. It is not practicable to monitor centrally the precise extent to which the NHS draws on small businesses but it is estimated that some 80 per cent. of suppliers fall into the small to medium-size category.

  GP Budgets
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the cash-limited budget for general practitioner ancillary staff in the current financial year;

  (2) what is the general practitioner premises cash-limited budget for the current financial year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply the then Under-Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on 1 May at column
  180
  Mr. Dorrell
  The information available centrally is shown in the table. The number of finished district spells is not equivalent to the number of patients discharged as some patients may be admitted more than once during the year.

  519. We expect shortly to announce a further substantial increase in resources for final alloctions to FPCs to meet in full the actual level of commitments for practice staff reimbursement and premises improvements as at 31 March 1990.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the date from which health service managers base success in reducing waiting lists will be calculated;

  (2) what factors will be taken into consideration in determining whether health service managers' remuneration should be reduced for failing to reduce waiting lists;

  (3) which health service managers will have their remuneration linked to the reduction of waiting lists.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The national health service managers eligible for performance-related pay are regional, district and unit general managers, and those senior managers below general manager level who have accepted a performance-linked contract.

  Awards of performance-related pay depend on the manager's achievement of objectives set each year under the individual performance review system. The objectives for regional general managers are set by regional chairmen in consultation with the chief executive of the national health service management executive and this process is repeated at succeeding management levels.

  In setting an individual manager's objectives we consider the existing standard of the services for which he or she is responsible and deficiencies which need to be remedied. Thus a regional general manager in whose region there are unacceptably long waiting times will be required as part of his or her objectives to secure their reduction by an agreed margin. Regional chairmen and general managers will in turn be responsible for ensuring that suitable objectives are set for the managers reporting to them. The management executive will be agreeing with regional health authorities in the autumn reviews specific targets for the reduction in the number of patients waiting over one year for treatment in the period to March 1992.

  Performance is assessed each year against all the objectives set for a manager.

  Health Conference, London
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who was invited to the special health conference in London on 17 July.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Invitations were issued to chairmen and general managers of regional and district health authorities, family practitioner committees, and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospital and also to members of the national health service management executive and the national health service policy board.

  Prescribing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list and place in the Library a copy of any guidelines or advice his Department has offered to family practitioner committees in respect of the responsibility assumed by them in April for giving advice to general practitioners on prescribing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 23 July.

  Allergy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has in respect of the number of people affected by pollen in(a) 1990, (b) 1985 and (c) 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Epoxy Resin
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has identified any possible public health implications resulting from the use of epoxy resin to line water mains; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of Health Committee on the Medical Aspects of the Contamination of Air, Soil and Water has reviewed reports of laboratory and field tests to determine concentrations of leached chemicals and toxicological tests on the major components of one formulation of epoxy resin. They advised that the epoxy resin could be approved for relining water mains in situ. This was taken into account by the Department of the Environment's Committee on Chemicals and Materials of Construction for Use in Public Water Supplies and Swimming Pools, which approved this formulation of epoxy resin in March 1989 for use for in situ relining of water mains.

  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, column 570, to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, what was the total claim against Cusdin, Burden and Howitt, R. T. James and Partners and McLaughlin and Harvey Ltd., respectively; and what was the final settlement in each case.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: The total cost of remedial works for the cardiac wing at Great
  182
  Ormond Street hospital amounted to some £21 million. In accordance with advice from leading counsel, an out-of-court settlement was reached with each of the parties involved. In this settlement the health authority received £425,000 from Cusdin, Burden and Howitt and £8 million from R. T. James and Partners. On withdrawal of its counter-claim against the health authority, McLaughlin and Harvey Ltd. received £90,000.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will end the liability of people who live over their shops to pay both business rates and community charge.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It would be inappropriate to change the fundamental liability for either the community charge or the business rate of people who live on their business premises, because adults generally have to pay a personal charge irrespective of where they live, and rates are paid on all non-domestic property. However, we recognise that the occupiers of composite hereditaments with lower rateable values may need a longer period to adapt to the higher bills which they face under the new system. I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made on 19 July by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment,Official Report, columns 1185–89.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the community charge liability of a single householder who leaves his only house furnished but not occupied in order to do voluntary service overseas for a period of(a) three months, (b) six months and (c) nine months in a community charge year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The community charge registration officer for an area determines the residence of an individual taking account whether a move abroad is temporary or permanent. Where the move is permanent, no personal community charge is payable, but a standard charge may arise on any furnished property remaining which is no one's main home. The amount of standard charge will depend in a particular case on whether a maximum multiplier has been prescribed by the Secretary of State or, if it has not, whether the local authority has used its discretion to specify classes of circumstances where a multiplier of less than the maximum may apply.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to end the entitlement of the mature student spouse of a top income tax rate payer to pay the reduced rate of 20 per cent. community charge.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A very small proportion of full-time students have employment-related or private income which attracts income tax at the higher rate. The administrative cost of screening about 500,000 students, the overwhelming majority of whom have incomes which would qualify for maximum community charge benefit, would greatly exceed the increased charge revenue collected from such a small group, to the disadvantage of all charge payers and taxpayers.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about
  183
  the liability of housebuilders for standard community charge on new houses which they have not sold; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have received a number of representations from the housebuilding industry. We have provided for no standard charge to be payable on properties whose construction is not complete and for six months thereafter unless the property becomes occupied before that date. Local authorities have the discretion to extend that period of time, and may wish to take into account the prevailing state of the housing market.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with those local authorities that have been charge-capped on the problems of raising community charge income over a reduced period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with those local authorities that have been charge-capped about the problems of raising the community charge income over a reduced period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Of the 17 authorities which put forward alternatives to the caps I originally proposed, a number

  Shops

  Offices

  Factories

  Hotels and Boarding Houses

  Mines

  Region

  Without transition

  With transition

  Without transition

  With transition

  Without transition

  With transition

  Without transition

  With transition

  Without transition

  With transition

  Northern

  -14

  -4

  -36

  -9

  -49

  -11

  28

  5

  9

  4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  -3

  -3

  -27

  -8

  -37

  -9

  39

  12

  115

  17

  East Midlands

  -1

  0

  -22

  -6

  -35

  -9

  64

  15

  67

  14

  East Anglia

  31

  10

  5

  2

  -11

  -4

  64

  16

  —

  —

  Inner London

  74

  14

  23

  9

  6

  0

  146

  20

  —

  —

  Outer London

  26

  7

  -0

  1

  -19

  -6

  59

  17

  —

  —

  Rest of South East

  33

  10

  30

  10

  -12

  -4

  82

  16

  39

  20

  South West

  34

  9

  12

  5

  -15

  -5

  36

  8

  -25

  -7

  West Midlands

  -14

  -4

  -23

  -7

  -47

  -10

  56

  15

  113

  20

  North West

  -15

  -4

  -35

  -8

  -46

  -10

  30

  10

  49

  17

  England

  19

  4

  12

  5

  -30

  -7

  80

  15

  74

  14

  Walsall MBC

  -37

  -11

  -44

  -12

  -56

  -11

  21

  7

  —

  —

  Note: The totals for England may not sum due to rounding.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance the Government have issued in respect of the treatment by charging authorities of teachers in boarding schools who occupy tied accommodation in performance of their job for community charge purposes in respect of that accommodation; and whether this position is affected in any way by the designation given to such a teacher's own and separate property.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Guidance has been given to local authorities on the interpretation of sole or main residence in community charge practice note No. 9. Guidance was also given last year on the scope of local authorities' discretion to specify their own classes of standard charge property. One example given of possible additional classes was property which is empty because the owner is required to live elsewhere as a condition of his or her employment. However, we have now proposed that the Government should prescribe centrally such a class of property, limiting the maximum multiplier an authority may set to one times the personal charge. Our proposals are contained in the
  184
  made representations about the collection of community charges. My right hon. Friend considered all relevant information including any representations made by authorities before taking his decisions on the final caps, which were approved by the House on 12 July.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about proposed amendments to the operation of the poll tax.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend did so on 19 July.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 6 July, if he will publish the overall percentage increase in rate bills in 1990–91 as against 1989–90 of(a) shops, (b) factories, (c) hotels and boarding houses, (d) offices and (e) mines, in total, by economic regions, and for Walsall metropolitan borough council (i) including the effects of transitional relief and (ii) excluding the effects of transitional relief.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The percentage change represented by the figures given in my reply of 6 July, with the addition of similar information in respect of Walsall metropolitan borough council, is shown in the table.

  consultation paper "The Standard Community Charge and Other Matters", copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities whose expenditure per capita for the current year is less than the level of central support received by(a) Westminster and (b) Wandsworth, expressed as a per capita figure.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: Since most authorities' spending per capita is less than central Government support per capita for Westminster and Wandsworth the question has been answered in terms of local authorities whose expenditure per capita exceeds or is equal to the level of central Government support per capita for Westminster and Wandsworth. The authorities are as follows:

  (a) Authorities whose expenditure per capita is greater than or equal to central Government support received by Westminster.

  City of London

  Islington

  Tower Hamlets

  Manchester

  185

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Wolverhampton

  Camden

  Salford

  Newham

  Coventry

  Brent

  Sandwell

  Liverpool

  Bradford

  Westminster

  Walsall

  Birmingham

  Wirral

  Wandsworth

  Gateshead

  Waltham Forest

  Calderdale

  Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

  Oldham

  Knowsley

  Kirklees

  Ealing

  South Tyneside

  (b) Authorities whose expenditure per capita is greater than or equal to central Government support received by Wandsworth.

  Bolton

  Barking and Dagenham

  Sunderland

  Kingston-Upon-Thames

  Richmond-Upon-Thames

  Trafford

  Sheffield

  Leeds

  Wigan

  Croydon

  Enfield

  Sefton

  Tameside

  Bury

  Merton

  Harrow

  Cleveland

  Stockport

  Rotherham

  All other authorities receive less.

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total sum that would have been raised by councils in England in 1990–91 from the community charge if Government guidelines had been followed; what information he has as to the total sum that will be raised; what was the total sum raised from domestic rates in England in 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: Had authorities spent at the level of their standard spending assessments they would have raised £7·9 billion from personal and collective charges. Authorities have budgeted to receive £10·5 billion from charges. These figures exclude community charge benefits and transitional relief. Net domestic rate income in 1989–90 was £8·4 billion.

  It is for local authorities to justify their levels of spending to their charge payers.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many people in the population the Government estimate to be eligible to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax bill; how many such people are on the poll tax registers; and how many he estimates will pay their 20 per cent.;

  (2) what is the estimated revenue that will be received in 1990–91 from those who are required to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: Some 4·5 million people are estimated to be paying 20 per cent. of the personal community charge. Community charges registration officers have a duty to maintain an accurate register of those subject to the charge. All of those liable are obliged to contribute towards the costs of local services.

  No separate estimates of revenue received from such charge payers have been made.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in descending order from highest to lowest the demand on the collection fund per adult as shown on the community charge bill for each borough or district council in Essex.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: The information is given in the table:
  186

  Demand per adult £

  Basildon

  233·96

  Harlow

  210·10

  Thurrock

  163·40

  Southend-on-Sea

  160·36

  Brentwood

  138·91

  Castle Point

  107·64

  Chelmsford

  106·99

  Tendring

  105·86

  Rochford

  93·57

  Braintree

  88·29

  Epping Forest

  81·54

  Colchester

  80·98

  Maldon

  73·20

  Uttlesford

  63·99

  Notes:

  1. Figures may not correspond precisely with those shown on charge bills because for parts of some authorities the demand may include expenditure on special expenses for which only charge payers in those areas contribute.

  2. Differences in demand per adult may be affected by differences in the spending needs of authorities, their use of:financial resources and their efficiency in service delivery.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the review of the community charge arrangements as they affect small bed-and-breakfast establishments.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: I refer to the statement made on 19 July by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Official Report, columns 1185–89.

  Commons
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his written answer of 27 November 1989 to the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), when he proposes to introduce legislation to deal with the acknowledged deficiencies in the Commons Registration Act 1965; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 18 July,Official Report, column 562.

  Japanese Knotweed
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the extent, environmental impact and rate of spread of Japanese knotweed; whether he is currently funding any relevant research; and whether he has any proposals to control its rate of spread.

  Mr. Trippier
  Japanese knotweed is regarded as a troublesome pest in much of Wales and parts of north-west and south-east England. I am advised that Welsh Water has conducted field trials on methods of controlling this species and that the Nature Conservancy Council takes steps to control it on sites important to wildlife.

  The most effective chemical treatments are picloram and glyphosate—only glyphosate should be used on sites adjacent to water. Uprooting small plants and regular cutting or mowing also help to deter the plant's growth and spread over particular sites.

  Sewerage System
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent on repairs and modernisation of the sewerage system in the 1980s.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In England between 1980–81 and 1988–89 the then regional water authorities spent £2,899 million, in November 1989 prices, on sewerage services.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the nature of the hazardous waste shipped to England for disposal from United States military bases in Turkey, Greece, the Azores and Iceland during the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Records of imports of hazardous waste from United States military bases in these countries consigned under the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980 are kept by the disposal authorities concerned. The Department of the Environment has no record of any such imports being notified under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations introduced in 1988. The Government are discussing with the United States authorities whether disposal in the United Kingdom should continue to be an option in the future.

  Government Advertising
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the Government have spent on poll tax advertisements(a) during the Bill's passage through Parliament and (b) since, on (i) television, (ii) radio, (iii) newspapers, (iv) leaflets and (v) magazines.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Government have commissioned no advertisements for the community charge, either during or since the parliamentary passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, to which I assume the hon. Member refers.

  Since enactment, my Department has, however, produced and maintained a range of leaflets on individuals' rights and duties under the community charge system, which are available free on request; distributed a leaflet to all households in England when most councils started to compile their registers last year, and took advertising to draw attention to the leaflet; and mounted an information campaign earlier this year to draw people's attention to the availability of community charge benefit and transitional relief, and how to claim them. The rounded costs involved are set out in the table:

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Wimpeys

  3—8·9

  2—22·0

  5—22·6

  2—14·6

  4—7·8

  Mowlems

  9—52·3

  4—12·6

  8—16·2

  5—12·5

  4—63·9

  Taylor Woodrow

  —

  3—10·1

  3—34·3

  —

  5—65·6

  Tarmac

  9—82·0

  4—27·2

  4—96·8

  6—17·1

  8—67·4

  Kier

  4—8·4

  5—13·7

  7—19·0

  5—48·8

  5—16·1

  Laings

  4—14·4

  6—23·9

  10—57·7

  2—95·2

  4—22·3

  Balfour Beatty

  7—46.l

  5—19·4

  4—20·8

  2—5·2

  8—21·7

  188

  £'000

  Television advertising

  1,624

  Radio advertising

  282

  Newpapers (including freesheets and minority language papers)

  1,563

  Leaflets (including the household leaflet)

  1,645

  Magazines

  266

  In addition the cost of distributing the household leaflet was £301,000.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has more recently commissioned newspaper advertisements publicising the increased capital limit for community charge benefit announced in the Budget and reminding people of the time limit for making backdated claims and of the income levels likely to entitle people to benefit. My right hon. Friend has also produced free leaflets and a poster on how to claim community charge benefit and on the increased capital limits for income-related benefits.

  Beaches
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list in the Official Report those bathing beaches which did reach an EEC satisfactory standard at the most recent test report, covering 1988;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report those bathing beaches which did not reach the EEC satisfactory standard at the most recent test report, covering 1988.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The results for the 1988 bathing season were placed in the Library on 21 February 1989. The results for the 1989 bathing season were placed in the Library on 25 January 1990.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his present estimate of the ievel of inflation which will apply or be assumed to be likely to apply to local government expenditure in 1991–92.

  Mr. Chope
  The proposals for local authority spending in 1991–92 announced by my right hon. Friend on 19 July were not based on any particular estimate of inflation, but reflected a judgment about the appropriate level of spending taking account of all relevant factors.

  Building Firms (Contracts)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contracts were given to Messrs. Wimpeys, Mowlems, Taylor Woodrow, Tarmac, Kier Construction, Laings, Balfour Beatty and Eden Construction in excess of £1 million by value in the years 1985–86, 1987–88 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of contracts in each of the years referred to, and their aggregate value, was:
  189
  Eden Construction Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lilley plc and no separate contracts were entered into with Eden Construction during the years referred to. Lilley plc was awarded four contracts with an aggregate value of some £5·8 million.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Government have continued to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures, and through specific programmes of support and assistance. While separate information on small businesses is not available in my Department, the major deregulation initiatives affecting all businesses were set out in the White Paper "Releasing Enterprise" (Cm 512). These included simplification and clarification of the building regulations to limit requirements to those essential for securing the health and safety of people and for the protection of the environment; and to introduce a greater degree of flexibility.

  I have also proposed a series of changes to the planning system designed to simplify procedures. In particular, specific relaxations of permitted development rights for commercial and other uses under the general development order are currently the subject of consultation. The Government have also asked that local authorities deal promptly and positively with planning proposals from small businesses.

  Proposals to establish the system of integrated pollution control were also set out in the White Paper: this will be less administratively burdensome to industry than the arrangements it replaces. IPC will be given statutory force by the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Habitat Protection
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the extent within the United Kingdom of the habitats listed in annex 4 to the proposal for a Council directive on the protection of natural and semi-natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora which was issued by the European Commission on 30 March; to what extent the habitats listed in the annex are already covered by notified sites of special scientific interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are taking advice from the Nature Conservancy Council as and when necessary on technical matters relating to the proposed EC habitats directive. However, no realistic assessment of the implications for the United Kingdom of the proposed annex 4 can be made until the current confusion over annex 5 (criteria for designation) has been resolved. We continue to press the Commission for clarification on this point.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to allow district councils to use more of their capital receipts to combat problems facing rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The rules on capital receipts in the new capital finance system enable us to target resources more effectively on the needs facing all local authorities.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 20 December,Official Report, column 330, what is his assessment of the effect on rate bills of the uniform business rate and the non-domestic revaluation, based on the local rating lists which came into force on 1 April.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am placing in the Library an analysis of the combined effects of the revaluation and the introduction of the uniform business rate in England and Wales.

  Between December and April there was a net addition to the rating lists representing an increase of about 2 to 3 per cent. in rateable values and rate bills. Overall the average by which rateable values have increased for properties occupied by private businesses and the nationalised industries has risen slightly to 8·1 times in England and to 8·5 times in Wales. The changes to the rating lists reflect the correction of errors, revisions based on later information or new regulations and the addition of new properties completed after the December lists were published

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will make an announcement about the future development of county hall, London.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Last autumn a public inquiry was held into proposals for the redevelopment of the county hall complex. Following consideration of my inspector's report, my Department has today written to the appellants indicating my willingness to defer decisions on their appeals so as to allow them the opportunity to amend the proposals to overcome objections related to a relatively small part of the overall scheme. The letter and inspector's report have been copied to all parties who made representations to the inspector at the inquiry.

  Air Pollution Control
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to issue advice to local authorities on the exercise of their new air pollution control functions under part I of the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Trippier
  The new system of air pollution control being established under part I of the Bill represents a major strengthening of local authorities' powers over polluting industry.

  It is important that local authorities work to a common set of standards and I intend that no process should be

  191
  scheduled for local authority control until relevant guidance has been published. More than 70 guidance notes will be needed, and we are well on target to produce them. The final drafts of the first seven notes, produced with the assistance of the local authorities and industry, have today been circulated to interested parties for comment and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Through the guidance notes, not only local authorities, but industry and the public will be aware of the standards of air pollution control we expect to be achieved.

  Pollution Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on proposals for cost-recovery charging for pollution regulatory authorities' costs.

  Mr. Trippier
  On 30 January this year I announced that, subject to enactment of the Environmental Protection Bill, cost-recovery charges to meet the costs of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) and the National Rivers Authority in administering integrated pollution control (IPC) would be introduced as from April 1991; and that the scheme would be based on an application fee payable when a process is submitted for IPC authorisation and an annual charge payable for holding each authorisation to cover the on-going costs of compliance monitoring. The level of charges for a particular plant would be linked to the number of specified "components" which it comprised, thus relating the amount payable to the size and complexity of the plant concerned.

  My Department has now published a consultation paper on proposals for the detailed operation of this scheme, inviting comment from industry, environmental groups and others with an interest.

  The paper also sets out proposals for charging schemes for local authority air pollution control of the "part B" process, and for the regulation of premises under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.

  I have placed a copy of the paper in the Library.

  Integrated Pollution Control
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the timing of the implementation of integrated pollution control.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have received a number of representations from a variety of sources which have suggested that an implementation date of 2 January 1991 means that there would be an inadequate period for consultation with interested parties and the public on guidance notes and regulations to be issued under part I of the Environmental Protection Bill. I have considered these representations most carefully. Royal Assent to the Bill is now expected later than had previously been anticipated. A delay will also enable Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to broaden its training procedures for the implementation of IPC and associated work. I have decided therefore that IPC will now be implemented on 1 April 1991 for all new prescribed processes; prescribed processes undergoing a substantial change and large combustion plant. Other prescribed processes will be phased in over four years from 1 April 1992.

  Telford Development Corporation
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the wind-up date of Telford development corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Following statutory consultations under section 41 of the New Towns Act 1981, I have decided that Telford development corporation will be wound up on target on 30 September 1991. The necessary order will be made in due course.

  Pollution, Port Talbot
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has received in respect of pollution by BP Chemicals at Baglen bay, Port Talbot; and what action it is proposed to take about it.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on 20 July, Official Report, Vol. 176, columns 758–59.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set a limit on the fee which may be charged for carrying out tests for radon gas in domestic buildings.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: No. The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) will carry out a free test for radon at the householder's request in all cases where the board judges that the nature of the area and the house warrant such testing. In other cases, the fee is a matter of negotiation with the organisation requested to carry out the test. The NRPB currently charges a fee of £26·40 plus VAT in those cases which do not justify a free test.

  Direct Labour Organisation, Brent
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what use he intends to make of his sanction powers under part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 against the direct labour organisation of the London borough of Brent.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  On 20 December 1989, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State served a notice under section 19A of the 1980 Act on the London borough of Brent, setting out his view that the authority appeared to have failed to prepare the revenue account and statement of rate of return for the direct labour organisation's (DLO) activities in the financial year 1988–89; that it had failed to submit to him a report containing this information; and that it had failed to achieve the required rate of return on major new construction work.

  My right hon. Friend has now considered the response which the authority has made to the section 19A notice, and accepts that the authority has now prepared the revenue account and statement of rate of return and has submitted the relevant report to him. He has noted, however, that the report shows that Brent's DLO made a loss of over £1 million on major new construction work in

  193
  1988–89, following a loss of slightly less than £1 million on this work in 1987–88. He has further noted that the authority decided in July 1989 that the DLO should withdraw from major new construction work, but that the authority has not precluded the possibility that the DLO might return to this area of work in the future.

  My right hon. Friend has concluded that the record of financial failure by the DLO is such as to provide no confidence that it could achieve the required rate of return on major new construction work in the future. He has therefore today given a direction under section 19B of the 1980 Act prohibiting Brent's DLO from carrying out major new construction work.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much the total number of jobs in the United Kingdom has increased since 1979.

  Mr. Howard
  The number of jobs in the United Kingdom increased by 1·8 million between June 1979 and March 1990, the latest date for which information is available. It now stands at 27,198,000—the highest level ever.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of unemployed people in the Gloucester constituency for the last month for which figures are available; and what percentage of that figure are long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Jackson
  There were 2,149 unemployed claimants in the parliamentary constituency of Gloucester in June

  Unemployed claimants by age in the United Kingdom

  Thousands

  April

  18–24 year olds

  25–49 year olds

  50 and over

  Male

  Per cent.1

  Female

  Per cent.1

  Male

  Per cent.1

  Female

  Per cent.1

  Male

  Per cent.1

  Female

  Per cent.1

  1986

  624

  (27·3)

  373

  (36·1)

  1,087

  (47·5)

  443

  (42·8)

  471

  (20·6)

  139

  (13·5)

  1987

  567

  (26·3)

  331

  (34·9)

  1,053

  (48·8)

  422

  (44·5)

  466

  (21·6)

  140

  (14·8)

  1988

  444

  (25·1)

  253

  (32·9)

  872

  (49·4)

  346

  (45·0)

  390

  (22·1)

  124

  (16·1)

  1989

  352

  (26·0)

  179

  (33·5)

  691

  (51·1)

  256

  (48·0)

  307

  (22·7)

  98

  (18·4)

  1990

  318

  (26·6)

  147

  (34·3)

  641

  (53·5)

  203

  (47·5)

  238

  (19·9)

  77

  (18·0)

  1 Figures shown in brackets give the proportion of total unemployment in the given age group.

  Note: The percentages do not add to 100 due to the exclusion from the table of those claimants aged under 18.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the latest unemployment figures for Sheffield expressed as a percentage; and what is the national average.

  Mr. Forth
  In June 1990, the unemployment rate for the Sheffield travel-to-work area was 7·9 per cent. The comparable figure for the United Kingdom was 5·5 per cent. These figures are on the unadjusted basis.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for unfilled vacancies in the Basildon constituency.

  Mr. Forth
  Vacancy data for parliamentary constituencies are not available. However, the number of vacancies in the Basildon jobcentre area in June was 326.
  194
  1990. For April 1990, the latest available date, about 27 per cent. of all claimants had been unemployed for more than a year.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in London.

  Mr. Forth
  In June 1990 unemployment in the London travel-to-work area was 186,168, 4·7 per cent. of the work force.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures; and what were the most nearly comparable figures for June 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  In June 1990 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom, was 1,617,100 compared with 1,069,000 in June 1979 on the consistent basis.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current unemployment figures; and what was the most nearly comparable figure in June 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  In June 1990 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 1,617,100, compared with 1,811,300 in June 1989.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on changes in the age profile of unemployed men and women in recent years.

  Mr. Forth
  As shown by the table, all age groups have seen sharp falls in the numbers unemployed over the past four years.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the total number of employees who are counted twice in the employment totals.

  Mr. Forth
  The exact number of employees with two or more jobs included in the published employees in employment estimates is not known, since the estimates are based on figures collected from employers, who will not generally know if an employee is filling the post as an additional job.

  However, evidence on the number of people with two jobs can be derived from the labour force survey (LFS). It is estimated from the preliminary results of the 1989 LFS that 623,000 employees (2·8 per cent. of the total) in Great Britain had a second job as an employee in spring 1989.
  195
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of unemployment in the west midlands(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  In June 1990 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the west midlands was 149,200, compared with 99,400 in June 1979.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed claimants in(a) Birkenhead and (b) the urban programme area, on 1 June 1983 and 1 January 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the number of unemployed claimants, in(a) Birkenhead parliamentary constituency and (b) Wirral local authority area, in which the Government target inner-city programme aid, for June 1983 and January 1990.

  Total unemployed claimants

  June 1983

  January 1990

  Birkenhead

  8,726

  6,479

  Wirral

  23,554

  16,025

  Direct comparisons over the time are affected by various changes to the count and by seasonal influences.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of people in work in Scotland in 1979; and what is the number today.

  Mr. Forth
  In June 1979, the civilian work force in employment for Scotland was 2,262,000. In March 1990, the latest date for which information is available, it stood at 2,281,000, an increase of 19,000.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for people in full-time employment; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  There were 20,232,000 people in full-time employment in Great Britain in March 1990, the latest date for which information is available. The earliest comparable information available is for March 1983 when there were 18,154,000 people in full-time employment. This represents an increase of 2,077,000 or 11 per cent.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will commission a study of the child care needs of working mothers.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department is contributing to the funding of the British social attitudes survey which includes questions on women's views of their child care needs. The need for any further research will be considered when the results of the survey are available.

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he intends to introduce to enable the long-term unemployed to receive training.

  Mr. Howard
  Employment training currently provides long-term unemployed people with a full range of 196
  opportunities to help them acquire the skills and experience they need to compete for jobs. Under training and enterprise councils training provision will become even more responsive to local needs.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measure he intends to introduce to enable the long-term unemployed to participate fully in the work force.

  Mr. Howard
  Long-term unemployment has halved in the past two years. The wide range of employment and training measures which the Government have put in place have helped to achieve that objective.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures he proposes to take to help the long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Jackson
  The number of people unemployed for one year or more has fallen by almost half a million in the last two years and in that period long-term unemployment has fallen faster than total unemployment. Our success has been based on policies which have led to a large number of new jobs, and on an extensive range of employment and training measures which are kept under regular review to ensure that they continue successfully and cost-effectively to help long-term unemployed people get back into work.

  Job Clubs
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to improve the work of job clubs.

  Mr. Jackson
  The job club programme is working well and continues to be very popular.

  Current initiatives to improve the programme further include a new guide for external contractors; improvements to job club leader training; and pilots of special help for people with severe literacy or language difficulties.

  Part-time and Temporary Work
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has made to the European Commission concerning its proposed directives on part-time and temporary work.

  Mr. Howard
  I have made it clear that the Government oppose the draft directives on the grounds that they would reduce job opportunities and damage competitiveness.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of jobs in the United Kingdom are part-time.

  Mr. Forth
  Part-time employment in Great Britain constituted 24 per cent. (6,369,000) of the work force in employment in March 1990, the latest date for which information is available. Figures for part-time workers in Northern Ireland are not available.

  Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of the abolition of the dock labour scheme.

  Mr. Howard
  The industrial relations in the former scheme ports have been transformed; labour productivity
  197
  has increased; and new business opportunities in and around the ports are booming as a direct result of the abolition of the dock labour scheme in July 1989.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made so far by his Department of the effect on business at British seaports of the abolition in 1989 of the dock labour scheme.

  Mr. Howard
  The July edition of the Employment Gazette contained an article, based on assessments carried out in 15 former national dock labour scheme ports, which reviewed developments which had occurred in the first year after the abolition of the scheme. It found that there had been substantial changes in the composition of the labour force; industrial relations in the docks had been transformed; labour was now being utilised much more flexibly, labour productivity had increased markedly; investment in the docks was beginning to increase and new business opportunities in and around the ports were developing; training was being approached more systematically and health and safety standards were being maintained.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many students have completed training under the employment training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since its launch over 700,000 people have benefited from the opportunities provided by employment training. It is currently helping about 200,000 unemployed people to obtain the skills and experience they need to get and keep jobs. Under training and enterprise councils it will become even more responsive to local needs.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the recontracting process for employment training.

  Mr. Jackson
  The recontracting exercise for employment training has been successful and 99 per cent. of providers have agreed new contracts.

  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many students are currently undertaking training under the employment training scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  An estimated 200,000 people are currently undertaking employment training.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's review of employment services for disabled people.

  Mr. Jackson
  The results of the review were published on 29 June in a consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities". The document sets out our intentions for the development of services in the 1990s taking forward themes, established in the 1980s, of integration into the work force and the active commitment of employers to good practices in creating employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The document has been widely distributed and the period of consultation lasts to 31 December.
  198
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to improve employment services to people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  A consultative document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", was published by this Department on 29 June. The document sets out our intentions for the development of services in the 1990s taking forward themes, established in the 1980s, of integration into the work force and the active commitment of employers to good practices in creating employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The document has been widely distributed and the period of consultation runs to 31 December.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to introduce to preserve and enforce the quota system for employment of people with disabilities.

  Mr. Jackson
  This Department's consultative document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", invites comments on the merits and demerits of the quota system for employment of people with disabilities. Decisions on its future operation will be taken when we have considered the comments that we receive.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve the legislative framework for the employment of people with disabilities.

  Mr. Jackson
  This Department's consultative document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", invites comments on the merits and demerits of various legislative approaches to promoting the employment of people with disabilities. Decisions on the best way forward will be taken when we have considered the comments that we receive.

  Training
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the total British work force attended formal training courses in 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any proposals to oblige every company to set up a training body with guaranteed trade union representation at every workplace.

  Mr. Forth
  There are no such plans. The most effective incentive for companies to train is a knowledge and understanding of their skill needs, not centralised regulation.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met his opposite numbers in Germany, France and Italy to discuss training.

  Mr. Howard
  This year I have visited West Germany and Italy to discuss training issues with my opposite numbers. When I attended the EC Labour and Social Affairs Council of Ministers in May and an informal meeting of this Council in Italy on 12 July, at which training was discussed, I met my counterparts from these and other EC member states.

  Labour Mobility
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the early indications of greater labour mobility between European Community member states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  There are no reliable estimates of labour mobility between European Community member states.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from organisations in Lancashire on his plans for the technical and vocational education initiative extension programme.

  Mr. Jackson
  Lancashire is being funded to start its extension programme this autumn. There have been several representations seeking more funds in the first year of the programme. The Department is reassuring the education authority, schools and colleges that Lancashire will be getting its full share of funds over the life of the programme.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his proposals for the technical and vocational education initiative for the next three years.

  Mr. Jackson
  By September 1990, 103 education authorities will be in their five-year extension phase of TVEI. The remaining 29 authorities will come into extension when resources permit, provided the authorities' plans meet the appropriate standards. The total budget available for TVEI in 1990–91 is £134 million. Planned expenditure for 1991–92 and 1992–93 is £133 million and £141 million respectively. The total cost of the extension phase will be about £900 million as envisaged in 1986 when TVEI extension was announced.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy on the development and financing of the technical and vocational education initiative.

  Mr. Jackson
  TVEI brings important benefits to pupils and employers and contributes to improving the nation's skill supply. The Government therefore aim to extend TVEI to all 14 to 18-year-olds in maintained schools and colleges and are providing £900 million for this purpose. In each local authority TVEI extension funding is spread over five years and by this autumn 103 authorities will have started their extension phase.

  Secondary Picketing
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to reintroduce the right to carry out mass secondary picketing.

  Mr. Forth
  There are no such plans.

  Mines (Safety)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has considered external legal advice in regard to proposed changes in the regulation of safety in mines.
  200
  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Commission would submit regulatory proposals to Ministers only if it was satisfied on legal advice from its solicitor that they were legally sound.

  Footballers (YTS)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many members of the England football team in the world cup competition had received football training under YTS.

  Mr. Howard
  Two members of the England football team—Paul Gascoigne and David Platt—have received football training under YTS.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met a professional footballer who had received football training under YTS.

  Mr. Howard
  I met Paul Gascoigne in Naples during the quarter-finals of the world cup on 1 July.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the football training made available under YTS in recent years.

  Mr. Howard
  Football training has been provided under YTS and now under youth training since the introduction of YTS in 1983. All 92 Football League clubs are involved in youth training.

  The effectiveness of the training is evident from the substantial number of ex-trainees now playing regular first team football at clubs throughout the four divisions of the Football League and at international level. The last four young players of the year, including this year's winner, Matthew Le Tissier, were trained on YTS, as were Paul Gascoigne and David Platt, who excelled in England's world cup team in Italy this year.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to improve the work of the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Commission's plan of work for 1990–91 and beyond sets out the priorities of the commission and executive for this and the next two years. The plan will be published in July.

  Employee Involvement
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to help encourage further the degree of employee involvement among British companies.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. and learned Friend takes every opportunity to emphasise the importance of effective employee involvement. The Department promotes and supports its development through research and by publicising best practice, as in our booklet "People and Companies".

  Wages Councils
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he proposes to introduce to improve the working of the wages councils.
  201
  Mr. Forth
  The councils are empowered to set minimum rates of pay in certain industries. Checks by wages inspectors show that compliance with wages council orders is running at a very high level.

  Sheltered Placement Scheme
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future funding arrangements for the sheltered placement scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  Proposals for a rebalancing of the sheltered employment programme over a transitional period of five years, in favour of sheltered placements, are contained in the consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" which was published on 29 June. Views are invited on the existing funding arrangements and possible cost-effective improvements to them which could be met within existing resources. Interested parties have until 31 December to comment.

  Agriculture (Accidents)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he intends to introduce to prevent deaths due to agricultural work.

  Mr. Forth
  No legislative proposals are planned. However, the Health and Safety Executive will continue with its programme of strategies aimed at helping the agricultural industry to achieve reductions in fatal accident levels. These include: targeting inspection at those workplaces that present the greatest risk to employees, the self-employed, their families and the general public including children, carrying out advisory and publicity work to promote an increased awareness of health and safety in the industry, and liaising with all sides of industry to improve the health and safety aspects of products.

  In seeking compliance with health and safety legislation, inspectors will also use innovative inspection techniques including blitz initiatives targeted at specific farming operations. They will also pay more attention to the management of health and safety.

  Inspectors will pursue their inquiries and any enforcement action to the highest levels at workplaces which do not measure up to the standards expected of them.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to introduce to prevent accidents and fatalities as a result of agricultural work.

  Mr. Forth
  No legislative proposals are planned. However, the Health and Safety Executive will continue with its programme of strategies aimed at helping the agricultural industry to achieve reductions in the numbers of non-fatal and fatal accidents. These include: targeting inspection at those workplaces that present the greatest risk to employees, the self-employed, their families and the general public including children, carrying out advisory and publicity work to promote an increased awareness of health and safety in the industry, and liaising with all sides of industry to improve the health and safety aspects of products.

  In seeking compliance with health and safety legislation, inspectors will also use innovative inspection techniques including blitz initiatives targeted at specific farming operations. They will also pay more attention to the management of health and safety.
  202
  Inspectors will pursue their inquiries and any enforcement action to the highest levels at workplaces which do not measure up to the standards expected of them.

  Employee Rehabilitation Centre, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for the provision after 1993 of the services of the employee rehabilitation centre, Western avenue, Cardiff.

  Mr. Jackson
  Plans for the provision after 1993 of the services of the employment rehabilitation centre, 'Western avenue, Cardiff, have yet to be made. The South Glamorgan committee for the employment of disabled people will be consulted in drawing up any such plans.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects on employment of the introduction of a minimum wage requirement at the level of half median male earnings.

  Mr. Forth
  Officials in the Department have estimated that the introduction of a minimum wage set at half median male earnings would result in the loss of about three quarters of a million jobs.

  EPCOT
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to pay an official visit to the British showcase at EPCOT in Florida.

  Mr. Howard
  I have no plans to make an official visit to the British showcase in Florida.

  Astra Training Services Ltd.
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many freehold sites have been sold to Astra Training Services Ltd.; what is the total anticipated revenue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The sale of training businesses at 45 skill centres plus the STA head office, mobile training service, sales teams and colleges to Astra Training Services Ltd. included the acquisition by Astra of 28 freehold sites. These sites formed part of the overall sale package, which involved a payment from the Government to Astra of some £10·7 million.

  Confederation of British Industry
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he plans to meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the estimated size and skills knowledge of the labour force for the rest of the decade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the CBI from time to time to discuss a wide range of labour market issues. These include the importance of determining the future training needs of the work force and how best employers can meet these needs in the light of demographic trends forecast for the next 10 years.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on low pay.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the Minister of State's reply to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) on 22 May 1990 at column 157.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days have been lost over the last two years through unofficial industrial action; and what proportion this constitutes of the total number of days lost through industrial action.

  Mr. Forth
  A special exercise has shown that in 1988 approximately 1·3 million working days were lost through unofficial stoppages, about one third of the total for the year. The analysis is not available for 1989.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the recontracting process for youth training.

  Mr. Jackson
  The youth training recontracting process has been managed successfully and 98 per cent. of providers have agreed new contracts.

  Tourism
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he has taken to improve standards in the small hotel and guest house sector.

  Mr. Forth
  The English tourist board operates the "Crown" classification and grading scheme for serviced accommodation. One of the main objectives of the scheme is to improve the quality and range of services and facilities offered to the customer. About 11,000 establishments in England are already participating in it and more are joining all the time. Over half of the participants have applied for a commendation for quality, a new optional feature of the scheme.

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met members of the Health and Safety Commission; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 29 June 1990 at column 342.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many firms operating in Scotland currently provide creche facilities for their employees' children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in
  204
  helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have continued to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures and through specific programmes of support and assistance. The success of their policies is demonstrated by the latest statistics which show a record increase in the number of businesses registered for VAT, of around 1,700 a week during 1989. Over the decade the overall increase has been 373,000.

  Measures operated by my Department to assist small businesses include: the small firms service, which is operated by the Training Agency of the Department, and provides information and business counselling to new and established businesses. It was a record year for the service, which carried out more counselling, more work with growing firms, and answered more inquiries during 1989–90, than ever before. In the last financial year, the service answered over 317,000 inquiries (an increase of 12·9 per cent. on 1988–89), handled over 36,000 counselling sessions (an increase of 17·7 per cent. on 1988–89), and conducted over 36,000 counselling cases (an increase of 20·4 per cent. on 1988–89).

  Business growth training was introduced in 1989 to provide help to established firms to develop their business and management skills. It has already proved to be a highly successful scheme, with over 122,000 owner managers assisted to date.

  My Department also provides financial assistance through the enterprise allowance scheme and makes substantial grants available to Business in the Community, local enterprise agencies and the Prince's Youth Business Trust amongst others. To take the enterprise allowance scheme as an example, it has been a great encouragement to unemployed people to go into self-employment. In the period 1989–90 over 78,000 have participated in the scheme. Since the start in 1983 over 500,000 people have taken advantage of the scheme.

  The enterprise training element of employment training and the business enterprise programme help people set up in business through the provision of targeted training in all the basic aspects of business. The combined number of entrants to these programmes increased from 43,489 in 1987–88 to 59,480 in 1989–90. In addition, the graduate enterprise programme helps graduates take the first steps to setting up businesses on their own. The number of entrants to this programme rose to 1,184 in 1989–90.

  Assistance of this type for the self-employed and small firms will in future be provided locally by training and enterprise councils. TECs will have the opportunity to tailor assistance to local circumstances.

  The loan guarantee scheme continues to enhance smaller firms' access to finance. In the 12 months to 30 June 1990, 3,450 loans were guaranteed representing total lending of £104 million. Usage during the year remained buoyant with applications averaging 285 a month compared with 200 a month in the previous year, and 120 a month two years ago.

  Over the past year I have continued my campaign to improve the access of small firms to Government contracts. My Department has published and distributed

  205
  booklets designed for both Government purchasers and small firms which identify purchasing needs, departmental contacts and give guidance on improving Government purchasing procedures. I have also appointed a purchasing consultant to improve the systems by which small firms can get better access to public contracts. My Department publicises its own contracts and has produced a departmental guide for those companies that want to tender, including small firms. We have encouraged managers to use local small firms in devolving the purchasing function and budgets where appropriate.

  My Department has continued with action to reduce burdens on business; through the Employment Act 1989, for example, the procedures for taking on women and young people have been simplified. We have also produced a range of advice and guidance for smaller companies, including the well-received self-employment starter pack. As well as maintaining a close interest in domestic deregulation, we are working hard to ensure that the EC's social charter does not impose unnecessary burdens, with the circumstances of small businesses very much in mind.

  The Department monitors all its programmes and also commissions external evaluations which are published. In December 1989 we published an overview, "Small Firms in Britain", a copy of which is in the Library. The report surveys developments in the sector, includes key statistical indicators and outlines Government policy and measures as a whole towards small firms.

  Flame-retardant Fabrics
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what evidence he has that workers in the upholstery and bedding industry are experiencing health problems as a result of the materials used in the manufacture of flame-retardant covers and treated fabrics;

  (2) whether the Health and Safety Executive has had discussions with the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union regarding the materials used in the manufacture of flame-retardant covers and treated fabrics;

  (3) if he will ask the Health and Safety Executive to carry out an investigation into (a) the abrasive effect of coated fabrics upon hands and arms and (b) nose and throat irritation from dipped and sprayed fabrics experienced by employees in the manufacture of flame-retardant covers and treated fabrics in the upholstery and bedding industry.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive is already investigating evidence that flame-retardant and crease-resistant finishes applied to textile fabrics may result in skin, nose and throat irritation in workers handling those fabrics in the upholstery and bedding industries, and has been discussing the problem with the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will forward plans submitted to his Department from voluntary sector projects to the European social fund for approval.

  Mr. Forth
  Operational programmes, which represent aggregated bids from all interested organisations, including those representing the voluntary sector, were 206
  submitted to the European Commission on 15 June. No individual project applications have as yet been made by the voluntary sector.

  Maternity Pay
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to harmonise female employees' entitlement to maternity leave related to pay with the practice in other countries in the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans. The Government believe that member states should be free to make their own arrangements for maternity, in accordance with national traditions and practices.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will lift the present restriction whereby female employees are entitled to claim maternity benefit only when they have worked for the same employer for two or more years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  No such restriction exists. Statutory maternity pay (SMP) is payable for 18 weeks to women who have worked for the same employer for at least 26 weeks at the qualifying week (the 15th week before the baby is due). Where a woman with a recent employment record has worked for her current employer for fewer than 26 weeks she will normally qualify for maternity allowance from the Department of Social Security instead of SMP from her employer.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many suspected cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been reported since the start of the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of suspect cases placed under restrictions each week is as follows:

  Week ending

  Number

  5 January 1990

  245

  12 January 1990

  293

  19 January 1990

  283

  26 January 1990

  294

  2 February 1990

  309

  9 February 1990

  329

  16 February 1990

  361

  23 February 1990

  369

  2 March 1990

  424

  9 March 1990

  392

  16 March 1990

  402

  23 March 1990

  354

  30 March 1990

  334

  6 April 1990

  328

  13 April 1990

  295

  20 April 1990

  274

  27 April 1990

  303

  4 May 1990

  349

  11 May 1990

  338

  18 May 1990

  399

  25 May 1990

  365

  1 June 1990

  353

  8 June 1990

  362

  207

  Week ending

  Number

  15 June 1990

  247

  22 June 1990

  291

  29 June 1990

  262

  6 July 1990

  219

  13 July 1990

  206

  The pattern of suspect cases reported this year has so far followed closely the trend that occurred in 1989, in which an increase in cases during January and February was followed by an overall decrease during the spring months, albeit with fluctuations.

  Whilst there has been an underlying decrease in the numbers reported in the last few months compared to the high point in February/March, this has been subject to marked fluctuations and it cannot be assumed that this trend will continue.

  Agricultural Prices
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will describe the net effects on supply estimates of the European Community decisions on agricultural prices for 1990–91.

  Mr. Gummer
  The voted provision for class III vote 1 for the intervention board executive agency (CAP market support) is a token of £1,000 due to the forecasts of receipts exceeding expenditure. The cost of the price-fixing decisions in the United Kingdom in 1990–91 has been estimated at £125 million. This relates mainly to the devaluation of the green pound and to reductions in the payment period for intervention intake. These measures, together with changes in market conditions which have arisen since the supply estimates were published, are expected to result both in increased expenditure and receipts. The necessary changes will be sought through a winter supplementary estimate.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Ministry in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have continued to place high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  The Department has continued to contribute significantly to this process. We have maintained pressure for a more market-oriented common agricultural policy, and the 1990 price-fixing agreement consolidated the progress made last year. These achievements, together with the reforms to systems of agricultural support worldwide being negotiated in the current GATT round, will further encourage a competitive and efficient agricultural industry, well placed to compete with its counterparts in other Community countries.

  We have also continued to make available to farmers a range of income-generating schemes—for example the
  208
  farm woodlands scheme, set-aside, the farm diversification grant scheme and the environmentally sensitive areas scheme—designed to encourage them to diversify their enterprises, as well as provide opportunities to enhance the environment. We have recently launched pilot schemes to encourage more extensive farming of beef cattle and sheep.

  All the schemes operated by my Department are closely monitored. Reports on particular schemes are published from time to time.

  Plankton Recorder Programme
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in re-establishing the continuous plankton recorder programme.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following the withdrawal of direct funding by the Natural Environment Research Council from the continuous plankton recorder survey, the Ministry has renewed its contract with NERC for £150,000 per annum for a further two years to safeguard the Ministry's interests in this survey as a source of valuable information relevant to our fisheries and environmental protection interests.

  The Ministry has successfully persuaded the international scientific community of the value of maintaining such environmental monitoring programmes and took the lead in promoting an international funding trust to secure the future of this survey. I am pleased to report that the international response has been sufficient to enable the trust to be established so that the survey will continue. The constitution of the trust is currently being drafted.

  Aspartame
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether the Food Advisory Committee considered(a) summary or (b) full data when it approved the use of aspartame; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will place the data considered by the Food Advisory Committee on aspartame in the Library.

  Mr. Gummer
  The data on aspartame considered by the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee (FAC) (the predecessor of the Food Advisory Committee) comprised the case of need and a report from the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, containing its considered advice on the safety of the sweetener. This is contained in the FAC report on the review of sweeteners in food (FAC/REP/34). Copies of this report are already lodged in the Library.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place a copy of the agreements between his Ministry and food companies, and advice given by his Ministry, relating to the labelling of products containing aspartame, in the Library.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is a statutory requirement to declare aspartame in ingredients lists under the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 (S.I. 1984 No. 1305). My Ministry has issued no further advice on this matter nor does it have any agreements with food companies about aspartame.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now ask his Food Advisory Committee to urgently review aspartame; and if he will make a statement.
  209
  Mr. Gummer
  Both the Food Advisory Committee and the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment are currently reviewing the use of all sweeteners in food. I anticipate receiving their full report and recommendations early next year but in the meantime they will inform me if they see the need for any action earlier.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has received from the United States Food and Drug Administration concerning the safety of aspartame; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My officials have received information on the safety of aspartame from a number of sources including those originating in the United States of America. This information, together with new data produced and collected since aspartame was approved in this country seven years ago, is currently being considered by the independent Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT).

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a compulsory health warning on products containing aspartame; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The use of aspartame in a food product will appear in the ingredients list. There is no general health hazard arising from the use of this sweetener; the small number of people who suffer from phenylkentonuria and should therefore not ingest aspartame have access to advice from their doctors to avoid products containing it.

  Food Irradiation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to lay the regulations under the Food Safety Act 1990 that will control the process of food irradiation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The first essential step is to arrange for consultations to take place on our proposals. Only when these have been completed and the results assessed will regulations be laid.

  Active Ingredients
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the active ingredients which have been approved since 3 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  There is no provision in food law for the approval of "active ingredients"; this is a concept confined to medicines legislation.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the pesticides which have been approved since 3 April, indicating whether it was a full or partial review in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following approvals for agricultural pesticide products have been issued by my Department since 3 April:
  210

  Number

  Experimental permits

  21

  Full or provisional approvals

  98

  Off-label approvals

  11

  of which:

  Number of products

  Approvals

  New active ingredients

  Fenpropathrin

  1

  A provisional approval and an experimental permit

  Paclobutrazol

  4

  Provisional approvals

  Reviewed active ingredient

  Alachlor (full review)

  1

  Provisional approval ex-tended for one year

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is responsible for the approval and review of non-agricultural pesticides.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report details of work he is sponsoring on pesticide effects on shepherds.

  Mr. Gummer
  All suspected adverse reactions reported by shepherds and others to licensed sheep dips are investigated under Medicines Act procedures. The findings will be fully taken into account as part of the review of ectoparasiticide products to ensure that modern standards on safety, quality and efficacy are being met. The review is expected to have been completed early in 1992.

  Richard Kimberlin
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields on 26 June,Official Report, column 204, if he will list the amount of money paid to Mr. Richard Kimberlin for each year he has provided expert advice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department has paid the following fees and expenses to Dr. Kimberlin for consultancy work commissioned with him:

  £

  1989

  4,279·00

  1990

  3,128·34

  Sheep Dip
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the National Rivers Authority about the emptying of sheep dips; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Sheep dip emptying has not been the focus of recent discussions with the National Rivers Authority, as last year sheep dips gave rise to only 13 out of 2,889 agricultural water pollution incidents. Nevertheless the guidance available on disposal is currently being reviewed to see how this can best be improved.

  Sugar Substitutes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a compulsory health warning on Sweet and Low saccharine granulated sugar substitutes along the lines of that used in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have no plans to do so. Saccharin has been cleared as safe by the independent expert advisory committees. At my request the committees have, however, recently reviewed saccharin. I expect to receive their recommendations very shortly when I can consider whether any further action is necessary.

SCOTLAND

  Community Care
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to implement the new arrangements for community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on 18 July 1990.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost in staff time and resources within the Scottish Office of working to prepare for the implementation of the community care reforms.

  Mr. Lang
  Some 25 officials within the Scottish Office have devoted a significant proportion of their working time within the past eight months to preparations for the implementation of the arrangements announced in the White Paper published in November 1989. This work has included preparing advice for Ministers on the content of legislation and other matters, drafting guidance documents for consultation purposes and taking forward discussions with local authority and voluntary sector interests. All this work would have been necessary regardless of the particular timetable chosen for implementing the proposals. The amount of time expended by individual officials has varied considerably and accurate calculations of the total cost could not be produced without disproportionate expenditure.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland exactly how much extra funding Scottish local authorities have been calculated to require to implement the community care reforms; whether this can be broken down into region-by-region figures for Scotland; and what are the calculations of need and precise method used to arrive at these figures.

  Mr. Lang
  The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities provided estimates of the additional costs involved for Scottish local authorities in total in implementing the proposals in the White Paper "Caring for People". Officials of my Department have discussed these with representatives of the convention and further discussions will take place in the light of the phased implementation plan.

  My right hon. and learned Friend will have regard to the financial implications of community care in announcing the local authority settlement later this week.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what representations he has received from voluntary organisations in Scotland concerning the implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultations he has had with health authorities in Scotland concerning the regulations to be made under section 2(7) of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in order to extend the rights of authorised representatives; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when he intends to lay an order to bring into force section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what monitoring his Department carries out as to whether local authorities in Scotland are fulfilling their duties under the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what consultations he has had with voluntary organisations in Scotland concerning the regulations to be made under section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what information he has laid before Parliament under section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) what research he has undertaken on the implementation by local authorities in Scotland of sections 4, 8, 9, 10 and 13 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (8) when he intends to lay an order to bring into force sections 1 and 2 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (9) what consultations he is having with local authority associations in Scotland concerning the implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (10) what consultations he has had with local authority associations in Scotland concerning the regulations to be made under section 2(7) of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in order to extend the rights of authorised representatives; and if he will make a statement;

  (11) what plans he has for consulting upon and implementing sections 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will produce a simple guide to these sections shortly thereafter.

  Mr. Lang
  Sections 4, 8(1) and 9 to 14 of the Act have already been implemented. Progress on implementing the remaining provisions is dependent on the availability of resources and no consultations have been held about implementation of further provisions. I have received representations from the care in the community Scottish working group on the implementation of sections 1 and 2.

  The first report to be laid before Parliament under the Act—"Care of Persons with a Mental Handicap or Mental

  213
  Illness in Scotland"—is at present being printed. Scottish Office officials have met the Association of Directors of Social Work to discuss local authority progress in implementing section 13 of the Act and the need for further guidance. We will be considering what further monitoring arrangements are required.

  Dentures
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of persons who had(a) full and (b) partial national health service dentures made in the periods (i) April 1988 to April 1989 and (ii) April 1989 to April 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Financial year figures are not available centrally. Calendar year figures are set out in the table:

  Number

  1988

  Full dentures

  104,830

  Partial dentures

  67,956

  1989

  Full dentures

  95,529

  Partial dentures

  86,013

  Hearing Impairment
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Scottish universities and institutes of higher education make special provision for students with hearing impairments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available. It is for the universities and other institutions themselves to decide what special arrangements should be made for students with hearing impairments.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision has been made within mainstream primary and secondary state schools in Scotland in the five years ended June 1990 to assist children with hearing impairments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Education authorities are responsible for ensuring that sufficient specialist assistance is provided for all children with special educational needs.

  As for provision in mainstream schools for pupils with hearing impairment, individual authorities adopt varying approaches. Most children are taught by class teachers supported by visiting specialist teachers. Some authorities also have units for the hearing impaired housed in primary and secondary schools, although the bulk of the pupils' time is still spent in the mainstream class. Most children are taught using either the oral-aural approach or the total communication method, with the former more commonly used in the mainstream setting.

  Social Security
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much will be transferred from the Department of Social Security to Scottish local authorities for their new responsibilities; whether this can be broken down region by region for Scotland; and how these figures are calculated.
  214
  Mr. Lang
  The amount of the proposed transfer of resources from the Department of Social Security to Scottish local authorities has not been determined yet. As indicated in the written reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on 18 July, the first transfer of such funds is now planned for 1993–94.

  Self-governing Schools
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all those schools which have expressed an interest in opting out.

  Mr. Lang
  Parents at Holm primary school in Orkney have presented the school board with a formal request seeking a ballot on self-governing status.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many redundancies there were in the Borders region for every year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  There are no comprehensive statistics on redundancies. Information on the number of redundancies involving 10 or more workers confirmed to the Department of Employment as having occurred in the Borders region between 1979 and June 1990 is set out in the table.

  Confirmed redundancies

  Year

  Number

  1979

  50

  1980

  938

  1981

  536

  1982

  542

  1983

  367

  1984

  238

  1985

  149

  1986

  313

  1987

  335

  1988

  355

  1989

  564

  1 21990

  174

  1 The figures for 1990 are provisional and may be subject to revision as later data become available.

  2 January to June.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the unemployment levels for each Scottish region in October for every year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: The tables provide the available information. For the period 1979 to 1982 data are available only on the number of registrants at jobcentres. From 1983 the available information is for unemployed claimants. Comparisons over time are affected by the various changes in coverage and in particular by the discontinuity between 1982 and 1983.

  Number of registrants at jobcentres by Scottish Region

  Region1

  October2

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  Borders

  1,280

  2,080

  3,058

  3,458

  Central

  7,821

  11,206

  16,618

  19,178

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,179

  5,656

  7,514

  8,192

  Fife

  9,497

  12,889

  17,845

  18,142

  Grampian

  8,126

  10,687

  14,743

  16,981

  Highlands

  6,505

  7,209

  9,360

  10,873

  Lothian

  21,752

  28,306

  40,893

  47,146

  215

  Region1

  October2

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  Strathclyde

  105,386

  147,820

  188,882

  200,489

  Tayside

  12,398

  18,190

  23,823

  24,619

  Orkney

  391

  476

  632

  813

  Number of claimants unemployed by Scottish region October2

  Region1

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Borders

  3,486

  3,416

  3,379

  3,718

  3,189

  2,404

  2,087

  Central

  17,762

  18,303

  18,666

  18,487

  16,526

  12,491

  10,834

  Dumfries and Galloway

  7,312

  7,647

  7,949

  7,824

  6,852

  6,066

  4,352

  Fife

  18,247

  19,446

  21,144

  22,030

  20,245

  16,545

  13,244

  Grampian

  16,028

  16,769

  17,129

  22,432

  19,715

  15,374

  11,090

  Highland

  10,173

  12,501

  13,099

  13,528

  12,097

  10,268

  7,636

  Lothian

  43,428

  44,742

  45,624

  47,160

  43,414

  34,158

  26,864

  Strathclyde

  188,962

  192,194

  197,292

  194,455

  176,894

  146,133

  120,697

  Tayside

  24,880

  24,756

  25,753

  25,665

  22,884

  18,416

  14,959

  Orkney

  719

  737

  765

  859

  821

  701

  493

  Shetland

  709

  667

  697

  794

  743

  638

  410

  Western Isles

  1,719

  1,932

  1,814

  2,284

  2,082

  2,052

  1,459

  1 Regional totals are aggregates of wards.

  2 Figures are not adjusted for seasonal variations.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further changes he proposes to make to alleviate the impact of the community charge on poorer families and pensioners.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The community charge benefit scheme is already helping those on lower incomes. This scheme is much more generous than the former rates rebate scheme and over 1 million people in Scotland are paying a reduced community charge as a result. The extension of the community charge relief scheme which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 19 July means that many more former ratepayers, pensioners and disabled people will receive help with their bills and over a longer period.

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital, Skye
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of(a) major and (b) intermediate surgical operations performed at the Mackinnon memorial hospital in Skye in 1988 and 1989, respectively.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no generally recognised classification of operations into major and intermediate and information is not held centrally in this manner. The total number of cases operated on in Mackinnon memorial hospital in 1988 and 1989 were 734 and 733 respectively.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the accurancy of the 1990 declarations made by Scottish fishing vessels as to catches of cod made in or attributed to area VII; and what steps are taken to ensure that arrangements for the accurate declaration in log books of fish catches in area VII are being complied with.

  Mr. Lang
  Landings by Scottish fishing vessels of cod recorded as having been caught in International Council
  216

  Region1

  October2

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  Shetland

  227

  273

  404

  567

  Western Isles

  927

  1,346

  1,674

  2,292

  1 Regional totals are aggregates of jobcentre areas.

  2 Figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation.

  for the Exploration of the Seas area VII are being investigated and currently six cases are being prepared for submission to the prosecuting authorities. Inquiries are continuing in respect of a number of additional cases where some evidence of misreporting exists.

  Log books are examined when fishing vessels are boarded and at the end of each fishing trip when a copy of the log book pages are handed in to the local fishery office. Checks are made to ensure that the entries are compatible with the catch on board or landed and are consistent with any sightings of the vessel while it was at sea.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will name the Scottish fishing vessels which claim to have entered area VII and caught cod fish since 1 January; and if he will list separately those which were(a) at the limit of their quota or (b) had not filled their quota for cod fishing in areas VIa or IV.

  Mr. Lang
  No. It would not be appropriate to name individual vessels in the manner requested. Under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 information about an individual data subject cannot be disclosed, except in a limited number of circumstances, without that subject's consent.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements exist for identifying the names of fishing vessels that use the Caledonian canal from either east to west or west to east.

  Mr. Lang
  All vessels which pass through the Caledonian canal are logged by the canal office of the British Waterways Board.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will set up an inquiry into misdeclaration by Scottish fishing vessels of cod catches since January.

  Mr. Lang
  The circumstances which have given rise to allegations of misreporting of cod catches by Scottish fishing vessels are being investigated.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions Department of
  217
  Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland officials have (a) witnessed fishing vessels either registered or based at Scottish ports enter into area VII or leave area VII either in anticipation of a catch or with a catch on board and (b) sighted Scottish fishing vessels within area VII.

  Mr. Lang
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is responsible for patrolling only that part of ICES area VII which is adjacent to the south-west coast of Scotland. Aerial surveillance during April, May and June 1990 identified six Scottish fishing vessels in that area.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions Scottish fishing vessels have entered into area VII since 1 January.

  Mr. Lang
  The information on entry to ICES area VII is not available in the form requested. However, records show that Scottish vessels which landed fish (of all species) into Scotland from ICES area VII have made a total of 446 trips to that area since 1 January 1990. Many Scottish fishermen traditionally fish area VII.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state which fishing vessels reported to DAFS at Scrabster their movements(a) in a westerly direction across the 4 deg W line since 1 January and (b) in an easterly direction across the 4 deg W line since 1 January.

  Mr. Lang
  It is assumed that the question relates to vessels making radio reports to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. These reports were made to Ullapool or Aberdeen rather than to Scrabster. A total of 1,649 reports were received in the period 1 January to 30 June 1990. Of these, 887 were from vessels proceeding east to west, 731 from west to east and 31 from vessels fishing close to the 4 deg W line.

  In the same period 24 vessels which were unable to make radio reports called in to Scrabster voluntarily. Of these 15 were heading west and nine were heading east.

  The large number of vessels involved precludes listing them individually.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what catches were recorded by Scottish vessels from ICES area VIId, VIIb and VIIc in June.

  Mr. Lang
  Landings into Scotland by Scottish vessels during June for ICES areas VIIb and VIIc were as follows. No landings from area VlId were recorded in June by Scottish vessels.

  Area VIIb

  Area VIIc

  Species

  1 Tonnes landed

  1 Tonnes landed

  Cod

  135

  1

  Haddock

  24

  20

  Plaice

  18

  —

  Whiting

  9

  —

  Saithe

  102

  —

  Catfish

  1

  1

  Dabs

  1

  —

  Dogfish

  3

  —

  Ling

  1

  1

  Megrims

  3

  3

  Monkfish

  12

  5

  Skate

  1

  1

  1 Rounded to the nearest tonne.

  218
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the incidence of calling in in respect of Scottish vessels landing at each Scottish port in June 1989 and June 1990 broken down by length of vessel.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: It is assumed that the question refers to calling in vessels for inspection, when crossing the 4 deg line. No vessels were called into port for physical inspection in either June 1989 or June 1990.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Scotland (1) how many Scottish vessels landing area VII catches at Peterhead failed to radio in;

  (2) what was the average number of days at sea per trip recorded for June in respect of Scottish vessels landing at Peterhead having declared fishing in sea area VII;

  (3) how many Scottish vessels landing area VII catches at Peterhead in June had radioed in; and what percentage were physically summoned for inspection.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 20 July.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will order a full investigation into the effectiveness of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland monitoring of fish landings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: As I have already indicated to the hon. Member, urgent consideration is being given to fisheries enforcement procedures, in the light of recent developments.

  Student Awards
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students in each Scottish local authority area received(a) mandatory awards and (b) discretionary awards in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Awards under the students' allowances scheme—broadly equivalent to mandatory awards—are administered centrally and do not distinguish between individual local authority areas. The total number of such awards offered to Scottish domiciled students in session 1989–90 was 65,825.

  Discretionary awards for students attending other full-time courses of further or higher education are the responsibility of individual education authorities under the Education Authority Bursaries (Scotland) Regulations 1988, as amended. Information on these awards is not held centrally.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Lang
  Small firms continue to play an important and dynamic role in the regeneration of the Scottish
  219
  economy. Small firms also continue to benefit from the comprehensive schemes of support that the Government have introduced. In the main, these are delivered through the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Industry Department for Scotland, where policy responsibility lies. In addition to providing services specific to Scotland, the SDA, HIDB and the Industry Department for Scotland are responsible for the delivery and monitoring in Scotland of United Kingdom services on behalf of other Departments, including the Department of Employment and the Department of Trade and Industry. During 1989, there was a net increase of over 4,500 or 4·2 per cent. in the number of companies registered for VAT in Scotland. This is double the increase of the previous year. VAT returns indicate that between 1980 and 1989 the number of new businesses operating in Scotland showed a net increase of 19,900.

  The following describes the services available to small firms in Scotland during the periods 1988–89 and 1989–90 and some of their achievements.

  For the period 1988–89 IDS made 128 offers of regional selective assistance to the value of £12 million to small companies—those employing fewer than 200 people worldwide—in Scotland. This contributed to the creation of 2,180 new jobs and the safeguarding of 560 existing jobs. In 1989–90 167 offers of RSA were made to the value of over £17 million which contributed to the creation of 3,080 new jobs and the safeguarding of 340 existing jobs. For the period 1988–89 IDS made 2,180 offers to the value of £70 million under the revised regional development grants scheme to proposed projects by small companies in Scotland with the potential for 20,980 new jobs. In 1989–90 236 offers of RDG were made to the value of over £12 million with the potential for 3,400 new jobs. The last date for applications under this scheme was 31 March 1988. Information on the grant offered to small firms under the original RDG scheme is not available. Under both the investment and innovation elements of the regional enterprise grants scheme, 226 offers to the value of £2 million were made in Scotland in 1988–89, to companies employing under 25 people, contributing to the creation of 490 new jobs and the safeguarding of 400 existing jobs. In 1989–90 432 offers of REG to the value of over £4 million were made contributing to the creation of 1,640 new jobs and the safeguarding of 1,660 existing jobs.

  During the periods in question, the better business service scheme was administered by IDS, SDA and the HIDB. The scheme allows small companies to have access to subsidised professional business advice and in 1988–89 some 6,804 offers of assistance were made with an associated value of £3·1 million. In 1989–90 some 8,090 offers of assistance were made with an associated value of £3·7 million.

  Scottish Development Agency support for small businesses includes the provision of financial assistance, premises and a wide range of advisory services, including the small firms service (SFS) in Scotland and the administration of DTI's consultancy initiatives, under the enterprise initiative. In addition, the SFS offers an integrated and complementary range of business services including a Government business shop, a Euroinfocentre, a franchise desk and a Companies House satellite office. Under the consultancy initiatives, some 1,235 consultancy projects were undertaken during 1988–89 and in 1989–90 this figure was 1,158. In the year 1988–89, the agency had
  220
  contact with 19,250 small firms and some £·1·8 million was invested in 92 small firms creating or safeguarding 1,600 jobs. In 1989–90 the small firms service handled 17,286 inquiries; figures for SFS investment are not yet available, but across all sectors in Scotland the SDA invested £7 million and safeguarded 6,091 jobs.

  As well as delivering a small firms counselling service in its area, the Highlands and Islands Development Board undertakes a wide range of activities in support of businesses, most of which are small, to help them overcome the difficulties in operating in this peripheral and rural part of the United Kingdom. The measures taken include financial support to business, provision of factories and assistance with business advice and training. In 1988–89, the board approved 1,220 offers of financial assistance worth £25·3 million on projects involving proposed private sector investment of some £44·4 million and the creation or safeguarding of 3,300 jobs. For the period 1989–90, the board approved 983 offers of financial assistance worth £19·4 million on projects involving proposed private sector investment of £51·1 million and the creation or safeguarding of 2,700 jobs. In the period 1988–89, the HIDB completed 12,553 sq m of factory floor space. In this period some 3,130 jobs were housed in HIDB factories. In the period 1989–90, the HIDB completed 7,208 sq m of factory floor space. In this period, some 3,200 jobs were housed in HIDB factories.

  Local enterprise trusts have proved to be an important catalyst in fostering the enterprise culture in Scotland. The Government have continued to demonstrate their recognition of the valuable role played by the trusts, and the SDA provided financial support of £1·24 million to the 40 enterprise trusts in 1988–89, the latest year for which figures are available—an increase of almost 21 per cent. over the previous year. This has triggered a further £4·23 million from the other public and private sector partners. During 1988–89 trusts in Scotland counselled 25,200 clients from which 3,900 small businesses were formed. Companies assisted by enterprise trusts created some 9,000 new jobs. The SDA bases its financial assistance on its appraisal of each trust's annual management plan which contains details of the previous year's projects and objectives for the oncoming year.

  The Scottish Office continues to provide wholehearted support for the deregulation initiative. Recent steps which have been taken to embed further the deregulation message within Scottish Office Departments include arrangements for deregulation awareness training, a ministerial message on deregulation, a staff competition for deregulatory suggestions and the inclusion of advice on the topic in the Scottish Office staff handbook. The Government business shop in Glasgow continues to provide a very effective single access point for information on how to deal with Government regulations.

  As for public purchasing and supplier development, in the past year IDS, SDA and MOD have co-operated in the organisation of two seminars on civil and defence procurement. IDS made a strong contribution to a seminar organised by Strathclyde Innovation on improving the availability of development funding for small businesses. A major seminar was organised by IDS/SDA in October 1989 on the subject of supplier development. Another such event, focusing more closely on import substitution is planned for the latter half of 1990.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the numbers of senior citizens who received national health service eye tests during the periods(a) April 1988–89 and (b) April 1989–90

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Low Incomes
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will accept the recommendations made to him by COSLA concerning those on low incomes and the effects of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is at present considering the various recommendations made to him recently by COSLA. Some of these fall within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security whom we will be consulting before we respond to COSLA.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark),Official Report, 5 June, column 497 (a) on what date Dr. W. B. Martin became director of the Moredun research institute and (b) what research projects into scrapie were initiated by the Moredun research institute while Dr. W. B. Martin was its director.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Dr. W. B. Martin took up appointment as director of the Moredun research institute on 1 July 1977. During the period of his directorship, studies on changes in the brain of sheep exposed to scrapie agents were initiated at the institute, together with a programme of field observation work.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what share incentives will be offered to employees and pensioners when the two Scottish electricity companies are privatized.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has today announced details of the employee and pensioner share incentives to be made available when the electricity companies in England and Wales are offered for sale to the public. Although precise details of equivalent incentives in Scotland will not be determined until nearer the time when the two Scottish electricity companies are floated, I expect the special arrangements for both retired and existing employees of the Scottish electricity industry to be broadly in line with those on offer in England and Wales.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limits for 1990–91 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Yes, I intend to change three of the cash limits within my responsibility as follows.
  222
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XV, vote 21, will be increased by £800,000 from £128,790,000 to £129,590,000. This increase is needed to accommodate additional expenditure not foreseen last autumn including, in particular, increased accommodation charges and costs relating to the new NHS executive. This will be offset by savings on the cash limits for class XV, vote 3, which will be reduced by £600,000 from £142,816,000 to £142,216,000, and for class XV, vote 6, which will be reduced by £200,000 from £251,542,000 to £251,342,000. The increase will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  As a consequence of these changes and of the reallocation of expenditure within class XV, vote 21, the Scottish Office running costs limit will be increased by £990,000 from £220,964,000 to £221,954,000.

  Pre-school Education
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers of(a) children, (b) qualified staff and (c) full-time equivalent qualified staff in registered (i) pre-school nurseries and (ii) playgroups for each academic year from 1979–80 to 1988–89 in (1) Inverclyde, (2) Strathclyde and (3) Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: The readily available information is set out in the table:

  Children1 in Nurseries

  Places2 in Playgroups

  Fully Qualified3 Staff

  Scotland

  1979–80

  35,500

  41,750

  3,116

  1980–81

  36,166

  43,749

  3,281

  1981–82

  36,725

  40,924

  3,203

  1982–83

  38,536

  43,301

  3,317

  1983–84

  40,650

  43,549

  3,358

  1984–85

  42,428

  43,861

  3,410

  1985–86

  42,787

  41,492

  —

  1986–87

  44,051

  43,426

  1987–88

  46,431

  46,838

  3,722

  1988–89

  48,484

  45,342

  3,872

  Strathclyde

  1979–80

  16,467

  17,415

  1,466

  1980–81

  16,617

  19,820

  1,538

  1981–82

  17,200

  17,093

  1,525

  1982–83

  18,046

  18,089

  1,604

  1983–84

  18,868

  19,111

  1,617

  1984–85

  19,793

  17,742

  1,595

  1985–86

  20,476

  16,227

  —

  1986–87

  21,049

  16,823

  —

  1987–88

  22,048

  20,274

  1,763

  1988–89

  22,599

  16,030

  1,832

  Inverclyde

  1988–89

  1,035

  709

  91

  1 Number of children attending local authority nursery schools and day nurseries.

  2 Number of children for which registered pre-school playgroups are registered and number of places in local authority pre-school playgroups.

  3 Full-time equivalent number of teachers, trained nurses, and care staff in local authority nursery schools and day nurseries.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for each of the Training Agency area offices in Scotland what is the percentage allocation of employment
  223
  training funds to mainstream and non-mainstream groups; and what are the reasons for the relative proportions.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: The information is not available in the form requested. For Scotland as a whole about 13 per cent. of the employment training funding available for people starting employment training in 1990–91 following agreement of new contracts with training providers is for entrants from non-mainstream groups. The expenditure on all non-mainstream provision delivered in 1990–91 is likely to be somewhat higher, reflecting higher proportions of non-mainstream trainees at the start of the period.

  Information at area office level is for internal management purposes only.

  Needle Exchange Schemes
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the needle exchange schemes currently operating in each of the health board areas in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: Three health boards currently operate needle and syringe exchange schemes as follows:

  Lothian health board
  Needle and syringe exchange arrangements exist in the Muirhouse, Craigmillar and Leith areas of Edinburgh.

  Greater Glasgow health board
  Schemes are operating at Ruchill hospital, Glasgow and in the Castlemilk and Easterhouse areas of the city.

  Table I: people who have died with AIDS

  Patient characteristic

  31 December 1987

  30 June 1988

  31 December 1988

  30 June 1989

  31 December 1989

  30 June 1990

  Homosexual-bisexual

  112

  114

  121

  132

  137

  238

  Intravenous drug misuser (IVDM)

  2

  3

  3

  4

  9

  11

  Haemophiliac

  4

  4

  5

  6

  6

  6

  Recipient of blood or blood products:

  Abroad3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  United Kingdom

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Heterosexual: presumed infected:

  Abroad

  —

  2

  2

  2

  4

  4

  United Kingdom

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Child of HIV antibody positive parents

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  3

  Other

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Total

  21

  26

  35

  51

  64

  68

  1 Includes two visitors to the United Kingdom.

  2 Includes three visitors to the United Kingdom.

  3 Not blood transfusion.

  Table II: People with AIDS including those who have died

  Patient characteristic

  31 December 1987

  30 June 1988

  31 December 1988

  30 June 1989

  31 December 1989

  30 June 1990

  Homosexual/bisexual

  126

  138

  145

  155

  170

  278

  Intravenous Drug Misuser (IVDM)

  4

  7

  9

  22

  34

  44

  Haemophiliac

  4

  6

  6

  6

  8

  9

  Recipient of blood or blood products:

  Abroad3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  United Kingdom

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  Heterosexual, presumed infected:

  Abroad

  —

  4

  7

  7

  8

  9

  United Kingdom

  1

  1

  1

  3

  3

  3

  224
  Argyll and Clyde health board
  A mobile needle and syringe exchange scheme is currently operating in the Inverclyde area on a trial basis.

  AIDS
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the cumulative totals on 31 December 1987, 30 June 1988, 31 December 1988, 30 June 1989, 31 December 1989 and 30 June 1990 of(a) people who have died with AIDS, (b) people with AIDS including those who have died and (c) HIV antibody positive persons in Scotland (i) by patient characteristic, (ii) in each of the health board areas and (iii) in total.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: The cumulative totals for Scotland of (a) people who have died with AIDS, (b) people with AIDS including those who have died, and (c) people who have been identified and reported to the Communicable Diseases (Scotland) Unit as being HIV antibody positive on the dates shown are given in tables I, II and III respectively. The tables provide a breakdown by patient characteristic for Scotland as a whole. The figures of AIDS cases and deaths and of HIV antibody positive persons for particular health board areas are, in some cases, very low and as their publication, according to patient characteristic, may in consequence endanger medical confidentiality, geographical breakdowns are not produced.
  225

  Patient characteristic

  31 December 1987

  30 June 1988

  31 December 1988

  30 June 1989

  31 December 1989

  30 June 1990

  Child of HIV antibody positive parents

  1

  1

  2

  4

  4

  4

  Other4

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Total

  39

  61

  75

  102

  132

  154

  1Includes four visitors to the United Kingdom, two of whom are known to have died.

  2 Includes four visitors to the United Kingdom, three of whom are known to have died.

  3Not blood transfusion.

  4Includes one visitor from outside United Kingdom, who is known to have died.

  Table III: HIV Antibody positive persons

  Patient characteristic

  31 December 1987

  30 June 1988

  31 December 1988

  30 June 1989

  31 December 1989

  30 June 1990

  Homosexual/bisexual

  206

  233

  242

  264

  280

  304

  Intravenous Drug Misuser (IVDM)

  792

  827

  858

  892

  910

  926

  Homosexual and IVDM

  3

  5

  6

  6

  6

  7

  Haemophiliac

  175

  176

  176

  176

  277

  277

  Recipient of blood transfusion/blood products

  10

  10

  10

  31l

  312

  312

  Heterosexual contact

  462

  581

  589

  5108

  5120

  5143

  Infant/Child (not haemophiliac)

  664

  669

  775

  781

  792

  7101

  Other/not known

  8169

  9203

  9224

  9230

  9232

  9234

  Total

  1,381

  1,504

  1,580

  1,668

  1,729

  1,804

  Notes:

  1 Includes 16 children.

  2 Includes 17 children.

  3 Includes one child.

  4 Includes four people with contact abroad.

  5 Includes 12 people with contact abroad.

  6 Includes 26 children who have at least one parent identified as misusing IV drugs.

  7 Includes 27 children who have at least one parent identified as misusing IV drugs.

  8 Includes five people of African origin and one person of Caribbean origin.

  9 Includes 12 people of African origin and one person of Caribbean origin: also one person with possible exposure abroad.

  Disabled People (Training)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he takes to ensure that, in accordance with the employment training equal opportunities code of practice, disabled people have equality of opportunity; and whether extra training costs resulting from a trainee's disability are met by the Government.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: The Training Agency, through its approved training organisation process, ensures that all employment training providers have and follow an equal opportunities policy allowing easy access to appropriate training for disabled people. Additionally, disabled individuals can enter the programme without having to satisfy the normal eligibility conditions regarding length of unemployment.

  In their contract dealings with the Training Agency, individual training managers negotiate and agree terms which take account of the costs of all training provided including the needs of disabled trainees.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the areas in Scotland in which special measures to ease access to youth training announced in March have been set up, which include links between social work departments, hostels accommodating homeless young people, voluntary organisations and suitable training providers.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: As part of the new arrangements announced for youth training, all Training Agency area offices in Scotland have appointed guarantee liaison officers whose remit is to assist young people within the youth training guarantee group and to establish or reaffirm links with voluntary organisations, social work departments, careers and probation services, and the Department of Social Security; and to encourage training managers to establish close links with hostels for homeless young people.

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

Lord Porter of Luddenham
Sir George Porter, Knight, O.M., having been created Baron Porter of Luddenham, of Luddenham in the County of Kent, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Shackleton and the Lord Todd, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Money Laundering
2.48 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their position on the European Commission proposal of 23rd March 1990 on the "Prevention of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering" (COM (90) 106 final).
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government attach high priority to the war against drugs and money laundering and have taken a leading role in recent international initiatives. Together with all other members of the European Council, the United Kingdom has welcomed the Commission's proposal. The draft directive is broadly in line with existing United Kingdom law and practice, though there are a number of issues to be resolved, including the question of Community competence. Negotiations on these issues are now in progress.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, first, perhaps I may offer the noble Earl our felicitations on his new position in which we are quite sure he will serve with distinction. Is he aware that his Answer must be regarded as unsatisfactory? The Question asked for a statement of the Government's position. So far as one can gather, the Government's position is that they do not approve of sin. Will the noble Earl give the House some assurance that the matter will be pursued with vigour in the Council and that some effort will be made to ginger up those who often pay lip service to the abhorrence of money laundering but who in practice do little about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, first, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord for his kind opening words. As to whether or not the Answer is acceptable, I hope that it is acceptable to most of your Lordships. As I have said, we have welcomed the Commission's proposal. We believe that it will bring European law on this matter into line with United Kingdom law. We shall certainly continue to lead from the front in the battle against money laundering.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, on this side of the House perhaps I may join in congratulating my noble friend.
1318
Will he use his new and important position to persuade the European Commission to write proper English? In English there is nothing to be said in favour of the "Prevention of the financial system". That phrase cannot be used. Surely we ought to have papers that make sense in our own language.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his first remark. I note with great care his supplementary question which I shall pass on to my right honourable friend.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Earl at least give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government accept the definition of money laundering as given in Article 4 of the proposed directive? Whatever defects in grammar it may contain, the definition conveys some degree of precision as to exactly what is meant by "money laundering".
Furthermore, will the noble Earl give the House an assurance that when Sub-Committee E of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House meets to consider the matter—which it is proposed will be after the Recess—he will instruct those who give evidence on his behalf to provide much more detail than he has been able to provide today?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the second part of the noble Lord's question, if the committee seeks evidence from the appropriate Minister or from Treasury officials I am sure that it will obtain all the evidence it requires. I must reiterate that this matter is taken most seriously. We wish to see a fruitful outcome from the directive. As your Lordships may be aware, it was agreed at the Dublin Council that this directive should be adopted before July 1991, which is next year. At a meeting last week progress was made, although not as much as we would like. There will be a further meeting in September.

Rented Housing: Private Sector
2.54 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
On how many houses and flats to let has building started in the private sector this year, up to the latest date for which figures are available.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, it is estimated that 6,200 new dwellings for letting were started by housing associations in Great Britain in the first five months of 1990. Furthermore, the extension of the business expansion scheme to give tax relief for investment in rented housing has resulted in £535 million being raised and this should provide some 9,500 extra homes to rent.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is that not a pathetically small figure as regards housing for letting being built by the private sector? It suggests that the Government's housing legislation and their whole policy of encouraging the private sector to provide low rental homes are likely to prove an almost total failure.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am absolutely certain that if the Labour Party was willing to commit itself to

1319
the expansion of a sector in which we fall far behind Germany, France and the United States there would be a great increase in the number of such dwellings.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a report which was published yesterday which shows that more than 8,000 families are now in bed and breakfast accommodation waiting for permanent homes, and another 12,000 are living in self-contained properties rented for a short time from private landlords? Is the Minister aware that those figures indicate a 24 per cent. increase in six months in the numbers of such families? Does he understand that unless there is a tremendous upturn in the provision of low cost rented properties those deplorable figures will continue to rise? Will the Government take note of that position and do more than they are doing at present to reduce those terrible figures?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government have already made a commitment in that area by the £250 million initiative for the South East which they announced recently and by the considerable increase in the money they provide for housing associations from £900 million to £1.7 billion.
Lord Jay: My Lords, why then are the Government preventing local authorities from building houses when clearly thousands of children are now being brought up in bed and breakfast so-called homes?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we view local authorities as the enablers rather than the providers. That is why we have greatly increased the sums of money which we are giving to housing associations to enable them to achieve the latter status.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that housing associations are not capable of performing as well as they would like because of the money that is being cut off this year? Even if they did all they could, it would still not be enough to satisfy the need for houses that now exists.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I must remind your Lordships' House that in previous replies on this subject I pointed out that housing associations are spending less this year because they spent more in the previous year. Therefore more money has been delivered to housing than was anticipated.
Lord Richard: My Lords, are the Government satisfied with those figures?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government's contribution is substantial and their commitment is also substantial.
Lord Richard: My Lords, are the Government satisfied with those figures?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am absolutely certain that long after I have gone from this Dispatch Box no government will ever be satisfied.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister agree that he is a little too self-satisfied about this matter?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have had the honour to serve the Department of the Environment at this
1320
Dispatch Box since 6th February last year. I have never considered myself to be in any position to be self-satisfied.

War Game Sites
2.57 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many war game sites there are in Britain; and what powers local planning authorities have to control them.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there are no central records of the number of war game sites in England and Wales. The Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 allows land to be used for activities including war games for up to 28 days in any calendar year. This general planning permission can be withdrawn by a local planning authority making a direction under the order.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that factual Answer, which I find rather discouraging. Is he aware that the spread of these sites is such that there are now nearly 400 of them across the country? Is he further aware that there are serious objections to the ecological damage caused in some woodlands by the war games and to the noise that is caused to people living nearby? Will my noble friend consider revising the 28-day rule, which is not monitored? Therefore no one knows how many times these sites are being used. I hope he will consider limiting the rule so that where planning consent is given it is given only for a specific number of dates in the year which can be identified.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, 28 days is the time that applies under the general development order. Another example of such an activity would be clay pigeon shooting. A local authority can, if it wishes, monitor the number of days on which the war games take place. If it is unhappy, it can issue a direction under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. It is also important to remind your Lordships' House that the Government are encouraging farming interests to try to diversify. The evidence to date with regard to flora and fauna is that there is no substantial evidence of long-term damage.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not a fact that the playing of war games, in the Lake District in particular, is causing a great deal of distress to local residents? Does the Minister not consider that it is an unsuitable activity for national parks? While one sympathises with farmers who wish to diversify, should such games not be kept as far away as possible from areas of beauty?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am given to understand that most of the participants are dressed in camouflage and therefore should not be easily visible. I remind your Lordships that such war games take place on private land and that the balance of legislation

1321
provides for the possibility of planning decisions permitting such activities up to a certain limit, which is 28 days.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, apart from the ecological damage and the noise which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, mentioned, is not the morality of such games a matter for grave doubt? I believe that they arc worse than acid house parties.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have not attended a war game but I should have thought that it was better for participants to throw paint at each other than ammunition.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may first congratulate the noble Lord on his elevation to Minister of State in the hot seat at the Department of Trade and Industry. Can he give me some assurance about mid-Wales, where war games are conducted almost every week on common land? When will the Government bring in legislation on common land so that it will be treated on the same basis as private land so far as concerns war games?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not wish me to anticipate the Question down in the name of his noble friend Lady Nicol for tomorrow.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, with reference to the answer that the Minister gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, does he agree that the objections to war games do not concern whether or not the participants are invisible but the tremendous racket that they make? The noble Baroness referred particularly to national parks, and I know of at least one case where such games are taking place in national parks. Although it may be inevitable that the Ministry of Defence conducts noisy exercises for defence purposes, does the Minister agree that the noise created by war games is singularly inappropriate in a national park because one of the objects of the national parks is their quiet and peaceful enjoyment by the public?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am given to understand that the weapons used fire paint and I am not convinced that they make a great deal of noise. The important point is that we are talking about private property. The law recognises that, and that is why there is a 28-day limit.

River Thames: Iodine 125
3.2 p.m
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to publish the report of a Government-sponsored study by researchers from St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London, into the level and effects thereof of the radioactive isotope Iodine 125 in the River Thames and what proposals they intend to make based on the study.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the research work on Iodine 125 commissioned by the Department of the Environment and being carried out by St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College will not he completed until March 1991. A first draft of the report
1322
was received by the department this month. It is currently being reviewed by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and any Government proposals will be based on the inspectorate's recommendations. The report will be published in due course and copies will be placed in the Library.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for that reply, is he aware that the leader of the research team, Dr. Bowlt, has alleged that his study is being hampered by reason of the fact that the Government have failed to produce information concerning the total amount of radioactive waste being dumped in London?
The Earl of Halsbury: Reading!
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am quoting, my Lords. Dr. Bowlt said:
"We don't know how much is coming out of the hospitals. These details are crucial for our calculations".
Will the Minister confirm that that is an accurate reflection of what was said by Dr. Bowlt? What do the Government propose to do to stop hampering the researchers in their crucial investigations?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government are not in any way hampering the research. It must be remembered that the research was commissioned by the Department of the Environment. The department does not maintain a central record of the quantities of low-level radioactive waste disposed of through local disposal routes or specific disposal locations. The Government would not commission such research if they felt that there was anything to hide.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, have we not listened to an account of the leakage of radioactive iodine into the Thames, accompanied by a leakage of a report which the Government do not see fit to publish for the time being and by reading of a supplementary question?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Hesketh: The noble Earl is correct in saying that there is a certain amount of discharge of radioactive waste into the Thames. However, it is worth remembering that the levels of radioactivity in the Thames are extremely low and the levels in drinking water are well below guideline values for potable water recommended by the World Health Organisation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as a matter of record, is the House aware that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was totally wrong and out of order in his question regarding the supplementary question of my noble friend, who was perfectly in order in quoting from the report?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, read from a report and then asked his question. I suggest that we complete this Question. I was going to say that we should then pass on to the next question, but this is the last.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, do not those answers confirm the lack of wisdom of the Government in resisting amendments to Part V of the

1323
Environmental Protection Bill which sought to ensure that local authorities were at least informed about permits granted by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution for the disposal of radioactive waste? Does the Minister recall that in the Dudley case he failed to give a categorical assurance that local authorities should have the right to know when such permits are granted? Does not the evidence adduced by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis confirm that we were right to press the amendments and that the Government were wrong to resist them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that your Lordships' House disagreed with the amendments. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that come October we shall have ample opportunity to go over this important ground once more.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity to say how much I have enjoyed facing the noble Lord across the Dispatch Box over the past 18 months in his capacity in the department which he is now leaving.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I am terribly sorry that I have upset the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, but he tends to be easily upset. Can the Minister say whether the indications given by the leader of the research team conflict with assertions that have previously been made that this particular isotope breaks down before it enters the food chain? Does the Minister agree that if there is a conflict, the sooner it can be cleared up the better?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution is reviewing the evidence that has been presented. It would be wholly improper for me to anticipate its conclusions on this important matter.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on this very important matter will the noble Lord confirm that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution is unable to undertake regular monitoring of the Thames and of the dumping of nuclear waste in London because it is understaffed? Is he able to say when the inspectorate will be properly staffed in order that that work may be carried out properly?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, vigorous efforts have been made to increase the staff at HMIP. One of the greatest difficulties is not a question of money but a shortage of people with the right skills. It is for that reason that the department is holding discussions with a university with a view to introducing a course which will expand the available skills so that these important jobs can be done by more people in the future.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord said "in consultation with a university". What does that mean and how long has that consultation been taking place? Is the consultation taking place with all the universities in this country so that the inspectorate can be really effective?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I said "a university" because this aspect is very wide of the Question on the
1324
Order Paper. I believe that I am correct in saying—and I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, if I am wrong—that it is an M.Sc. course.

Business
3.10 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for about an hour. During the adjournment a Motion on the Social Security Benefits (Student Loans and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1990, tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will be taken; and thereafter the Motion for approval of the regulations themselves will be taken formally.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill, and read a first time.
Representation of the People Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Marriage (Registration of Buildings) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Broadcasting Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before we go into Committee on the Bill there is something that I feel I ought to say. Last Friday evening 46 printed pages of government amendments emerged, having been tabled very late after the House had risen. It is very hard to be faced on Monday morning with such a tremendous batch of difficult to comprehend amendments.
The Minister was as helpful as he possibly could be yesterday. I saw him and he also saw noble Lords from the other Benches. He explained that it had been difficult to get the amendments ready. It amazed all of us that although the Bill has now been running for many months and has been worked on for the past couple of years at least, when it comes to this House there are still amendments tabled at this very late stage. There have been other Bills which have been extremely late but this seemed to me the last straw. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is very sorry about the situation. He has done what he can but it has not greatly helped.
It is not only the Opposition who are affected. There must be noble Lords on all sides of the House

1325
who find it very difficult to be faced with what is in effect another complete Marshalled List of amendments.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the interests of the whole House I must support the protest of my noble friend. The situation has occurred before under this Government and in successive years. As I said the other day, it makes it necessary for us to rise and inform the Government that it makes discussion extremely difficult during the Committee, Report and Third Reading stages of Bills when amendments are tabled in large numbers at a late hour. This has happened again in connection with the Broadcasting Bill.
It means that it becomes difficult to process the Bill properly. There is not the time, and this affects noble Lords on all sides, in particular those who are responsible for the Bill on the Front Benches, those behind me, the Liberal and the Social Democrat parties and noble Lords opposite who take a keen interest in the Bill.
The House deserves an explanation of why this occurs all the time. It leads to a possible charge of incompetence on the part of the Ministers in charge. I do not like to go beyond them. The buck stops with them. I do not like to blame anyone else. They must take the responsibility. The situation is not good enough. I warmly support the protest made by my noble friend.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, before the Minister comments, I should like to associate these Benches with the protests that have just been made. There are nearly 50 pages of new amendments. They are extremely technical amendments. Apart from the grave discourtesy to the House and the great inconvenience to Members from all sides, some of these amendments must affect the interests of outside parties who have had no opportunity to examine them properly and make representations so that the debates might reflect their interests. It is a very unhappy situation indeed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not surprised that noble Lords have complained in what is, if I may say so, the most courteous of ways, about this array of amendments which has been tabled. I shall certainly be the first to apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and everyone else involved with the Bill. There are a lot of amendments and they have been tabled at a late hour.
Naturally one would not wish such a thing to have happened if only for the fact that understandably it gives rise to such great distress among noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is quite right to say that the buck stops with Ministers. Indeed it does. I take full responsibility for the fact that the amendments have been tabled so late. All I can say in mitigation is that, although they comprise a very substantial body of amendments, the majority of them are technical, drafting and consequential amendments.
1326
This is a complicated Bill and some of the amendments have arisen as a result of discussions with interested parties although, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, rightly said, the interested parties themselves have not seen them in final form. Nevertheless, they have arisen as a result of discussions.
It occurred to me to wonder whether it would be better to put down the amendments for Committee stage and receive the wrath of noble Lords or whether they should be left to Report stage. Because they are technical there is an advantage in tabling them at Committee stage. If noble Lords were to feel that it would be appropriate to put them into the Bill, there is the period of time between now and Report stage in which they and interested parties can make their representations, and there is an opportunity to adjust them again at Report.
The other alternative would have been not to have moved them and to have left them until Report. I rather fancy that I should have been castigated vigorously for bringing forward so many amendments at Report stage. Rightly or wrongly, I therefore decided to table the amendments now. I apologise to noble Lords for the inconvenience that this causes and I am even more sorry for the discourtesy which it implies.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 43 [Additional services]:
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 196A:
Page 41, line 36, leave out ("and") and insert:
("(bb) if it is a frequency on which a Channel 3 service or Channel 4 or Channel 5 service is provided, to the need for descriptive services to be provided in connection with programmes included in the service.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is tabled in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Constantine of Stanmore, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Birk and Lady Darcy (de Knayth). As the Committee will see from those names, this is an all-party amendment that enjoys support from all quarters of the Chamber. The amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 196C, 197A, 197D and 211ZA. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to these amendments as a group.
The amendments relate to some exciting technological developments in broadcasting which could enable 1 million blind people and perhaps several hundred thousand partially sighted people for the first time to enjoy television and new forms of access to the media generally. More than half of those blind and partially sighted people by the nature of their disability are housebound and therefore television and radio are of great importance to them. The technique that is being proposed for television is already employed in some theatres in the United Kingdom. The Royal National Institute for the Blind reports one theatregoer user saying:

1327
"Truly for the first time since I lost my sight, it has brought back the complete joy of coming to the theatre. I saw the play for myself".
It is against that background of human disability and human need that we move this group of amendments. We seek the Secretary of State's approval to protect part of the spare frequency capacity on the television signal, on the teletext signal, for these new developments as the Government have already done for the deaf with teletext sub-titling. The Government have already shown their sympathy to this general area of broadcasting policy.
We also believe that the Independent Television Commission (ITC), which will replace the IBA, should, like the IBA, give impetus to these developments by conducting urgent research and development in the interests of the deaf as regards broadcasting. All those developments, of which I shall speak in more detail in a moment, are already in practice on quite a substantial scale in the United States and Australia. I fully concede that there are still problems in adapting them to British broadcasting technology and there is need for urgency in that respect.
They are very dramatic developments. There are two separate technological practices involved. The first is what is called audio-description. It enables a blind person watching television to hear, through an electronic device that does not interfere with the other viewers in the household, a commentary that describes what is going on on the screen during the periods of silence when no dialogue takes place. I am told that it has worked remarkably effectively in the places where it has been practised. Audio-description can be provided by using the spare capacity within the TV signal. It is that aspect which I wish to stress in the amendments.
The second associated development, which is dealt with in Amendment No. 197A, offers the possibility of providing blind people with what I suppose might be called a digital daily newspaper. It offers the possibility of using the digital technology which is now the dominant technology in broadcasting for opening up media to the blind. In this case experiments are going on. For example, the Guardian newspaper has been running a pilot project for some time in which it transmits digitally to blind people the whole of the newspaper, using part of the TV signal.
The data can be received in audio, braille or in large print format. The transient braille display is particularly valuable to deaf/blind people, whose access to newspapers is very restricted indeed. The paper is transmitted on the day of issue. A typical issue of the Guardian or any quality newspaper is about 100,000 words, which take about an hour to broadcast. It is an exciting development, which gives blind people in the UK access to the full text of the day's newspaper. In the past, blind people have had to wait for weekly extracts on a cassette tape or to ask friends to read the paper to them, as, in the case of
1328
television programmes, they have had to rely on a friendly relative or neighbour telling them what is on the screen when the opportunity arises.
The new system allows blind people to skim through the paper in the way that you or I would do and to choose what they read. Indeed a search facility allows the user to skim through in less time than it would take a sighted person. This pilot scheme will run for six months. If it is successful it may be extended to three or four newspapers. Similar schemes are under development in other countries—Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, France and Italy. The digital daily newspaper is one example of the technological advances that rely on television air time to be broadcast.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to protect teletext from the competitive rigours of the market place. In these amendments we ask that the same power be extended to services for blind people as have already been extended to those who are deaf, so that they too can have access to the air waves which would otherwise be too costly.
The amendments have been tabled because we believe that it would be difficult for those valuable services for the disabled blind to compete against more commercially lucrative services. The Government have agreed that the Secretary of State should be able to set aside as much or as little spare capacity for teletext services as he chooses. We believe that he should be similarly empowered to set aside capacity for services for disabled people apart from the deaf.
The amendments have been drafted in order, first, to unveil to the wider world these very exciting new technological possibilities for those who suffer the great disability of blindness. But we have tried to draft them in an appropriate and modest way to give the Government the maximum flexibility. The Government will not seek to require the Secretary of State to do what is set out in the amendments. However, they will give the Government the option to act, and we very much hope that they will view them sympathetically. I beg to move.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: I wish to speak very briefly to the amendment. I do not wish to make the House tired of long, technical descriptions. Such descriptions are issued by the Royal National Institute for the Blind and are available to all who wish to read or study them. I am sure that they would be made available to any of the Members of this Committee who wished to study them.
For a moment I should like to speak of the human aspects of these amendments. I speak as a man whose wife has recently become blind. She is a woman who loved the colours of her garden, the joy of great visual art and the bright and living depth of modern colour television. Those are sadly now out of her reach and, although she can receive on her radio and follow some programmes on the television, television plays must be described to her to bring them more closely to her comprehension. Since 1984, in the United States, the American broadcast companies have used these

1329
descriptive radio commentaries to make life more pleasant and easier for people who are blind. I ask the Committee from a human point of view to support the amendments.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I too should like to give my very strong support to the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has made abundantly clear how modern technology, if used, can absolutely revolutionise the lives of the blind, the partially sighted, the deaf and the disabled. He has made quite clear how modern technology can be used through teletext.
As noble Lords may imagine, these amendments are very strongly supported by the Royal National Institute for the Blind, by Deaf Accord and by the Deaf Broadcasting Council, which have also stressed how, on an international basis, such modern technology is way ahead of ours. They point out that audio description has been used at the Cannes film festival and that the service is to be launched in France, Canada and Australia. This modern technology is currently used in the United States. There can be no doubt that the radio is a lifeline for the blind. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments and so enable the blind, through modern technology, to be increasingly included in this part of life and in such entertainment.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): As my name is attached to the amendment, I wish to add a few words of support. The exciting new technology has been vividly described by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and comprehensively covered by other Members of the Committee. The amendments are modest; they are allowing rather than requiring. They are important if we are to ensure that the blind and partially sighted can enjoy the benefits and advances of television technology.
Audio description will be uniquely for the blind. Digital information will be of great benefit to many other severely disabled people; for instance, those who cannot manipulate newspapers. In particular, I support Amendment No. 211ZA. It will allow the ITC to undertake research and development. At present Clause 64(5) discourages the ITC from undertaking research, but I believe that in this instance it would be the ideal body. Therefore, I support the amendments most strongly.
Lord Swinfen: I too strongly support the amendments. With an ageing population, there will be more blind people in our community for whom the services will become essential. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), I am attracted to Amendment No. 211ZA which encourages the commission to undertake or make arrangements for research. However, I am concerned that, if included in the Bill as it should be, the amendment will clash with Clause 64(5) (b), which states:
"The Commission shall secure that, so far as is reasonably practicable … any work carried out under arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (3) (a) is to a substantial extent financed by persons other than the Commission".
If the commission is not allowed to arrange some funding for such experimental work it may lapse. We
1330
should also bear in mind that successful research in this field may enable our commercial organisations to export the technology all over the world.
Lord Milverton: I too am happy with the amendments. I hope that the Government will support them. It is only right and proper that those who are blind, deaf or disabled should be helped to enjoy good programmes on radio and television.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): These amendments taken together require the ITC to undertake research to promote the access of disabled people to television broadcasting; to use spare capacity in order to provide services for disabled people; and, in particular, to use spare capacity in order to provide a descriptive service for blind and partially sighted people.
I am aware of the strength of feeling in the Committee about the need to give greater opportunity to people with disabilities. We have already had two debates in Committee—one relating to equal opportunities and the other relating to sign language provision—in which Members of the Committee strongly expressed their views on assisting people with disabilities to participate fully in society, in particular in regard to televised services.
Naturally, the Government are also sympathetic to the idea of extending television services to disabled people, and in particular to those with hearing or sight difficulties. Members of the Committee will be aware that on many occasions we have argued that BBC1, BBC2 and Channel 4 as public service broadcasters will continue to carry the full public service remit. That embodies the principle of promoting greater access to television services for every part of society, including those people with disabilities. These terrestrial services taken together win on average an audience of more than 60 per cent. of viewers.
Some Members of the Committee have argued, or may think, that there are some people who watch only ITV. Very few people ever watch only ITV; most people dip into all kinds of programmes on all channels. Therefore, the public service broadcasters' contribution to promoting access to television services for people with hearing and sight disabilities is no small contribution. Public service broadcasters are fully committed to providing services for those with disabilities.
But we have not stopped there. The Broadcasting Act 1981 contains no requirement in relation to programmes for the deaf. The Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 contains in Clause 7(2) (g) a requirement that cable services should include in the programmes matter which is calculated to promote the understanding or enjoyment of programmes by persons who are deaf. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, had a hand in bringing about that requirement.
Before the current Broadcasting Bill was published organisations representing the deaf and those who are hard of hearing made representations to the Home Office. I suspect that they were not overly optimistic.

1331
It is therefore, I believe, fair to say that they were both surprised and delighted when the first draft of the Bill contained in Clause 32 a requirement for Channels 3 and 5 licensees to provide subtitling. For the first time a statutory requirement specified that in the first year of the licence the licensees should provide 10 per cent. more hours of subtitling than was achieved on average by the ITV companies in the previous year. The ITC was thereafter to set a reasonable target for an increase in subtitling.
The organisations representing the deaf were, I believe, frankly amazed at what happened next. My honourable friend Mr. David Mellor looked again at the provision. He was concerned that, although offering the prospect of continuing improvement in the amount of subtitling in the future, the Bill did not go far enough in establishing a properly challenging objective. In order to set a more vigorous target for Channels 3 and 5 licensees he therefore announced that the Bill would be extended to require them to achieve subtitling of at least 50 per cent. of their programmes within five years and, thereafter, such additional subtitling as the ITC may consider it reasonable to require. Everyone recognises that those were major steps forward in ensuring that people who are deaf or hard of hearing can enjoy the broadcasting services.
I am sorry to have wearied the Committee with a long chronology of events but I wished to demonstrate that the Government have not taken a blasé attitude in relation to people with disabilities. On the contrary, we have taken steps to recognise services which provide a valuable aid to those with disabilities and we have sought to promote them. We shall continue to do so. But we need to draw a distinction between facilities which have a wide use and are operationally feasible and those which may become feasible and widely used in the future.
Subtitling is a technically feasible, operational, widely used and appreciated service. But other ways in which spare capacity on broadcast signals can be used are not all as well developed or widely used. I do not doubt that as technical developments continue to emerge there will be an ever widening set of uses to which the spare capacity on television broadcast signals can be put. The difficulty for the Government is that they do not know when these technical developments will have reached the stage where they will be operationally feasible, nor the extent to which the services that could be offered would be taken up. These amendments would effectively mean that certain parts of the spare capacity would have to be reserved for purposes which are not yet fully realisable and the demand for which is uncertain. They would pose a difficulty for the ITC in determining exactly how much spare capacity to hold in reserve.
That does not mean that we want to turn our back on these objectives. But there may be other ways of securing the same results. Amendment No. 196A would require spare capacity to be reserved for an audio descriptive service for blind or partially sighted people. As I understand it, this service, which is used
1332
on some stations in the United States, as my noble friend Lord Constantine informed the Committee, is provided on a separate sound signal on which an over-dubbed voice describes the visual images in order to assist blind or visually impaired people to appreciate the action. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, also told us about the development in theatres in the United Kingdom. It is not necessary for such a service to be carried on an additional sound track. At present there is a capability of transmitting, with the normal mono sound signal which all television sets are capable of receiving, an additional stereo signal which can be received by those television sets which have the stereo receiver capability. It is perfectly possible to use one of these two stereo signals, which are already technically operational, and which do not involve the use of spare capacity (since the stereo signal is part of the overall television service) to provide an audio descriptive service.
Indeed, this was the approach which was put forward in a letter from the Royal National Institute for the Blind to my honourable friend Mr. David Mellor at the Home Office. I am aware also that my noble friend Lord Constantine has corresponded with my noble friend Lord Ferrers on this subject. We have made it clear that there is nothing in the Broadcasting Bill which would prevent such services being provided, but we do not think that it would be right to require the stereo signal to be used in this way. Licensees themselves will wish to determine the extent to which they wish to use the stereo audio signal capability to send stereo sound in association with the television pictures. To the extent that they do not, they will of course be perfectly free to offer an audio descriptive service. Indeed, such a service might be to their commercial advantage since it would potentially gain the audiences of blind and partially sighted people who might not otherwise choose to listen to the programmes.
As regards the requirement for research specifically to promote access to disabled people, I do not think we need fear that there will be any cessation of research into the ways in which additional facilities can be built into television signals. The prospects for the future are exceedingly bright. In the future digital television could be a very real possibility, though regrettably not soon enough for it to be a real consideration in this Bill. Such a development could revolutionise the use to which the broadcasting spectrum could be put and open up a whole plethora of additional opportunities for broadcasting and ancillary services.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, made a point about digital daily newspapers. I am told that with the developments of digital television it will be possible without using any additional space on the broadcasting frequency spectrum to have one television picture superimposed on top of another. Think of the possibilities that will bring. It would be possible for those who wish to receive a sign language service simply to switch on the overlay picture, while those who did not wish to see it need not do so. But that is not yet available.

1333
Moreover, there may be other exciting new developments and initiatives coming along. But I do not believe that the ITC as a regulatory body ought to have the responsibility for research in this area. We can be certain that research can be conducted on a wide range of fronts in this country and elsewhere. I am sure there will be no shortage of ideas about how these developments can take place, and equally I am sure that licensees will wish to take advantage of all opportunities presented to them to expand their audience or to provide a better service to their audience. On that basis, I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that on balance we should not seek to make specific provision for services which are as yet not fully developed, but rather, as possibilities for services emerge, to enable licensees to consider how best to exploit to the full the potential that they offer.
I have listened very carefully to what has been said in this debate. Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber have characteristically, in contributing to the debate, demonstrated their commitment and concern towards helping people with disabilities. I expected nothing less.
Perhaps I may summarise the Government's position thus. I am unable to accept the precise wording of these amendments. They have minor drafting discrepancies which make it inappropriate for them to be accepted as they stand. I have indicated that I cannot accept the intention behind the amendments because I genuinely do not believe that they represent the best way forward. However, I certainly accept the spirit behind the amendments, which in essence is to promote greater access to television services for people with hearing and sight disabilities. I should like to take away the views which have been expressed and study them most carefully and consider how we might best make a provision in the Bill which would give effect to this highly commendable objective. If the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his amendment I shall give an undertaking to consider how best to accommodate the principle of greater access to television services for people with hearing and sight disabilities.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may enter a small plea. This is the first of a number of amendments. The Minister could have said what is important in five minutes. He has read a long and rather boring brief. We are in Committee. Perhaps Members of the Committee will make speeches rather than read prepared briefs, which is becoming a habit. What the noble Viscount said at the end is important and the noble Lord would have accepted that. Reading is one thing and speaking is another. We are in Committee. Let us have some speeches and not so much reading.
Viscount Ullswater: I much regret that I have upset the noble Baroness by the length of time I have taken to answer this amendment. I have always thought that the subject of disabilities is extremely well taken in this Chamber. It is a very serious subject on which anxiety has been expressed on a number of occasions. In
1334
reading from my brief, to which I must admit, I sought to demonstrate that the Government have taken on board those points, that they have done a great deal on the Broadcasting Bill and seek to do more.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I throw down my notes in deference to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I am sure that those of us who have laboured long and late on this Bill are very glad to welcome her to these proceedings. I hope that she will stay and take part in the debates.
Before I comment upon the noble Viscount's remarks, perhaps I may offer him my warm congratulations on his new appointment. We shall miss his presence in future broadcasting debates; but the habits of this Chamber being as they are, perhaps he will take that as part of his portfolio of responsibilities.
I thank the noble Viscount warmly for the care with which he responded to the amendments. For my part, I did not take amiss that he set out in chronological perspective the approach which the Government have taken as regards dealing with disability problems in relation to broadcasting. I sought to say in my opening remarks, although I said it briefly, that we recognised the Government's sympathy on this matter and in particular what they have done for the deaf in terms of teletext.
Having said that, I join issue with the noble Viscount on what I believe is the central thrust of his argument. I concede—and I know that this is a weakness in the position for which we are arguing—that in terms of successful technology British practice is still some way behind American practice. Work needs to be carried out on it. It is not ready to be put into operation immediately. Indeed, no Member of this Committee would wish to raise the expectations of those suffering from blindness by saying that something can be done quickly when it is not immediately available. Further research and work undoubtedly needs to be done, but not very much.
I disagree with the noble Viscount in two respects. Research and development, on which the IBA did notable work, concerning deafness and hearing difficulties needs positive and statutory support in terms of the looser arrangements for broadcasting regulation. To rely on the market place as the impetus for research is unsatisfactory.
The Royal National Institute for the Blind and many Members of the Committee are concerned that these new and specialist services are unlikely to be provided quickly if commercial profit is involved. The facilities and the spectrum are limited. There will be quicker, easier and surer ways of making a proper profit out of commercial broadcasting other than undertaking such innovative new techniques. It is for those reasons that we feel the blind need the special protection of the Government in terms of broadcasting policy and that there should be a provision included in the Bill.
Nevertheless, we appreciate the way in which the Minister has approached these matters. We appreciate that he shares our concern, though we may differ

1335
about the best ways of meeting that concern, and that the Government are ready to look at the matter further before Report stage. For my part, in the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 196B:
Page 41, line 43, after ("taken") insert ("for the purposes of this Part").
The noble Viscount said: It may be helpful to the Committee if, in moving Amendment No. 196B, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 197B, 197C, 203A, 204A, 204B, 205A, 207A, 234B, 302A, 302B, 304A, 304B, 305A and 305B. They are largely technical amendments intended to improve the drafting of the provisions.
Members of the Committee will wish to note particularly Amendment No. 197C to Clause 44, at page 42, line 36, and Amendment No. 302B to Clause 108, at page 90, line 24, which make clear that a person who is disqualified from holding an ITC or Radio Authority licence cannot be authorised by the licensee to provide a service as a sub-licensee.
The amendment to Clause 46, at page 44, line 44, makes clear that the exceptional circumstances provision may be used by the ITC in the context of more than one licence, so bringing the clause into line with Clause 17 in that respect.
The other amendments to Clause 46, and their radio equivalents, are intended to clarify the provisions relating to failure to provide a service. They make it clear that these provisions apply also where a sub-licensee fails to provide a service.
The amendments to Clauses 50 and 113 simply allow the ITC to specify a time limit within which a financial penalty has to be paid. The remaining amendments are drafting improvements. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 196C not moved.]
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 [Licensing of additional services]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 42, line 27, at end insert:
("(2A) In fulfilling their duty under subsection (2) above the Commission shall ensure that the licence to provide teletext services shall require the service to include news, sport, childrens pages, community services, pages for the deaf and consumer information to support programmes carried on Channels 3 and 4.").
The noble Lord said: When moving Amendment No. 197 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 206. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will speak to Amendments Nos. 198 to 201 and 203, which are grouped with this amendment.
Baroness Birk: Although the amendments are grouped with Amendment No. 197, as has been said, we can speak to them separately. It may make the task of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, easier if he is aware
1336
that I shall deal with the other amendments afterwards. They are a little outside the group and I shall not speak to them within the group.
Lord Swinfen: It may therefore be for the convenience of the Committee if we deal with my Amendments Nos. 197 and 206 only, as the noble Baroness obviously wishes to deal with her amendments separately. I appreciate that. Perhaps I may say that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, whose name is attached to Amendment No. 206, has asked me to make his apologies. He has been called from the Chamber.
The purpose of Amendment No. 197 is to ensure that the most important public service features currently carried on teletext are retained, especially those such as pages for children and deaf people which are likely to appeal to minority audiences and are therefore in the greatest danger of being cut.
I have been briefed for these amendments by Deaf Accord and the Deaf Broadcasting Council. It is obvious that they wish to ensure that information of particular importance to deaf and deaf/blind people is safeguarded. They are concerned that to minimise expenditure on the franchise, the franchise holder could reduce the number of services offered on teletext. Services to those small audiences could then he lost.
I understand that there are approximately 6.5 million teletext sets installed in this country-that is around 30 per cent. of households-and the number is rising rapidly. It is expected that by 1992 the number will rise to 9.6 million. I understand that some manufacturers are only making teletext services. I am a little in the dark on this because I do not have a teletext service.
I understand that Oracle provides 39 different services compared with Ceefax, which provides five, but that the number of lines given to teletext services in the future is likely to be much less. It is essential that those services are retained to provide a valuable service to the public. People who use teletext expect a comprehensive service. For many disabled and elderly people it is especially important; it is the only method by which they receive valuable information. Deaf people in particular greatly value the increased access to information that they are able to obtain through the service of teletext.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, mentioned this matter in his reply to a previous amendment. Therefore it would be invidious of me to speak for a long time on Amendment No. 197. Amendment No. 206 enables the ITC to refuse to renew a licence for the provision of teletext services if the present licence holder has failed, or is likely to fail, to provide services that are required under the licence conditions. The amendment would give the ITC power to refuse renewal of a licence if the conditions were not fulfilled. Those powers would be similar to the powers that the ITC has to refuse a licence for Channel 3 if it is satisfied that the applicant would not fulfil those requirements.

1337
If the Bill is amended to specify the types of services to be provided or some other form of quality threshold, it is important that the ITC is able in some way to ensure that the licensee fulfils the commitments made when bidding for the franchise. The amendment will enable the ITC to give the licence to another company when the licence comes up for renewal if the first company fails to fulfil its commitments. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I support the amendment, which was so clearly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The Broadcasting Consortium is anxious that the quality of these services should be maintained because of their great importance to the organisations that the consortium represents and the people with whom they work. The consortium wants to ensure that the information which is of particular importance is safeguarded. In order to minimise expenditure the franchise holder could reduce the number of services offered on teletext and those services with small audiences would be lost. That is the consortium's great fear.
It is a fact that another very vulnerable group in regard to teletext and the importance of maintaining quality is children. Market research has shown that children are the most avid users of teletext and it could therefore be an important educational tool. At present there are pages covering 20 different subjects for children, including pages on the news, wildlife and the environment. There is also an opportunity for children to write in and have their views expressed on children's teletext. It is therefore an important service for vulnerable groups and avid viewers such as children.
As regards community services, teletext pages currently include a community noticeboard which provides a free service for charitable groups and non-profit making community groups. It publicises events and fund-raising activities, and it seeks voluntary help. There is a similar service on environmental matters. I should very much like to see that service continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already mentioned the importance of the teletext service to the disabled, the deaf and the blind. In regard to consumer information, teletext provides support material for Channels 3 and 4. These programme-related services provide a necessary and useful adjunct to the television programmes themselves. They help to broaden and enhance viewers' understanding and enjoyment. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 197 and 206 are important and we on this side of the Committee support them.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I added my name to Amendment No. 197 and I meant it to be added to Amendment No. 206 but somehow it was left off. Most of the advantages of these amendments have already been comprehensively covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. However, it is worth stressing the importance of teletext for deaf children whose reading age is considerably lower than that of their hearing
1338
peers. Teletext can be read at your own speed, and, by becoming familiar with that, deaf children can become more adept at reading the more swiftly-moving subtitles.
The magazine programme for the deaf was mentioned. I watched "Earshot" yesterday. It is a 10-page magazine programme which is updated twice weekly. It gives national and international news, deaf news, job opportunities and training opportunities and draws attention to the fact that a video on the poll tax is available in sign language. I wholly support these amendments.
Lady Kinloss: I support Amendment No. 197 in particular. There are about 11,000 people in Britain who are both deaf and blind. They cannot obtain access to information very easily. They cannot read regular newspapers, watch television or listen to the radio. In this respect I quote the Deaf Broadcasting Council:
"However there are a growing number of deaf-blind people who are able to access teletext services using a microcomputer controlled tuning device, and process them through a special braille computer called a Versebraille. Thus they read the information on teletext in braille.
Deaf-blindness is a very isolating handicap. For those who can neither see nor hear but want to live as independently as possible, having access to instant, reliable up-to-date information is invaluable".
I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), in regard to deaf children finding that they can read teletext pages at their own speed and thereby gain confidence in reading what is on the television screen—a skill that they rely on so much with subtitles. It can also help with education.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): I understood that we were discussing these amendments as a group, and perhaps the remarks I make can be taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, as covering the points that she may want to make. I leave her to make that decision.
Lord Winstanley: I should like to be clear as to what precisely we are doing. I understood from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that she intended to move her amendments in this group later and that we would debate them separately. Does that have the agreement of the Committee? Those amendments are in the names of the noble Baroness and myself. Are we to debate them separately after we have dealt with the present amendment or does the Minister propose that we deal with them together?
Baroness Birk: Perhaps I should explain the position. The amendments in my name are different from the other amendments in the group. I do not know how they came to be grouped together. However, the list of groupings states clearly that it is,
"open to any Peer to speak to an amendment in its place in the Marshalled List".
It would probably cause confusion to include these amendments with those moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Moreover, it would be a little odd if I were to be given an answer to something I have not yet said.
Lord Swinfen: I agree with the noble Baroness. Clearly the Government, when preparing their briefs, should prepare answers to each of the amendments even if they wish, for their own convenience, to group them together. With the greatest respect to the powers that be, nobody ever troubles to telephone us to find out our views. Most of us are doing other work during the day and only come to the Chamber for Bills, or parts of them, in which we are specifically interested.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Members of the Committee are allowed to speak to any amendment that they move at the appropriate moment. I thought that it would be convenient for the Committee to hear my answer to the amendment moved as it might colour the views of those who wish to move later amendments. It would then be up to them.
I am pleased to be able to tell my noble friend that the Government broadly accept the principle behind this set of amendments. We will bring forward suitable government amendments at Report stage. That applies to all amendments in the group: Amendments Nos. 197, 198 to 201, 203 and 206.
We amended the Bill in another place to safeguard the position of a public teletext service under the additional services regime. The place for such a service is now protected by Clause 44(2). In making that amendment our intention was to ensure the continuation of a service with the same general characteristics as the present Oracle service, though not necessarily provided by Oracle. Since then, concern has been expressed that in the absence of positive regulation requirements as to the nature of the service it might not provide a wide range of information services in the way that Oracle does now. The fear was that it might instead provide specialist information services or consist largely of services other than information.
I have to say that the Government are not overwhelmed by the force of these arguments. Many of the public service features of teletext—news, travel reports, and so on—would, I suggest, continue to be provided in the absence of regulatory obligations simply because they are highly valued by viewers. However, the Government accept that there can be no certainty that services of that kind would be provided in the absence of regulation. For that reason we have concluded that it would be right to lay down some positive requirements for public teletext services.
Specifically, we propose that the Bill should require the service to include high quality news, including international news, and other information services, including regional information, and catering for a wide variety of interests. Those requirements are broadly in line with what has been proposed by the IBA. Taken together, they should ensure the continuation of a service which is recognisable to viewers of Oracle and Ceefax. We made clear that the amount of spare capacity to be allocated to a teletext service has yet to be determined and will be subject to careful consideration. These proposals do not imply that the public teletext service would occupy a greater proportion of the spare capacity of Channels 3 and 4 than we previously envisaged.
1340
My noble friend Lord Swinfen mentioned children's programmes, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I doubt whether a requirement to provide material for children is justified. I am interested in what they said and I shall look at what has been said. The provision of suitable programming for children has already been safeguarded by the addition which the Government made in another place to the quality threshold for Channels 3 and 5.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, also asked about high-quality programming. The requirements that we are proposing, taken together, should ensure the continuation of a service of comparable quality to that currently provided by Oracle. I doubt that a general requirement to provide high quality programming would add anything. Indeed it is hard to see what such a requirement would mean in practical terms in the context of a teletext service.
The operation of the quality threshold will be the same as for Channels 3 and 5 under our proposals. We intend that the winning applicant's proposals will be written into his licence and his performance against those promises will be monitored by the ITC. I withdraw my reference to Amendment No. 202 because I understand that it no longer exists although I have not checked.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden for his response to my two amendments. I shall read what he has said with great interest. I look forward to seeing the amendments that he will be putting down in due course. I still reserve my right to table my amendments again. I may not like his amendments, although I suspect that his amendments will be better drafted than mine. I shall wait to see. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 197A not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 197B and 197C:
Page 42, line 35, leave out ("other person") and insert ("person to whom this subsection applies").
Page 42, line 36, at end insert:
("(4A) Subsection (4) applies to any person who is not a disqualified person in relation to an additional services licence by virtue of Part II of Schedule 2 to this Act.").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to these two amendments with Amendment No. 196B. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 197D not moved.]
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Applications for additional services licences]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 43, line 22, at end insert ("and
(iii) where the licence is for the provision of the teletext service, that the licence is for the provision of that service;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 199, 200, 201 and 203. As I believe the noble Lord,

1341
Lord Swinfen, accepts, these amendments are different from the amendment which he will move, I hope successfully, on Report. It is not because I do not want my amendments to be grouped with his but because I do not believe that the subject matter fits very easily with his amendment.
The first of these amendments requires the ITC to indicate to applicants that a separate teletext service is to be provided on an additional service licence. The insertion of this provision would avoid any confusion because it would ensure that a teletext provider is licensed for that service only and that a separate licence will be required for any other form of broadcasting service.
The amendment forces the ITC to make specific provision for teletext services as opposed to the language of the Bill which permits subtitling and other services. Amendments Nos. 199, 200 and 201 together provide public service broadcasting requirements for teletext services. Teletext is now received in a significant and increasing number of television homes. It is no longer a minority and purely supplementary service.
Therefore, we believe that it is now appropriate to subject teletext services to the same public service broadcasting requirements as those that apply to all other services transmitted on terrestrial television. These requirements comprise: first, a sufficient amount of high-quality national and international news and current affairs programmes; secondly, a sufficient amount of other high-quality programming; thirdly, programmes appealing to a variety of tastes and interests; and, fourthly, a sufficient amount of regional material.
Existing teletext services can and should continue to comply with these requirements. In the other place there was some confusion as to whether the Bill's other quality control requirements apply to teletext. This matter is dealt with in Hansard at cols. 589 and 874. These amendments make it absolutely clear that teletext services are required to be of the same standard as other TV services and provide a safeguard against a lowering of standards and any use of less savoury material. It is very important that this provision should be on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 203 retains the full exceptional circumstances provision for additional licences. Clause 46(4) (a) omits the cross-reference to that part of Section 17 which has the effect of defining and explaining the meaning of exceptional circumstances in which a licence could be awarded to other than the highest bidder. There is no reason why the full definition of exceptional circumstances should not apply to additional services' licences.
For those reasons paragraph (a) should be deleted and a cross-reference to Section 17(4) should consequently be retained. I appreciate that in detail these appear to be rather complicated amendments but, taken as a whole, I believe that the objective is quite clear. It is to maintain the standard of the
1342
teletext services and also to ensure that licences are granted only for them and do not apply to other broadcasting requirements. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: As my name is attached to these amendments perhaps I may say a word or two, but not too many. It is my understanding of the Minister's earlier remarks that, broadly speaking, he accepted these amendments and he was going to take them away and return with something to the same effect. If that is the case then perhaps the less I say the better lest he should subsequently change his mind.
Baroness Birk: I do not know whether I am mistaken. I thought the Minister said that he would accept the two groups of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. He began to explain why he was not so happy about these amendments. If I am wrong I shall be delighted to be put right.
Lord Goodman: Perhaps I may—
Lord Winstanley: I am sorry, but I was speaking and the noble Baroness intervened. I believe that the noble Baroness is wrong and will subsequently he delighted. I believe that the Minister will confirm what he said a few moments ago. Without amendments of this kind there is no guarantee that the kind of teletext service that a very large number of people—6.8 million people at some personal cost—are now receiving will continue as it is. As a result of market forces if nothing else, there is no guarantee that that service will remain substantially the same. The Minister said earlier that most of the provisions will continue. He said that the news will continue. I remind him that the news service is, without doubt, the most expensive part of a teletext service. The news service would be in jeopardy if the provision was left purely to market forces and if there were no kind of prescription whatever.
The national commercial teletext service currently available on ITV on Channel 4 operates profitably, efficiently and continues to expand and develop. The rules governing the allocation of the net teletext franchise expose viewers to the danger of a severe curtailment of the service. That is what we think. The Minister does not wholly accept that there is that danger but I assure him that there probably is. I hope I am right in thinking that he said that the Government are aware of the difficulties.
At an earlier stage in another place the Government made it clear that they wished to see a commercial public teletext service provided broadly along the present lines. That is not likely to happen unless there are certain consequential amendments. The amendments before us are those consequential amendments but I should be grateful for any other consequential amendments from the Government Benches. I hope that the noble Lord will presently tell me that I was right in my understanding of what he said to the Committee a little earlier.
Lord Goodman: I must apologise. One thing is not yet obvious. If one suffers from a disability which makes it difficult to get to one's feet, one has very little chance of speaking in this Chamber.

1343
I came here this afternoon with one object only. I was skilfully and successfully lobbied by what I may call the teletext lobby. It persuaded me that it had a good case. The Minister made an encouraging remark about his intention to embody the substance of various amendments. I want to ask whether that undertaking extends to all the four conditions contained in Amendment No. 141.
Lord Swinfen: I support the amendments. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that I shall always be delighted to be grouped with her.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: This has been a useful exchange. I thank the noble Baroness for moving the amendment and for making clear her concerns. I shall want to look closely at what she has said when we come to produce our own amendments for Report stage. I repeat my commitment that we are accepting the principle behind this set of amendments. That covers all the amendments and all parts of them. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, asked me a direct question. Yes, indeed, we shall look most carefully at those points. My noble friend Lord Ullswater informed the Committee on 11th July that the Government intended to bring that teletext service within the consumer protection requirements in the advertising provisions in Clauses 6 and 9 of the Bill. That is only half the story. The other half has to be dealt with by amendments which we wish to bring forward at Report.
I shall make one further comment at this stage. Exceptional circumstances will apply but we are not planning to introduce an equivalent to Clause 17(4). That is simply because that provision bites on the quality test. As has been explained before, that test does not really work for teletext.
I shall read carefully what the noble Baroness has said. The spirit of her amendments and of the amendments moved by my noble friend will be taken into account in the amendments that we bring forward at Report stage.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for that very good and quite unexpected news. I owe the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, an apology. However, I thought it was important to get the matter in detail on the record. I understand that the Government will bring forward amendments at Report to deal with the hardships explained by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and that they are accepting the public service implications of my amendments. If that is so, I thank the Minister and eagerly await what the Government bring forward. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Procedure to be followed by Commission in connection with consideration of applications for, and awarding of, licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 199 to 201 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 202 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 44, line 44, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("the provisions of subsection (4) down to the end of paragraph (b)").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 196B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No.
Page 44, line 45, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 46.
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 204A and 204B:
Page 45, line 6, leave out from second ("that") to ("or") in line 7 and insert ("none of the services in question will be provided once the licence has come into force,").
Page 45, line 9, leave out from first ("that") to end of line 10 and insert ("none of those services will be so provided,").
The noble Viscount said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No.205:
Page 45, line 12, leave out ("revoke the licence,") and insert ("serve on him a notice revoking the licence as from the time the notice is served on him,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 135. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 205A:
Page 45, line 17, leave out ("he will not provide the services in question") and insert ("none of the services in question will be provided").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Duration of licences, and renewal of licences for provision of services on assigned frequencies]:
[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 47, line 47, leave out from ("holder") to end of line 3 on page 48.
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Enforcement of additional services licences]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 207A:
Page 48, line 18, after ("pay") insert (", within a specified period,").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 196B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [The Welsh Authority: Supplementary Provisions]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 207B:
Page 162, leave out lines 20 and 21.
The noble Viscount said: This amendment removes the disqualification in paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 on members of the Welsh Authority being members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Broadcasting Act 1931 allowed members of S4C to be Members of the House of Commons or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Since S4C is to be supported by moneys voted by Parliament under the Bill, we considered that there was a possible conflict of interest between membership of the Welsh Authority and membership of the House of Commons. However, on reflection we see no conflict of interest between membership of the Welsh Authority and membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it is reconstituted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Requirements to be complied with in relation to S4C programmes]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 208 and 209:
Page 50, line 23, leave out ("and") and insert:
("(cc) that due responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of any of its programmes which are religious programmes, and that in particular any such programmes do not involve—

(i) any improper exploitation of any susceptibilities of those watching the programmes, or

(ii) any abusive treatment of the religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination; and").

Page 50, line 35, leave out from ("policy") to end of line 37.
The noble Lord said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 [Advertising on S4C]:
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 51, line 18, leave out ("that connection") and insert ("respect of such matters").
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 210 is a minor drafting improvement to Clause 55(3), in line with similar amendments to other advertising clauses in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Requirements relating to transmission of Channels 3, 4 and 5 and S4C]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 210A:
Page 54, line 13, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment is purely a drafting one. It reflects the fact that there will he only one licence to provide Channel 4 in force at any one time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Certain receipts of Commission to be paid into Consolidated Fund]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 54, line 41, leave out ("or forfeited to them under section 18") and insert ("to them by virtue of section 18(7)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 211, which was spoken to with Amendment No. 209.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 64 to 66 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 211ZA not moved.]
Clause 67 [Local delivery services]:
[Amendment No. 211A not moved.]
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Licensing of local delivery services]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 211AA:
Page 57, line 32, leave out ("the services in question are to be provided") and insert ("such licences authorise the provision of such services").
The noble Viscount said: This minor amendment is simply a drafting improvement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 211B:
Page 58, line 3, leave out ("other person") and insert ("person to whom this subsection applies").
The noble Viscount said: With this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 211C, 211D and 217B.
The first two amendments—that is, Nos. 211B and 211C—to Clause 68 are intended to make clear that a person who is disqualified from holding a local delivery licence by virtue of Part II of Schedule 2 cannot be authorised by the licensee to provide a service as a sub-licensee. The third amendment, No. 211D, is a drafting improvement to clarify that any licence conditions apply also to any sub-licensee.
Amendment No. 217B to Clause 71 fulfils a commitment made by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place. It makes clear that the exceptional circumstances provision could apply where an applicant for a local delivery licence was offering to provide a service covering a substantially greater area than the highest bidder. I beg to move Amendment No. 211B.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 211C and 211D:
Page 58, line 5, at end insert:
("(5A) Subsection (5) applies to any person who is not a disqualified person in relation to a local delivery licence by virtue of Part II of Schedule 2 to this Act.").
Page 58, line 7, leave out ("any such provision of a local delivery service") and insert ("the provision of the licensed service to any extent").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 211C and 211D, to which I spoke with Amendment No. 211B.
Baroness Birk: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 217B.
Viscount Ullswater: I do not know if I can help the Committee, but I sought to group that with Amendment No. 211 B and I spoke to it.
Baroness Birk: The specific matter on which I wanted to speak was Amendment No. 217B. As I understand it, that defines the exceptional circumstances in relation to cable services as being when the applicant's technical plan proposes to cover a substantially greater area than the highest bidder. Exceptional circumstances for the Channel 3 applicant are defined as a service of substantially or exceptionally higher quality, but this amendment implies that the greater the potential audience the better the service. I do not think that that follows.
The intention seems to be to encourage cable services to undertake the connection of a greater number of households. It does not mean that the quality of service provided to the public will be better. If this is so, why are the Government not applying a similar test of exceptional circumstances as the definition of substantially or exceptional higher quality for Channel 3 licences? If the number of houses cabled up may be the key to securing a licence, do the Government accept that the viewers in that area will probably have to accept a lower quality bid?
Recently Oftel criticised the existing cable franchise holders for not fulfilling their plans for households as promised. This amendment seems to be a rather curious way of encouraging the connection of cable services to the public.
The key problem for the cable operators has been lack of investment in the infrastructure. As the recent OFTEL report criticised the failure of the existing cable operators to fulfil their agreed targets for cabling, do the Government have any evidence to confirm that the technical plans for coverage proposed for new local delivery licence will be met in practice? Could the Minister tell us what proportion or number of homes in any cable district would be regarded as substantially greater in order to secure successfully a local delivery licence in exceptional circumstances?
This amendment may achieve an increase in the number of houses cabled up, but it is certainly marginal to the broader financial problems of the cable sector and also to the reliance on stability of quality. I therefore object to it.
Viscount Ullswater: The difference between the Channel 3 regions and the cable areas is that the
1348
regions cover the whole countryside; the cable areas do not. The noble Baroness almost answered her own question by saying that there had been a distinct lack of investment. The coverage is the main issue here. It would be possible for a cable operator to cable up a very densely populated area and bid a higher price than it would if it had to extend that cabling to include outlying areas.
That was the exceptional circumstance that was considered. It was considered as an amendment to the Bill in another place. In my original remarks I sought to say that it fulfilled a commitment that had been made by my honourable friend the Minister in another place. The technical quality of the services will still be regulated by Oftel.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for that reply. I heard him say before that there had been a commitment, but, as we are examining the Bill now, naturally we are not bound by that ourselves in Committee at this moment. As he quite rightly said, I also pointed out the cash problem and the problem of setting up an infrastructure. However, it makes it all the more worrying to try to solve the problem that way because it does not solve the problem and may result in a wrong definition of better quality. According to the Bill, it appears to depend on greater coverage. If, as the Minister agrees, there appears to be a scarcity of cash with regard to cabling, the only result will be cheaper and worse programmes.
Viscount Ullswater: I sought to stress that that would not be the case. Coverage is an important factor and cannot be considered in the same way when one talks about a Channel 3 licence. The application procedure will not relate to programme quality. I sought to demonstrate that point.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 [Applications for local delivery licences]:
Lord Rees Lord Rees moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 58, line 31, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A),").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 213. Both amendments stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth. In so doing, I should declare an interest as a director of a company that has been awarded a cable television or local delivery franchise.
As the Committee is no doubt well aware, Clause 69 provides that the commission shall, among other things, specify the fee payable by an applicant on any application for a franchise for a local delivery service and a percentage of the qualifying revenue for each accounting period that would be payable by an applicant under Clause 72 if he were successful and were granted a licence. The commission is empowered but is not obliged by Clause 69(2) to specify different percentages for different accounting periods and may even specify a nil percentage in relation to any accounting period. However, that is absolutely in its

1349
discretion. It is not mandatory that it should specify a nil percentage and I am told that it will be difficult to challenge its determination in the courts.
Or present experience, it takes a considerable period before the large investment needed to cable the houses in a franchise area and to connect them with, for example, a telephone system can be recouped. Not to put too fine a point on it, there may be losses for some years. It seems to me and to other of my noble friends that the Bill does not adequately provide for that. If it is sensitive, the commission may fix a small annual percentage, but it is a prospective determination. It is not obliged to fix any particular percentage and, so far as I can see, it has no power to alter the percentage retrospectively if, as events unfold, the percentage proves to be unduly demanding of the applicant.
The point of the amendments is to ensure that a nil percentage operates for any period when the qualifying revenue defined in the Bill would be insufficient to provide a proper return on the initial capital costs of embarking on this expensive undertaking. If the Government were not minded to accept the amendments, the consequences would be as follows. First, many people would be deterred from tendering at all. It must narrow the field. Secondly, it might deter applicants from installing a wide range of services for the householders. On one of the previous amendments only a few moments ago the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to doubts about proper investment in the infrastructure. Again, that might be a consequence if the Government took too harsh a view. Finally and paradoxically, it might even lead the commission, if it were in a sensitive frame of mind, to fix too low a percentage so as to cover the possibility that there might be a loss in certain years. As I said, there might even be a loss to the public revenue.
My noble friend the Minister is well known for his courtesy and fairness and will, I am sure, see the point of these modest amendments. I hope that he will see that justice is done and accept them. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: I should like to support my noble friend in his moving of the amendment. In doing so, I too declare an interest. I am chairman of a cable company.
Speaking to the previous amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, quite rightly suggested that there had been a great reluctance on the part of investors to invest in cable and the cable industry in general, which had held up the advance of this new and exciting industry. However, things have changed rapidly. We now have a great deal of investment, the major portion of it coming from North America and Canada. The cable industry is now poised and ready to give great service to the country, not only in the narrow sphere of television programmes but in the many services that will emanate from the introduction of the cable industry into our country.
As my noble friend said, the purpose of the amendments is to give confidence to the cable industry. It has lacked confidence. We need to
1350
encourage it. Through legislation, we need to give it a go-ahead and not in any way hold it back. If the amendments are accepted the cable industry will receive considerable encouragement; so I have great pleasure in supporting them.
Earl Ferrers: I understand the concern behind my noble friend's amendment. He wants to ensure that local delivery operators are not required to pay a percentage of their revenue during their early years before they have moved into profit. That is an understandable and perfectly honourable position to take. I sympathise with that aim. That is why the Bill enables the Independent Television Commission—exceptionally in the case of local delivery licences—to set the percentage of qualifying revenue at nil for any specified years.
Before advertising franchises, the ITC will no doubt estimate the financial prospects of the future franchise holder. It will therefore have a good idea of the time that it will take him to move into profit. That forecast will be important when the ITC comes to set the minimum price. The ITC will be guided in the use of its discretion to set that price at nil for a certain period by its general duty in Clause 2 to discharge its functions so as to ensure that there is a wide range of services available throughout the United Kingdom. There will clearly be a strong case to set the percentage at nil for the period before the franchise holder could be expected to move into cumulative profit.
However, I see difficulty in taking the further step proposed by my noble friend which will require the ITC to set the percentage at nil during that period. The problem is one of timing. The minimum licence price will be set at the point at which the franchise is advertised. At this stage, the ITC may be able to forecast the financial prospects of the eventual franchise holder, but it will not know them for certain, so it would be unable to comply with a requirement of the kind that my noble friend proposes.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that potential applicants will be aware of the minimum licence price before they make their applications. If the ITC were to set unrealistic figures, there would be no applicants and the ITC would need to reconsider the terms of the advertisement. That would therefore be an effective check on unreasonable behaviour by the ITC. I believe that my noble friend seeks to enable the ITC to offer a licence to a variety of applicants who will know the conditions when they make their offer. The ITC may anticipate a nil percentage of qualifying revenue for the first few years. Out of the various applicants, one will be given the licence. When he finds that he has not moved into a state of profit by the time the first qualifying revenue is required, my noble friend wants the ITC to say, "Oh dear, you have not moved into profit. You need not pay any qualifying revenue this year". That would not be appropriate because the licensee will have obtained his licence in open competition with others.
There are further complications. If we were to accept the amendments other parts of the Bill would be affected. If, as my noble friend suggests, the ITC were obliged to set the qualifying revenue at nil for

1351
local delivery operators until they come into a state of profit, one might ask why that should apply only to local delivery operators. Why should it not apply also to television and radio licensees? Those affected by other parts of the Bill will understandably say, "If local delivery operators do not have to pay the qualifying revenue until they are in a position of profit, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why should that not be the case for us as well"?
I understand my noble friend's position and what he seeks to achieve. When he looks at the matter, I hope that he will realise that he is asking for a change in the Bill's underlying philosophy.
Lord Rees: My noble friend has not fallen short of his normal standard of courtesy, but he has, if he will allow me to say so, fallen short of his normal standard of perceptive appreciation of what is being moved. I am not asking for any favours for any one applicant. All applicants will be tendering on the same basis—all in the knowledge that if for any year they were unable to recoup their capital outlay, a nil percentage would be specified. There would be fairness. I take his point about the provision spilling over into other parts of the Bill. I have to say, I hope with suitable diffidence and humility, that it may be that other parts of the Bill deserve closer consideration, but it is not for me to suggest that to my noble friend.
If my noble friend were to reflect a little longer—I know that he has given great thought to every part of the Bill, and we have admired his mastery of a complex subject—and say that he and I might possibly have words before we reach Report stage, I should be disposed to withdraw the amendment. I hope that he will be able to accommodate me to that extent. I hope I do no injustice to him, and I do not want to sound discourteous, but it seems to me that his brief may well have been drafted by his devoted officials who have not fully grasped the point that I was endeavouring to make, however lamely.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend never makes a point lamely. I entirely understand the point that he has made. If he has not understood what I said, that was no doubt the part of my speech that was not drafted by my officials but to which I gave vent myself.
I shall be delighted to speak to my noble friend about this issue because I do not want to misunderstand him. I want to make the point—to make it clear that I have understood this aright—that when a person applies to the ITC for a local delivery operator's licence, there might be a number of applicants. Part of the process will include the knowledge that there might, for instance, be a three-year period when no qualifying revenue will be payable. All applicants will know that in advance, and it is upon that that they will base their applications.
Out of six or 10 applications, one applicant will receive the licence. I believe that my noble friend is saying that when that one person has the cherry, as it were, he will begin to operate his licence, and if at the end of three years he is not in profit, of course he will
1352
not have paid the qualifying revenue fee. However, if in the fourth year he also finds that he is not in profit, perhaps as a result of bad management or whatever, my noble friend is saying that the ITC should be able to say to him, "You are not in profit so you need not pay the revenue this year". It would be difficult to maintain that position when that person has tendered against other applicants. I shall of course take into account what my noble friend has said. If I have it wrong and if he wishes to see me, I shall be delighted.
Lord Morris: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may be impertinent and suggest that there is a mischief in it in that the ITC's power to set a percentage must, in principle, not be mandatory but discretionary. His amendment provides that the setting of the nil percentage be mandatory. That is a mischief. Perhaps he will be good enough to consider that point before he brings back the matter on Report.
Lord Rees: Perhaps I may correct one point. It would be mandatory only for whoever tendered and whose application was successful in the event of him being unable to recoup, by a fairly rigid definition, his capital outlay. In view of the courteous words of my noble friend the Minister and in the hope that we may be able to find common ground before Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 213 not moved.]
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 213A:
Page 58, line 38, at end insert:
("(aa) the applicant's proposals for providing a service that would comply with the requirement specified in section 70(1) (c)").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 215A and 217A. The three amendments seek to apply a relevant quality threshold to the allocation of local delivery licences. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on a previous amendment discussed the Government's view of what created exceptional circumstances in terms of the quality of the application of a local delivery licence. It appeared at that point that the Government's main criterion was the size of the area for which the applicant was prepared to bid.
The amendments seek to apply qualitative criteria in terms of the quality of the service that the local delivery operator will bring to bear in the area that he serves. Taken together they, first, stipulate that an applicant must include programmes for local programming in the application to the ITC for a licence.
Amendment No. 215A requires the ITC to include those proposals for local programming in the information about the application which must be published. The third amendment stipulates that the ITC cannot consider any application which does not include those proposals.
I know as well as any one the difficulties that the development of cable systems in this country has faced, how sluggish that development has been, and

1353
how, despite the Government's pride in the creation of an enterprise economy, the only enterprise that has begun to get cable moving has been achieved by inviting American entrepreneurs to do the job. What concerns us on this side of the House is that there is a tremendously important and absolutely vital opportunity open to those who hold local delivery licences; that the provision of local programming. All the evidence of broadcasting in this country has shown that there is a great thirst for purely local programming. In the case of television and terrestrial television, technology has made the development in a small area rather difficult, though it is possible that some of the difficulties may be overcome by technology.
Cable offers the opportunity for genuinely local programming. It ought, in our view, to be an essential condition of enjoying one of these local delivery licences. A number of the present operators already provide local programming in one way or another to some degree. For example, Aberdeen Cable currently runs an access channel, with all the programming being produced by local non-profit-making organisations. Swindon, Coventry and Clyde, to take a wide geographical range, also provide local programming produced by local organisations.
I was interested to note the comment made by Richard Dunn, the current managing director of Thames Television and chairman of the ITV Association. He cut his teeth originally in his broadcasting career in Swindon. Recently, in connection with his early experience of Swindon, he said:
"I think that the government would be wise to make a condition of cable franchises, that there is some facility for local community programming. That there are community organisation facilities, and that there is requirement on the cable operator to provide that and to encourage local people to participate. I think without that it is probable it won't happen in most areas".
That is, without statutory encouragement. It is that statutory encouragement that these amendments seek to bring about. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Birk: I support the amendments dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. He explained them all so clearly that I do not wish to rehearse it all again. I wish to stress that Amendment No. 213A, which he moved clearly and powerfully, concerns local programming, which is enormously important, and we have heard in previous amendments of some of the financial problems that cable companies have had. It is possible to rely on syndicated national or even international satellite to cable channels. It can be less expensive both in money and personnel to take these programmes rather than to introduce local programming. However, curiously enough, cable is a particularly useful potential medium for providing local programming unless commercial pressures cause operators to prefer syndicated material.
I agree with the noble Lord that if one is to bring this about, it is no good just expressing pious hopes and trying to bring them into the Bill, which would be
1354
quite wrong. The provision needs to be built in. When we look at the provisions in the Bill we should be concerned not with profits for the operators but service to the viewers. That means that the viewer receives a better quality and more interesting service if local programming is built into the Bill. I entirely agree with everything the noble Lord said on Amendments Nos. 215A and 217A and I hope that the Government will accept them.
Earl Ferrers: As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, explained, his amendments would introduce a discretionary procedure for the award of local delivery franchises by the Independent Television Commission. The noble Lord moved Amendment No. 213A and we are discussing Amendments Nos. 213A, 215, 215A, 216, 217A and 219A. Under Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 the Independent Television Commission would have to choose between applicants on the basis of criteria relating to programming and technical matters and the response by applicants to any comments which had been made by the public on their original proposals. There would be no cash bid under this procedure. Under the other amendments the extent to which local programming was provided would be important.
As the Bill stands, applicants would first have to satisfy the ITC about their technical competence and their business plans. That would be a first prerequisite. The licence would then, other than in exceptional circumstances, be awarded to the applicant who had submitted the highest cash bid. This strikes us as a fair and open way of allocating local delivery licences.
The regulatory system under the Bill deliberately distinguishes between the person who provides the service—that is, the cable or local delivery operator; for example, Swindon Cable or Westminster Cable—and the person who provides the programmes; for example, Sky or Vision Channel. This was a deliberate departure from the present regime in recognition of the fact that the cable industry has developed in such a way that the cable operator does not, with limited exceptions, have much editorial control over the programmes which he carries. In the main, he simply retails programme services which are provided by others.
Local delivery operators will essentially offer viewers a convenient means of receiving a wide range of channels, most of which would be available to them by other means such as satellite. The range of channels which different applicants would propose to carry would be unlikely to differ significantly from them. As such, it would be difficult for the Independent Television Commission to make a sensible discretionary judgment based solely on programming criteria.
I also doubt whether a requirement to provide local programming would be apt against this commercial background. Local programming has proved to be extremely popular where it has been provided. I have little doubt that it will continue, and indeed grow and improve in quality, over the coming years. An operator will be successful only if he provides the mix

1355
and range of programming which the viewer likes and values. However, this should be a commercial decision for him and not a matter for the regulator.
I acknowledge that the criteria which are proposed by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness draw on similar discretionary powers in the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 for the award of cable franchises. However, I do not think that I am giving away any secrets if I say that the cable authority has not found it possible to give as much weight to programming criteria as to other considerations in reaching its decisions. The authority has, quite properly, found it appropriate to take careful account of whether applicants have the technical and financial resources to build a cable network. In constructing this Bill, we have learnt from the authority's experiences and have expressly provided in the Bill that the ITC should have to satisfy itself on these matters. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, will see the reason why we have put it in the Bill.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I fully follow the Government's reasoning and I am not surprised by what the Minister said. However, the Government are missing a great opportunity with the new Broadcasting Bill to take a fresh look at the cable situation. I teased the noble Earl sitting on the Government Bench a little about the fact that the enterprise economy and cable had to await American enterprise coming in. Nevertheless, it has come in. Cable is said to be on the move. The chairman of the Cable Authority told me the other day that he was happy, now that he is about to give up office towards the end of the year, that he will leave two-thirds of the households in Britain, I think he said, within reach of franchises that have been awarded to licensees. Whether the transmitters will be erected and at what pace is of course another matter.
There is the opening of a fresh chapter—those who believe in cable believe it is a fresh chapter—in the development of cable. I should have thought that that fresh chapter offered the opportunity to enhance the range of services that are available to people on their television screens. However, I keep saying that it does not matter tuppence to the ordinary viewer how the programme reaches his screen or whether it is from the BBC, ITV, Channel 3, BSB or Sky. It is the nature of the programme that is important to him.
Cable offers an opportunity for a much wider range of programmes than is possible with the terrestrial system. The Minister conceded that local programming is popular programming. If it is properly done, it should also be profitable programming. However, the truth is that it is too easy for cable local delivery operators, faced with the kind of commercial pressures that they are under, simply to become, as the Minister has said, retailers of syndicated services from the outside world.
It is a great pity that the Government are content to leave the matter like that. Under the current cable legislation I understand that, although it is not obligatory to have local programming as part of a package, many of those who apply for these licences
1356
have in perfectly good faith put forward propositions for running local programming. However, under commercial pressures they have sometimes dropped those proposals quite quickly. I believe that in the United States it is a condition of obtaining a local licence that the licensee provides local programming. The Federal Communications Commission in the United States would not let companies get away with not providing local programming. However, I wish to put the matter positively. Here we have a new opportunity with a new Bill and with a cable system that will be available—that is what is claimed—to a substantial proportion of British viewers. I am deeply disappointed that the Government have not felt able to take a more positive attitude towards this aspect of the development of cable.
Earl Ferrers: I have often been in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and I stretch myself to reach agreement with him. The noble Lord said that it was a pity for the Government to leave the matter like that. I believe those were the words he used. The noble Lord was referring to local delivery operators being purveyors of other people's wares. He will know much more about this matter than I do, but I believe that that is the way that most local delivery operators work. They do not make the programmes themselves and they are not constructors. They have what other people make and they put those programmes into the cable system. If one is to award a franchise, it is difficult to start to take into account the kind of mixture that a cable operator will provide.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that local programmes are popular. That is perfectly true. If such programmes are popular, local delivery operators will provide them because they will make money out of doing so. We have changed from the original system under the present legislation because we found that the cable authority did not find it appropriate to give much weight to what local delivery operators were providing from the point of view of programming for the very reason that most of the latter used other people's wares. I hope I may put it in that way. It is not the case that the Government are being rather unenterprising in this matter.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I can see that I shall not move the Government any further on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 58, line 42, after ("service") insert ("and the provision proposed by the applicant for the reception and immediate transmission of the programmes included in the television broadcasting service provided by the BBC (and Channel 4 and S4C) for reception in that area.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 217, 222 and 223. These amendments apply to the must-carry obligations of cable TV in respect of the main terrestrial TV services. It has been said, although I do not know by whom, that no self-respecting cable supplier will offer a service that does not include other

1357
terrestrial channels. In the new environment it might equally be said that no broadcaster will supply more than is strictly required by the Bill.
Cable services have operated and will continue to operate under different and less exacting standards than the main terrestrial channels which are constrained by the requirement to operate under certain public service broadcasting criteria. These criteria are based upon the notion that all citizens should have access to the same range of quality material. Therefore it is important that cable services should continue to carry such material.
The Bill repeals the provisions of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 which obliged broad band cable operators to carry BBC channels on their cable services or ensure that they were available to customers as part of the package. Therefore there was a potential problem for MVDS providers offering a limited number of channels and for some cable systems as the 1984 Act required them to carry nine channels designated as public service channels, including ITV and DBS, in addition to their own services. However, transmission systems are changing and it is interesting to note that experience in other countries such as the United States has shown that aerials are no longer properly maintained once areas go over to cable. In other words the infrastructure of terrestrial channels crumbles as cable takes over.
Legislation which is currently being considered by Congress would ensure must-carry protection for public service channels, taking account of the capacity of cable services. If such safeguards are not incorporated in our own legislation, cable operators will be able to take advantage of the removal of the important must-carry requirement by dropping one or more of the terrestrial services. Licence payers who do not have cable—either they do not want it or they cannot afford it—could find that they no longer have access to public service channels. Cable operators would no doubt wish to offer BBC I as part of any package designed to attract customers. However, BBC 2 and Channel 4 could be less attractive commercially than, for example, a revenue earning subscription service offering a share to the cable operator.
We believe that BBC 1, BBC 2 and Channel 4, which remain designated as public service broadcasting channels under the Bill, should continue to be available to all viewers irrespective of the form in which they receive their television signal. At present these channels are available to 99 per cent. of the population through terrestrial transmitters. Although cable has so far developed more slowly than expected in this country, amendments made to the Bill may encourage franchise holders to commit new investment.
It would be ironic if as a result of the Bill a delivery system which could complement the terrestrial services' aspirations to universal coverage were instead to curtail the availability of the channels whose public service remit the Bill confirms. This must-carry obligation is covered for cable suppliers in the amendments I am speaking to which seek to ensure
1358
that national services are automatically available to subscribers. The amendments are crucial to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I wish to support this amendment on the must-carry obligations. As the noble Baroness rightly said, this position has been brought about by the repeal of the provisions of the 1984 Cable and Broadcasting Act which obliged companies to carry the public service broadcasting channels on cable. Bearing in mind the capacity that cable has, I do not understand why the Government should have deliberately acted as they have. One sometimes gets the impression that they feel public service broadcasting is in some way dangerous to the health of the community. I believe that if one pays a licence fee, one should be allowed to see the programmes which the public service broadcasters on the BBC and on Channel 4 are providing.
It is now the case that in some places,—such as Milton Keynes, one is not allowed to have a television aerial and therefore one has to have cable in order to receive television services. That is a different reason from those explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, which are perfectly true, concerning the fact that where there is cable people do not maintain their aerials. If one is an inhabitant of a new town such as Milton Keynes and if these amendments are not included in the Bill, one might be deprived of all public service television programmes. That seems to me to be wrong both in principle and in practice.
I hope very much that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will help us on this point because it is a matter of real public importance that public service broadcasting should be available to as wide a public as possible. At present it is available to 99 per cent. of those who have television sets. As the noble Baroness said, it would be truly ironic if the passage of the Bill were to reduce the number of people who have access to public service programmes.
Lord Morris: I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that his point about aerials in Milton Keynes is not valid. It is quite clear that he has not been crawling around in an attic trying to install an aerial. Most modern aerials will work internally and do not have to be attached externally to a chimney stack or the roof. That is not a fair point.
The fundamental issue is that broadcasting is only one of the services that can be carried on a cable. There are a myriad other services that can also be carried on cable. It is important that Her Majesty's Government should stress the fact that the more quickly the country is cabled up the better it will be for the telecommunications structure of the country generally. That will be helped by the provisions of the Bill. For that reason I support every encouragement being given to the cable companies to dig into the ground and lay cables for the provision of services, not just broadcasting services.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, have said about the amendment, it is right that I should clarify the position regarding

1359
the Government's view on the "must-carry" obligations. Our general approach is that cable operators should be free to decide on commercial grounds which channels to carry and so we do not intend to continue the "must-carry" rule unnecessarily into the future. We therefore propose that local delivery operators licensed under the proposed new regime and new SMATV operators should not have any "must-carry" obligations but that cable operators licensed under the existing regime should retain their "must-carry" obligations.
A large number of existing operators will either opt to continue or will have no choice but to continue under the existing regime. So there are likely to be a considerable number of cable systems which will have "must-carry" obligations. Some new operators will not have those obligations, but given the present popularity and reach of the terrestrial services they are likely to form an essential part of any package which is attractive to subscribers. It is up to the BBC and Channel 4 to ensure that that remains the case by continuing to provide services well regarded by the viewers. Indeed the same applies to Channel 3 licensees who would not be caught by the amendments. I know that that will come as a disappointment to those who have moved the amendment.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Morris that these days one does not need to have an aerial on the roof. However, Channel 4 and BBC 2 will continue to be available to all viewers, who will have to have an aerial. I believe that this is where we part company with noble Lords opposite on the philosophy behind this part of the Bill. I cannot accept the amendments.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like him to clarify one point. I listened to him with great care but I fear that my hearing is not as acute as perhaps it should be. I seem to recollect that at one stage in his remarks he referred to certain operators retaining the "must-carry" obligation. Can he explain that and tell me who those operators are?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: They will be the operators who are covered by the existing arrangements.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Would the noble Lord care to expand on the rationale behind having two classes of cable operator?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The intention is to move to a situation in which there is more choice for those operating cable services. That is why we feel at this stage that the "must-carry" rule should not apply to all who are involved in the transmission of cable.
Baroness Birk: It is very interesting that the Minister should say in answer to the question put to him by my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth that the Government believe that there must be more choice for cable operators. He did not say anything about the choice or lack of choice for the viewer. That seems to sum up the position.
This is an extremely important part of the Bill. It should balance what we have tried to include in the
1360
Bill regarding the terrestrial channels and radio. The Minister's reply was so dismally uncompromising that I shall divide the Committee.
5.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 214) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 123.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bradford, Bp.

Molloy, L.

Brain, L.

Monson, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Perhos, L.

Ogmore, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Diamond, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Foot, L.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Shackleton, L.

Shannon, E.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Swann, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Varley, L.

Hunt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kagan, L.

Willis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Allerton, L.

Caccia, L.

Alport, L.

Caithness, E.

Ampthill, L.

Caldecote, V.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Carnock, L.

Auckland, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Balfour, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Beloff, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Belstead, L.

Coleraine, L.

Bessborough, E.

Colwyn, L.

Birdwood, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blatch, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Blyth, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Boardman, L.

Cox, B.

Borthwick, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Downshire, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Brightman, L.

Elibank, L.

1361

Elles, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Faithfull, B.

Munster, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nelson, E.

Fisher, L.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Onslow, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orkney, E.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Gisborough, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Goold, L.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Reay, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

Hives, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Holderness, L.

Rodney, L.

Hood, V.

Romney, E.

Howe, E.

St. Davids, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sharples, B.

Joseph, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimball, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stockton, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lothian, M.

Strange, B.

Lucas o f Chilworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lurgan, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Lyell, L

Swinfen, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swinton, E.

Mancroft, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Margadale, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Marsh, L.

Tollemache, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tryon, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mersey, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Middleton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Milverton, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.34 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 215 and 215A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 216 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Procedure to be followed by Commission in connection with consideration of applications for licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 217 and 217A not moved.]
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Award of licence to person submitting highest cash bid]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 217B:
Page 60, line 30, at end insert:
("(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), the Commission may regard the following circumstances as exceptional circumstances which make it appropriate to award the licence to an applicant who has not submitted the highest bid, namely where it appears to them that the coverage proposed to be achieved by such an applicant as indicated in the technical plan submitted by him under section 69(3) (b) is substantially greater than that proposed to be achieved—

(a) by the applicant who submitted the highest bid, or

(b) in a case falling within subsection (2), by each of the applicants who have submitted equal highest bids,

as indicated in the technical plan submitted by him under that provision; and where it appears to the Commission, in the
1362
context of the licence, that any circumstances are to be regarded as exceptional circumstances for the purposes of subsection (3), those circumstances may be so regarded by them despite the fact that similar circumstances have been so regarded by them in the context of any other licence or licences.").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 211B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 218 and 219:
Page 61, line 44, leave out ("revoke the licence,") and insert ("serve on him a notice revoking the licence as from the time the notice is served on him,").
Page 62, line 7, at end insert:
("(14) In a case where a local delivery licence has been awarded to any person by virtue of the operation of this section, in accordance with any provision of this Part, on the revocation of an earlier grant of the licence, subsection (11) shall have effect as if—

(a) paragraph (b) were omitted; and

(b) the matters specified in that subsection included an indication of the circumstances in which the licence has been awarded to that person.").

The noble Viscount said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 218 and 219 with Amendment No. 135. I beg to move the amendments together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 71, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Birk: We are opposed to Clause 71. Like the earlier Clause 17 it goes right to the heart of the Bill and reinforces the auction and cash bid system that we have been trying to eliminate. As we pointed out, the Government's guiding principle, clearly expressed, particularly in Clauses 17 and 71, is that the most money and not the highest quality should be the fundamental arbiter of licence allocation. Despite the extremely good work of the other place in defining "exceptional circumstances" in Clause 17(4), that is still the primary and overriding part of the clause.
Clause 71 states clearly that,
"the Commission shall, after considering all the cash bids"—
in Clause 17 the same provision applies to the applicants for a Channel 3 licence—
"award the licence to the applicant who submitted the highest bid".
I shall not go into great detail. I am afraid that it would be more or less a repetition of our previous observations. However, that does not make our arguments any less urgent or less true.
Clause 71 represents the root and branch of this part of the Bill in the same way that Clause 17 did earlier. For the Bill both to make moral broadcasting sense and to be constructive and positive this clause needs to be ripped out and replaced by the plan that we have put forward on several occasions in order to get rid of the awful concept of the auction bid and the primacy of money over quality.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that it is otiose to go over the arguments that we have already had on the principle

1363
of giving these valuable contracts to the highest bidder. In the case of the cable awards the process is even more naked than it is with regard to the commercial television awards. However, I shall not repeat the arguments. It is the heart, the principle, of the Bill. We sought very hard to persuade the Government to modify their position further than they have been prepared to go. Because it is a matter of principle we are bound to oppose the Motion that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I do not see how the Government or the Committee could accept the amendment without admitting that the decisions at which we have already arrived were completely wrong. Satisfaction has been given on the main points. The Committee has so decided by its votes. I suppose that one admires the tenacity of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in saying the same thing again and again. I do not believe that the Government or the Committee could retain credibility if at this point they went back on decisions already taken after a great deal of detailed discussion.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether it is the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, or the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in moving this amendment to go back on decisions already made, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said. I thought that it was an opportunity for the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to complain vigorously about a system for which they do not much care.
Obviously there is a difference of opinion. It is fundamental to this part of the Bill that competitive tenders should operate. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that it was otiose to go over the arguments again, and understandably he then did so very briefly. I can only emphasise again how the local delivery operator's business will differ from other types of licensee and hope to persuade the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. Whether or not I shall do so remains to be seen. However, I fancy that the chances are pretty slender.
The local delivery operator will not in general be creating programme material himself, with the possible exception of some local material. He will not even be commissioning, it from others. He will be offering the subscribers a convenient way of receiving a number of channels, most of which will be available through other means. He will in essence, as we said on an earlier amendment, be a retailer of other people's wares. He will be offering the convenience of what one might call one-stop shopping. One has cable and the programmes that go with it. That is why we believe that a discretionary licensee's procedure relying in part on programming criteria would not be apt. In view of the fact that he will be retailing the work of other people, it seems to us reasonable to say that the one who gives the highest bid should be the one who obtains the licence.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 219ZA not moved.]
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Duration and renewal of local delivery licences]:
[Amendment No. 219A not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 64, line 13, leave out from ("holder") to end of line 19.
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 220A:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause:
("Assessment reports
The Commission shall from time to time publish a report setting out an assessment of the programme service provided by each person holding a licence under this Part of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment to seek clarification from the Government. When the amendment was originally tabled we had not had our earlier debates on the reporting arrangements for the commission. I recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, in dealing with the matter, gave an undertaking that we should have an annual report from the commission instead of the three-year study that we were proposing. The annual report would address any point of concern of the commission.
Would that general undertaking about an annual report cover the proposals set out in the amendment? If that were so, perhaps we could save time. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The answer is yes.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 74 and 75 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 76 [Enforcement of local delivery licence]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 65, line 16, leave out ("subsections (4) and") and insert ("subsection").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 135. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 222 and 223 not moved.]
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 77 and 78 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [The Radio Authority: Supplementary Provisions]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 224 and 225:
Page 166, line 3, after ("including") insert ("(subject to sub-paragraph (4))").
Page 166, line 4, at end insert:
("(4) The power of the Authority to borrow money (otherwise than under paragraph 13) shall not be exercised by them except with the consent of, or in accordance with a general authority given by, the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: The amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 218. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 166, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) Two of the members of the Authority other than the Chairman and vice-chairman shall be persons who appear to the Secretary of State to be suited to make the interests of rural radio and community radio services respectively their special care.").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment but perhaps the first of many, some in the groupings list and some not, which deal with the special problems of community radio. It is an immensely important subject and is different from many of those that we have been discussing.
The amendment requires that,
"Two of the members of the Authority"
—that is, the Radio Authority—
"other than the Chairman and vice-chairman shall be persons who appear to the Secretary of State to be suited to make the interests of rural radio and community radio services respectively their special care".
I take the view that without special treatment and perhaps some additional resources community radio will be beset by so many problems that it will not survive
The amendment is fairly simple. The wording follows that of the amendment to Schedule 1 which the Government accepted on the membership of the ITC. That specified that members have special care for the needs of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am not equating communities in rural areas with nations However, it is important to say that national needs are not so important in relation to radio because of the overwhelmingly local nature of the services. It could well be argued that the equivalent needs are for community radio and rural radio, given the specific problems of each.
Many of those problems will be referred to when we debate other amendments in the group and will be moved by Members with great knowledge of the subject. Other important amendments are not in this group; in particular, Amendment No. 227A standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, which I strongly support. This is the first of a group of amendments designed to ensure that community radio becomes and remains viable. That is particularly so in rural areas where there are special problems. The privatisation of the transmission system and the increased costs which will inevitably result mean that many rural areas will be deprived of community radio if they have it or will never obtain it.
Those issues need special treatment not merely by means of this simple amendment but by means of some of the other more important amendments which are grouped with it or will be dealt with later. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I wish to speak to this group of amendments, in particular to Amendments Nos. 230, 231 and 232. They all have the same thrust. I agree with my noble friend Lord Winstanley about the special nature of community radio and the need to distinguish it sharply from local radio. The two are
1366
quite different and both should be seen as being valid in their own right. Both have a place in the scheme; they are not rivals but are complementary.
Unless that distinction is respected and unless the Bill treats them separately, foreign experience indicates that community radio will go under and be smothered by local radio. The example to which I draw the Committee's attention is France, where that has happened during the years. It is now treating community radio separately and is trying to revive it. Where the two have been generally recognised as being distinct, as in the United States and Australia, community radio flourishes.
I understand that the chairman designate of the Radio Authority, who is present in the Chamber, has come round to a point of view somewhat along those lines and also recognises the importance of finding special ways of funding community radio. Although the then Minister in another place, Mr. David Mellor, claimed to recognise the importance, the value and the unique contribution of community radio, he took no steps to make its operation possible. There are a variety of answers to that question. One of them is that the problem should be looked at by a community radio committee as suggested in Amendment No. 230 standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. The committee would have the difficult task of defining community radio and would also examine ways and means by which it could be funded. Funding is of the utmost importance in this area.
I conclude that community radio has a special, valuable contribution to make and a number of examples come to mind. However, it cannot make that contribution unless it is regarded as being a special kind of animal requiring special treatment, grooming and feeding. It is precisely towards grooming, treating and feeding this animal correctly that the amendments standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, are directed.
Lord Ardwick: Amendment No. 230 is not incompatible with that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, but only slightly different. I understand that his amendment proposes that the authority shall appoint someone specifically for the purpose of community and rural radio instead of saying simply that a member of the authority shall have one of those areas as his prime responsibility. There is not a great deal of difference.
Under the Bill as it stands there is a tendency for any notion of a distinctive community radio sector to be lost under the general drive to create many new stations. There is a consequent anxiety that without particular attention to community radio issues the local radio sector will develop overwhelmingly on a purely commercial basis. The Radio Authority has the task of developing the new national and local commercial radio station services. Within that massive programme of work it would be easy to lose sight of community radio as a separate concern. That is why we propose a distinct sub-committee which has that area as its prime concern.

1367
Members of the Committee may well ask: what is community radio? Our amendment has the virtue of prescribing that community radio should be defined by the sub-committee that will be appointed to deal with it. That is a most sensible suggestion. "Community" can be made to mean anything one wants it to mean. A year ago the term was used as a synonym for local radio, perhaps because "community" can give a beneficent sound to a profit-seeking venture. However, "community" does not mean "local"; for example, there is no parish pump in the European Community.
We must ask ourselves what we mean by "community" and what role community radio should play. We must recognise that the word can legitimately have two meanings. It can mean a community of interests, such as an ethnic community whose members live at a distance from one another, or it can mean a close-knit geographical community. If it means the latter, how does it differ from a local radio station? It is simply because the programmes broadcast by community radio must be designed to keep it ticking over rather than searching for handsome profits for the shareholders. Indeed, its role is to reflect the events in and the thoughts of an area which regards itself as a community. It could be a small town or a suburb with its own characteristics and sense of identity. It will encourage and fortify local life just as a good local paper has over the years.
Radio, as we all once thought before the days of television, is a wonderful medium that is cheap and easy to run. Although I am not forgetting the rather gallant efforts of LBC, virtually the only spoken word station that is left is the BBC Radio 4, whose audience has shrunk. There is a big chance through community radio to bring radio back. Recently I heard that when the BBC was looking for sixth-form pupils to take part in a radio quiz on Radio 4 it came across intelligent teenagers who had never heard a spoken word on that wavelength. I hope that community radio will encourage people to listen as well as to view.
I said that radio was cheap; so it is in comparison with television. But it could still be beyond the means of an eager and dedicated community to set up and to sustain. Can the market support even the most moderately costed and efficient public service community radio? Alas, I doubt it, as I doubt the possibility of financing an independent national station devoted to the spoken word. I have even greater doubts about the commercial support for community radio in the geographical sense. Some people estimate that no station will be viable for a population of less than 100,000. As regards setting up a station, Sunset Radio, the ethnic station in Manchester, had to spend £250,000 to get on the air. That was double the original estimated cost.
There is said to be room on the air for about 300 stations. It would be sad if none of the stations could survive on a public service remit. A radio fund, which we suggest in the latter part of our amendment, is essential at least to start and possibly to sustain a well-founded community station.
6 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: I feel that the time is now right to speak to my amendments—Amendments Nos. 293B, 296A, 297A and 297B—on the broad theme of community radio. The amendments are part of a general theme that I see as important to ensure that the kind of radio system the Bill delivers is one characterised by a variety of programme formats and where opportunities for market entry are not such that they deter the small operator or minority appeal programmer.
I shall speak on the subject of diversity in a subsequent amendment. I should like this and my other amendments on community radio to be seen as something of a stimulus to further reflection as to whether or not the Bill provides a structure suitably flexible and sensitive to give rise to a full range of programme providers in a variety of quite dissimilar circumstances.
Much of the pioneering work of community radio has been championed by the existing ILR stations. Help lines, charity appeals, local news and information services are seen by these stations as important building blocks for a successful local radio station. Our debate must be on whether there exists a further demand for radio services that falls outside this existing category of service that would be commercially sustainable and whether the Radio Authority has sufficient scope to accommodate such demand. The amendments in my name seek to provide a definition and a licensing procedure, taking into account the specific character of community radio.
As regards Amendment No. 297A, community radio stations give access to the airwaves for people in the communities they serve. They are often able to raise funds from sources not open to commercial stations and to bring new voices, cultures, listeners and partnerships into the radio world.
My definition, which has the support of the Community Radio Association, provides that a community radio service is one body, a majority of whom are residents of the area or members of the community of interest, and which is either not for profit or else a co-operative of workers or perhaps listeners. The definition is generous enough to exclude no body properly regarded as a community radio station but tight enough in its requirements of membership and structure to mark off community from commercial stations.
It is significant that those countries which have legislated to recognise the distinctiveness of community radio in licensing are those where community radio thrives most. In North America and Australia it is well developed and has clear status, but in France and Italy it is poorly supported. Many stations have either gone out of business or have been swallowed up by larger networks.
I turn now to Amendment No. 293B. There is a danger that the Radio Authority will be under great pressure to offer licences only in those areas where commercial stations have shown an interest by virtue of their numbers and influence. If we are to encourage

1369
the development of community radio groups, many of which are still in their infancy, we must give them adequate time to prepare themselves and to assemble the partnerships and finance necessary to make credible applications. My amendment provides them with the means with which to interact properly. The consultation process in my subsection (1A) together with the prevention of commercial takeover in subsection (1B) enables the authority to get the kinds of information it will need from the communities for whom it will be issuing licences.
It is necessary that the licensing process for local radio is carried out in a way which encourages community radio groups to apply for licences and which enables them to feel confident that they can compete. Nothing in my amendment would prevent the granting of licences for both community and commercial stations in any one area if it was thought appropriate. In fact the amendment provides that the authority may give an early preference for a commercial or a community station. Having done so, the second notice should state the character of the service to be provided under that licence.
The preference will be formed as a result of consultation for which my amendment, at subsection (1A), provides. During the incremental contracts initiative, the IBA sensibly designated certain licences ethnic, and multi-ethnic minority services, or community of interest. That initiative was a success and encouraged many ethnic groups to apply. My amendment would give the Radio Authority a mandate for continuing that kind of practice.
My proposed subsection (1B) provides that a community radio station, once given a licence, should not then be vulnerable to takeover. If people in a locality have been told that they will have a community station, that undertaking should be honoured.
Amendment No. 297B provides that the extent of local or interest group involvement in both management and programming should be factors to which the authority has regard when it determines to whom to grant a licence. The best way to encourage flourishing and competitive local radio is to encourage local people to get involved in the station and in programme making.
I understand that, in another place, my right honourable friend was not convinced of the necessity for specific recognition. Without a definition, there will be no mandate for the authority to encourage community radio. I hope that, following our debate today, my noble friend will not also say that there is no danger to community radio without specific recognition. Indeed the shadow radio authority has said that it considers it necessary that there be a definition of community radio.
In conclusion, a Broadcasting Bill should reflect the realities of the field of broadcasting. Unless we recognise the specific character of community radio and provide accordingly for licensing systems which encourage it, it may not continue to be a reality.
Lord Chalfont: As the chairman designate of the Radio Authority, it would obviously not be appropriate for me to become too closely involved in the philosophy of this debate. However, I said on Second Reading, and I have said also in conversation with Members of the Government, that I believe it to be important and possible to distinguish community radio from other forms of commercial radio.
To define community radio is not easy, as a perusal of these amendments demonstrates. Such a definition may be difficult to agree upon. My own feeling, without attempting any definitive formula, is that one distinctive feature of community radio should be that it does not distribute its profits. Another should be that its programmes are aimed at an easily definable small community—an autonomous community.
I believe also that it must at least be necessary to examine the possibility of some kind of noncommercial funding for community radio so defined. It will obviously be difficult for some stations to remain commercially viable if their sole source of income is the same as that of the ordinary commercial radio network; that is, advertising. However, as I have said, having declared my interest, it is not appropriate for me to enter more closely into this debate and certainly not to take part in any Division.
However, I conclude by saying that it may be of interest to the Committee to know—and perhaps of special interest to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—that the shadow radio authority as at present constituted contains two persons who make the interests of rural radio and community radio services their special interest and care. Whether or not the concept of community radio eventually becomes part of the legislation, I hope that that will always be so.
Earl Ferrers: This part of the Bill deals with a completely different subject in that we now come to community radio. Before I turn to the detail of the amendments perhaps I may be permitted to outline the Bill's general approach to community radio. Nothing in the Bill would either rule out or handicap an application from a non-profit community station provided that the proposed service looked financially viable. The incremental scheme operated by the IBA in recent months shows that community groups can win against competition from applicants which are more commercially minded.
The size of service area advertised by the authority will reflect its assessment of patterns of demand based on an initial sift of expressions of intent. That means that the pattern of services will be more demand-led and responsive to the wishes of listeners than hitherto. It will be entirely open to the authority to advertise very small stations right down to neighbourhood level. The Bill deliberately seeks to avoid making artificial distinctions in what will be a whole spectrum of independent local radio services—from such stations as Capital Radio and Radio Clyde down to the neighbourhood stations—all under a common regime.
I question whether a rigid distinction between community and commercial radio stations is right. The Bill would permit profit maximising as well as

1371
non-profit community stations, commercial community of interest stations and local stations with a strong desire to serve their local communities through social action programmes and initiatives, as many ILR stations already do. There is no need to create artificial difficulties as to which side of the divide such services should be on.
If some Members of the Committee are sceptical they may like to try the thought experiment of assigning each of the IBA's recent 23 incremental radio stations to either a community or a commercial slot. I can assure them that whatever answers they reach will be unlikely to command universal agreement.
Some Members of the Committee argue that if we want to see a real blossoming of new community radio services a flexible framework and good wishes are not enough. We agree. The Bill does much more for community radio than that. Under a significant relaxation of the proposals of the Green Paper, financial contributions from local and other public authorities will be permitted provided that in the view of the Radio Authority they do not exert political influence over stations.
There will be no local monopolies. Community stations may be licensed anywhere where frequencies are available regardless of whether the area is already served by an independent local station. Community stations will be able to have much lower start-up costs than under present legislation. They will not be subject to heavy regulation, and will be able to make their own transmission arrangements.
The ownership rules, if supplemented along the lines recently proposed by the shadow Radio Authority, will prevent groups from buying up large numbers of community stations. Above all, the Bill's licensing criteria will provide a strong impetus to community radio. That is because to run community stations applicants will be much better placed than those wishing to run another pop-based station—in competition with the local ILR station—to satisfy the criterion of adding to listener choice. Adding to listener choice is the key licensing criterion and is very powerful. Its effect will be that the greater the extent to which an application will increase listener choice the stronger will be its chances of winning a given licence.
Amendment No. 226, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, would require two out of six people who serve on the authority to make rural and community radio their special care. There is nothing wrong with that sentiment. But as a matter of legislative practicality I question whether it is right to write it into the Bill. The chairman and five members of the shadow Radio Authority have been appointed. Between them, their backgrounds cover a multiplicity of relevant areas such as the law, trades union, the new media, business, broadcasting regulation, science, community work and politics. When I first realised that, I questioned whether six people would have such an enormous panorama of interest and experience. They have. The chairman and members can rightly say
1372
that they all have a special care for community radio—not just two of them. I know that the subject has featured prominently in their recent meetings. Therefore, it would not be right to superimpose this categorisation on to a dynamic and lively new regulatory body which is already in action.
Amendment No. 230, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, proposes a complicated bureaucratic structure to devise what we consider to be an unnecessary definition and separate licensing structure for community radio. It also includes the extraordinary feature that the authority would be able to override its other statutory duties in the Bill in the interests of community radio. That cannot be right. Amendment No. 228 creates a separate licensing category of non-profit distributing community-based radio services. For the reasons I explained, we do not believe that that is necessary.
Amendments Nos. 293B and 294 do not persuade the Government that the authority should have any obligation to conduct an elaborate and bureaucratic public consultation exercise every time they want to offer a local radio licence. By Clause 99 the authority is already required to have regard to the way a proposed service would cater specifically for the relevant area and broaden the range of programmes available there. An amendment in another place extends that to consideration of the extent of local support for an application.
By Clause 98(4) the authority is required also to make available an applicant's programme proposals to anyone who wants to see them. Beyond that, it is rightly left to the authority to devise its own methods for local consultation. The authority will be ready to receive and consider any information which the public may wish to forward to it, but should not be obliged positively to seek such information.
The shadow authority has already invited letters of intent from interested groups. Over 860 have been received. The authority will take account of those expressions of interest when deciding where to advertise a local service. The amendments would add a further stage to the procedure and, given the scale of the local radio licensing task which will be faced by the authority, would not be sensible. We are not talking of 15 ITV franchises, but of several hundred new radio services.
Amendment No. 296, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is an attempt to impose by statute a duty on local licensees which, while welcome to some, could prove a quite inappropriate burden to others. Applicants should be free to decide for themselves the extent to which they involve the local community in the output of their services. Some may wish to do so to a greater extent than others. The Radio Authority may normally expect to find a good deal of local participation in a neighbourhood community station but perhaps not so much in, say, a local jazz station. Applicants will need to assess the wishes of their audience and tailor their proposal accordingly. The

1373
Bill already ensures that the authority must take account of the extent of public support for an application.
Amendment No. 297, in the name of my noble friend Lord Colwyn, requires the authority, in licensing local services, to have regard to the extent to which applicants for a community-type service had local members or shareholders and the extent to which all applicants offered outlets for locally originated and independently produced material. Similar arguments apply here. These are criteria which will not necessarily be appropriate for the full range of possible local radio services. Any attempt to limit the criteria to particular sub-categories of local radio services is likely to run into problems of definition.
I am not convinced that the best of a number of competing applications for a community-type station will invariably be the one with the greatest proportion of local shareholdings. Locally originated programming may well not be what listeners want on, say, a locally-based country and western station. As to independent productions, the whole concept is far less applicable to radio than to television. What sense does it make to talk about independent production in the case of the programmes of a favourite radio presenter or disc jockey? The licensing criteria for local radio set out in Clause 99 are simple and powerful. They will ensure that radio expands in a way which enhances listener choice.
Finally, in relation to Amendment No. 296A of my noble friend Lord Colwyn, this subsection was amended in the other place with a view to making it clearer that the authority would normally, but not always, be expected to readvertise a local radio licence which had expired if it proposed to issue a further licence for the service. Since it is, of course, already the effect of subsection (1) that a local radio licence should be advertised, there would be no point in retaining any of subsection (5) if the exception it contains were deleted as proposed in my noble friend's amendment. However, we believe it is important to provide the authority with the power to decide not to invite further competition in certain circumstances. For example, it would be pointless to invite competitors to an existing service whose licence was due to expire in an area where the number of expressions of interest received by the authority was exceeded by the number of spare frequencies available. Such a situation will not occur in places such as London. But the possibility is not academic; it could occur, for instance, in parts of Scotland. In such a situation a competition would not only be pointless but bureaucratic, time-consuming, expensive and add needlessly to the costs of the authority's licensees.
The objective behind subsection (5) is that the authority, where it proposes to grant a further licence to provide a service whose licence is due to expire, must hold a further competition unless it appears to it that to do so would serve no purpose in relation to the general objective of broadening listener choice. I believe that to be the right approach.
1374
I have endeavoured to explain the ways in which the Bill will encourage and promote a great expansion of community radio services and I hope that that explanation is satisfactory.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The noble Earl's speech brings us back to the old problem that experience has shown both here and abroad, but above all abroad. Unless community radio is treated separately from commercial radio it will be smothered.
I understood the noble Earl to say that he thought that a distinction between commercial radio and community radio was so artificial that it was not worth trying to make, or that it was so contentious that no body of people would agree on such a distinction. Hence he has held to the position adopted by his right honourable friend Mr. David Mellor in the other place of speaking in praise of community radio and saying how much it has to offer but in fact not providing the circumstances which we know are the prerequisite for community radio to flourish. That is the experience in Australia, America and France. I suspect we will find that it is the experience here.
Therefore, if we follow the road the noble Earl has pointed to us we will find in a few years' time that, although there will be many local radio stations and many local commercial radio stations, many of which will be very good, there will be very few community radio stations carrying out the functions which some of us have endeavoured to define in our amendments.
Lord Ardwick: In his last few remarks the noble Earl spoke, if I heard him correctly, about great increases in community radio. Did he mean community radio or was he using the term in its old, very loose sense to include local commercial radio stations?
Earl Ferrers: I believe that there will be a considerable increase in both but, in fact, I was referring to community radio.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, implied that there is a difference between community radio and commercial radio. Indeed, there is. But the point I was endeavouring to make is that they all make up one huge spectrum of radio activity. That is why I should have thought, from the point of view of licensing, that the Radio Authority ought to regard them as one complete entity in which there are certain distinct differences. However, we did not think it appropriate to draw the distinction in the Bill.
Lord Winstanley: Not for the first time today we find ourselves—perhaps I should say I find myself—in some difficulty because of the system of grouping the amendments. The grouping of amendments is, of course, essential in a Chamber which does not have any Standing Order providing for timetabling Motions.
It so happens that my amendment, which we are now technically discussing because I moved it, is the first of the group. Yet, without any doubt, it is technically the least important. It is the least important because it is a sort of longstop. Ideally, the Government should accept the separate designation of community radio and the need to subsidise rural radio

1375
costs. If they do not, this amendment provides a safety net. So my amendment is the least important of the group. It has now become even less important because the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his intervention, said that my amendment has already been met.
The fact remains that I am not wholly reassured by the general remarks of the noble Earl. I was even alarmed by one comment. The noble Earl explained about the loosening of arrangements whereby local authorities can now invest money in community radio. In this country we have always taken great care to keep national broadcasting and national government wholly separate. I believe that we should take equally great care to keep local radio and community radio—a very different thing indeed—entirely separate from local government.
A community radio station should not be the mouthpiece or spokesman of local government. It should often be its critic. I do not say that community radio stations should not benefit from grants from local authorities but there would need to be certain safeguards.
As I said, I am in some difficulty because of the nature of our procedures. I have no intention of pressing the amendment—
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, out of his misery. We discussed this grouping because the amendments related to community radio. Each amendment will, of course, be called separately and if the noble Lord feels motivated to divide the Committee—and after hearing what I have said I am sure that he will not be so motivated—he will be able to do so on subsequent amendments.
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his assistance but I am not being ungracious in saying that I did not actually need it. I knew that was the position.
Earl Ferrers: I can only say that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, did not give that impression.
Lord Winstanley: It was my intention to seek the permission of the Committee to withdraw my amendment. In doing so I intended to say that I was, of course, aware that that would not in any sense stop other noble Lords pressing their amendments to a Division when we reach them. In any case, we shall come later to other amendments dealing with community radio which are not included in this group. So we have not finished our discussions on that subject. Certainly, we have not solved the very serious problems which community radio faces.
I believe that there is a threat to community radio. It is important that before we leave this Bill we should make absolutely certain that somehow community radio survives. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 226A:
Page 167, line 13, leave out ("With the approval of the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: I hope that after these great issues of community and commercial radio, of auction bidding and the other great matters that we have been discussing, this modest little amendment will provide an opportunity for the Government to show how willing they are to improve the Bill. One of the thrusts behind it is concerned with deregulation and a lighter touch in general. For very nearly 40 years commercial broadcasting has operated in this country on the basis that the broadcasting authority is given its duties by Parliament. It has been able to get on with them without having to refer back to Whitehall and the Home Office for approval whenever it wanted to make some internal arrangement about delegating its authority.
I assume that that is an oversight in this case. I hope the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment and remove the need for the approval of the Secretary of State when, as in this case, the Radio Authority is seeking to engage in the normal kind of delegation to get on with its work. We have been discussing the need for delegating certain duties in respect of rural and community radio. In the experience of running any broadcasting authority there is a need to delegate and to be flexible in the arrangements. If the authority has to run to the Home Office every time it wants to make a change, it will be immensely cumbersome and rather silly.
In moving this amendment I have a confession to make. I should have drawn the attention of the Committee to this issue when the first schedule was discussed because it contains exactly similar wording in relation to the Independent Television Commission. I was half asleep and I missed my opportunity. If the Government feel that there is merit in this amendment for the Radio Authority, then at Report stage it will be possible to introduce consistency in respect of the Independent Television Commission. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, as usual, has been enormously helpful in putting forward this amendment and the reasons for it. He was also peculiarly candid in saying that he went to sleep when the opportunity arose earlier in the Bill to move a similar amendment. Schedule 6, paragraph 6(2) very closely follows paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 1 to the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, which requires the Secretary of State's approval for delegation of functions by the authority.
But there are also legislative precedents for not normally requiring such approval; for instance, in the case of the Civil Aviation Authority, under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, and in the case of the National Rivers Authority under the Water Act 1989. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that he did not wish the Radio Authority to come running to the Home Office each time it wanted to delegate powers. We agree with that. If the Committee is happy to accept this amendment I shall advise it to do so. If that is the

1377
case, we shall undertake to bring forward the corresponding amendments to the schedule of the Bill dealing with the ITC and other statutory bodies under the Bill.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am greatly indebted to the noble Earl. There is no more to say. Thank you very much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 227A:
Before Clause 79, insert the following new clause:
("Establishment of a Radio Fund to Support Independent and Community Radio
(1) The Secretary of State shall, for the financial year beginning with 1st April 1991, establish an endowment fund for the benefit of the Authority for such amount as he, with the approval of the Treasury, determines to be appropriate for the purposes of this section.
(2) Any amount received by the Authority under subsection (1) shall be credited by them to a fund established by them under this section, to be known as the Radio Fund.
(3) The Fund shall be under the management of a committee appointed by the Authority for the purpose of this section, to be known as the Radio Fund Committee, and shall be applied by the Committee in the making of grants for the following purposes, namely to support and encourage—

(a) training for the benefit of independent and community radio;

(b) social action, ethnic minority, arts, creative and innovative programming;

(c) the establishment and special needs of community radio services;

(d) the establishment and running of transmission facilities in remote rural or other difficult areas; and

(e) research and development work for the benefit of independent and community radio.

(4) When making any grant out of the Fund in pursuance of subsection (3), the Committee may impose such conditions as they think fit.
(5) The persons appointed to be members of the Committee shall be such as the Authority may determine; but the Authority shall, when making any such appointments, ensure that a majority of the members are persons with knowledge of the purposes to which under subsection (3) above, the Committee may apply the Fund.
(6) The terms of the appointment of the members of the Committee shall be such as the Authority may determine; and in the case of any members of the Committee who are neither members nor employees of the Authority, the Authority may—

(a) pay to them such remuneration and allowances, and

(b) pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of them such sums by way of allowances, pensions or gratuities,

as the Authority may determine.
(7) Any expenses incurred by the Authority—

(a) by virtue of subsection (6), or

(b) in paying salaries of any employees of the Authority whose services have been furnished to the Committee by the Authority,

shall be defrayed out of the fund.
(8) As noon as possible after the end of each financial year (to be calculated as from the financial year referred to in subsection (1)), the Committee shall prepare a general report of their proceedings for that year and transmit it to the Authority.
(9) Any sums required by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
(10) In this section,
"the Authority" means the Radio Authority; and
"community radio service" means a service provided for the benefit of a local community or a community of interest, identified in the licence conditions, and which is provided by a body corporate
(a) in respect of which either—

(i) the majority of persons entitled to vote at a general meeting of the body; or

(ii) the majority of persons entitled to vote at a meeting of the directors or board of directors

are persons resident in the local community referred to above, or members of the community of interest referred to above; and
(b) is either—

(i) not a public body but whose activities are carried on otherwise than for profit, but so constituted that its interest on its capital is calculated according to bank interest rates; or

(ii) either a common ownership enterprise or a co-operative within the meaning of section (2) of the Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976; or

(iii) which would be recognised a bona fide co-operative society by the Registrar of Friendly Societies for the purposes of section (1) of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965, whether or not registered under that Act.").

The noble Lord said: This is a further amendment on community radio. It is also a probing amendment to establish the Government's position on community radio and its funding. When the Government looked at increased competition in the rented sector of housing they saw to it that there was sufficient support for the housing associations and the new entrepreneurial agencies for them to become real market forces. The Housing Corporation and the business expansion scheme were the mechanisms used. I believe that a radio fund could be the means in sound broadcasting at much less cost.
It could be said that independent radio needs support if it is to take advantage of the new competitive environment and if it is not to lower standards of programming. At the recent radio festival in Glasgow there was a prevailing mood of fear for the future of independent and community radio should market forces be allowed to progress without the necessary preparation. Independent radio by and for people from ethnic minorities ought to be one of the great success stories of the 1990s, but many are already in great difficulty. Both Sunset Radio in Manchester and WNK Radio in Haringey have had to make major cuts and they have had to dilute their community ownership.
Without support in programme-making I fear that the kind of diversity and quality that people want from radio may not be forthcoming. The chief executive elect of the Radio Authority has said that the IBA has already allowed many stations to drop drama from their schedules because of the financial difficulties the stations are in. That is despite the fact that a Home Office survey of 1989 showed that there

1379
is a demand for drama, short stories and comedies. It is clear that without the support demand will not prompt supply.
Because of the expense, many stations have cut news and speech programming. One station has had to axe the local newsroom and all its staff. Advertising revenues may help but they will not of themselves meet all the gaps, especially in start-up and training costs. Though the incremental initiative has been a partial success, not all radio stations are able to attract sufficient advertising revenue or start up capital. My right honourable friend in another place said that he expects several hundred new local radio stations to emerge in the next 10 years. Many of these will be set up by experienced people, particularly in the community and ethnic minority sectors, which are still underdeveloped here. They will need help with training costs. One study has already predicted a serious shortage of skilled labour in radio in three or four years unless action is taken.
My amendment seeks to establish the Government's reaction to the idea of a fund to assist the market in these respects. The purposes are set out in subsection (3) of the amendment. The radio fund would be administered by the Radio Authority. In a recent letter to the Broadcasting Consortium, the chief executive elect, Peter Baldwin, confirmed that he would be willing to administer such a fund. He estimated that administration costs are two-and-a-half full-time equivalent staff plus overheads.
I envisage that the fund might have an initial endowment from the Government of about £10 million. That would yield about £800,000 a year in disposable income. Possibly some extra funding could be raised from the private sector. The Treasury is proposing much greater generosity to the Gaelic television fund; namely, about £8 million annually for about 80,000 Gaelic speakers. By comparison, and with the revenue from the auction of the national franchises and corporation tax over the years, my suggestions appear to be very modest.
In another place the Minister said that he had reservations about a radio fund. He said that there was a network of BBC stations to provide services that commercial and community stations would not provide. He said that it would be a major drain on the financial and personnel resources of the Radio Authority. My amendment differs from the one discussed in another place. The BBC services are largely confined to England and they are county based. They have a high speech content because of their public service obligations. I am sure that they would be horrified to think that they were being expected simply to fill the gaps left by commercial and community radio.
However, it is important that in suggesting a call on taxpayers' money by way of a radio fund there would be a funding of the true aspirations of consumers and not inadvertently the subsidising of the merely self-fulfilling aspirations of producers. In suggesting that a radio fund be established from public funds, I would be totally opposed to the fund being financed
1380
by the reintroduction of cross-subsidy by existing commercial operators. We must also be careful in contemplating the use of public funds that we do not create a class of privileged broadcaster whose cost base is heavily subsidised, therefore enabling him to compete unfairly with commercial stations for both audience and advertising.
In 1987, when the Green Paper was published, it was possible to be more optimistic than it is today about the place of independent radio in the economy. Interest rates have risen with inflation and there has been a worsening of skill shortages. Today a more sophisticated form of deregulation is needed. If there are to be effective market forces, if smaller stations are not to fail at the first hurdle or go to the wall or be swallowed up by the larger stations, as happened in France and Italy, and if programming is to maintain standards, some greater support is needed. I commend the Radio Fund to the Committee as the best available means. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend has put forward a probing amendment to find out the Government's views and he has used some persuasive and attractive arguments. In fairness to my noble friend, I acknowledge that under his proposal the fund would support training, community projects, creative programming and rural radio as well as community radio. I also acknowledge that his amendment has been framed with admirable thoroughness and care. However, I am bound to tell him that I do not believe that we could justify establishing such a fund from taxation.
As I explained in regard to an earlier amendment, the shadow Radio Authority recently received 860 expressions of interest from those wishing to run new stations when the authority called for letters of intent. That kind of demand hovering about hardly suggests that public subsidy would be right.
I am bound to draw another point to my noble friend's attention. Established independent local radio stations might reasonably resent not so much the fact that they were facing increased competition but rather that the Government were providing funds to subsidise that competition and to subsidise their competitors. The whole point of this part of the Bill is to make frequencies available to allow local and community radio to take place and to operate where there is a demand for it and where there are people prepared to operate it. I would not suggest that the taxpayer should make funds available to take up frequency space where there is not a demand for others to do it without subsidy.
My noble friend referred to France. In France, it was mostly because there were inadequate ownership rules that community radio was swamped. This is different because the proposal here is that no one person will be able to own large numbers of community radio stations. I admire my noble friend's ingenuity but I hope he will understand the reason the Government would not be enthusiastic about funding this body from taxation.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I see the difficulty expressed by the Minister about subsidies for some. There s plainly a genuine difficulty there. I hope that the Government will not push away the need for some help in this direction. Their purpose is to increase diversity and choice. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, is trying to show a way of offering help in programming, in training and other ways. I have asked a good many questions of people who know about local radio. Radio by local communities for local communities is extremely fragile. It is a very precarious operation. The health of a city is furthered by giving a voice to those groups which do not have wealthy friends and which are tempted to say "Nobody every listens to us". It is worth paying a price to make that possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was right to say that community radio will not survive without extra resources. My evidence suggests that it will not survive without some kind of funding. If that funding were to come from local authorities, certain dangers would be involved. Some kind of endowment fund would be of genuine benefit.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: I have a good deal of sympathy with the principle of the amendment. However, the Minister's reluctance to put any public funds into this proposal did not surprise me. What surprised me was his belief that community radio will flourish without help o f this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, explained the difficulties in which community stations find themselves. The Minister must recognise that some kinds of diversity and choice cannot pay for themselves and must be provided in a civilised nation.
Earl Ferrers: I see the problem that community stations may not survive and may have difficulty. In some cases that may well be so. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool asked us not to push away too lightly the need for help in this direction. He said that a good many community radio stations would benefit if there were some form of subsidy. There is always an enormously attractive argument for subsidising anything. Anyone who is subsidised is bound to benefit from it.
Community stations, like other local stations, will be eligible to receive financial contributions from local and other public authorities provided that they comply with the Radio Authority's guidelines and provided that they do not involve undue political influence. The guidelines will be carefully framed to guard precisely against such influence. They will not be bereft of funds and they should be able therefore to attract such funds if necessary. That is slightly different from saying that such funds should be provided by the taxpayer. I see the attraction of it but I am not at the moment persuaded that that would be right.
Lord Colwyn: I am most grateful to Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. I thought that the opening remarks of my noble friend the Minister were most encouraging, but he then proceeded to explain why the Government would not support such a fund. I should like to study what has
1382
been said in the debate with a view to coming back at another stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 [Regulation by Authority of independent radio services]:
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 229 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 79 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 230 not moved.]
Clause 80 [Licensing functions of Authority]:
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 67, line 17, after ("of") insert ("high quality").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is self-explanatory. The fact of the matter is that the Radio Authority is the regulatory body for all independent radio services, both national and local. There is no duty on the authority under this Bill to ensure that the services taken as a whole are of high quality.
In the 1981 Broadcasting Act the IBA had a duty to provide local sound broadcasting services as a public service disseminating information, education and entertainment. Thus we come back to the point which we debated in connection with television at an earlier stage. If the public service element is removed from the regulatory bodies which are overseeing television and radio in this country, that is tantamount to saying that they need not fulfil those obligations. The whole focus of radio and television is being shifted from providing a public service to providing profit and to delivering audiences to advertisers. That is a fundamental difference of opinion which I do not expect noble Lords opposite to share, but I do not think this is a way of creating real choice for the listener.
My second point is that in this controversy over quality the argument has been dominated by television, and radio has very largely been neglected. Quality is just as important and relevant in radio as it is in television. This applies not only to national stations but also to local radio.
In the case of radio the authority has not only no duty to enjoin as the public service formula but also no quality threshold involving positive programme requirements. As I understand it, the Radio Authority has no obligation to supply illustrative guidelines in the way that the ITC will have. The exceptional circumstances in which the authority can accept other than the highest bid are not defined in any way.
It seems to us that the Radio Authority should be given the general power to secure the provision of diversity of high quality national services. This would be achieved by the amendment standing in my name. Unless the authority has such a power there is a real danger that resources will be cut and quality will suffer in the need to achieve profits and maximise the return on investment programmes.
The authority will also be responsible for local independent radio licences and the monitoring of

1383
existing ones. The authority will select the successful applicant purely on the basis of its proposal, which will again focus on diversity and the extent to which any such proposed service would cater for tastes and interests of persons living in the area. Once again there is no mention of quality. This runs through the whole Bill. I should again like to emphasise that by quality I do not mean that I am asking for elite radio. High quality programme service means diversity and a wide range of types of programmes including news and current affairs, those with an educational purpose, those offering listeners opportunities to get involved, to get further information and, if necessary, immediate help.
The suggestion has been made that as regards the public service elements the listener will be well served by the BBC and there should therefore be no positive programme requirements placed on national and local independent radio because that may jeopardise their financial viability. Therefore, the BBC is being offered to carry the whole burden of public service broadcasting without any obligation on anyone else to lift a finger in terms and on the basis of financial liability. The BBC is being asked to do that while its income is being cut. Therefore it will have a heavier burden with fewer resources.
It seems to me that this is a highly irresponsible step which can lead only to deterioration in the quality of the programmes provided by national and local independent radio. I very much hope that the Government will recognise that there is a need to insert in the provisions some reference to the quality of the service provided by the independent sector. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. This afternoon we have attempted to get rid of the auctions in the field of radio. We have tried to get an injection of public service broadcasting into it, but in neither case have we received any support or sympathy from the Government.
We now come to what is quite a narrow segment of what we are trying to do, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has pointed out, it is of tremendous importance. One would have thought that it went without saying that to provide a higher quality in addition to diversity of local and national radio services would be immediately acceptable. The noble Lord was absolutely right in saying that there had been neglect of radio throughout all the discussions on the Bill in both Houses, as well as outside. In talking to people outside, one found that mostly there was concentration on television rather than on radio.
There are many concerns about the economics of radio. There are new areas in which it will develop, and in particular there is concern as to whether there is sufficient advertising revenue to support the potential explosion of new radio services. We have not had commercial national radio services before, although we have had local ones, and I hope that they will be a step forward rather than backward. The requirement for quality becomes even more essential.
1384
Without accepting some such requirement we shall see the development of low cost, lowest common denominator radio services of no distinctive benefit to the listening public. If it has been accepted that television has to have quality standards and has to pass a threshold, I ask the Minister why radio should not do that. Indeed, the listening audience for radio is far larger than the audience for television. Radio is something that is easily accessible and widely used, even if it is used in a subliminal, background way.
If the Government are going to hold to the highest bid as a way to get a national commercial radio station, the quality threshold becomes even more important. At present there are certain ways of ensuring quality, but they will not be available to the new Radio Authority. If the Government are serious about quality, whatever difficulties there may be there should be a quality threshold comparable to the Channel 3 franchises.
This is such an obvious and simple amendment that I hope the Government will cheer us all up a little by saying, "Yes, we accept that".
Lord Winstanley: In addition to supporting my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter and the noble Baroness on the amendments, at this point I should like to speak briefly about Amendment No. 233, which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and which is grouped with the others.
This is a simple amendment which stems from the general obligation of the Radio Authority to ensure diversity in each area as well as nationally. The Radio Authority is currently obliged to provide radio services which, taken as a whole—that is, between all services, national and local—offer diversity. The amendment specifies that in each area, as well as nationally, there should be diversity. It is not enough for the radio system as a whole to offer a range of programming. It is important that all listeners in their own areas should have a choice of that kind. It would surely be unsatisfactory if much of the diversity of programming was between different areas rather than within each area.
I merely raise those points on this amendment because it is grouped with the others. When the time comes for the Minister to reply, perhaps he will also give his response to that amendment.
7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: Perhaps I may make one brief point in support of the amendments. I remind the Minister that when we discussed television he referred to the dire fears that were expressed when commercial television was introduced into this country. I must admit that I was one of those who had such dire fears that the quality of television would deteriorate enormously as a result.
One of the reasons why that did not happen was precisely the set-up that was produced with the IBA which meant that it was a fair competition, so to speak, between the BBC, with its television services, and the IBA. What will we see in sound broadcasting? Unless there is a quality threshold in the same way,

1385
there is a grave threat to the broadcasting services of the BBC as things are driven down-market by powerful commercial pressures. Like the noble Baroness, I hope that the Minister will cheer us all up tonight.
Earl Ferrers: I had intended to cheer up the Committee, but the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, looked as if she wished to say something first.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I had intended to speak to Amendment No. 234 but perhaps I shall do that having heard the Minister's response to the amendment that has been moved.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment is in the group. If the noble Baroness wishes to speak to Amendment No. 234 now she can easily do so. Perhaps she would prefer to wait. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, looks confused.
Baroness Birk: I thought that it might be better if we had an answer to the specific point that was raised before my noble friend deals with the other amendment.
Earl Ferrers: A number of noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate, said that they hoped that I would cheer them up. I should be delighted to do so in any way that I can, but if they expect me to accept everything suggested in the amendments they will not be as cheerful as they would have wished.
As new services proliferate, listener choice rather than regulatory imposition should play a greater role in bringing about a wide range of quality programmes but we do not propose a free-for-all. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said that he had dire fears about independent television when it was introduced and that one of the reasons why it was successful was the existence of the IBA. He will recall that there was a duopoly. There was ITV—the new entity—and the BBC. That was why some imposition was necessary. However, there are now vast numbers of stations, both national and local, under the BBC and these are the new commercial radio stations, including community of interest stations, local radio and national radio. There is no comparison between the radio stations as we see them now and the incorporation of independent television when that first came about.
The requirements for national radio are spelt out in Clause 93. One of the three new services must be speech-based and another must concentrate on music other than pop. They are subject to the consumer protection provisions of the law, but for local services the key licensing criterion will be the extent to which a new radio station will add to listener choice. That powerful and simple test is better than the detailed regulatory stipulations and will deliver the wide range of quality programming that we all want to see. The local radio stations will have to abide by Clause 85, which deals with such matters as programme content which must not offend against good taste or decency and must not encourage or incite crime or lead to disorder. Standards of that nature are therefore included in the Bill.
1386
Reflection of the local audience demands and financial viability are the other key tests. Amendments Nos. 231, 232 and 234 seek to turn the clock back to before the publication of the Green Paper, whose approach to the programming requirements for independent radio has been widely welcomed.
I see no advantage in requiring a small, new neighbourhood station to be of high quality. That might mean higher programming obligations and higher transmission and engineering requirements and therefore higher costs than it would be reasonable to burden such a station with.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that the Government always sought to ensure profit, but his amendment would increase the costs that are likely to be inherited by those bodies. Committee Members said that it was important to remember that many of those stations would have difficulty with regard to viability, but the noble Lord's amendment might make that worse.
It is just the same with national stations. The country has never before had independent national radio stations. The Bill contains clear specifications to ensure that between them they cater for non-pop music and speech as well as pop, but we must be careful not to impose onerous quality regulations. The same arguments apply with increased force in the case of the more extensive programming requirements envisaged in some of the other amendments. It would be wrong to impose high quality standards on those bodies because it would add to their burdens. The requirements for radio differ from those that are necessary for television.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Far from cheering me up, the noble Earl has depressed me more than at any other point in our debates by his easy dismissal of the insertion of the word "quality" here.
With the expansion of local radio, the growth of community radio and the introduction of three national radio services, the radio situation on the commercial side—the non-BBC side—is very different from that in the past. I would have understood it if the noble Earl had sought to argue against Amendment No. 234 on those grounds. It is difficult to insert the detailed provisions for programming right across the scores, and perhaps even hundreds, of stations as you can do for national broadcasting. He would have had an argument there. However, to say that the insertion of the word "quality" is a detail that you can shrug off—I believe that he used the word "detail"—is infinitely depressing. He applied that to a major innovation in radio broadcasting in this country—the establishment of three national commercial radio stations. Surely the Government want the national stations to be stations of quality in their own field.
The noble Earl is a younger man than I am and is not yet so old that he cannot understand that there may even be quality pop and quality jazz. Quality is not an elitist concept but one of wholesomeness and of standards. It is tremendously depressing for the Government simply to say that it is an impossible concept. This time, the right reverend Prelate is right

1387
in his fears. If that is the tone and the thrust of the Government's thinking, they will drive the new radio regime down the American road, something which was avoided by the Conservative Government back in 1954 when commercial broadcasting was first established in this country. I know that the Minister cannot immediately take back his words. However, could he not retreat a little and say that we might return to this point at a later stage?
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may speak in support of my noble friend. Members of the Committee opposite say that people must have quality forced down their throats. Surely people are capable of knowing the difference between what is quality and what is not. To say otherwise is to patronise the vast majority of our citizens. They will know whether it is right. If it is not right, they will not listen to it and people will lose their money. That is the simple answer.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that I could not take back my own words as soon as I had spoken them. I believe that it was Winston Churchill who once said that periodically one has to make a meal of one's own words, and added that it was not an unwholesome diet either. It would not be an unwholesome diet, but I do not wish to take advantage of the noble Lord's invitation quite so soon.
I shall consider the point made by the noble Lord as I shall consider every point made, without, of course, any obligation. I see what the noble Lord is getting at. He wants high quality. If we are going to require the Radio Authority—as the amendment does—to do all that it can,
"to secure the provision … of a diversity of national services"
it will have to work out what is high quality. It will have to pontificate over what is and what is not high quality. As the noble Lord said, people have different ideas about what is high quality pop music. What some people might consider high quality pop music others might think terrible. Who will be the arbiter?
I then question—I agree with my noble friend Lord Onslow—whether it is right that the multiplicity of broadcasters should all produce high quality by statute. I do not believe that it is. What is important is to add to consumer choice. Some people may wish to have what they believe is high quality; others may believe it of doubtful quality. With so many different forms of radio broadcasting, it is difficult to impose high quality on all.
Baroness Birk: Before the Minister sits down, there has to be a threshold of quality for television before we reach exceptional circumstances. At some point that threshold has to be judged. Someone has to make a decision. If that is being done for television, I do not see why it should not be done for radio. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is wrong. It is the reverse of what he said. We say that people deserve quality, whatever programme they may be watching. Why should they not have quality? It is not stuffy or indigestible. If we
1388
can define a threshold for television, I do not see why we cannot do so for radio, especially the national companies.
Lord Bonham-Carter: If the ITC can define "exceptional quality" why cannot the Radio Authority define "quality"?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, normally speaks loudly, but he spoke quietly and I did not hear him.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I shall try again. If the ITC can define "exceptional quality" why is it impossible for the Radio Authority to define "quality"?
7.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I heard that. I am astonished by the question, which seems to be a matter of semantics. We must be wary of assuming too quickly that arguments which hold good for television hold equally good for radio. They are not the same. Radio is different. The impact of the spoken word is different from the impact of the screen.
Independent radio stations are not like ITV regions. They are local rather than regional. They do not operate a major national network. They do not have universal coverage or universality of obligations. They do not have the same relationship with BBC radio as ITV and Channel 4 have with BBC1 and BBC2. We have a genuine duopoly in British terrestrial television at present. That is not the case with radio.
It is a mistake to imagine that if the BBC has a programming obligation the independent sector should also have one. I readdress the Committee's mind to the fact that television broadcasting has a far greater impact—there are far fewer services although there will be more—than radio which operates throughout the country with services which may be national, community or local. I do not believe that it is right to insist on high quality for each and every licensee.
Baroness Seear: It may be the heat, or I may be stupid, but the Minister has explained that in his view there is a difference between television and radio. That I can understand. He has not explained why, if defining "quality" is difficult or almost impossible, it is possible to do it for television but impossible to do it for radio. It was that narrower question that my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter put forward—not what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That is another argument. We are discussing whether "quality" can be defined. The Minister says that we cannot define "quality" although we are doing so for television. I am confused. Will the Minister clarify the point?
Earl Ferrers: I can assure the noble Baroness that she is never stupid. It may be the heat. If it is the heat that affects her, it affects me too. The ITC will have a problem in defining "quality" because it tends to be subjective. What may be good quality in one person's eyes may not be good quality in another person's eyes. For independent television, each applicant must show that the programme that he offers, which will be broadcast in the form of pictures as well as the spoken

1389
word, will be of high quality. I do not want to return to that debate. The applicants have to get over the quality threshold—I am sure that no noble Lord will disagree with that—to make a bid for the licence. It is much more difficult to suggest that each radio licence applicant should say what programmes he will include and how he will overcome the quality threshold. The spoken word is different from a picture. It would not be right to try to define "quality" for each radio licence applicant. It would not work. I do not believe that those standards can be applied.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Perhaps I may put a proposition to the Minister. I do so in a helpful spirit. Is there not a distinction to be drawn, in terms of our overall responsibility for the new radio regime, between the three national services and perhaps some hundreds of local services? As a compromise, will the Minister think about accepting the word "quality" for national services while leaving it to,
"a range and diversity of local services"?
Baroness Birk: Perhaps I may point out that the amendment refers to national services. It does not refer to local services. We are talking about the three national stations.
7.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 231) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 114.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Alport, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Birk, B.

Manchester, Bp.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Milverton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mulley, L.

Crook, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Oram, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dunrossil V.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Roskill, L.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Somerset, D.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Swann, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hooson, L.

[Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Varley, L.

Jeger, B.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kagan, L.

White, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Lawrence, L.

Winstanley, L.

1390

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ampthill, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Joseph, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belstead, L

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lothian, M.

Blyth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Lurgan, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Manton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Margadale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marshall of Goring, L.

Butterworth, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Morris, L.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Norfolk, D.

Crickhowell, L.

Onslow, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Donegall, M.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Downshire, M.

Pender, L.

Elibank, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seebohm, L.

Fisher, L.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Shuttleworth, L.

Gisborough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Goold, L.

Stockton, E.

Grantchester, L.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hanson, L.

Swinton, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harrowby, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Tryon, L.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Holderness, L.

Vinson, L.

Howe, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.28 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 232 and 233 not moved.]
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 67, line 32, at end insert:
("(c) in the case of local services, to ensure that the services available in an area (taken as a whole) include a reasonable amount of time devoted to speech programming including news, current affairs, religious, social action, children's, educational, arts, entertainment, and minority interest programmes.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment makes it an obligation for the Radio Authority to require a broad range of speech-based programming of all radio broadcasters. It is true that the principle of providing a range of programmes has been accepted as part of

1391
the definition of quality for television. A number of types of programming have been specified to be part of the quality threshold for franchise applicants. We feel—and the debate we have just had is relevant—that it is equally important that we have a range of quality programmes in national and local radio.
The Bill has dropped the requirement for public service broadcasting for the commercial sector. The Radio Authority will have few powers to insist that radio provides anything —it could be non-stop music, if that is what a station deems it most profitable to provide. Unless the authority has such powers, there is a danger that in the need to sustain profits programme resources will be cut and quality will suffer. With increased competition for audiences, little other than mass appeal programming will be produced.
This would be a great loss for the people of Britain because local radio has an important part to play in their lives as a source of information or as a stimulus for community involvement. That is particularly true of the elderly, the disabled and the socially disadvantaged and the people who work with them. If the amount of speech programming in a broadcasting area is seriously reduced, an opportunity will be lost for voluntary organisations to reach those people.
The Volunteer Centre is a voluntary agency that trains and advises on volunteers. That agency has pointed out that independent local radio and voluntary organisations have worked together successfully over the years to provide a wide range of programmes and services for the audience I have referred to. The agency has also pointed out that, sadly, many stations have already slimmed down such output. In the face of financial pressures and competition for audiences, it is felt that the BBC might follow that example. The new wave of stations cannot be expected to fill all gaps in provision as many of them are struggling to survive financially and are having to cut down on the original range of programmes planned.
Although recent research by the Broadcasting Research Unit shows there is a strong demand for speech, local news and other informative and educative programming, a totally market-led sector cannot be relied upon to provide that. As has been said, speech programming is expensive, especially in terms of the staff time required to carry out research accurately and to provide information services. In the face of increasing competition for advertising within a market niche broadcasters may be reluctant to risk air time on any programmes which might appeal to less than the majority of their listeners.
We feel that it is important that a full range of programmes should be included. The amendment deliberately refers to local services taken as a whole within any given area. It does not therefore prevent individual local services from specialising in particular formats. It merely requires that the other local services should provide complementary programming so that listeners have access to an adequate range of material. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The arguments put forward on this amendment are not dissimilar to those put on the preceding amendments. This amendment would give the Radio Authority the impracticable task of ensuring that the local services in any given area collectively included a long but somewhat arbitrary list of programme types. The noble Baroness says that the licensees in an area would be considered as a whole and that one need not subject each individual licensee to this process. Nevertheless I think it would be an impossible task to consider them as a whole in ensuring that they match up to the high quality standards suggested.
If high quality requirements of this kind are demanded of local radio stations, they may never get started. I come back to the argument which we produced on the previous amendment, which is that we have a whole host of new frequencies which can be taken up. Already a large number of organisations have expressed an interest in those frequencies. However, if we start to impose high quality standards on those organisations we shall never get the new frequencies off the ground.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I rather anticipated the Minister's reply. However, I still think that there is a grave risk in not writing on to the face of the Bill a provision to ensure that listeners have an adequate choice of programmes. That was what this amendment sought to do. However, I have no choice at the moment but to withdraw it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe this is a convenient time to take a break. I suggest that the Committee does not return to this business before 8.35 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Student Benefits
7.35 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move to resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the draft Social Security Benefits (Student Loans and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1990, to amend the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990 so as to raise student support above benefit levels, and to provide a mechanism for ensuring that it should remain so in view of concerns expressed by the Social Security Advisory Committee and to ensure that postgraduate students maintain their right to benefits.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I know it is a hot night. On a night like this I cannot help remembering the city in ancient Greece where anyone bringing a proposal for a new law before the legislature had to come in with a halter round his neck. If that halter was not worn, the person was hanged. Fortunately we do these things rather more gently these days. However,

1393
I am aware that anyone introducing a contentious proposal at this time, two days before the Recess, on a night as hot as this, does so at his own risk.
I shall not waste the time of the House in saying that this proposal is important. One's own proposal is of course always important. It may be more to the point to promise the House that I have no intention of making a habit of this. This Motion is not in any way intended to reopen the principle of student loans. In fact, it asks the Government to increase student loans. I hope that my noble kinsman will not therefore hail me as a convert to the principle of student loans. It is the form in this Parliament in which educational support is likely to be increased. But in saying that, I know perfectly well that no Parliament can bind its successor. I say that without prejudice to whatever form of educational support may be regarded as appropriate in another Parliament.
The Motion is not an attempt to challenge the principle of the regulations which are to come before us shortly disentitling students to social security benefits. I still think that disentitlement of a group of citizens to social security benefits comes in the same category as denial of free speech, denial of the due process of law or denial of the right to vote. However, we have had that argument. Another place has asserted its privilege on it, and I do not intend to reopen that argument this Session.
This Motion is directed to one simple question—whether the total package of student support now on offer is big enough. I believe it is not. The reason why we come to this matter so late in the progress of the whole measure is that this is the first time we have been able to address the question in isolation because the whole problem has been divided between two Bills. It is not until we are facing a situation where the whole package of student support is seen as coming from one source that we can consider voting on the question of whether that package is big enough.
As your Lordships may remember, the size of the loan was never specified in the student loans Bill. This is the first time we can address the question of whether it is big enough. It is my contention that it is not big enough. I know well that the Government believe they have increased the level of student support. However, it is my contention that they are mistaken, that they have their sums wrong and that they have inadvertently severely reduced it.
I shall set out the Government's case as it was put by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on 28th June at col. 1786 of Hansard. She calculated an addition of £178 million for student support in the loans, plus the access funds. There was a subtraction of £68 million. That was the Government's figure for the amount that students had been drawing in social security benefits. Thus a net increase of £125 million was produced. That figure sounds good if the figures are correct. However, it is my contention that they are not.
The key figure here is the £68 million which the Government believe to be the amount that students were drawing in social security. That figure rests entirely on a survey carried out by Research Services
1394
Limited. Everyone who knows anything in this field, including myself, believes that that survey severely miscalculated the position. That survey had a 38 per cent. completed response rate. Among that 38 per cent. 14 per cent. of those who had made housing benefit claims indicated that their claims were still unprocessed. The survey allowed for that possibility but the figure that it allowed was, of the necessity of the case, conjectural. I believe that the figure was very badly wrong.
The Government are now a good deal less confident of that figure than they were earlier in the year. When asked about the total amount that students have been drawing in social security benefit they normally reply, "The information is not available in the form requested". The Social Security Advisory Committee, at paragraph 53, says:
"Accurate statistical information to test this fully is not available",
to which the Secretary of State in his forward to the report replies that the Government firmly believe that the majority will benefit from the change. Deprived of the evidence, the Secretary of State has fallen back on faith.
Those of us who deal daily with students form our figures the other way, from the bottom upwards on the basis of knowing roughly what an individual student has to spend. We think that the NUS's figures are a great deal closer to the mark. The NUS has calculated that in London an average student will lose £1,126 a year and in the provinces an average student will lose £576 a year. In my opinion the NUS has undersold its case, not by any inaccuracy but because the NUS's figures were calculated in October 1989. Since then the 1988 Housing Act has led to the effect that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, predicted when he introduced it in this House of a very rapid increase in rents. October 1989 figures are already out of date.
Clearly, the access funds are quite insufficient to meet losses of that order. It has been calculated, dividing the access funds by the number of students, that they come to £27 per undergraduate and £126 per postgraduate. In fact they are addressed to the wrong type of need. They are addressed, as the Government themselves have said, to meeting occasional cases of hardship. They are not addressed to meeting a massive loss of income in almost all the student population.
My Motion calls for student support to be raised to benefit levels. My noble kinsman will no doubt ask questions about the definition of the phrase "benefit levels". I am aware that it leads to problems. I mean something in the region of income support level—£28 a week after rent. It is not an exorbitant level of support. In London most students now pay something in the region of £50 a week in rent. Paying rent for 40 weeks of the year takes £2,000 out of £3,110, leaving them, if one divides the remainder between 52 weeks as the Government argue that one should, with £17.50 a week of which during the term at least £8 a week will go to London Transport to pay for fares.
The honourable Member for Cambridge, Mr. Robert Rhodes-James, speaking in another place, calculated that in Cambridge undergraduates living

1395
out of college will have £11.08 a week left after rent and those living in college will have £22 a week. That is still below benefit levels, although it is a bit better. It illustrates that although this is primarily a problem of students living in rented accommodation it is not only a problem of students living in rented accommodation. There will be hardship for them all.
The Motion also asks for a mechanism to keep student support above benefit levels because if they are above benefit levels this year it only takes one inaccurate forecast of inflation by the Government—and that is something of which they are perfectly capable—to take students below benefit level without any safety net. So we need an index-linking formula to keep student support above benefit levels. Otherwise students will join 16 and 17 year-olds as the only people in this country without a legal right to a basic level of subsistence. Your Lordships will know that I do not find that precedent encouraging.
The Motion also asks for reconsideration of the question of postgraduates, who do not receive a loan. I have never followed the reasoning behind the Government's proposals. It is not enough for their grant to be sufficient—which I do not admit—because there is the same problem of whether it will remain sufficient. There is also the problem of what happens when it runs out. The Government's ideas of how long it takes to complete a postgraduate thesis are as unrealistic as their ideas of how much it costs to run community care. Very few postgraduates can produce a piece of work acceptable to the examiners in the time available. Even if they do they will normally, if they want an academic job—and most of them do not get one—have to wait around for four or five years afterwards before they can have it. If they have no visible means of support they will not wait; they will go into employment and that employment will be non-academic. So when there is a vast flood of retirements, as there will be, there will be nobody to fill the vacancies.
My noble kinsman will of course tell me that this costs money. I am perfectly aware that the amount of public money is limited. I am also aware that it is a waste to spend money without achieving the desired effect. When I see an undergraduate, as I have, decide when his overdraft reaches £2,000 that he has to go down from university without a degree I see an academic and a human waste. As a Member of this House I see a waste of public money. There is a point beyond which, if money cannot be spent efficiently, it is better not spent at all.
In this country we have a three-year degree. I know that in other countries undergraduates work their way through university. That is perfectly possible if there is enough time. Where that system operates there is a fourth year. We are not going to be given a fourth year, as I am sure my noble kinsman will confirm. In its absence we simply cannot prepare undergraduates for a competent degree if they have to work regularly during term.
We have two options. Either we keep up our standards and classify students according to their
1396
parents' bank balances instead of their abilities, or we devalue the standard of the degree and destroy precisely that for the sake of which the Government propose to expand. That, it seems to me, would be a waste. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the draft Social Security Benefits (Student Loans and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1990, to amend the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990 so as to raise student support above benefit levels, and to provide a mechanism for ensuring that it should remain so in view of concerns expressed by the Social Security Advisory Committee and to ensure that postgraduate students maintain their right to benefits.—(Earl Russell.)
Lord Carter: My Lords—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: If the noble Lord will allow me to speak first I have a point which may help him in his approach to the matter.
When I first saw the words of the Motion I wondered whether the noble Earl was being mischievous or deliberately disruptive of the procedures of the House. I prefer to conclude that he was being mischievous, as he often is in a delightful way. I come to that conclusion because he is a pleasant colleague and the way he presents his case is attractive and always worth listening to. However, I should have thought that the noble Earl more than anyone would have recognised that to amend a regulation is contrary to the understood practice of this House. I do not think that we ought to move down the road of having written rules laid down in the kind of detail that obtains in another place. Our strength lies in our self-discipline. We keep within the powers of our remit. I suggest to the noble Earl that by using this time to move a Motion to amend a regulation he is stepping outside the accepted practice of self-discipline.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I had hoped to save the time of the House by not developing that argument. Among many recent examples, this procedure was used in 1977 by Lord Duncan-Sandys on the Town and Country Planning Order to prevent roads being put through national parks. That Motion was pressed to a Division. It was won and the Government did what was asked.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I suggest that Lord Duncan-Sandys was just as wrong as is the noble Earl in the terms of the effect that his Motion could have on our procedures—perhaps inadvertently but certainly that would be the result. It cuts across so many principles that make our job in this House bearable.
If carried, the noble Earl's Motion would mean spending money. This House is not answerable for the spending of money. I thought it might be helpful to precede the noble Lord who will speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box. If he were made aware of the feelings of those of us who have some respect for

1397
the procedures which are necessary for the House to exist, it might help him to give a view on the rights and wrongs of the issue.
I do not intend to take up much time. However, the noble Earl must be aware that he did not produce one new point when he introduced his Motion to amend the regulations. Every one of the points made was argued in detail during the long passage of the Bill through its various stages. I respect people who are tenacious in pursuing to the bitter end matters about which they feel strongly but not to the point at which it is likely to disrupt the working of the machine that enables Parliament to carry through its legislation.
If this Motion or the meaning behind it is to have any strength, it should come from another place. They are the people who have to answer to those who provide the money which this Motion would cause to be spent.
On the grounds of adhering to the generally accepted procedures of this House, which are based on self-discipline and not on trying to get around written rules (which we do not have), my hope is that the noble Earl will take an early opportunity to indicate that, having once again placed on record the views that he strongly holds, he will not carry the Motion to a point which will undermine the working of the place that we serve.
Lord Carter: My Lords, from these Benches I am very pleased to support this resolution. It has been most carefully drafted. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that considerable work has been done behind the scenes to ensure that it is within the conventions of this House. It has been carefully drafted to ensure that in accepting the Motion the House also accepts the regulations which will be taken formally after this debate.
The Motion calls on the Government to take action to deal with the very real injustice that will befall some students, especially postgraduate students, as a result of the interaction of the student loan scheme and the social security regulations. It is not unknown for governments to ignore what either House may call upon them to do. With regard to the question of financial privilege, the noble Lord has been a Member of this House much longer than I have, but page 121 of the Companion to the Standing Orders will tell him that:
"the Lords need not anticipate what view the Commons may take of any Lords amendments with respect to Commons financial privilege".
That is well known to the House.
As noble Lords will know, the regulations disentitle most students from housing benefit, income support and unemployment benefit. In other words, a group of our citizens whose level of income is such that they are entitled to those benefits are to be disentitled solely on the grounds that they are students. The Minister no doubt will argue that students should be maintained by the educational support system. We do not argue with that as a principle. However, it presupposes an adequate level of educational support.
1398
Student grants are to be frozen and supplemented by repayable loans. In other words, students are to be treated in exactly the same way as claimants under the Social Fund. From previous debates on this subject the House will know that the Social Security Advisory Committee expressed considerable reservations about the operation of the student loan scheme and particularly the access funds, which together are intended to replace the social security benefits.
There is a quite extraordinary statement from the government advisory committee in paragraph 69 of its report on the regulations. It says:
"However, we believe unanimously that there must be a safety net which ensures that students are not left destitute".
In this day and age and in the midst of an economic miracle, the government advisory committee asks the Government to ensure that students are not left destitute.
The advisory committee was divided as to how the problem should be dealt with. Eight out of 14 members recommended (paragraph 69) that:
"the Secretary of State for Social Security should have discretion to authorise payments of income support for a limited period during the summer vacation to avoid hardship as is the case for unemployed 16 and 17 year olds".
A minority of the committee believed that:
"there must be strict legal entitlement to claim in these circumstances and that students should continue to be able to claim income support".
Either way, the members of the advisory committee place firmly on the Secretary of State the responsibility to ensure that students are not left destitute. It is a duty which the Secretary of State has resolutely failed to implement. He has shuffled off responsibility on to those administering the access funds.
There is an extraordinary situation. A legal entitlement to social security benefits is being replaced by a system of inadequate access funds whose disbursement is left entirely to those administering educational institutions without any detailed guidance from the Government and with a resolute refusal from the Government to supply such guidance.
The Government's philosophy is revealed subliminally in their response to the advisory committee and the criticisms of the system of access funds. Paragraph 14 of the report states:
"The experience and capability already acquired by administrators in educational institutions in the handling of charitable funds will be sufficient to enable them to disburse the Access Funds effectively".
Exactly—the experience of administering charitable funds is called in aid to deal with students who face destitution. I feel that nothing could more clearly reveal the rationale behind so much of the Government's attitude towards their policy on social security.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the situation of postgraduates. I know that there are other noble Lords present who will speak on this subject with much more experience of the situation than I have. It seems to me that the Government's attitude towards benefits for postgraduate students is both illogical and unfair. The whole of the rationale behind

1399
the withdrawal of student benefits is that they are now to be replaced by student loans. That was clearly stated in the government response to the Social Security Advisory Committee. In paragraph 13 of the report it states:
"The Government estimate, however, that the average benefits received by students in 1990/91 would have been £315 for those expected to claim. The top-up loan of £420 will, in most cases, more than compensate for that".
Nothing could be clearer. Loans are not to be provided for postgraduate students and the amount available to them from the access funds will be minimal.
On the issue of postgraduate students and postgraduate awards, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was kind enough to write to my noble friend Lord Peston regarding the uprating of postgraduate awards, following questions raised during our debates on the Social Security Bill because it was extremely unclear as to what would happen with postgraduate awards. I have read his letter with great care. It is one of those masterpieces of officialese which I am sure read much better in the original Sanskrit. I should therefore be grateful—I have given him notice of this question—if the Minister would be kind enough when he replies to spell out to the House the exact situation regarding postgraduate awards.
In conclusion, the majority of students will be denied any insurance against their income falling below the poverty line. Grave reservations have been expressed by the Social Security Advisory Committee and educationists regarding the adequacy and machinery to disburse the access funds. There is some doubt about the exact legislative status of the access funds whose disbursements seem to have been quite deliberately removed from parliamentary scrutiny.
Figures produced by the National Union of Students indicate substantial losses for students depending upon whether they are in London or outside. As we have seen, postgraduate students are particularly harshly hit by the removal of benefits.
For all those reasons, we support the resolution moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I should make it clear that supporting the resolution does not mean that we accept the principle of student loans. But they are for the time being a fact of life—at least until the return of the Labour Government. The resolution recognises that fact. If the noble Earl decides to divide the House on the resolution, I shall follow him into the "Content" Lobby. I hope that noble Lords will do the same.
8 p.m.
Lord Beloff; My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, always displays a lively interest in what goes on at the other end of the Palace. He may therefore have noticed that there has been a Government reshuffle. In the light of that, I come this evening to bury Robert Jackson, not to praise him. It is no good saying that the good that men do is interred with their bones unless they do some good. It is difficult to see in his record any good. On the other hand, the evil may survive but is capable of correction.
1400
My main reason for supporting the noble Earl is that I believe it worthwhile putting on record as soon as possible for the edification of the new Minister for higher education the worries that this House has in relation to student finance.
I do not support in theory either the noble Earl, Lord Russell, or the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I have always taken the view that the Government were quite right to say some years ago that it was inappropriate that social security should be used as an important method of student support although there might be elements in a student's life, in particular if he has a partner and children, where social security might come in. Basically, however, it is a matter for the education budget and should always be so.
I do not dissent from the view—of which the student loans scheme is a poor and ill-formed expression—that there is a good deal to be said for students who profit by their education putting something back into the system at an appropriate stage. However, it has been our consistent quarrel with the former Minister for higher education that the arithmetic is essential to the success of the principles. If the arithmetic is wrong, the principles may be ever so right but they do only harm. I do not think anyone who has either followed the report referred to by the Social Security Advisory Committee, or the very detailed and useful speech made by the noble Earl this evening, can possibly doubt that the arithmetic is wrong.
I am not strong on arithmetic. I wish only to emphasise two points which have been made by previous speakers. In the first place, there is an undoubted threat to the three-year British degree. It may have been thought that because the noble Earl, Lord Russell, comes from London—where the financial pressure on students is particularly great—that this is somehow a problem of London. During the weekend I had occasion to talk to a vice-chancellor of a university which is some 50 miles from London—a plate-glass university in the common parlance. He tells me that his professors are already very worried that students are beginning to find opportunities of paid employment not during vacation but during term time; that this is beginning to affect the standard of their work; and that it is an issue which the university regards with great and understandable anxiety.
If the Government are prepared to come forward and say, "We shall align our degrees with those of our Continental neighbours; we shall accept four or five years as the length of time for a degree," then financial considerations for student support would be very different. But if Ministers, even with their arithmetic, calculate the amount that it would mean in grants to universities for the two extra years of undergraduate teaching, I think they will find that the sums do not help Her Majesty's Treasury.
A further point which has been borne in upon me by people in universities other than London is the status of postgraduate degrees. It was rightly pointed out that no one has explained why a loan scheme should arbitrarily take one class of students—namely, postgraduate students—out of the scheme. If it is a

1401
good way of financing students, rather than grants, why are postgraduate students not allowed to avail themselves of this facility?
As I have said in this House, the effect will be to minimise the number of British nationals who can afford to take postgraduate degrees. For that reason, and for others which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has spelled out, we shall face a major problem of recruitment in the sciences and other subjects, not only in universities but in our technologically advanced industries. It is the most extraordinary decision, reached without ever being explained or defended in any of the debates either in another place or in this House. I should like therefore to put on record that the first thing that the new Minister should do is to look at the problem relating to postgraduates and to ask himself, "What is the Government's plan about the future of science in this country?"
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should briefly like to raise some matters. They may pick up some points already made but I believe that I can still throw a little more light upon the subject from the angle of a student. When the issue was first raised, I said that I was closer to it because of my age than any other Member of your Lordships' House. I do not think that that has changed.
First, the Government were quite right to say that the student grant was becoming out of date. It was not sufficient, but it was supported and subsidised by the social security system. The Government brought in extra financing. I do not like the manner in which the loan system was introduced but I knew that it had to arrive. Some form of loan system was almost inevitable. But the Government have brought in the system at too low a threshold for more than half the students. They have not brought it in at a high enough threshold to take into account the variation in the cost of living throughout the country.
The London student has always received more money and has always been the worst off. I have talked to many people about deciding where to study. Many said, "We shall go to London. It will be so much more fun. There will be so much more to do." There is indeed more to do and to see but the students have no money to spend because their rent is so much higher. The same is true of many other cities, parts of south-eastern England, and certain parts of Scotland, primarily the east coast. Rents are high. It puts the remainder of a student's economy out of kilter. A great lump of income has to go on rent. Where there are high rents the cost of living is also higher. Everything will cost more money, including food and entertainment. Someone once asked me why I was worried about students being entertained and why they do not go to university merely to learn. I said, "Very well, why don't you send them to a monastery for three years, give them some textbooks and let them get on with it?". People will not wear it and they do not.
In reducing social security benefits, especially for housing, the Government have taken away the great support of the old grant system. In certain areas of the country students will be better off under the new
1402
system, and for that I thank the Government. As for the rest—words fail me! If you live in a higher costing area you lose heavily across the board. The magic figure is about £30 per week in rent but the gain from the loan system is outweighed by the loss of housing benefit.
The Government have failed to take that on board. In considering the question they have paid a certain amount of lip service to the idea of a regional variation. However, nothing has ever been said that will lead to a concrete conclusion. Therefore, I suggest that all noble Lords present support the Motion for the simple reason that the Government's system has failed to take into account something which every other part of the economy has realised —that it costs more to live in some areas than in others. Why on earth have the Government missed that point? They have accepted the London allowance in part but have decided that only London is more expensive than Bradford. They have decided that Guildford, Canterbury, Norwich, Bristol and Exeter are not—and we could go on. The Government have missed the point about the huge variation in costing. All industry knows that one must pay higher rents in the South East than in the North West. I suggest that this is an issue which we cannot overlook and that we should support my noble friend's Motion.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, when I entered the Chamber this evening I had no intention of speaking. However, I feel that I must say a few words. We have heard detailed speeches from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Beloff. I shall not make a detailed speech; I shall make a cry from the heart for our students.
I am chancellor of Newcastle Polytechnic, which has 15,000 students—more than most provincial universities. They are suffering the most acute hardship at the present time. For the past few years the Government have carried out a war of attrition against our students. Today student support is 20 per cent. lower in real terms than it was when the Government came into office. As a result our students are suffering. In the coming year the situation will be infinitely worse. They will lose their housing support and social security benefits, and their rents are rising rapidly. We have to take in more and more students in order to make ends meet. The landlords know that and they are putting up rents everywhere. It is common for our students to pay £50 per week in rent. I can show the Minister dozens of such cases in Newcastle.
The Government's only answer to that is student loans. We are going back to the system of 60 or 70 years ago. When we debated the subject originally I told your Lordships that I went to college on a loan, and therefore I know what I am talking about. Every step that the Government have taken in the field of education has set back the clock. Their Statement this week about teachers' salaries put back the clock to pre-1925 and now they say that student loans are the answer. On behalf of our students, I protest. I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion tabled by the

1403
noble Earl and I invite all noble Lords who care about our students and about the future of higher education in this country to support him.
8.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, my noble kinsman mentioned his fear that he might be hanged if the Motion were defeated. I remind him of a historical fact of interest. A forbear of mine was ennobled in order that he could preside over the trial of a forbear of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Sadly, the trial resulted in the hanging of my noble friend's forbear. I hope that my noble kinsman will bear that in mind.
I welcome the support of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I do not believe that this procedure is in keeping with the traditions of the House. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, claimed that it was within the conventions of the House, and he quoted from the Companion. It may technically be so, but the noble Lord knows perfectly well that it certainly is not within the spirit of the way in which we conduct our business.
In responding to the Motion proposed by my noble kinsman I shall speak also to the draft Social Security Benefits (Student Loans and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1990 which I shall move formally later tonight. I begin by saying quite bluntly that the Government have no intention of amending the Education (Student Loans) Regulations. Under the affirmative resolution procedure those regulations were fully debated and approved by this House on 28th June and by another place on 9th July. In addition, many hours of debate were devoted to the Education (Student Loans) Bill earlier this year. During those debates it was always clear what financial support the Government intended that students should have.
Top-up loans together with the uprated grant will increase the full-year resources available to students by 25 per cent. compared to grant alone in this academic year. In 1990–91 we expect to make available in loans £178 million—more if the take-up of loans exceeds 80 per cent.—in addition to the uprated grant. There will also be £25 million for the access funds. That is the package referred to by my noble kinsman. It will far outweigh the benefits that students would otherwise have been able to claim, which we estimate at £68 million.
We must base our position on independent research. The noble Earl does not accept the research conducted by Research Services Limited, an independent and reputable body. Instead, he bases his figures on those provided by the National Union of Students. Surely the noble Earl accepts that the National Union of Students is not necessarily totally independent on the issue.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish to make a small correction. I base my figures on my own experience. I believe that the National Union of Students understated its case.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said that obviously the National Union of Students is not an independent body. As regards its figures, perhaps I may paraphrase what someone else said on a more famous occasion: "It would say that, wouldn't it'?".
I return to the research conducted by Research Services Limited which my noble kinsman criticised. The estimated savings in benefit have been calculated using details of benefit claims made by students. As regards income support, a 100 per cent. count of student claims was carried out during the 1989 summer vacation in my department's local offices. It identified 135,000 claims made by students during a period of six weeks and showed that a total of £25 million was paid in benefit. Housing benefit details taken from the annual 1 per cent. sample of claims showed that in May 1988, the most recent year for which figures are available, 78,000 student claims were made and an average of £7.80 per week was paid in benefit.
That survey has been useful in identifying the income and expenditure pattern of students and in arriving at an estimate of the benefit claims of individual students and not the overall public expenditure saving. I believe that we can rest on those figures produced by an independent and reputable body and it is right that the Government should do so.
I turn to some of the points made about the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that the committee had asked that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State should have discretion in awarding income support to students. We welcome the acceptance by the majority of those on the committee of the proposal that students should not have an automatic legal entitlement to income support. We recognise also that access funds totalling £25 million are intended to provide a safety net for the minority of students facing financial difficulties.
The Government are confident that the access funds will be able to meet the demands placed upon them. As my noble friends and my honourable friends in another place have said on many occasions, we shall monitor their adequacy and operation. In that light I can say that we shall monitor their adequacy from a regional point of view, which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
The existence of a residual income support scheme based on the discretion of my right honourable friend would do little more than duplicate the access funds and provide no incentive for the access funds to be administered prudently. I should point out also that local education authorities can make severe hardship awards to undergraduates in the long vacation.
Perhaps I may briefly touch on another point about access funds. It will be for the individual higher education institutions to decide how to allocate those access funds. We feel that they are best placed to do that because they are closest to their students and, therefore, better able to judge their needs.
We are pressing ahead with our intention to introduce loans for students in the coming academic

1405
year. As I said, we shall be closely monitoring the operation of the support systems which are available for students. However, the proper time to review the loans scheme will be after the first year of its operation.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on access funds, if it is left to the individual institutions, what is the departmental or parliamentary sanction on an institution if it gets a disbursement badly wrong?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, we are leaving it to the institutions. However, we shall monitor the position after a year. If I came before this House and said that we were going to tell the institutions exactly what they must do, I imagine that there would be howls from noble Lords opposite. They would say that we have no faith and that we are unable to trust the academic institutions.
I turn briefly to the regulations which I shall later ask the House to approve. These regulations do not simply remove students' entitlement to housing benefit, income support and unemployment benefit. They define also those vulnerable groups of students who will retain entitlement to housing benefit and income support, apart that is from the special arrangements which we propose to introduce for deaf students which, subject to consultation with the local authority associations, will be covered by regulations to be laid separately within the next few weeks.
The regulations before the House tonight also provide for the treatment of top-up loans and payments from the access funds in the income-related benefits. The regulations providing for these new forms of student income apply not only to students who retain entitlement to income support and housing benefit but also to the partners of students who will continue to have access to all the income-related benefits as now, including income support, housing benefit, community charge benefit and family credit. Finally, the regulations provide for the new rate of student rent deduction and allowances for the next academic year.
My noble kinsman Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Beloff sought further clarification on the question of postgraduate students. Perhaps I may say a few words on that to try to help the noble Lord understand what I thought was a very clear letter that I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am sure that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord understood the meaning of the letter. However, if that is not the case I shall explain its meaning briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
As postgraduates will not generally have access to top-up loans, I can understand the reason for those anxieties, but postgraduate grants already cover for the whole of the academic year and will continue to be uprated in the future. DES postgraduate studentship awards will be uprated in September of this year by £600—an increase of 19.2 per cent.
Reserve funds from the science budget are to be allocated to the research councils in addition to their annual budgets to enable them to increase their basic
1406
postgraduate awards by £400 in April 1991. I should point out also that when April's increase is taken into account the average annual increase for Research Council postgraduate awards between September 1988 and September 1991 is 13 per cent., considerably higher than the rate of inflation. In addition, postgraduates who face financial difficulties will be able to call on the access fund for assistance. I stress that £6 million is being made available specifically for postgraduates, proportionately far more than the sum available to undergraduates. Noble Lords will know, for example, that there are 10 times as many undergraduates as there are postgraduates. The postgraduate access fund will be £6 million and the undergraduate access fund £14 million.
Finally, I would remind the House that postgraduate students in the vulnerable groups, including those with dependent children, will retain entitlement to housing benefit and income support; and of course the partners of postgraduate students will be able to claim the full range of social security benefits in the normal way.
I hope that I have succeeded in allaying at least some of the concerns expressed in this Chamber. I realise that much of what we are doing in terms of students' entitlement to benefits rests on our belief that the educational maintenance system is equipped to meet the needs of students. On hearing the terms of this package, I hope that the noble Earl will accept that. I firmly believe that this is the case. I would therefore ask the House to reject the Motion which is before us tonight.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for that reply. It contained no surprises. He asked why I did not table this Motion on 28th June. The answer is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made perfectly clear, that it was not then certain what was to happen to students' social security entitlement. This is the first time that the total package of support has been clear before us. Therefore, this is the first appropriate moment at which to judge its size.
My noble kinsman asks why I do not rely on the survey carried out by Research Services Limited. The answer is that his honourable friends in another place also do not rely upon it. When asked for figures, they say that they do not know. The honourable Member, Mrs. Shephard, on 19th June said that she was setting up another survey on student income and expenditure, which I am glad to hear. The Government might have waited for that. However, this Government are not very good at waiting. Perhaps they feel that they do not have very much time left.
The issue of cost is worthy of thought. I am not asking for peanuts. The loan needs to be at least doubled. However, the net cost of that must be calculated against the savings which the Government are making on social security. I argue that that is very much greater than the Government believe. Therefore, the net cost will be a great deal less than they suppose.
Indeed, it need be nothing at all because they have the option of either increasing the amount of money or of decreasing the number of students. Everyone has

1407
spoken in favour of expansion but I am prepared to argue that this country cannot have more students than it can afford. If it attempts to do that, it is wasting money as surely as is the employment training programme, which has set out to train people in carpentry without being able to afford any wood. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
8.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 94.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Avebury, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Beloff, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Meston, L.

Butterfield, L.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddlington, B.

Foot, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Glasgow, E.

Seebohm, L.

Glenamara, L.

Swann, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Walston, L.

Hooson, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Elton, L.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Fisher, L.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blatch, B.

Gisborough, L.

Blyth, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Boardman, L.

Goold, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hesketh, L.

Caithness, E.

Hives, L.

Caldecote, V.

Holderness, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hooper, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnock, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Joseph, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Kimball, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lothian, M.

Donegall, M.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Downshire, M.

Lyell, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

1408

Macleod of Borve, B.

Redesdale, L.

Manchester, D.

Renton, L.

Manton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Margadale, L.

Sharples, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Shuttleworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Morris, L.

Stockton, E.

Mottistone, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mountevans, L.

Strange, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Swinton, E.

Onslow, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Trumpington, B.

Pender, L.

Tryon, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ullswater, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Vinson, L.

Reay, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Social Security Benefits (Student Loans and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1990
8.37 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th July be approved.—[24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th July be approved.—[24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 80.
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 234A:
Page 67, line 32, at end insert:
("(c) without prejudice to paragraph (b) above, to ensure that no new licensed service replicates to any significant extent any existing licensed service if the new and existing services have substantially the same potential audience.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) (c) there shall be deemed to be replication to a significant extent in particular but without limitation where replication takes place or would take place during peak listening hours.").
The noble Lord said: I am pleased to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is not in her place as I regret to say that I must refer to my notes. The noble Baroness earlier complained that she did not like to see people reading from notes. As a dental surgeon by profession and only recently involved with the radio industry I must admit that it is not yet possible for me to commit to memory the complexities of the Bill and I need to read what I wish to say.
I beg to move Amendment No. 234A standing in my name. As drafted the Bill rightly highlights the need for broadcasting to develop in a manner intended to create the maximum possible diversity of listener choice. I wholeheartedly support that concept. It is

1409
essential for making the most productive use of what is a limited supply of spectrum and for providing an important base for the future structure of the radio industry.
My amendment seeks to make good what I believe to be a deficiency in the Bill in that it fails to give adequate to steer to a future regulator as to how diversity should be achieved. Diversity has much to commend it. However, there are dangers for both radio companies and listeners if a future radio authority were to prove itself less than enthusiastically committed to this policy or were perhaps unsure as to how it was expected to achieve the desired result.
Diversity has numerous social benefits. It has virtue in its ability to satisfy the demand created by the cultural diversity of this country. The diversity to which I refer can come in various forms, and certainly embraces both ethnic and musical interests. Conventional wisdom encourages us to believe that if a station identifies a clear and distinct target audience and then creates programming specifically for that market, a viable business can be established that creates a genuine extension of choice and advertising opportunities. Diversity plays an important part in the delicate balance necessary to maintain a regular market.
Where broadcasters are restricted from countering the effects of increased competition by virtue of restrictions on ownership, it is vital that some measure of stability is offered by ensuring that competition is primarily complementary and not confrontational. Diversity is also terribly important to commercial broadcasters because only by attracting new listeners to commercial radio can the sector hope to increase its share of all advertising expenditure. New listeners, and therefore advertising, will only be attracted by gaining audience share from the BBC or by satisfying as yet unsatisfied listener demand.
If stations are licensed without some restriction on replication, we shall succeed only in spreading the existing revenue more thinly among an increasing number of companies. That will result in an unsatisfactory business environment which will also bring with it a denial of any true broadening of listener choice.
The radio industry currently attracts only a 2 per cent. share of all advertising expenditure. Several other developed countries support industries, taking as much as a 10 per cent. share. Only by an enthusiastic commitment to see through the concept of diversity to its logical conclusion will we give radio the economic framework in which it can survive and indeed thrive.
My amendment requires diversity to be practised according to some guiding principles. They concern conditions necessary to new licences and the drawing up of promises of performance. The amendment is designed to ensure that there is no significant replication between new licences and existing services, particularly at peak times. The essential teeth of the
1410
amendment is its reference to peak time, for it is in peak time that the real character of the situation exists.
Some Members of the Committee will no doubt have already listened with concern to one or two of the supposedly ethnic stations whose prime time is devoted to a diet of pop music which is already available from existing stations. I am aware that they provide ethnic material in off-peak hours, but at the time when the available audience is at its highest the hallmarks of diversity are sadly missing. My amendment will discourage the Radio Authority from further replicatory licensing and will establish clear guidelines for the expression of diversity that will benefit both listeners and radio companies alike. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend's amendment is interesting. It goes a little too far to be acceptable as it stands but I have considerable sympathy with the underlying thought that the Radio Authority should have special regard to the extent to which new local radio services would genuinely add something new and enhance the diversity of choice for listeners.
The Bill already goes a long way towards meeting this objective. In particular, Clause 80 requires the authority to secure a range and diversity of local services offering a wide range of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests. Clause 99 requires it in licensing local services to have regard to the extent to which the proposed service would cater for local interests; the extent to which it would broaden the range of programmes available locally; and the extent to which any application had local support.
Amendment No. 234A would go further by, in effect, enshrining local monopolies for particular types of local radio service. The Government believe that that would fetter competition too much. The Bill does not seek to protect local radio monopolies of any sort.
Nevertheless, I am prepared to consider whether there would be advantage in writing an extra provision into Clause 99 requiring the authority, in licensing local radio services, to have regard to the extent to which any proposed new local service would differ in character from local services already available in the area. The intention would be to reinforce the expectation that the authority should prefer applicants who seek to do more than merely replicate services which are already available. My only doubt, which I shall explore further, is whether Clause 99(c) already does all that is needed. However, if my noble friend is prepared not to press his amendment I shall be happy to take this question away for further consideration.
Lord Colwyn: I am grateful for those encouraging words from my noble friend. Of course I am delighted to withdraw my amendment and at a later date I look forward to hearing what he has in mind. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 81 [Licences under Part III]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 234B:
Page 68, line 15, leave out ("an additional service,") and insert ("additional services,").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 196B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 [General licence conditions]:
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 69, line 7, at end insert:
("( ) conditions requiring licence holders to contribute to a scheme to meet transmission costs.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to the cost of transmitters for local radio stations. One of the basic problems about terrestrial broadcasting services, whether radio or television, is that on the one hand they have to be economically viable but on the other hand they have to meet a public service obligation to the listeners or viewers.
The provision of transmitters can be extremely uneven in cost. Television can cover the whole of Greater London and its 10 million or 12 million people with one transmitter situated on Sydenham Hill. However, to provide a television service for the north east of Scotland, about 74 transmitters are necessary. The same applies to local radio. There is therefore a problem of survival for a number of existing rural local radio stations under the economic regime proposed in the Bill for the transmission system for local radio. There is also a problem about encouraging further spread and filling in the many gaps in the rural map in terms of local radio services.
In the case of television, on the advice of the present chairman of the IBA, the Government have, if I may say so, behaved with great common sense. They have not sought to state that each of the regions that hold a television licence should meet the whole cost of the provision of transmitters. If that were to be so, the London contractors would be immensely wealthy and profitable but probably several of the existing regional television contractors would simply be driven out of business.
For television, the Government have decided basically to persist in the underlying pricing system for transmitter costs for the companies concerned. They have done so on the basis of what I believe is a sensible economic proposition; that the cost charged to the licensee should be related to what the advertising market in the region he is serving is likely to bear. I am assured by my distinguished successor as chairman of the IBA, Mr. George Russell, that he found this proposition somewhere in Adam Smith. In any event, I am glad that he found it and that the Government accepted it.
However, for radio, the Government have turned their face against any such proposition and the consequences can be very serious indeed for a number
1412
of existing radio stations. This decision will certainly prevent the even spread of new radio stations in the more dispersed rural areas. I give as an example the station with which I am most familiar. I refer to the Moray Firth radio station, which was set up in 1982. It used to be the smallest radio station in the commercial local radio network. That is no longer so because some of the new incremental stations are even smaller. Over the years it has established an extremely good record of entertaining service to the people for whom it transmits. It caters for only 200,000 people and covers an area that stretches from John O'Groats in the far North East down to Fraserburgh. It is based in Inverness.
I confess to the Minister that I used the phrase "pricing system" deliberately. It can be called a cross-subsidy, though that is an unattractive phrase these days. Under the pricing system that has been used until now and which will continue to be used on the television side of independent broadcasting, Moray Firth Radio paid a transmitter rental of £5,000. Because of the terrain in that part of Scotland it had to have a considerable number of relay transmitters. I believe that the economic cost of that system is about £50,000. The IBA has arranged for a short transitional period, which will last, I believe, until 1992.
At the moment a station such as Moray Firth is just viable. It provides an excellent service and it just manages to keep itself going. The Minister was arguing that it was quite difficult to distinguish between a community radio station and a commercial local radio station. Technically, the Moray Firth station is a commercial local radio station. In fact, I do not think it makes a profit. It certainly serves the community. It reinforces the argument that the Minister was making about the difficulty of categorisation in that respect. The station is just viable now.
If this Bill goes through without amendment on the lines that I am proposing, that station, along with a number of other local radio stations, will be driven to the wall. Therefore, it is very necessary to try to find some way of dealing with this dilemma and bridging the gap between the economic cost of the transmitter system and the need to have a reasonable spread of local rural stations. I do not fight to the last ditch over the particular proposals contained in this amendment. We add to the conditions for new licence holders a scheme of contribution to meet transmission costs and to allow an element of a common pricing policy deliberately to enable the smaller stations to survive. However, I press very hard indeed on the Government the merits of the argument that lies behind the amendment. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I support this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and which is tabled in both our names. He explained extremely well the current problem of transmitters and transmissions and the inequities that can arise. As I understand it, the London area television viewing audience of 13 million needs only one transmitter and 40 boosters. That ensures that all households have

1413
clear reception. However, the 2.4 million population of Wales needs 164 transmission masts. The scattered population of North East Scotland needs 76 masts. As the noble Lord pointed out, if costs were levied on a similar basis, it is quite clear that broadcasting companies serving those who do not live in heavily built-up urban areas might find construction and maintenance costs prohibitive. The trouble would fall on the viewer and listener unless responsibility is put on the Radio Authority.
I believe that when we discussed the White Paper the question of the quality of transmission was raised. There were very serious worries on the part of both the people who were running the transmissions and the unions that the same high quality that was enjoyed through the transmissions when they were part of a public service might not be continued. As far as I know, that problem has been sorted out. I have not heard anything to the contrary. Coverage is of immense importance and that must be considered side by side with high-quality transmission and reception.
Earl Ferrers: Though the noble Lord addressed most of his remarks to Amendment No. 235, was he also including Amendment No. 266, which is grouped with it, or does he wish to confine his remarks to Amendment No. 235?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I was concentrating on Amendment No. 235.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that clear. He said that he hoped that the Government would look at the merits of the argument that lies behind the amendment. I shall certainly do that. The Bill approaches this particular problem in two ways. First, it provides for stations to have a great deal more control over their expenditure by removing a layer of unnecessary regulation. It also allows them to make their own transmission arrangements in future instead of having them provided by the IBA. That will give operators more freedom to determine their own outgoings.
Secondly, the Bill provides for a transitional phase. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, referred to a licensing system, which others have called a cross-subsidy. That method will disappear gradually, allowing those stations that will be affected by higher costs time to adjust. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, referred to the Moray Firth radio station. We all acknowledge that it is a special case, as it is the smallest independent local radio station. It is to be given an additional year's subsidy.
We believe it to be right that in due course all these services should stand on their own feet. The Bill is designed to allow all of them the best opportunities to do so. It is also worth bearing in mind that frequency assignments are likely to be more freely available in rural areas. That, together with the opportunities for reduced start-up costs, means that a considerable expansion of rural radio services should be possible without. subsidy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to the quality of transmission. The Bill enables the Radio Authority to set technical standards as to the quality
1414
of transmissions from independent radio stations. For these reasons we see a gradual move to eliminate what has been called the cross-subsidy system.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I wish to clear up a small matter. The noble Earl said that Amendment No. 266 was grouped with this amendment, and so it is, according to the grouping list. That seems to be an error, because it deals with a different issue to the present amendment. Amendment No. 266 is concerned with Clause 93, which we shall come to tomorrow. It deals with the purpose for which the authority will grant licences. That is a different kind of criterion from that with which my noble friend has been dealing.
Earl Ferrers: That is quite all right. I realise that. As the amendments were grouped on the list I was not absolutely certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, was referring to the other amendment, though I do not think he actually mentioned it.
9 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I thank the noble Earl for the consideration that he has given to the amendment but I cannot express myself as satisfied with what he said. It would be wrong to regard Moray Firth Radio as a special case. It happens to be the case that I know best and that is why I used it. It is perhaps an extreme case of the old system. Those who run the station are rather sensitive about it being regarded as a lame duck or something like that.
It is a fair illustration of the problems that will occur for a number of the small rural stations. I underline the point I made earlier. It will be extremely difficult now for new local radio stations to establish themselves on the basis of having to pay the whole costs of their transmission system if the kind of terrain in which they are situated is at all odd. The problem occurs not only in the remote highlands of Scotland. I live in East Kent in the shadow of the North Downs. I remember being surprised to discover that, in establishing local radio there, something like six or seven relay stations were needed simply because of the way in which the rather modest hills, which I do not regard as real hills, presented problems.
There is a problem here. If the Bill is unamended the consequence will he greatly to deplete the possibility of commercial local radio in many rural areas throughout the United Kingdom.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is on to a fair point. I shall consider what he and other noble Lords have said because the point they make is a real one.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 236 and 237:
Page 69, line 9, leave out ("during the period for which it is in force,") and insert ("at such times thereafter as may be determined by or under the licence,").
Page 69, line 11, leave out ("determined by or under the licence") and insert ("so determined").
The noble Viscount said: My noble friend spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 237A:
Page 69, line 33, leave out ("or delivery").
The noble Viscount said: This is a minor technical amendment to correct an error in the drafting since there is no radio equivalent in the Bill to a local delivery service. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 238 and 239:
Page 69, line 44, leave out ("The") and insert ("A").
Page 69, line 46, leave out ("that tariff, and every revision of it,") and insert ("every such tariff").
The noble Viscount said: My noble friend spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 83 [Restrictions on the holding of licences]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 240 to 244:
Page 70, line 27, at end insert:
("(aa) revoke the award of a licence to a body where a relevant change takes place after the award, but before the grant, of the licence,").
Page 70, line 41, at end insert:
("(2A) Where the Authority—

(a) revoke the award of any licence in pursuance of subsection (2) (aa), or

(b) determine that any condition imposed by them in relation to any licence in pursuance of subsection (2) (b) has not been satisfied,

any provisions of this Part relating to the awarding of licences of the kind in question shall have effect as if the person to whom the licence was awarded or granted had not made an application for it.").
Page 70, line 44, leave out ("corporate").
Page 70, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 71 and insert:
("(b) a relevant change takes place after the grant of the licence,").
Page 71, leave out line 11 and insert:
("(5) In this section "relevant change", in relation to a body to which a licence has been awarded or granted, means—

(a) any change affecting the nature or characteristics of the body, or

(b) any change in the persons having control over or interests in the body,

being (in either case) a change which is such that, if it fell to the Authority to determine whether to award the licence to the body in the new circumstances of the case, they would be induced by the change to refrain from so awarding it.").
The noble Viscount said: These amendments were spoken to by my noble friend with Amendment No. 21. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 84 [Disqualification for holding licence on grounds of conviction for transmitting offence]:
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 244A
Page 71, line 23, leave out ("before 1st January 1989") and insert ("on or before 1st January 1991").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 244B. The point can be briefly put. Clause 84(1) states:
"Subject to subsection (2), a person shall be disqualified for holding a licence under this Part if within the last five years he has been convicted of—
(a) an offence under section 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949".
Under the liberalisation of commercial radio over the past year unlicensed broadcasting was used by minority communities as their main source of access to airwaves. There is a case to be made that the Government set about breaking up the BBC/ILR monopoly or stranglehold as a direct response to the proliferation of what are known as pirate radio stations. Of the nine black and ethnic minority led projects awarded incremental contracts by the IBA in 1989, four based their applications on the experience of running successful unlicensed stations. The vast majority of unlicensed stations are run by members of ethnic minority communities.
Clause 84 provides no incentive to those running unlicensed stations to cease transmitting. It would also appear to be in a sense retrospective in its consequences by taking the cut off date as 1st January 1989. The Bill disqualifies for five years anyone convicted for unlicensed broadcasting before 1st January 1989. Those involved will have already, as it were, been punished for unlicensed broadcasting before 1st January 1989. This provision would punish them further. We should seriously consider the consequences of the clause. A high proportion of those operating pirate radio stations come from ethnic minority groups. It has consistently been the case that licensed stations have employed a low percentage of members of ethnic minority groups. The result has been that few people with experience of broadcasting come from ethnic minority groups and those who have experience come from what are known as pirate stations. They may be excluded by this clause from participating in new stations.
I understand why this clause may have been unthinkingly included in the Bill but the consequences of it are quite serious. Therefore, my amendment is to substitute the words:
"on or before 1st January 1991".
This is not to try to condone piracy or make it in any way legal but to provide those who run unlicensed radio stations with an incentive to cease broadcasting and to submit an application to run a licensed station. It also provides an opportunity for those from the minority communities most experienced in broadcasting to participate legitimately in the new broadcasting radio system which the Government are introducing.
I hope that the noble Earl will not just brush this amendment aside as somehow condoning crime or condoning people who have breached the law. It is not that. Its purpose is to deal with the case of people who could not get into local broadcasting—for reasons which we need not go into but which include

1417
discrimination—and to allow them to do so in the future. Those who are best qualified to do so in the future may be disqualified by the provisions of the Bill as it stands. Therefore, I very much hope that the noble Earl will consider changing the date to 1991, which will make a considerable difference. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I can quite see that this is difficult, but the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has made out a good case. One does not want to tie people down in some illegal activity from which they cannot escape, and they are much more likely to continue with radio piracy if they do not have the incentive of applying for one of the local stations or community radio.
This is the time to deal with the matter while the Bill is going through. Otherwise, as the noble Lord said, many such people from ethnic groups will be guilty of illegal activity for a long time to come. This proposal gives them the incentive to come back into a legal system and apply for these stations.
As we have heard, there will be very many stations. At one time the Government were wondering what to do about them all if people did not take them up. Since we are trying to encourage ethnic activity in so many other fields, I would certainly think it worth while for the Minister to consider the matter and for the Government to agree with the proposal.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: On another amendment earlier this evening I spoke about those groups which have felt themselves to have no voice and of the benefit to the community if they could be allowed a voice. This week I heard of two pirate stations which would almost certainly fall within the groups that have been mentioned. If it were possible to bring them within a framework where they would have an opportunity on the same level as everyone else of coming into another station legally, I would hope we could smooth the way for that.
Lord Monson: I too think that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has made out a good case for the amendment. I am particularly worried by the retrospective aspect and would like to ask the noble Earl the significance of the date of 1st January 1989. Why should it not be 1st January 1986 or 2nd August 1987? What happened on 1st January 1989 for that to figure in the Bill as it stands? It may be that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, goes a little too far in the other direction in stipulating the date of 1st January 1991. Perhaps 1st October 1990 might be more suitable. I should like to know why 1st January 1989 was selected, because it seems to be somewhat retrospective in effect.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, "Please do not brush aside the amendment because it really has something to it." I should not dream of brushing aside any suggestion that the, noble Lord puts forward. I should consider it carefully. However, I am bound to tell him of an observation made by the late Archbishop Fisher; namely, that there is no unreasonable argument that cannot be proved reasonable by reason. The noble
1418
Lord was persuasive in what he said. The people involved in illegal broadcasting have known for some considerable time that they were running a double risk; first, that they might be caught and prosecuted for their unlawful activities and, secondly, that they then might be disqualified from obtaining a licence from the Radio Authority
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked what was significant about 1989. Way back in 1988, the then Home Secretary, Mr. Hurd, in effect said to the pirate radio operators, "You can have until the end of the year to come off the air and start preparing to apply for a legitimate licence under the scheme"—that is what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool wants—"but if you choose to continue with pirate broadcasting in 1989, you will be caught by a disqualification that we shall propose in the Bill".
The pirates were therefore given plenty of warning. My right honourable friend outlined his proposal in a major speech to the Radio Academy Festival on 6th July 1988 and formally confirmed it in a parliamentary Written Answer on 2nd November. The position is therefore well known and understood in the radio world. If it is not, it should be.
Those affected by the proposal have known the state of play and responded to it as they saw fit in the circumstances. Some have blatantly disregarded it, suggesting that their motives in acting as a pirate are not, as they claim, to encourage a change in the law. Others have stopped transmitting and have waited patiently for the opportunity to broadcast with a licence from the Radio Authority in the proper way. It would be grossly unfair to that latter group of people if they were now to be told that they need not have stopped broadcasting at all and that they will now have to compete for licences with pirates who have spent the past 18 months unlawfully acquiring experience and building up an audience while cheating on their legal obligations.
It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has not realised the effect of his amendment. That is peculiar as he normally does. Many new pirate stations would spring up quickly, knowing that, even if they were caught, they would still be able to apply for a licence next year. Amendment No. 244B would provide a loophole for convicted pirates to run radio stations in future by hiding behind an applicant who had no such disqualification.
Clause 84 is an important part of the continuing fight against the anarchy that would result if the pirate broadcasters had their own way. They may attract a great deal of sympathy and many people may like them and think that they are good fun, but they create difficulties for other broadcasters. The interference that they frequently cause may endanger safety of life services as well as cutting across legitimate radio channels. The amendments would also seriously undermine the efforts made by the radio investigation service to keep the problem under control. Although I have tried to understand the noble Lord's amendment, I hope that he will think that I have blasted it out of the waters.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I should like to thank the noble Earl for the care that he has shown in misunderstanding the motives that underlie my amendment. I am interested in decriminalising people. That is an important occupation in which we should be engaged.
Earl Ferrers: Is the noble Lord interested in decriminalising criminals?
Lord Bonham-Carter: It is undesirable for people to be put in criminal positions when that should not be so. I can give many examples. That is one of the problems that face our prisons today.
Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us how many stations stopped broadcasting after the announcement. When he says that it was well known, he speaks the language of parliamentarians and bureaucrats and means people well known to him and to the Home Office. I certainly did not know the date and I doubt whether many Members of the Committee were aware of the monumental announcement of the cut-off when everyone was subsequently given an opportunity to change their behaviour.
Quoting Archbishop Fisher, the noble Earl said that there is nothing unreasonable that cannot by reason be proved reasonable. I answer that by saying that there is nothing that bureaucrats cannot justify when put up to it. All I am saying is that there are many people with experience of broadcasting who are not engaged in vicious activities. They have something to contribute to the community.
I take the excellent point that the Minister made: that 1st January 1991 would allow people to set up pirate stations between now and then and therefore avoid the law. Right, let us change the date. Let us put it back to today's date and make that the cut-off date. We should bear in mind the role which those ethnic stations will play in the life of our community. I believe the right reverend Prelate said that we should provide those people who have little opportunity to speak with an opportunity to speak, and the amendment gives such people the opportunity to speak. The Minister is being bureaucratic when he says that chaos will follow if we insist on the 1989 date as opposed to 24th July, which I am ready to accept.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may reply, because the noble Lord asked me one or two questions. I admire the noble Lord a great deal but periodically he goes around the course like a greyhound pursuing a hare. He is blinkered and merely follows the hare. I assure the noble Lord that he is misguided over this matter. He says that he wants to decriminalise the criminals—the poor wretched people who have only set up a radio service which everyone enjoys and who should be allowed to continue. Those people are doing something which is against the law. We have the law for a purpose: pro bono publico—on the whole it is for the benefit of the public—or we say, "Let them abuse the law for their own benefit". Those people set up radio stations against the law. They know that it is against the law.
The noble Lord said that such people do not do much harm. The frequencies that they use can
1420
endanger the safety-of-life services. There is no point in pretending they do no harm. They do harm. They can jeopardise the services which help people who are in danger. The noble Lord asked how many such stations had stopped broadcasting. I do not know how many have stopped because I do not know how many were broadcasting.
The noble Lord said that he was unaware of the parliamentary Question and the Answer which would have supplied him with the necessary information. I understand that, because the noble Lord is not a pirate radio station and is not therefore fully seized of what is going on. Those who operate against the law know full well what the law is. It was made public in the way that such things are made public so that if people continued acting in that way they would be aware that there would be sanctions. They had the opportunity to withdraw from operating illegally, like an amnesty. Some did and some did not. Those who did not should pay the penalty for not doing so. I believe that on this occasion the noble Lord is misguided.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I do not want to debate this matter indefinitely. The Minister is making a mountain out of a molehill. The pirate radio stations drew attention to the absence of choice, which is the whole purpose of the Bill. They drew attention to areas where people could not exercise choice. Those people were pioneers in entrepreneurial activity. They were doing just the sort of thing that the Minister believes everyone should be doing. It just happened to be against the law at the time. I do not believe that it was a serious breach of the law. They have been punished. They should not be punished again. The provision has consequences which the Minister rather brushes aside.
I shall not press the amendment, but the suggestion should be borne in mind. The social considerations which lie behind it are quite important. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 244B not moved.]
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [General requirements as to licensed services]:
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 71, line 32, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
("(a) that nothing is included in its programmes which is likely to encourage or incite crime;").
The noble Baroness said: The Bill currently requires the Radio Authority to seek to prohibit programmes offensive to good taste or decency or which are likely to incite to crime, lead to disorder or be offensive to public feeling. The amendment deletes all those requirements, retaining only a requirement not to encourage or incite to crime.
The reason we move the amendment is that we believe that references to good taste and decency are inevitably highly subjective, as are judgments on what is likely to lead to disorder or what is offensive to public feeling. Therefore it is unsatisfactory that the Radio Authority should be required to make and seek

1421
to impose such judgments across the whole vast range of radio services. We feel that it is unfair both to the authority and to the whole radio sector that such powers of subjective judgment should be concentrated in very few hands. The end result is likely to be not the protection of the general public but rather the imposition of a possibly unrepresentative set of views on the public.
The amendment therefore seeks to retain only the requirement not to encourage or incite to crime on the grounds that criminal activity—quite naturally—is undesirable and is much more clearly and objectively definable. One could imagine a programme that clearly encouraged or incited to crime; a programme that glamorised terrorism or described acts of violence or sadism. There could be a programme describing how to carry out a burglary. One can imagine and define programmes inciting to crime but it is difficult to imagine exactly what programmes would be offensive to good taste, decency and the other provisions.
The effect of the amendment would be to remove any danger of limited and subjective judgments about programming being imposed on the radio sector. We believe that good taste and decency do not mean very much. The provisions have been automatically included over a long period but have no real significance. However, the requirement not to encourage or incite to crime is a reality and can be imagined. We feel that the deletion would improve the clause and we hope that the Minister will respond to the amendment and explain what he feels about our suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am interested that the noble Baroness has produced this amendment. I seem to recall having discussed quality earlier this evening. We rejected the proposal because of the multiplicity of radio stations. I suggest to the noble Baroness that the argument she has just made takes us in a different direction. I cannot believe that it would be right to remove, as this amendment seeks to do, the requirement for independent radio programmes not to offend against good taste and decency or to be offensive to public feeling or to transmit material which could lead to disorder. Those are long-standing requirements and I can see no possible justification for removing them. Radio is a different medium from television, but we should not imagine that it is not capable of being tasteless or offensive. In some ways it is even more vital that it should not be so, given the importance radio has to people who may be vulnerable or lonely, or both.
We should also bear in mind that under the new regime there will be many more stations, including some whose programming may touch on potentially sensitive matters. For instance, we hope and expect that there will be many more stations catering directly for local ethnic minority communities. It is therefore important that all independent radio stations should be subject to clear and sufficient listener protection safeguards which they know in advance will be included among their licence conditions. I am afraid that if Amendment No. 245 were carried, the Radio
1422
Authority would have insufficient power to ensure that all of its licensees conformed to the sort of programme standards which I know the Committee is looking for. We debated those at great length earlier on.
In conclusion I should say that I know that the noble Baroness well understands that these hallowed words—I hope one may describe them as that—appeared in the Broadcasting Act 1981 and in the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. If we were to extract those words, as the noble Baroness wishes, we would be sending out the wrong signals.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I support what the Minister has said. This is not the place or the time to withdraw such buttresses. If we did so, I believe we would be sending out the wrong signals. Last weekend I took part, with my staff and other people from Liverpool, in a study weekend. We considered television in all its aspects. I know that this provision concerns radio, but I think my experience is relevant.
We were split up into 10 groups of 10 people. Each group was given six clips which had been scheduled for programming in this country or elsewhere. We were given the scenario of a not very wealthy station under financial pressures. We had to fill our allotted programming time under those pressures. We then had to adopt a different role, which was that of a decency committee considering the programming. With all my heart I wished that at least six of the clips would never be transmitted anywhere. It seems to me that there is an immense pressure on companies that are short of money to use some of the cheapest material that exists in the world, both on radio and television. All those who are involved in broadcasting have been trying to find some lines to hold on to in this matter. I hope that we shall not weaken the lines at this stage.
Lord Monson: I agree with the Government that it is probably right to leave the words "lead to disorder" in the Bill, as well as a reference to crime. However, on the other hand, I strongly agree with the noble Baroness that the terms "good taste" and "decency" are totally subjective concepts. Probably all of us in this Chamber have slightly different ideas of what constitutes good taste and decency. Even if the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment tonight, I hope she will come back at the next stage with a compromise amendment. I believe that the phrase "good taste" needs to come out of the Bill. I also suggest that the word "offensive" should be qualified by the word "grossly". I believe that if such a provision were proposed, it perhaps could be supported on Report.
Baroness Birk: I wish to support what my noble friend has said, particularly on the matter of good taste. At the risk of quarrelling with the right reverend Prelate, I should say with respect that I think that good taste is a meaningless concept. What is good taste to one person is not good taste to another. It is a highly subjective matter. People think, for instance, that someone's furniture in his home is in bad taste.

1423
The concept of good taste does not apply just to behaviour. It applies right across the whole field of living and of action. Such phrases as "good taste" are transplanted from Bill to Bill all the time. At some point I believe we should consider whether we need to use this kind of language today. We should examine it to see whether it passes a modern test. I do not believe that we should just throw it out and go back to the same rather narrow definition that we put into pieces of legislation. It is rather meaningless.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Of course one does not just move words from Act to Act. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that we are in the business of passing this Bill and as a result we are sending out signals. Despite the subjective questions of quality and standards of decency, in this case I would strongly object to any weakening of what is proposed.
Baroness Seear: Are we not straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, if I have it the right way round? We have said that it is too difficult to define quality but we cherish good taste. It is extremely odd.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who has made the central point of the argument. If under the present requirements the right reverend Prelate found six out of 12 programmes utterly distasteful and wished that they had not been permitted, then surely that proves that those requirements do not work. It is not that we want programmes to be in bad taste or to be offensive to public feeling, but we believe that those requirements are of little use. Therefore, since one only wants to include in Bills what is necessary, we suggest that those requirements should go.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that it is easier and less subjective to define whether something leads to disorder, and perhaps it should be retained with the reference to incitement to crime. We shall consider the matter again, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 246 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 247:
Page 71, line 42, leave out ("religious matters or").
The noble Lord said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 248 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 249:
Page 71, line 43, leave out ("current").
The noble Earl said: We agreed to accept this amendment when debating Amendment No. 79. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 71, line 44, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 251 and 252 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 72, line 2, leave out ("on religious matters or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 254:
Page 72, line 4, leave out ("current").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was also considered with Amendment No. 79 when we agreed to accept it on behalf of my noble friend Lady Cox. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 255:
Page 72, line 5, at end insert ("; and
(c) that due responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of any of its programmes which are religious programmes, and that in particular any such programmes do not involve—

(i) any improper exploitation of any susceptibilities of those listening to the programmes, or

(ii) any abusive treatment of the religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment was taken with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 256 and 257 not moved.]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 258:
Page 72, line 7, at end insert:
("( ) Programmes which are categorised as being the 'Personal View' of particular individuals, programmes produced under the special mandate of particular radio services, and programmes categorised by any other special designation, shall not be exempt from the impartiality provisions set out in section 85(2) and (3) above.".
Earl Ferrers: On behalf of my noble friend I should say that this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 79.
Lord Bonham-Carter: This is a serious amendment. Are we saying that if there is a "personal view" programme labelled as such, which is about republicanism, the next programme has to be by a monarchist? Or am I misunderstanding the whole nature of the amendment?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is wholly right. I was in error. I thought that it would leave out words which we had agreed to incorporate in earlier amendments. Because it was tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Cox I am afraid that we went a little too quickly. I was in error. I apologise.
[Amendment No. 258 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 259 and 260 not moved.]
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 [General provisions as to advertisements]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 261:

1425
Page 73, line 15, after ("not") insert (", without the previous approval of the Authority,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 88 [Control of advertisements]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 262:
Page 74, line 19, leave out ("that connection") and insert ("respect of such matters").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was taken with Amendment No. 93. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 89 [Government control over licensed services]:
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 263:
Page 74, line 43, leave out ("at any time by notice require the Authority") and insert ("after consulting with the Authority, require them by notice, if it is in the interests of national security or safety.").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment simply to modify the powers of government to give directions without consulting the authority and asks them to do so only in the interests of national security or safety. It seems to me to be a perfectly sensible modification which does not in any way inhibit the Government where they have good reason to require a notice of this kind to be made. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I was under the impression that we had already dealt with this matter.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, having gone one up a short while ago is now one down. We are all square. In fact I believe that this amendment was dealt with at the same time as Amendment No. 102.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
[Amendment No. 264 not moved.]
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Audience research]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 264A:
Page 75, line 44, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 45.
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendment No. 265.
Amendment No. 265 limits the authority's audience research duties to national and local (including community) services. It would be inappropriate for them to extend to, for instance, additional services, where there may be no programme content at all but merely some form of data transmission.
In other words, the audience research duties would continue to apply in relation to the stations which will form the basis of the expanding independent radio sector but they would not apply in respect of those
1426
forms of sound service where there is unlikely to he competition for licences which could usefully be informed by audience research.
Amendment No. 264A has been requested by the shadow Radio Authority and the IBA, which feel that it would be inappropriate for a light touch regulatory body to have to arrange research into the effects of programmes on listeners. So far as concerns taste and decency, the BSC already has the role of arranging such research itself. The Government accept that it may be onerous if the Radio Authority's research duties are too extensive. The cost would have to be borne by the licensees, some of which will be no more than small-scale operations. The authority would remain under a duty to arrange research into which programmes listeners would like national and local stations to include, and their opinions on such programmes. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I confess that I am very surprised at the amendment. I believe that I have seen the same paragraph relating to television research in the Bill. It seems very strange. If we are trying to ascertain public opinion concerning the types of programme that members of the public would like included in licensed services, I do not understand why research should not be undertaken on the effects of such programmes on the attitudes and behaviour of people who listen to them.
There have been some quite outstanding examples. Many years ago a radio programme in America broadcast "War of the Worlds". People thought that the events portrayed were really happening. There was great reaction. Much work and study was undertaken on that.
It is important to have research in this and other areas. Research is being undertaken across the board. Much research is undertaken about television. We are told that we shall have many more radio stations. If we shall not have a quality threshold, it may be even more important to know the effect that broadcasts have on people's behaviour. I hope that the Government will approach the ITC again on this issue.
I find the cost argument rather strange. If the body does not have the staff, such research is often contracted out to universities. With the Bill being enacted in 1990, it seems strange that we should remove a requirement for research in such an important area.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am surprised to hear what the Minister has said and to hear that the provision is at the request of the new Radio Authority. We have just had an argument about various familiar phrases such as "taste and decency", "incitement to disorder" and "offensive to public feeling". The Government have insisted on retaining those phrases as being necessary to sustain standards. How on earth can a government who say that almost in the next breath take away the duty to carry out research into the effects of programmes on listeners? The effect of broadcasting is a fundamental issue, particularly as

1427
regards television, but it is equally true of radio. I am astonished that the Government have rolled over and given in to the Radio Authority.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Audience research will be carried out for the three new national commercial services. It is peripheral work. I also made clear that the request from the Radio Authority was also that of the IBA. It had thought about the matter considerably and had come to the conclusion that this would be the best way forward. The noble Baroness asked whether audience research would be carried out as regards television. It will be carried out and it is provided for in the Bill, although I do not have the page in front of me.
Baroness Birk: If it is considered necessary to provide for that as regards television, why is it removed as regards radio?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It is not completely removed. I have made it clear that audience research will be carried out on the three new national commercial radio services. We wish to remove from the Bill the extra services that will come from local community radio.
Baroness Birk: That is not what the amendment states. It does not state that the provision relates only to local radio stations but that it is all right for national stations. It does not state what the Minister has said.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Can the Minister say where in the Bill we shall find the provision relating to the national radio services?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Perhaps I may give the Committee a little more background to the amendment. It would be only a marginal limitation on the authority's audience research duties. They would continue to apply in relation to the stations which will form the bulk of the expanding independent radio sector. They would continue to apply to all local radio services, including commercial services, no matter how small. They would also apply to the new national services, but they would not apply in respect of those forms of sound service, such as data services, tape delivered services and satellite services, where there is unlikely to be competition for licences which could usefully be informed by audience research.
The Radio Authority will be a small, light-touch body which will be expected to oversee a big expansion of local radio services. The purpose of the amendment is to avoid overburdening it unnecessarily. I hope that as a result of that clarification the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will see that a smaller number of services are affected by the amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I would not call it a "clarification"; for me it amounted to further confusion. The proposed amendment is perfectly clear but we object to it. It appears to remove from the duty of the authority the need to make arrangements for ascertaining the effects of programmes on the attitudes or behaviour of the listeners. It says nothing about the duty being confined to additional services; it is a blanket provision that appears to apply to the whole of the output. It would be extraordinary if, as regards the new national radio services there was no proper audience research. However, I believe that I carry the Government with me when I say that with community radio we are entering into the unknown, good and important territory of ethnic community radio. It is extremely important for society as a whole that we should know the effect of these new community ethnic stations on feeling and attitudes in the ethnic community. It seems to me astonishing that that should be removed by this amendment.
I am not trying to score a point off the noble Lord but the brief which he read did not seem to be relevant to the proposed amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The noble Lord is quite entitled to his view about what I have and have not said. I am prepared to look at the amendment to see whether the intended effect is achieved. If it is not, I shall ensure that an amendment is brought forward at the next stage. I shall ensure also that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, are written to on the matter. In the meantime, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Would it not be better to reconsider the matter? We accept what the Minister says is his interpretation of the amendment but it is not that interpretation which matters once this Bill reaches the statute book. It is what the statute says which is important. There is some confusion on the matter.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 265 not moved.]
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at three minutes before ten o'clock.

  WAR CRIMINALS: EXECUTIONS
  WAR CRIMINALS: EXECUTIONS
  STINGER ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILES
  STINGER ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILES
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN STORAGE: SAFETY
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN STORAGE: SAFETY
  POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS: SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
  POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS: SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
  RESIDENTIAL AND NURSING HOME CARE: EXPENDITURE FORECASTS
  RESIDENTIAL AND NURSING HOME CARE: EXPENDITURE FORECASTS
  DOCKLANDS: IMPROVED ACCESS FROM THE SOUTH
  DOCKLANDS: IMPROVED ACCESS FROM THE SOUTH
  VEHICLE NUMBER PLATES: EUROPEAN FLAG
  VEHICLE NUMBER PLATES: EUROPEAN FLAG
  GATT URUGUAY ROUND: EC POSITION
  GATT URUGUAY ROUND: EC POSITION
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: NON-PAYMENT
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: NON-PAYMENT
  EC BATHING WATER QUALITY REPORT
  EC BATHING WATER QUALITY REPORT
  AIR POLLUTION CONTROL: ADVICE TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  AIR POLLUTION CONTROL: ADVICE TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  POLLUTION CONTROL: COST-RECOVERY CHARGES
  POLLUTION CONTROL: COST-RECOVERY CHARGES
  INTEGRATED POLLUTION CONTROL: IMPLEMENTATION
  INTEGRATED POLLUTION CONTROL: IMPLEMENTATION
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD: REPORT ON WATERWAYS MAINTENANCE
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD: REPORT ON WATERWAYS MAINTENANCE
  TELFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: WIND-UP
  TELFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: WIND-UP
  HERSTMONCEUX CASTLE
  HERSTMONCEUX CASTLE
  LANDFILL SITES: MONITORING AND REMEDYING DEFECTS
  LANDFILL SITES: MONITORING AND REMEDYING DEFECTS
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE: NIREX REPOSITORY
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE: NIREX REPOSITORY
  FOREIGN DOMESTIC WORKERS: PROTECTION FROM EXPLOITATION
  FOREIGN DOMESTIC WORKERS: PROTECTION FROM EXPLOITATION
  CHURCH SCHOOL CLOSURES
  CHURCH SCHOOL CLOSURES