Sitting of 11 June 1990

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

    Coastguard Service
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to increase the efficiency of the administration of the coastguard service.
    The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Her Majesty's Coastguard is generally recognised as one of the most modern and efficient marine rescue co-ordination services in Europe. All coastguard rescue centres are being progressively fitted with updated communications and a computerised data handling system. Coastguard training has recently been reviewed to meet current requirements, and improvements will be implemented later this year.
    Mr. Speller: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer and for coming to north Devon to meet the coastguards who work along our coast. Does he accept that we consider the quality of the men, both full-time and auxiliary employees, to be unbeatable? Can he assure me and my hon. Friends with constituencies in the area that there will be no repetition of the two unfortunate deaths as a result of
    2
    apparent faults in the chain of command and procedure and will he be prepared to answer an Adjournment debate, should one be sought?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My recent visit to north Devon was most useful, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having accompanied me on the visit. The two incidents to which he referred were very serious and those tragic deaths were to be regretted. It is worth emphasising as we come up to the period when people take their holidays on the coast that the coastline, although attractive, can also be very dangerous. Everyone should bear it in mind on all occasions that safety is paramount.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that the closure of the Isle of Man Ramsey coastguard station leaves 4,000 sq m of water without protection? What protection is provided for the resorts on the north-west coast, covering 300 miles of coastline?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I wholly reject the idea that any area of the coastline is unprotected and is not covered by the coastguard service. Our intention is to provide an effective and co-ordinated service, and that is exactly what the coastguard service does. Our objective is to ensure that every area is covered by the most effective means.
    Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend examine the regulations governing small ships sailing near the coast? Recently we nearly had a tragedy in the north-east of England as a consequence of a boat drifting out to sea. It had no means of getting in touch with anyone. It was only through the good offices of the Royal Air Force that there was no loss of life. There are no rules and regulations requiring small ships to carry any means of communication. Will the Government consider introducing regulations to require small ships to carry radio equipment?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend has asked an important question concerning people who go to sea without the necessary experience of and respect for it. On many occasions, that can lead to tragedy. I shall examine closely the incident to which my hon. Friend refers.

    Leeds-Bradford Railway
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the electrification of the railway between Leeds and Bradford; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): We have received more than 200 letters and representations from the passenger transport authority and five local hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, favouring electrification of the Leeds-Bradford railway. We are still considering the case.
    Mr. Cryer: The new Forster square station in Bradford, paid for by the local authority, has opened today, and a new platform has been built at nearby Shipley to foster and develop inter-city services to Bradford. Does the Minister accept that the Labour majority and the Conservative minority on the council, the rail unions and the railway management, together with the chamber of commerce, support the electrification of the 10 miles from Leeds to Bradford? Electrification is important for operational standards and ease of operation to ensure that the premier city of Yorkshire, Bradford, has adequate and proper inter-city services. The £6·5 million is a good investment, provided that a decision is made in the near future.
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of the great value of electrification. I agree with him about the electrification of the east coast main line, which cost £450 million and which I was glad to inaugurate two weeks ago. I am mindful of the arguments deployed in favour of electrification. I plan to visit the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive shortly, and I hope to meet the hon. Gentleman on that occasion, together with other hon. Gentlemen from Yorkshire who have been supporting the scheme.
    Mr. Kirkhope: Does my hon. Friend agree that the east coast electrification is the biggest-ever electrification scheme in the United Kingdom? It means that people like me can travel from Leeds to London in under two hours in great comfort? Does he agree that at the end of the day it is for British Rail management, based on business decisions, to decide whether other lines should be electrified or should retain diesel traction?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations on the value of electrification on the east coast mainline. Of course he is right; two hours to Leeds, three hours to Newcastle and four hours to Edinburgh are impressive speeds over that line. I agree that it is for British Rail to decide which further lines should be electrified, and the Government await proposals from British Rail with interest and with underlying support.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to provide Government financial support to ensure that any channel tunnel terminal at Stratford is linked to King's Cross.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that all the regions should be properly served by freight and passenger services to and from the channel tunnel.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Secretary of State aware that his and the Government's bungling and mismanagement threaten the high-speed link and the channel tunnel? Will he give the House an assurance that the Ove Arup proposal for a high-speed link to London will be allowed to be negotiated with British Rail, and will he join the Opposition in repealing section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which prevents public money from going into such schemes, at the earliest possible opportunity so that my region can benefit from 1992 and the single market?
    Mr. Parkinson: In 1993 when the tunnel opens British Rail will be putting into service 3 million seats a year from the regions; 70 per cent. of all the freight going through the tunnel will come from the regions, and proper arrangements are being made. The Government are in the process of modernising and improving the railway system that the Labour Government so shamefully ignored.
    Sir David Mitchell: Is not it true that what really counts is not the time taken on a journey but that the journey is faster, more comfortable and more convenient than the competition?
    Mr. Parkinson: I agree with my right hon. Friend. May I point out to Opposition Members, especially the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who talks about 45 mph journeys from London to the tunnel, that trains will run at 100 mph? British freight trains run more quickly than continental freight trains, most of which are restricted to 60 mph. Will he stop giving the impression that the TGV is a freight train?
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that any route from Stratford to King's Cross would be more economical if it were combined with the cross-rail which he is now considering? Does he recall that a few weeks ago he replied to a question from me asking why he would not apply the Victoria line cost-benefit analysis used by the late Mr. Ernest Marples to any part of the channel tunnel route? Will he apply the formula used by Mr. Marples for the Victoria line to any lines in London, and why does he refuse to use it for part of the channel tunnel link?
    Mr. Parkinson: Because the House of Commons, in an Act passed with the full support of the Labour party, made it illegal for the Government to subsidise any fast tunnel link, on the ground that it would create unfair competition for ships, road freight and airlines. When we consider London Underground provision, we use precisely the same analysis as was used by the late Lord Marples. No underground line in London could be justified on economic grounds. The House of Commons decided that the channel tunnel link should not be subsidised, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman voted for that clause.
    Mr. Dunn: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is deep anxiety in north-west Kent and south London about the rumours that the channel tunnel rail link project might be shelved? Shelving the project will simply allow the confusion, rumour and blight to continue, with adverse effects on my constituents. Is he further aware that some people are demanding the use of taxpayers' money for a project capable of being financed by private capital? Will he continue to resist those demands?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes. My hon. Friend is saying that this is an extremely complex issue which needs careful

    5
    consideration, and that is precisely what the Government are giving it. When the Government reach their decision, the House of Commons will be the first to be informed.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Secretary of State aware that if section 42 had applied to any of the existing European high-speed links, they would not have been built because they all involved public money or public guarantee? Does he accept that since both sides of the House passed the provision in section 42, the fear of unfair competition has receded due to the doubling of the cost of channel tunnel, faster ferries and congestion at our airports? That fully justifies the repeal of section 42, for which I offer the Secretary of State the fullest support. It will be essential if Britain is to have a high-speed network so that our economy can prosper in Europe.
    Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that constructive and helpful intervention. I do not wish to blight his prospects, but I thank him for that constructive suggestion. But there were good, sound reasons for section 42. We shall debate the Commission's proposals tomorrow. It is no part of its proposals that Europe's rail lines should be subsidised. The thrust of the Commission is to make Europe's railways competitive and to get rid of subsidy, and that is precisely what the Germans and others are considering now.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if regions such as Yorkshire are to receive the full benefit of the massive investment that has already gone into rail electrification, trains that originate in our region must have rapid transit by whatever route through London and the south-east on to the continent and that decision must be made soon so that work can begin as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Parkinson: I have good news for my hon. Friend. The work has already begun. Work is in hand, huge investment is already being made and orders have been placed for the modernisation of lines, for improved rolling stock and for new freight centres. From the day the tunnel opens my hon. Friend's region and others will be properly served and will have access to all aspects of the tunnel.

    Radioactive Material
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the transport of radioactive material within the United Kingdom.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): The transport of radioactive material in the United Kingdom is governed by the regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency. These regulations are kept under continuous review; major revisions take place every 10 years, and the most recent one was in 1985.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that at present it is permissible to carry nuclear waste on passenger ferries and that it is the Government's policy to permit high-level nuclear waste to be taken through the channel tunnel? Do not the Government consider it a grave dereliction of duty that routes for nuclear waste are entirely a matter for the carrier and have nothing to do with the Government? May we have an announcement of a review of both policies so that people can be assured that nuclear waste is carried on
    6
    designated, publicly known routes on which it will produce the minimum risk to the safety of members of the public who also use those routes?
    Mr. Atkins: I was under the impression that the question was about the transport of radioactive material within the United Kingdom, not outside it. I assure the hon. Gentleman, whose new-found interest in the matter I discovered recently—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I draw it to the attention of the House that the Radioactive Materials (Road Transport) Bill recently passed through the House in one-and-a-half minutes and that the Liberal party was completely unrepresented [Interruption.] The serious answer to the question is that the Government take, and for many years have taken, great interest in these matters. We abide by international regulations which are reviewed regularly and we are as satisfied as anyone can be that the regulations are effective, efficient and brought up to date at every opportunity.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: If the Government are determined to pursue the ludicrous policy of turning the United Kingdom into the nuclear dustbin of the world, does the Minister accept that he has a clear responsibility to ensure that the routes that will be used are reviewed, particularly against the background of the recent statements of the chief executive of British Nuclear Fuels plc that high-level nuclear waste may be disposed of at Sellafield and Dounreay? Will the Minister, therefore, undertake to put pressure on the authority to ensure that the routes are published and that details of the quality of the vehicles used are known to the public?
    Mr. Atkins: I hesitate to give the hon. Lady lessons, but there is a difference, of which people should be aware, between nuclear waste and the reprocessing of used nuclear fuel. We have an efficient and effective industry, part of which is in the constituency adjacent to mine and others. Hon. Members should be aware of the regulations that apply when such material is shipped round the country. The safety of the regulations has been demonstrated on more than one occasion, not least in 1984 when a train travelling at 100 mph crashed, causing no damage whatever.

    Bus Deregulation
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to revise his Department's policy towards bus deregulation.
    Mr. Freeman: No. Deregulation has resulted in greater diversity of service for passengers and more bus mileage at lower costs.
    Ms. Quin: Is the Minister aware that the figures clearly show that since bus deregulation traffic congestion on the bridges over the River Tyne has increased greatly and that deregulation has caused great difficulties for our previously excellent, integrated transport system? Will he cast dogma aside and make urgent proposals to exempt areas such as Tyne and Wear from this crazy policy?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady may know that highway authorities already have the power to prevent bus operators from using certain streets or parts of their area if there is congestion. Obviously, congestion on the bridges over the Tyne begs the question whether there should be

    7
    further infrastructure investment in roads and bridges over the Tyne. That is not a matter for the passenger transport executive, but next time I visit Gateshead and Newcastle I shall look into congestion, specifically on the bridges.
    Mr. Higgins: Does my hon. Friend agree that bus deregulation has greatly improved bus and coach services to the general benefit, but that it is important that competitive pressures should not lead to bus drivers being encouraged to break the speed limit? Will he look carefully at the present arrangements for examining tachograph records and provide for a general survey of them to ensure that the speed limit is not broken?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comment that deregulation has brought many benefits to the travelling public. Naturally, there has been innovation. About 7,000 minibuses have been introduced in more than 600 places. I shall make inquiries about tachographs and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his advice.
    Ms. Ruddock: The Minister's answers on deregulation are not only complacent but misleading. Does he accept the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' report that since deregulation the number of bus trips has fallen by between 100 million and 200 million more than would otherwise have been expected? Does he accept that significant among the negative factors affecting the public is the much-reduced availability of common ticketing and abnormally high levels of passenger service changes, exemplified in Greater Manchester where 90 per cent. of the services were changed within 12 months? Finally, is he aware that, on present trends, the average vehicle life of a conventional bus will be 43 years, whereas before deregulation it was 16 years?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady selects her statistics carefully. Bus deregulation has brought many benefits to the travelling public, including more bus miles run—some 18 per cent. up—more choice and innovation and a better service.
    Mr. Forman: Although I recognise the benefits of bus deregulation in other parts of the country, will my hon. Friend be cautious about any increase in that policy in Greater London? Will he assure the House that any bus deregulation in Greater London will have an eye to the present problem of buses being one of the less-used parts of the public transport system? They need to be more fully and effectively used if we are to deal with the problem of congestion in Greater London.
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's cautionary note. No decisions have yet been reached about the timing of the deregulation or privatisation of London buses.

    British Rail
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chair of British Rail to discuss improvements in rail services.
    Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chair of British Rail to discuss investment in rail services.
    Mr. Parkinson: I have regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail.
    Ms. Armstrong: In those discussions have the right hon. Gentleman and the chairman compared the expected travelling time between Calais and Lyon and between Dover and Darlington in five years' time? Can he assure our citizens that the services available to them will be comparable with those available to the citizens of France?
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Lady makes the mistake of joining the gang who find every country attractive but their own. Outside France, Britain runs more trains travelling in excess of 100 mph than any other country in Europe. We have our own ways of dealing with our problems and we shall continue in that manner.
    Ms. Mowlam: Will the Secretary of State now try to answer the question? Will the same quality of service and trains travelling at the same speed be available to us in the north-east in five years' time as in the rest of Europe? A straight answer would be much appreciated.
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Lady should not need to ask that question. She knows that the answer is no, because we have not chosen to go down the TGV route. We are making our own arrangements by road, rail and air and through improved, deregulated ports to ensure that our goods and people have good access to worldwide destinations.
    Sir Bernard Braine: As my right hon. Friend is already aware of the appalling state of the Fenchurch street to Southend commuter line, which carries a vast number of passengers daily, and which has caused London employers to doubt the wisdom of employing young people from my part of the world because of the unreliability of that service, at the next meeting he has with the chairman will he impress upon British Rail the necessity not merely for improvement, as that is promised in the years ahead, but the necessity for improvement forthwith?
    Mr. Parkinson: Who could resist an instruction like that? I shall attempt to convey to the chairman of British Rail the ferocity with which my right hon. Friend expressed his view. His line is an important part of Network SouthEast, in which more than £1,200 million will be invested in the next three years. That will result in considerable improvements for all commuters, including his constituents.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a welcome revival of local services all over the country, often using the Sprinter trains that are manufactured by my constituents at British Rail Engineering Ltd? In his discussions with the chairman of British Rail, will he raise the proposed new Ivanhoe line that will join Leicester, Loughborough, Burton upon Trent and Derby, thereby enabling us to bring passenger traffic into the Toyota plant without clogging up the roads?
    Mr. Parkinson: I shall raise that matter with the chairman of British Rail when I next meet him.
    Mr. Prescott: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss the possibility of the closure of a number of Speedlink freight services announced last week? Is he aware that that is due to the extra financial targets that the Secretary of State has placed on the freight industry, as against the £50 million section A subsidies, thus forcing more traffic to go from

    9
    rail to road, and adding to congestion and pollution? Is not it time that he acted as a Minister responsible for Transport instead of as a servant of the Treasury?
    Mr. Parkinson: Only the hon. Gentleman, without knowing the facts—which he rarely does—would criticise the new chairman of British Rail, who has discovered that he owns a business with an income of £45 million and outgoings of £75 million, which is losing £30 million a year and which handles less than one tenth of 1 per cent. of our freight. The hon. Gentleman thinks that the chairman is not following a sensible pattern in examining whether those losses are necessary. Any sensible person would examine those losses, including the hon. Gentleman if he ever got into a position of power, which he will not.

    Road Schemes (Dorset)
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road schemes are currently in preparation; and how many of those are in Dorset.
    Mr. Atkins: A total of 472 trunk road schemes are currently in preparation, of which 11 are in Dorset.
    Mr. Bruce: Will my hon. Friend find time in his busy calendar to come to Dorset to look at the appalling roads there? I understand that he did not find time in his busy programme to come down, but I hope that he can confirm that it was not the terrible tales that I have been telling him about how long it would take him to get there that put him off.
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend will know full well that it was through no fault of my own that the visit to Hardy country, which I was looking forward to, was delayed. He will know that both he and my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) place substantial pressure on me to ensure that the roads in Dorset are kept up to their present high standard—of course, they are always capable of improvement.
    Mr Cohen: Why is it that when the Government consider roads in Dorset, they at least give some consideration to the environment, yet when they consider roads in urban areas such as Leyton, they do not give a toss about the environment, housing or people there?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman has an unfortunate turn of phrase. I know that if he reflects on those matters he will realise just how much attention my Department gives to the environment and that, just because I am where I am, it does not mean that I have lost my interest in and concern for environmental matters, in whatever part of the country. The Landscape Advisory Committee takes a great deal of interest in where the roads will go and in their effects on the local—and urban—environment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will withdraw his implied slur on my efficiency.

    25 (Congestion)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about proposals to relieve congestion on the M25.
    Mr. Atkins: We propose to widen the M25 to dual four lanes, and will announce our response to the consultants' report in the near future.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that merely to widen the M25 to four lanes is wholly inadequate and bears no relationship to future road flows? When can we look forward to an M25 relief road?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend will realise the important difficulties relating to environmental matters, consequent to the previous question. There are enough of my hon. Friends sitting in the Chamber, not least the Secretary of State, whose constituents might have views on widening the M25 beyond four lanes. However, I appreciate the point about congestion, and we are treating congestion on the M25, as well as on many other motorways, as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Has not the M25 become a standing joke—almost literally in traffic terms—and a sort of circular car lot? Would not it be better if the Government, instead of looking at ways of taking up more space by widening this monstrous road which is not working, put more money into the transport infrastructure of railways within the M25 area to relieve congestion on that road?
    Mr. Atkins: How dare the hon. Gentleman suggest that the M25 is monstrous? There are plenty of people in this part of the south-east of England who thank God for it, in terms of —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Atkins. [HON. MEMBERS: "Blasphemy."] Order.
    Mr. Atkins: —in terms of the relief given to nearby villages and towns by removing congestion from them. Ironically the M25 is a victim of its own success, which is why we shall widen it to four lanes and why a great deal of attention is being given to it. The hon. Gentleman ought to reflect on the success that is the M25.

    Airline Security
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met his opposite number in Germany to discuss airline security.
    Mr. Parkinson: I meet the German Transport Minister regularly at the EC Council of Ministers. Our officials also meet regularly to discuss aviation security, within the International Civil Aviation Organisation, within the European Civil Aviation Conference and elsewhere.
    Mr. Holt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he accept that despite all these frequent meetings, at Easter my wife and I flew from here to the middle east via Frankfurt, and when we boarded the plane, having gone through all the security checks, we found my wife's seat occupied by a stowaway who had gone on board without a pass and without going through security? Subsequently he was arrested and taken away. Has security at Frankfurt improved?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am answerable in the House for all aspects of British transport but not for German transport arrangements. However, when I see Dr. Zimmermann I shall bring that to his attention and report our exchange to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Foulkes: Did the Secretary of State note that last week a Pan Am jet was diverted to Prestwick after a terrorist scare? Is he aware that two jets were diverted from Glasgow airport to Prestwick because of crosswinds at Glasgow? I am sure that he will know that all the NATO Foreign Ministers and his good friend the Prime Minister flew in and out of Prestwick airport for the Turnberry summit last week. All that underlines the importance of Prestwick airport, yet in Saturday's Glasgow Herald the British Airports Authority talks about mothballing Prestwick during the winter. Will the right hon. Gentleman talk with Sir Norman Payne and ensure that he lives up to the promises that he gave the Secretary of State that Prestwick will remain open?
    Mr. Parkinson: I shall not refer that matter to the German Transport Minister when next I see him, but I shall tell the hon. Gentleman that when we changed the policy, we opened up all Scotland's airports for traffic. I believe that Prestwick is extremely well equipped to attract traffic; new airlines have been going there recently; there is a great deal of interest in expanding it as a freight terminal; and I deplore anything that appears in any way to downgrade the importance of Prestwick.

    Bus Workers (Safety and Conditions)
    Mr. SkinnerTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet bus drivers and other workers from the east midlands regarding safety and conditions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeman: Pay and conditions are matters for individual bus operators. The operator and vehicle licensing system provides for safety standards.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Minister did meet the workers in the east midlands, he would learn from them that since the Mafia-type boss Mr. Souter of Stagecoach Holdings took over the East Midlands Motorbus Company, he has not only derecognised the union and sacked some of the workers, but made them scared stiff of raising the issue of bus safety—because they would lose their jobs if they did. It is time that there was an inquiry into Stagecoach Holdings, which now has a monopoly 100 miles wide, stretching from the east to the west coast of Britain, and high time that the Government, who believe in freedom of choice and in the right to belong to a trade union, did something about it.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is clearly wrong to link safety standards with private enterprise. There is no connection whatever. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will know that bus operators must be licensed and that the abilities of bus and coach drivers are re-examined every five years. Buses and coaches are examined every year. Safety and private enterprise can and do go together.

    Inner Cities
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what road and public transport measures his Department have to boost inner-city regeneration.
    Mr. Atkins: We are providing support on a massive scale for new public transport infrastructure and roads to improve access to the inner cities. Examples include the
    12
    Greater Manchester Metrolink and the Jubilee line extension to consolidate the regeneration of London's docklands.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the massive regeneration of the inner cities under the stewardship of this Government has been as a result of the imaginative combination of private money and private initiative, with the public grants that have been given, mainly by his Department?
    Mr. Atkins: With his usual perspicacity, my hon. Friend has hit the nail absolutely on the head.

  THE ARTS

    Theatres (London)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister for the Arts how many of London theatres benefit from public funds at the present time; how many theatres do not so benefit; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): Over 30 of the 100 main theatres in London are revenue-funded by the Arts Council or Greater London Arts. Local authorities fund several further theatres.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most London theatres are unsubsidised and must succeed without public funding? Therefore, is not it clear that theatres can succeed on their own two feet? It can cost, for example, £50 for a seat at Covent Garden—[Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend agree that the theatres, which are standing on their own two feet—as the Crazy Gang always did, and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should know that—should be commended for doing so?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right that many of the commercial theatres in London—as I said, 30 out of 100 are revenue-funded—have been a remarkable story during the past decade. Audiences in those theatres had increased to 11 million in 1989, which is the highest since records began in 1981 and the box office for those theatres doubled in real terms during the same period. The story is therefore one of success and the theatres are to be congratulated.
    Mr. MaclennanWhat steps will the Minister take to ensure that the Royal Shakespeare Company is not dark for months during the winter, to the shame of the Government and the embarrassment of the country?
    Mr. Luce: The Royal Shakespeare Company, which received an 11 per cent. increase this year in taxpayers' funding, has a wide range of productions. As I have made plain in the House on previous occasions, it is clear that every single arts body that is subsidised by the taxpayer should ensure that it can live within its means. I have great admiration for the Royal Shakespeare Company. Its audiences are good and I believe that with its finances in good order, it will continue to do an excellent job.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many small theatres still need some support and that those theatres, such as the King's Head theatre club, which has recently got into some difficulties, would be in less

    13
    difficulty if the obstructions on their ability to run themselves were removed? I am thinking especially of the 48-hour membership rule.
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. However, I understand that last week Greater London Arts decided to restore revenue funding to the King's Head theatre club on clear understandings about the management of that arts organisation. My hon. Friend is right that there are many art organisations throughout the country. Not only in London, but in the country as a whole, the Arts Council's number of revenue clients has increased by 120 to 140 in the past 10 years. That shows how widely the money is spread.

    Heritage (Preservation)
    Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Minister for the Arts what recent measures have been taken to help preserve Britain's heritage.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Minister for the Arts what role there is for the private sector in preserving Britain's heritage; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: Recent measures, all entailing varying degrees of private support, include the introduction of gift aid, the creation of the museums and galleries improvement fund and taking into account the existence of private offers when deciding on export licence applications for items of national importance.
    Mr. Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply because recently, with substantial grants from English Heritage, the 12th century Rufford abbey in my constituency was reopened to the public. Will he reassure me that private giving and charitable donations will enhance the Government's funding, not replace it?
    Mr. Luce: I, too, praise English Heritage, and the national heritage memorial fund on all that they do to preserve and support our heritage. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the value of gift aid, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced in the Budget and which will come into operation in October, because it gives a massive new opportunity for the arts world to raise more money from individuals and corporations. It will not be a substitute for public funding.
    Mr. Thompson: I also congratulate the Government, through my right hon. Friend, on the introduction of the gift aid scheme in the Budget. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the private sector can and should do even more both to help preserve Britain's heritage and for the arts generally?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. I look to the private sector to be the source of real growth, in addition to the basic commitment of taxpayer support, which has been demonstrated by the 24 per cent. increase for the next three years. In harness, the two should do a great deal to produce more resources for the arts.
    Mr. Buchan: What consideration has the Minister given to the problems that we shall face in 1992 in relation to the export of works of art, given that we are moving into an open market?
    Mr. Luce: The Cultural Ministers of Europe have been discussing those matters in their informal meetings. Article
    14
    36 of the treaty of Rome makes it clear that every member state can keep its own methods of protection for its own heritage. Nevertheless, against the background of free frontiers and a lack of controls, it is necessary to find a way to ensure that we can deal, for example, with stolen works of art. Discussions on that are going on.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister knows that large numbers of people come to this country because of the quality of heritage and arts that we offer, and long may that be the case. Will he consider discussing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the possibility of introducing a hotel tax—a bedroom tax—to release resources that could be devoted to improving our arts and heritage?
    Mr. Luce: As the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter, I shall mention it to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. However, as he knows, our general policy—this is not specifically to answer his question—is that we do not go in for more hypothecated taxation than is necessary. The arts, with public and private sector funding, which is increasing, do a great deal to attract millions of tourists from all over the world.
    Mr. Burns: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week, an important example of our heritage, a low rail way bridge in Shield row, near Stanley, was seriously damaged by a runaway bus that careered off the road and had its top ripped off? I understand that it was the Labour party's only promotional bus. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend assured the House that the Labour party will pay to repair the damage to our heritage and to that fine
    Mr. Luce: I am sure that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will take careful note of my hon. Friend's view about the role that the Labour party is taking in despoiling our heritage.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister give some thought to our scientific heritage, for which he also has responsibility? Does he understand the scale of the crisis in our national museums, particularly the natural history museum? There, the trustees of one of the world's great scientific collections are being forced to cut 100 jobs, many of them held by key scientists, in order to save approximately £2 million a year. They have made it clear that they regret that and that the cause of their doing it is the Government's underfunding and neglect of that great museum. Will the Minister meet the trustees to discuss the financial plight of the museum and to make sure that the international reputation of that great collection is preserved?
    Mr. Luce: I do not underestimate the importance of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but, as he prefaced it by talking about a crisis and underfunding, I should make clear the position of the natural history museum. Over the past 10 years, the resources that the museum has received from the taxpayer, let alone from the private sector, whose funding has increased dramatically, have increased by 12·8 per cent. This year, over last year, I have increased its funding by 16·5 per cent. There has, therefore, been a real increase in the museum's resources.
    It is against that background that the museum has produced a corporate strategy looking to the next five years. It has taken the view that is should focus its research on environment and health matters. I take seriously the concerns that have been expressed, and so, I should stress, does the management of the museum. It has taken the lead

    15
    in arranging a seminar next Friday, which scientists from throughout the country will join. The management will assess the wider implications of any decisions that may be taken and will take them seriously into account.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Conditions of Service
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next expects to meet the civil service trades unions leaders regarding conditions of service; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I meet the civil service unions from time to time to discuss a range of matters.
    Mr. Skinner: When will the Minister make proper payments to the civil service for fiddling Government figures? Civil servants have had to fiddle the dole figures on 23 occasions. They have had to reshape the poll tax 11 times. They are now being called upon to fiddle the cost-of-living figures. Surely it is high time that they were given a conscience payment, which should be paid according to the inverse proportion to the truth.
    Mr. Luce: It is a gross disservice to 567,000 outstanding civil servants to suggest that civil servants are fiddling the figures. We have one of the finest civil services and it is about time that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that.
    Mr. Wilshire: When my right hon. Friend next meets the representatives of the civil service trade unions, will he take the opportunitity to explain to them that if managers in the agencies are to do a truly effective job, they must be given the right to negotiate pay and conditions for their staff?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right in suggesting that the key to success in the establishment of reforms in the Civil Service, which has led to the creation of the agencies, is that there should be as much delegation of responsibility as possible to the chief executives and managers who are in charge. That is the policy which is consistently being pursued. The House will be aware that 31 agencies have been established. Evidence is growing that more and more of the agencies have wide discretion and flexibility in the way in which they manage resources, including salaries.

    Management Buy-outs
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Minister of the Civil Service whether he has any plans to change the rules regarding civil service management buy-outs of public services; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: I have no plans to change any of the conduct rules in the civil service pay and conditions of service code that may be relevant to civil service management buy-outs.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not the Minister concerned that the Crown rules of 1988 were set to one side for the sell-off of the skill centres to Astra Training Services, consisting of three civil servants in charge of the skill centres? Is not the right hon. Gentleman alarmed that only they were privy to the fact that £11 million was to be given to the purchasers along with the skill centres? Is not he further alarmed that those civil servants, and the Minister, connived to deny
    16
    that information to the 61 other bidders, who made various offers for the skill centres? Those bidders included organisations such as Wimpey and Preston borough council. They were never told about the secret sweetener that was being made available to insider dealers.
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman's last allegation is entirely untrue. The first consideration with management buy-outs is whether that option is the best way to get best value for money and to serve customers. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that as the first consideration. The Government understand the need to maintain proprieties in any civil service buy-out. Arrangements are made to ensure that officials participating in buy-outs do not have the opportunity to put their private interests above their public responsibilities. The interests of the vendor are secured by setting up a privatisation unit to handle the sale, which is separate from the management of the organisation that is being sold. Clear guidelines are drawn up.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I give notice of my intention to raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

    Fast-stream Trainees
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what percentage of fast-stream trainees came from (a) Oxford and (b) Cambridge during the last 12 months; and what the figure was five years ago.
    Mr. Luce: In 1989, 36 per cent. of candidates recommended for fast-stream trainee appointments held degrees from Oxford or Cambridge; in 1985, the percentage was 42.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister accept that, although Oxford and Cambridge are good universities, those figures are way out of proportion with the total supply of graduates? Does not he wish to put on record the fact that the quality of graduates from all polytechnics and universities in this country is of a high standard? What steps will he take to ensure that the civil service intake reflects the proportion of graduates throughout the United Kingdom, rather than just the proportion from Oxford and Cambridge?
    Mr. Luce: Our primary concern in recruitment of such grades to the civil service is to obtain the best candidates, from whatever source, on the basis of equality of opportunity. Recruits come from a wide range of universities; some 40 universities provided recruits in 1989. Surely the hon. Gentleman must accept that obtaining the best candidates, on the basis of equality of opportunity, must be the right criterion.
    Mr. Rowe: I do not know how much things have changed since I was an observer on the civil service selection board, as I was for many years. Is not it true, however, that assessors on the board make every effort to ensure that candidates from universities other than Oxford and Cambridge are, if anything, given priority over Oxford and Cambridge graduates? Might not the problem have something to do with the continuing inability of the

    17
    selection board to mount an effective recruitment campaign outside Oxford and Cambridge and a limited range of other education institutions?
    Mr. Luce: The Civil Service Commission undertakes a sustained campaign of liaison with schools, polytechnics and universities in the recruitment of civil servants: that is absolutely right and essential. In 1982, 71 per cent. of administration trainees—as opposed to all high-flyers who come into the civil service, including specialists—came from Oxbridge, whereas in 1989 the figure was 55 per cent: that demonstrates a change. However, I stick to the view, based on the principle of equality of opportunity, that we must go for the best people whom we can get.
    Dr. Marek: Is the Minister saying that he tries to obtain the best people? Is he saying that, furthermore, he obtains the best people, and, therefore, stands by his figure that 36 per cent. of the best people come from Oxford and Cambridge? Not only the House but the country would like to hear an answer to that.
    Mr. Luce: The statistics speak for themselves, although it is true that the number taken from Oxbridge—as a proportion of the total—happens to be coming down. It does not matter where they come from, but we are entitled to have the best people in the civil service. Selection must be based on equality of opportunity: that is why we have had a sustained campaign to recruit more women and members of the ethnic minorities.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Is not it true that many people who were not at Oxford or Cambridge see the civil service as a dull, dead-end job in an expensive part of the country? Those of us who work with the civil service know that that is not true, but what is the civil service doing to improve its image?
    Mr. Luce: A great deal is happening to change the perception of work in the civil service. The most significant thing to change the public's perception of the civil service is the next steps reforms. I believe that young people entering the civil service want responsibility at an early age, and the reforms have succeeded in giving them that.

    Civil Service Unions
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the civil service unions; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Luce: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    Mr. Barnes: Has low pay for support grades 1 and 2, such as drivers and messengers, been discussed? Why is their pay lower than the equivalent in most European countries, including Italy, Belgium and Spain? What will happen in 1992 with the single market? Will their pay rise to the level of that in Denmark or fall to the level of that in Greece?
    Mr. Luce: Questions of pay in the civil service are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The pay of support grades has improved substantially during the past two years, especially for special groups. Indeed, for one group an offer has been made of a 22 per cent. increase. The overall position of support grades is now improving.

    Natural History Museum
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received from curatorial staff on the conditions of service in the natural history museum.
    Mr. Luce: I have received some representations via hon. Members from curatorial staff in the natural history museum, to which I have replied.
    Mr. Dalyell: I spent two hours this morning with scientists at the natural history museum. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given his office notice? If the Prime Minister was serious, as I believe she was, in her speech on 22 March about the need for a databank, why has the distinguished entomologist Mr. Michael Day, who is doing important research on bees, been made redundant?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving my office notice of that question. The position of staff is a matter for the management. As I said in reply to an earlier question, the management of the natural history museum has taken the le ad in organising a seminar on Friday for scientists from Britain and abroad, during which it will be possible to consider the international and wider implications for research of some of the decisions that it has taken. The overall funding for the natural history museum has risen by 16·5 per cent. this year, against a positive background. It has decided to focus on two areas—health and environmental matters.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the courteous but unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Explosion (Islington)
3.30 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will know, in my constituency on Saturday evening there was an explosion at the Honourable Artillery Company premises, and a large number of people who had been enjoying a birthday party were injured in that blast. I am sure that the House will feel a sense of outrage and shock at what happened. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Could you tell us, Mr. Speaker, whether the Government have said why they will not come to the House to make a statement on that matter? Not only is there a great deal of concern about what happened on Saturday night, but there are wider issues about the security of similar buildings that have a connection with the armed services, but not necessarily any direct military use. There is a great deal of public concern and it is not good enough for the Ministry of Defence simply to say that everything is all right. Now is not the time for complacency. I hope that you can enlighten us on whether the Government have said anything to you about coming to the House to make a statement.
Mr. Speaker: I have not had such a request from the Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have other opportunities to raise this sad matter, which has affected his constituency, perhaps during the defence estimates debate next week.

Explosion (Islington)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Employment Subsidies Act 1978 (Renewal) (Great Britain) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMINIITTEE
  Ordered,
  That, in the course of its consideration of Scottish Estimates, the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Edinburgh on Monday 18th June at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

European Community (Developments)
[Relevant documents: European Community Document No. SEC(90)1, the Programme of the European Commission for 1990; Second report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Single European Act ( House of Commons Paper No. 82) and the observations by the Government on the report (Cm. 1077); Minutes of evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 23 May 1990 ( House of Commons Paper No. 437-i).]
3.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on Developments in the European Community (July-December 1989) (Cm. 1023).
The diplomatic merry-go-round is gathering speed. Last week, NATO Foreign Ministers met in Scotland. Summit meetings have just taken place between American, British and Soviet leaders. In 14 days' time, the heads of Government of the European Community will meet in Dublin. Just before that meeting, Foreign Ministers of the allied powers and the two Germanies will meet in East Berlin. At the beginning of July, NATO heads of Government will meet in London. Less than a week later, the heads of Government of the major economic powers will meet in the United States. That is just June and July.
There is more to that than photographs and communiqués. Those meetings are not just part of the usual international round. We are trying to manage the enormous and welcome changes going on in the world. The old mould has broken, the new one not yet set. This debate is about the European Council, but we need to fit it into a wider view of Britain's interests.
Since Sir Winston Churchill's "iron curtain" speech, all our assumptions have had to be built on the fact of a divided Europe, with the free countries of the west facing countries in the east. Politically and economically, the eastern countries were under the control of the Soviet Union, and because of the nature of Soviet policy, they therefore represented a military and political threat to the free world.
The European Community has had a unique place in that post-war architecture. It achieved brilliantly its central purpose of making friends and allies out of former enemies. It was always a bridge from Europe to the wider world, including to the Communist bloc. It helped to achieve for its citizens a prosperity which set for the communist countries a comparison which they were found to fail—and did fail, in spectacular humiliation.
Much of our Community agenda was set in train long before the recent changes by which eastern Europe won its freedom, but we need now to take stock of what we are trying to achieve, see what adjustments we should make, and decide where the Community fits into the wider architecture of the new Europe. At the same time, in this debate we look back at the White Paper on Community developments under the French presidency. We have improved the format and hope to improve it yet again next time. We are also discussing the Commission's annual work programme, which the Scrutiny Select Committee recommended for debate today.
The background is that the European Community and NATO will continue to be the main pillars of our foreign

21
policy. NATO will increasingly be about peace building, not just peace keeping, but its essential security role will remain at its core.
It would be irresponsible to argue that we do not need defence. We do, and that defence must be collective, but NATO will be one of the means of reaching out to the Soviet Union and the countries of eastern Europe as the become democracies and adapt their military structures. NATO, with a united Germany in it, will remain the guarantee of Europe's safety and one of the main means of binding the United States and Canada into Europe—which is in our interests as well as theirs.
In parallel, we shall see the increasing development of the Helsinki process—the conference on security and co-operation in Europe—not as a security organisation replacing NATO but as a partnership building confidence among 35 countries, many of which have been adversaries for the past 40 years.
Against that background, the European Community will become, if anything, even more important than now in the new scheme of things.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The EEC has been an unmitigated disaster.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has not read his party's policy document.
Mr. Skinner: I have. I voted against it.
Mr. Hurd: That is why it won—now I understand.
The new democracies of eastern Europe are enormously attracted by what we in the Community have to offer—free democracies, offering our citizens increasing prosperity through liberal economic policies, and concerted action to tackle common problems and a common system, based on a treaty binding that enterprise together. In looking westwards, they are looking first and foremost to the European Community for economic and political support.
In response, we are already devising new forms of association agreements with the countries of eastern Europe. Those agreements will increase in content as political and economic reform in those countries gathers strength. They may well one day lead to full membership of the Community. I would counsel against the argument that a larger Community would necessarily mean a more loosely structured Community.
The new entrants might well argue in favour of wider competence to the Community and closer integration. The example of Spain is worth pondering in that respect. However that argument turns out, I do not see that the Europe of 12 could shut the door of membership for any length of time against fully qualified European democracies, which are anxious to join, whether they are now members of EFTA, or are in the centre or east of Europe. Half of Europe is not the same as Europe and we should never claim otherwise.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Given that economies in the east of Europe are less sophisticated and more backward than our own, it would be a mistake if the European Community became such a close-knit club, with such high standards of entry, that the new countries, which we want to welcome into the democratic fold, were discouraged from joining.
Mr. Hurd: Membership of the Community requires an applicant to be a fully fledged democracy in political and
22
economic terms. A country which relies on a high level of state subsidy and state aid is simply not qualified to enter the Community. Therefore, it will be a number of years before the newly fledged democracies of central and eastern Europe will be eligible. However, I agree that there should be no attempt to raise barriers to make their entry more difficult. I foresee that, when they are qualified. they will wish to apply. I do not think that there are grounds for keeping the door shut for a long time.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we are eager for countries such as Hungary and Poland to come into the Community? Will he ensure that their entry does not push Turkey down the queue, as it has had a long-standing association with the Community?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend raises an extremely relevant point, which shows that the problem of enlargement of the Community is not simple. I have stated our approach, which is not only sensible now but is what is likely to happen in the future.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) spoke about the potential accession of Turkey to the European Community. In their observations on the second report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, presented to the House last month, the Government said with regard to accession of states into the Community that the criterion was that, under article 237, such a state should meet
"conditions of democracy and human rights."
Therefore, will the Foreign Secretary state categorically that Turkey's standards of human rights, coupled with her continued illegal occupation of part of Cyprus, rule out her acceptance within the Community?
Mr. Hurd: In another statement, we have made our position clear. The whole Community has agreed that it should not consider any applications for full membership from countries outside until 1993. That covers the Austrian and Turkish applications, which are the two that the Community has had to date. After that, we shall need to consider, and we have told the Turkish Government that. Meanwhile, we are seeking to strengthen our Community relationship with Turkey by building up the content of the association agreement with that country.
We should take this opportunity to look at our Community—its strengths and weaknesses—as others see it. We are helped by the excellent and far-ranging report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the completion of the single market. There will always be some tension inside the Community between the Europe of phrases and the Europe of facts. We all belong to the political profession, so we cannot be entirely scornful of phrases and declarations, because they are the tools of our trade. Having said that, Conservative Members—and, I think, people in the country—have a strong preference for the Europe of facts. When the facts lag too far behind the phrases, the gap creates cynicism and the feeling of unreality, which of course gets worse if the facts begin not just to lag behind but to contradict the phrases used.
That is why, in our approach to the forthcoming summit at Dublin, we shall continue to stress what we believe are the two main elements today in this Europe of facts—by which I mean the need for Community decisions to complete the single market and the need for national legislation to carry into effect what the Community has

23
decided. By concentrating on these tasks, we shall sweep away restrictions and give Europe an increased meaning in the life of the citizen.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: We all get carried away by these lovely Alice-in-Wonderland phrases about a greater Europe and a greater world, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that, if we are to get the Common Market right, whether in 1992 or at any other time, we ought to be talking not about who will be allowed to join but about who is to deal, as the Court of Auditors says, with the shambles of the fraud that is being perpetrated now? According to the Court of Auditors, European Community fraud amounts to £7 billion. Until we get rid of fraud, let us not use such grandiloquent phrases as "a greater Europe" and "a greater world". Let us at least ensure that it is honest.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is not a bad phrase-maker himself, so he should not scorn those phrases. However, he has put his finger on one point of fact to which I shall turn later.
We must make stronger progress on the single market this year, given the need to implement the programme by our target date of 1 January 1993. Some progress has been made recently by the Irish presidency—for example, on public procurement—but we are looking to the Dublin Council to add impetus to negotiations on transport and financial services. Air, shipping, road and rail links and insurance and investment services are all areas in which agreement would bring great benefits to both consumers and business. Progress in those areas is central to the success of the single market. We must not let the pace slacken.
It is not much good, however, the Community taking decisions which then simply gather dust in the pending trays of national bureaucracies and parliaments. The Community will be able to achieve its objectives only if its laws are effectively implemented and enforced. The United Kingdom has an excellent record on this, matched by very few others. At the end of June 1989, Italy had given effect to barely half the single market measures due for implementation, although I am encouraged that new arrangements for clearing the Italian backlog are now in hand. Last month, I wrote to Mr. Delors, the President of the Commission, to propose some ways in which we could extend the procedures for achieving the full implementation of Community law. I hope that that will bear fruit.
However, to report the failings will not alone provide the remedy. There is a good case for strengthening the role of both the Commission and the European Court of Justice over enforcement and compliance. We should discuss how that could be done. Can the European Court of Justice procedures be speeded up? Should the court have powers, like national courts, to impose penalties on persistent offenders, even if they are member states? These are matters which we shall raise in the present review of Community institutions.
To turn to the internal work of the Community, under the headings of political union and economic and monetary union, I believe that the discussion about political union is now in much clearer perspective than it used to be. The European Community has played an important part in overcoming national rivalries, but they
24
still exist. The Community is the best available means of channelling those rivalries into effective co-operation in the common interest. We saw that last week, in the dramatic row over bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Without common rules, and a means to apply them, we could rapidly have found ourselves not in an immediate flare-up but in a long-running and deeply damaging trade war.
There is nothing new about angry trade disputes between Britain and France; our history is peppered with them. What is new, though still far from perfect, is a system for settling disputes promptly and fairly. We see the same in the single market and in competition policy. It is the existence of common rules, and a means of enforcing them, that can achieve fair trading conditions for each individual country of the Community and a better competitive position for the Community as a whole.
It is in this area that the Europe of phrase and rhetoric and the Europe of facts are most often in competition. Both have a place. Without phrases and speeches, we might never get beyond narrow nationalism, but it would be fatal to the Community to try to turn rhetoric into common policy without public consent or the practical mechanisms to make that work.
That is the heart of our approach to political economic and monetary union. That is why the Prime Minister at Dublin last time set out what political union does not mean. She guided the debate there and put her finger on a point which is increasingly accepted—that there is no credible set of ideas or constitutional rules which can be drawn up, adopted and called political union.
Mr. Kaufman: "Guided the debate"?
Mr. Hurd: In response to the sedentary intervention by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the questions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked at Dublin are now questions that everyone has felt bound to answer in a way that has cleared up the debate and removed many of the anxieties in people's minds.
We will keep our separate Governments, our legal systems, our constitutions and our traditions. At the same time, we will hold more and more practical policies in common. That is not eroding sovereignty; it is using it. In 1985, in the debate on treaty change, the Community started with grandiose ideas but eventually agreed on limited change to achieve identifiable results. That is likely to happen again this time.
In some ways, the debate on economic and monetary union is similar. When those matters were debated in the House, there was a clear view on all sides that Parliament's control over the Administration was firmly based on its ability to control the Government's revenue-raising powers. There are many steps which we can take towards greater economic and monetary co-operation in Europe, but the House was clear in not accepting stage 3 of the Delors report on either political or practical grounds.
Hard practical work is now in hand in ECOFIN and in the Monetary Committee. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is taking a full part in that and developing our ideas. Here, as in other fields, we have no intention of being bashful or negative. The House will again be debating EMU later this week in response to a private member's motion tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore).

25
It is not yet certain, but it seems likely, that the forthcoming summit in Dublin will decide to convene a second inter governmental conference, in addition to the one of EMU which has already been agreed, under the heading of political union. It is clear now, particularly as a result of the meeting of Foreign Ministers that I attended in Ireland three weeks ago, that the discussion on political union is about the balance between Community institutions and how their working can be improved.
Of course, any treaty changes can be agreed only by unanimity among the member states and after debate and ratification in the House. Throughout, we shall be seeking steps which will make the Community more effective and more relevant to the citizen. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) shouts "fraud" again, I shall come to that in a moment.
We want a democratic accountability to be improved, political co-operation sanctioned and the principle of subsidiarity more rigorously applied.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I have been following the Foreign Secretary's argument with great interest, and his emphasis on facts as opposed to phrases. Does he accept that, because of the emphasis which he and the Prime Minister are putting on facts, there is a danger that the United Kingdom's contribution to greater convergence may appear to be negative? Surely there is a Europe of process as well as a Europe of facts and a Europe of phrases.
Mr. Hurd: I agree with that. I believe that political union is a process by which the member states of the Community, without being forced, develop the habit of increasingly working together on subjects where common decisions are needed. I see political union as a process which leads in that direction. We intend to take, and are taking, a full part, week by week and meeting by meeting, in that process.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the hon. Lady; then I wish to get on.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Surely consensus is not the same thing as accepting a move towards majority voting on matters of major importance? To do that would not be moving with the agreement of the peoples of Europe.
Mr. Hurd: That is why there is a carefully calculated mix between matters which need unanimity and those which can be settled by qualified majority voting.
Democratic control over the decision-making of the Council of Ministers is the proper preserve of national parliaments. That is increasingly accepted in the Community; the view that control should be strengthened is one of the interesting developments in the thinking of the Community in the past year or so. Last month, there was a conference in Cork attended by national scrutiny committee chairmen and the European Parliament to discuss exactly that issue. There will also be assizes of national parliaments in October to discuss the intergovernmental conference. That is a good move, and these are all welcome developments.
Here at Westminster, I hope that the House agrees that the Government have responded positively to the report of
26
the Procedure Committee on scrutiny. We look forward to early implementation of many of its recommendations. Last year, there were 52 scrutiny debates—almost two a week while the House was sitting. In future, we shall try to ensure that such debates continue to take place early in the legislative process of the Community so that the Government can take full account of the views of the House in negotiation in Brussels.
The new Standing Committees that the Government have approved, which will take evidence from Ministers, will further strengthen that scrutiny. I hope that the effectiveness of Parliament's influence on Community legislation can also be increased by improving contacts between hon. Members of the House and Members of the European Parliament.
Here at Westminster, we are making a real and visible effort to improve parliamentary involvement in the Community's legislative process. I welcome that. I hope that other national parliaments will do likewise and that there will be more exchanges between national Parliaments on that shared aim.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: My right hon. Friend referred to the 52 debates that have taken place on European Community documents and directives. Can he mention a single one in which the Government changed their position as a result of the views expressed in the House?
Mr. Hurd: Having taken part in such debates. I am sure that the Minister's view is often shaped—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, I mean that. Ministers' views are shaped and shifted by many angles of aproach as a result of such debates. That is what Parliament is about. One does not expect Ministers to do 180 deg turns in public, but one expects them—and this is what happens—to be influenced and to tell their officials as they leave the Box, "I do not want to go through that again." [Laughter.] That is what parliamentary coming and going is all about. My hon. Friend has been here long enough to have poked a few pins into people and had exactly that impact.
Mr. Peter Shore rose——
Mr. Nigel Spearing rose——
Mr. Tam Dalyell rose——
Mr. Hurd: I am creating more excitement than I intended. I intend to proceed. I shall finish the point about parliaments; then I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).
The European Parliament provides a second pillar of democratic accountability. Its role in the legislative process was significantly strengthened under the Single European Act. The new procedures are working well, and they provide the European Parliament with an important point of entry into Community legislation. We see no need for significant change again now.
Where we do see scope for progress is in improving the accountability of the Commission. National parliaments such as this House cannot keep watch over the Commission's day-to-day administration. I should like to see—this is where the emphasis which my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak placed on fraud comes in—repeated in Strasbourg the rigour of financial accountability that we have here. The Public Accounts Committee and National Audit Office here are excellent models. The Budgetary

27
Control Committee of the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors could do a comparable job, and we should give them the teeth to do so. The European Parliament should, for example, have the power to summon Commission officials. It should be given greater powers to check on fraud and value for money in Community spending.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Hurd: The taxpayer expects that scrutiny, and the Community should provide it. The history of Parliaments suggests that the role of watching and checking Executive action is not less, but more, important than the role of carrying through legislation, on which so much attention is focused.
Mr. Shore: I am all for the European Parliament bringing the Commission to heel, as far as that is possible. The Foreign Secretary spoke about increasing the effective scrutiny of this House over European Community decisions. How can effective scrutiny be undertaken if qualified—or rather, majority—voting is extended in the Council of Ministers, as it was during the Single European Act? Will he at least guarantee that Britain will not consider any further extension of majority voting in the Council of Ministers? It affects the essence of how we control our Ministers in this country.
Mr. Hurd: As the right hon. Gentleman is an enthusiast for the free market, he will agree that it would have been difficult to make as much progress as we have on the single market without qualified majority voting. If the Single European Act had not introduced qualified majority voting in this range of matters, the protectionist members of the Community, often a minority, could have blocked the measures for which the Commission, Britain and the more liberal members of the Community have been pressing. He is not wise to press me for that commitment.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Hurd: I heard the voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).
Mr. Budgen: My right hon. Friend referred to the problem of Euro-fraud. Does he agree that year after year the Court of Auditors points to the most extensive and blatant fraud? Unless we have some form of Euro-police, which would be a complete affront to every nation state, this will go on and on. There is a clear sign that at least some of the countries of Europe know that it is going on, yet turn a blind eye to it.
Mr. Hurd: That is precisely why there is a strong case for strengthening the core of the Community and the effectiveness of the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors and the Budgetary Control Committee, which together should be able to counter that tendency.
The debate about democratic accountability means, at root, satisfying the citizen. Several member states, including ourselves, have provided for recourse to an ombudsman. None of the national models may be found to make complete sense at Community level, because the procedural problems and constitutional arrangements are
28
different, but it is worth looking to see whether the absence of any such arrangements at Community level may be worth remedying.
There is a case for examining with our partners whether some such institution or ombudsman might be set up as Community institutions are reformed. I do not know whether that would be feasible. I float the idea today. If a scheme could be worked out, it could be an important contribution towards making the Community more real for all our citizens.
At the same time, we need to look at the effectiveness of European political co-operation. As the House knows, this is the means by which the Twelve increasingly work together on foreign policy. We sometimes forget how impressive that co-operation can appear to people outside the Community. Recently, the Australian Foreign Minister told me that he saw it as one of the most important recent changes in international affairs.
Recently, in the middle east, I was struck by the stress which Arab leaders placed on the need for renewed action not by Britain or France, but by all the Twelve, in the Arab-Israeli dispute. The United States, as Mr. Baker has made clear, looks to European political co-operation to provide the means whereby the Americans can increasingly discuss problems, such as those in the middle east, with their main European allies. It is, indeed, happening at an increasing pace.
European political co-operation works by consensus, and should continue to do so. That does not, however, preclude national initiatives such as those recently taken by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl on Lithuania. We should look at ways in which to strengthen the effectiveness of EPC by some reinforcement of its secretariat, by allowing EPC business to be discussed at regular foreign affairs councils and enhancing the way in which Community missions aboard can share tasks as well as services.
I do not see why there should not be experiments in producing reports among the Twelve on a particular event —for example, an election in a third country. I cannot see what would stand in the way of that type of co-operation. By such steady improvement in the habit of working together, we shall continue to increase the coherence and effectiveness of such European political co-operation.
The habit of working together is the core of the matter. There must be rules and institutions to embody it, but that habit, unforced and arrived at out of a shared sense of interest, is the vital heart of the Community. In the past 10 years, I have seen that habit grow and strengthen greatly.
Mr. Spearing: The co-operation and importance of national Parliaments, and the importance of co-operation within the Community, to which the right hon. Gentleman has just alluded, would receive universal approval. Earlier, he mentioned European political union, and said that the Government's approach to that lay in the balance of institutional power. Does he agree that the commitment to economic and monetary union, which the Government now hold, requires some form of central authority concerning economic and monetary policy? Of itself, that would constitute a political power, in the same way as the First Lord of the Treasury of this country inevitably became the Prime Minister.
Mr. Hurd: The House has debated that, and it will debate it again later this week. There is also a lively

29
discussion in the Community about it. We have published our ideas about this, and we believe that it is possible to move towards the objectives of economic and monetary union without putting ourselves under a series of centralised institutions.
Mrs. Dunwoody: How?
Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Lady took the Treasury paper of last November from the Library, she would see how that is sketched—I say sketched, because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is now in the process of setting out the ideas in greater depth. The hon. Lady will be able to study them as they develop.
We do not accept it as necessary to have a centralised and a necessarily bureaucratic and unaccountable system to achieve the objectives that led to the Delors report.
Mr. Dalyell rose——
Mr. Bowen Wells rose——
Mr. Hurd: I am about to conclude, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Wells: My right hon. Friend's positive approach to the intergovernmental conference and the planned meetings on it are welcome to the House and to Britain. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real problem for European co-operation is that the meetings of the Council of Europe and the Council of Ministers are not held in public, and therefore we have a problem to ensure democratic accountability to national Parliaments as well as to the European Parliament? We need the control that my right hon. Friend has suggested, and accountability in all we do. At the IGC, we should suggest a second house of the European Parliament consisting of representatives of national parliaments to oversee the Council of Europe and the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that I am persuaded by that. My hon. Friend's first point has some validity, but the trouble about the Council of Ministers is that a lot of time is spent in negotiation, and if all those negotiations were in public it is unlikely that the Council would be successful. I do not think that my hon. Friend's solution would address that problem.
Mr. Dalyell rose——
Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have never failed to do so, and I do not intend to start now.
Mr. Dalyell: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that I have in my hand a wad of letters from distinguished institutions in France, Germany and Denmark asking Britain to think again about what is happening in the natural history museum? We are talking about organising together on the basis of institutions. Will the Foreign Secretary ask someone from the Foreign Office to consider its interest in the matter, which is important for the third world countries because we are destroying what we in this country possibly do best? Will he get someone from the Foreign Office to give him a report on what is happening in south Kensington?
Mr. Hurd: I shall immediately comply with that. A natural sympathy with dinosaurs will impel me to do so, and I shall have no difficulty in meeting the hon. Gentleman's request. I shall let him know how I view the situation when I have been able to look into it.
30
I am sorry to have taken so long, and I shall now conclude my speech. If I am right in thinking that the habit of working together is the key to the Community's success, it means that we must exert ourselves against those who seek to measure progress by the number of centralised policies and centralised institutions, and the height of the barriers that separate the Community from the rest of the world.
Equally, we must show some self-confidence in these islands—which is not always true of commentators on the subject—in our concept of a Community working together with increasing effectiveness where common or co-ordinated policies are needed. That is a growing theme. However, we must also work with our like-minded friends and allies for a world in which the cause of economic and political democracy entrenches itself, develops and makes permanent its present success.
4.11 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: It is always a great pleasure to listen to the Foreign Secretary seeking—as he did this afternoon—to fit the Government's random and self-contradictory activities into the framework of what he claims to be a grand design. When one listens to the right hon. Gentleman doing that so persuasively, one must remember that he is a writer of fiction of high repute—what one might call the Jeffrey Archer of joined-up writing of the Conservative party.
As one listens to the right hon. Gentleman explaining how the Government are initiating this, starting that and collaborating with the other, it is difficult to reconcile that harmonious, well-composed picture with the extraordinary, self-contradictory activities in which the Government are often in a minority of one and over which the right hon. Gentleman has to preside. He wishes to carry into action what he says but is always hag-ridden by the Prime Minister, who will have been interested to hear his latest definition of the activities of the European Community and the United Kingdom's role in it—the habit of working together. She could start that in Cabinet before going on to deal with the NATO summit, Community summits, and so on.
The Foreign Secretary rightly spoke about changes in the international picture caused by the recent meetings of the Warsaw pact and NATO, and how, understandably, they fit into our relationship to the Community and other European countries in the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and other institutions. One would never have thought that this Government had fought a rearguard action in favour of the maintenance and modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons when every single member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has dropped out of contention on this issue and when, in the end, President Bush announced that the United States was not going ahead with Lance modernisation a matter of days after the Prime Minister returned from Bermuda saying that she still supported their modernisation.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that NATO must reassess its role in the light of developments in eastern Europe. It must take into account what the Prime Minister herself called only the other day the ending of the threat from the Soviet Union, what President Bush has called the end of the cold war, what General Colin Powell, chairman of the United States joint chiefs of staff, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Baker and all sensible people haves

31
analysed and described as a major change in the relationships of European countries. So it is proper to fit our relationship with the European Community into these changes.
The problem is that, just as the Government have no grand design for our relationship with our NATO allies or for trying to see a picture in which the spectrum of Europe stretches from Ireland through to Bucharest, so they seem to have no clear idea what they want to do in the Community.
Constructive progress has been made on some matters. One of them, to which the right hon. Gentleman may not —understandably—have had time to refer in a debate in which many right hon. and hon. Members want to speak, is aid from the Community to eastern Europe. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Community is making good progress on aid, as are various countries, including the United Kingdom, bilaterally.
But I still think that it would be useful if the Community tried to work out a much more coherent and structured policy on aid for eastern European countries, taking into account the diversity of their problems and the fact that, unless we have such a structured policy, there is a real danger that the understandable enthusiasm for assisting development in eastern Europe as it becomes more democratic may remove attention from countries in the developing world in other continents. For them, aid is even more important than it is in eastern Europe, and there is great concern among non-governmental agencies that the concentration on eastern Europe may mean a diminution in aid for countries that are abjectly poverty-stricken.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman referred to views, which the Community has held and developed over a number of years, on the middle east. I very much hope that the Community will take cognisance of the latest developments there, including what may be happening in Jerusalem today. Most right hon. and hon. Members looked forward to and welcomed the possibility of a peace Government formed in Israel by Mr. Peres and deeply regretted the fact that he was unable to obtain the majority that he needed and the mandate that he wanted to pursue talks under the Mubarak and Baker scheme.
If a Government are formed in Jerusalem today by Mr. Shamir, I hope that the Community will send out the message that we would view with great sadness and despondency a Government in Israel of the extreme right which would have as its major objective the planting of settlements in the occupied territories——
Mr. Hugh Dykes rose——
Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished my sentence.
Although Opposition Members—like, I am sure, the whole House—strongly welcome the decision of the Soviet Government to allow Jews from the Soviet Union to leave to settle in Israel, where they are already receiving a great welcome, the Community would not find satisfaction in any deliberate policy of a new Israel Government to settle Soviet Jews in the occupied territories.
Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Incidentally, if this does not embarrass him, I should like to congratulate him on his courageous role in advocating
32
the argument for a peace settlement. Does he agree that, looking back on it as an objective document for a plan for peace in the middle east, which would have been both durable and successful, and relating it to the role of the Community, the Venice declaration still remains one of the best documents that has ever been writtten on the middle east peace plan, and shows once again that the Community and Europe as a whole—not just the United States—should have greater involvement in that process?
Mr. Kaufman: It was a useful contribution, but we have moved on from there, as has Israel. In Cairo only three weeks ago I had a discussion with Mr. Peres, the leader of the Israel Labour party, who, to my great sadness, is not the Prime Minister of that country today. He spoke about the need for dialogue and of the fact that Israel proper could contain all the Soviet immigrants who chose to go there without any need for them to be settled in the occupied territories.
Those are matters that it is proper for us to discuss in a debate on developments within the Community in the past six months. However, the Foreign Secretary placed what seemed to be the most positive, optimistic and almost joyful interpretation on the way in which we are approaching 1992. In a rare moment of unconscious candour, in their response last month to the second report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Government said clearly, plainly and blankly that, with regard to the single market,
"the Government's priorities are in financial services, including insurance, and transport."
That is how the Government see the single market—as a money-making concern for financial institutions that can cross frontiers, and almost as an adventure playground for the institutions. The Goverment have never seen 1992 in any more optimistic, forthcoming or enlightened way. That is one reason why, far from having established the habit of working together, which is what the Foreign Secretary claimed a few moments ago, as the Community moves towards 1992 the United Kingdom Government are isolated on issue after issue.
On the exchange rate mechanism, for example, we can all properly be extremely cautious about stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report. Opposition Members would certainly not accept a central bank without full political control of such an institution. However, the Government's approach to membership of the exchange rate mechanism changes from month to month. We all recall——
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I know that the Opposition are now committed to entering the ERM should they become the Government, but will the right hon. Gentleman explain how a Labour Government would maintain the parity of the pound within the ERM at the same time as, on the one hand, cutting interest rates and, on the other hand, massively increasing public spending?
Mr. Kaufman: As the Foreign Secretary pointed out, we shall debate that matter later in the week. The rate at which we enter the exchange rate mechanism is an extremely critical matter on which I shall certainly not expand this afternoon—[Interruption.] Certainly not.
What I will say is that while the Prime Minister, in that notorious interview with Mr. Walden, invented a new reason why we should not enter the exchange rate mechanism with each new reply that she gave him, she is

33
ging her tune. At the conference that she ed recently in Scotland, the right hon. Lady seemed saying that the Government were almost ready to r the exchange rate mechanism because our cost of saving, which is one of the criteria that she laid down as having to be satisfactory before we could enter, is now approaching Community levels. She doctored the cost of living index so as to do that.
I am beginning to wonder whether the Prime Minister wishes to doctor the cost of living index so as to enter the exchange rate mechanism or whether she wished to enter the exchange rate mechanism so as to doctor the cost of living index, so that she can present a new facet of the Government's failure to the electorate. The Government are clearly unable to make up their mind about that, and it has led to the disposal of one Foreign Secretary and one Chancellor of the Exchequer in the past 12 months.
There is also the issue of the social charter. The former Foreign Secretary, now the Leader of the House, said only a little while ago:
"No-one doubts that there is a legitimate social dimension to 1992".
The Prime Minister seems to doubt that. The way in which she and her acolytes block the social charter at meeting after meeting shows that, while they want the Community to be an adventure playground for financial services and financial manipulations across the frontiers of Europe, they do not want the protection for employed people that must be a parallel of any other development. Protection for employed people is vital in a Community without frontiers because otherwise, although financial services will do well, employed people in Britain, who already have some of the lowest standards in the Community, will be more and more seriously disadvantaged.
I am sure that, in his heart of hearts, the Foreign Secretary would like to adhere to the social charter.
Mr. Hurd indicated dissent.
Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps, like his predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a Marxist document. If so, perhaps he will provide me with what I often asked the former Foreign Secretary for—the references in "Das Kapital" to workers being represented on boards. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that that was one of the most Marxist aspects of the social charter.
Mr. Spearing: Every Labour Member would endorse the need for greater protection of employed people in the circumstances of the single market. Are not these provisions similar to those in the treaty relating to the environment, which leave it open to national parliaments and Governments to introduce protections in their areas? Should not that also apply in respect of conditions of employment, so that any parliament or nation can make its own plans for the protection of its employed persons, as it can for any advantages that might accrue from the single market?
Mr. Kaufman: I would welcome any move by any parliament to enhance social protection of employed people in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. The problem is that for the past 11 years, Parliament has been eroding and destroying the conditions and protections of employed people. It would be useful if the Community could redress what has gone wrong under the Government's majority.
34
My hon. Friend anticipated another subject on to which I shall move immediately—the environment. The Foreign Secretary said that the Government established the habit of working together, but they have an unparalleled record in the Community of disobeying decisions made by the Community about the environment and of failing to obey Community directives. Again and again, Community standards for the environment are being flouted by the United Kingdom, which is being referred to repeatedly as the dirty man of Europe. Since my hon. Friend and I entered this place almost exactly 20 years ago——
Mr. Spearing: Next Monday.
Mr. Kaufman: Indeed. My hon. Friend and I will celebrate our 20th anniversary next Monday. Since he became a Member of this place, he has been especially active in protecting the environment generally, and water standards especially.
The Community has decided to apply to the European Court of Justice—the Foreign Secretary referred to this —
on the standards of various beaches in Britain. The Commission has decided to apply to the court next month on matters such as the pollution of the Aire and Calder rivers and the failure to implement the directive on cadmium. The United Kingdom has filthy beaches and it is not meeting the Community's water standards. The Government have a literally filthy record on these vital matters.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the announcement made by the Commissioner for environmental matters, Mt. Ripa de Meana, in Brussels in February, when he produced a league table of infractions on environmental matters? Far from Britain having an unparalleled bad record, we had one of the better records.
Mr. Kaufman: I shall come to the gentleman to whom the Minister referred in a moment. I have page upon page of statements, decisions and formal letters from the Commission all of which relate to the filthy state of our water and our beaches. The Minister cannot pretend that that is not so.
Only last week the United Kingdom blocked moves to deal with pollution, for which it was rebuked by Mr. Ripa de Meana, whom the Minister has quoted in aid. The Government went against what was being recommended by that gentleman and by the Prime Minister in one of her eloquent speeches in which she referred to global warming. The right hon. Lady has the habit of picking up an issue, playing with it for a few days, and then casting it aside like a toy of which she has grown weary. There was the litter that she scattered in St. James park, some of which she picked up. The House will remember her interest in football identity cards. She has now gone green.
The Foreign Secretary referred to his natural sympathy with dinosaurs, and at Bracknell the Prime Minister spoke with great enthusiasm about the fossils of serpents having been found in Britain and about the action needed to deal with the problem of global warming. From her scientific background she described graphically the way in which the earth is being endangered. Our climate is being endangered. Indeed, the entire ecology of the planet is endangered by global warming.

35
The Prime Minister said:
"we would be taking a great risk with future generations if, having received this early warning, we did nothing about it; or just took the attitude 'Well, it'll see me out.'"
It may see out the Prime Minister, but the problem remains of what she spoke specifically about on 25 May in Bracknell. She said:
"We must also take action on carbon dioxide emissions … Any target would have to be part of a wide international effort."
She wanted
"a realistic international programme of action and an equally realistic time-table. Discharges of carbon dioxide and CFCs, if unabated, will go on accumulating in the atmosphere and cannot easily be reversed. Even the most urgent measures now cannot fully repair the damage of the past."
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: No. I was about to refer to Mr. Ripa de Meana, whom the Minister mentioned some moments ago.
At the meeting in Paris on 8 June, Britain was one of the countries that blocked moves by the Community to set the year 20000 as a deadline for stabilising carbon dioxide emissions. Britain said that it could not improve its commitment to stabilise the emissions at 1990 levels, by the year 2000.
However, the Community's Environment Commissioner, Carlo Ripa de Meana, urged adoption of the year 200 target date, reportedly hoping that it would bring pressure on the United States to follow suit.
The Prime Minister manages—if only briefly—to summon up enthusiasm for subjects of great importance. However, when it involves action in the Community, the United Kingdom blocks actions that other Community countries want to take to deal with the serious issue of global warming.
There is another issue on which the Government block or defy action, or defy or invent policy—or give reasons for changing policy that other Community countries want to keep. It is curious that, although the Foreign Secretary has been very active—although not in the way that we would have liked—he has not spoken about Community action on sanctions for South Africa. The Community has made a series of decisions on that important matter, including one in December 1989. It said that, for sanctions to be lifted, there must be evidence of "profound and irreversible changes".
What that meant was defined in the directive of 27 October 1986, which demanded
"concrete measures leading to the abolition of apartheid".
Not one such concrete measure has been taken by the South African Government. We welcome the measures that have been taken: the partial lifting of the state of emergency, the release of Mr. Mandela—and some political prisoners—and the unbanning of certain organisations. However, none of those adds up to the conditions repeatedly laid down by the Community.
On 21 February, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), said:
"For all practical purposes President de Klerk has taken the steps demanded by EC Foreign Ministers".—[Official Report, 21 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 789.]
That is extraordinary, as the directive referred to
36
"concrete measures leading to the abolition of ap and those measures have not been taken.
The Prime Minister's personal statement, mad the former Foreign Secretary in Kuala Lumpur, listed conditions for the raising of sanctions. The first was
"release of Nelson Mandela and all political prisoners".
Mr. Mandela has been released, but not all political prisoners have been. The conditions also demanded the "unbanning of political organisations"—that has been done—and the "suspension of violence". However, violence by the South African Government continues in a way that we have repeatedly witnessed since Mr. Mandela's release. The conditions further demanded
"lifting the State of Emergency".
But the state of emergency has not been fully lifted. Therefore, on the Prime Minister's personal criteria, sanctions imposed by the Community should be kept.
Mr. Hurd: The Government are not suggesting that sanctions should be lifted fully. The argument is for a step-by-step approach, which is finding increasing sympathy in the Community. Anyone who listened to President de Klerk when he visited Europe recently was deeply impressed by his irreversible approach to the dismantling of apartheid and the steps that he has taken in that direction. It is an overwhelming case for not the total, but the partial, lifting of sanctions.
Mr. Kaufman: It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman, in his usual moderate and sensible tones, should say that no one is suggesting that sanctions should be lifted fully. He spoke about the need for partial, not full, lifting of sanctions. However, on 22 May the Prime Minister said:
"I believe that there is now no place for sanctions and that they are almost irrelevant."—[Official Report, 22 May 1990; Vol. 173, c. 167.]
Once again, the Foreign Secretary has spoken in a relatively moderate way—although I do not agree fully with what he is advocating—but then in marches the Prime Minister, who contradicts the right hon. Gentleman and says that sanctions should be lifted immediately. The reveals the Government's hypocrisy of the issue.
The Government, far from establishing the habit of working together—which the right hon. Gentleman advocated—are doing the reverse. They are acting on their own and breaking the word of the Foreign Secretary, the previous Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister—but they are fulfilling the intentions and the wishes of the Prime Minister, which is a very different matter. When the Government are alone, isolated and failing to co-operate with their partners, how can they claim any vision of what the Community should be?
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about democratisation, but it is not clear what sort of democratisation he favours. He commended the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, but he did not mention the Government response to the report of the Procedure Committee on European legislation, in which the Government agreed with the Committee's view not to recommend the establishment of a European Community Grand Committee. We continue to believe that there should be such a Grand Committee, and that policy was endorsed by the party conference last October. It said:
"some form of European Community Affairs Grand Committee, modelled on the Scottish Grand Committee"—
I hope that it meets a great deal more frequently—

37
"should be established. This should enable backbench and frontbench MPs to discuss all aspects of European Community policy—not simply those emanating from the Commission or the Council. Ministers should be questiond by this committee."
As the single market approaches, the House must have much greater opportunities to discuss the work of the Community if the Community is to be genuinely accountable to the House.
Sir Russell Johnston: I counsel the right hon. Gentleman most seriously not to model anything on the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr. George Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is never there; he is always in Europe.
Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend has made a comment which I, as a non-Scotsman, would not dare make, but he always speaks the truth.
We believe in a more democratic Community, but not a Community that usurps the role of sovereign Parliaments. The policy document that we shall be submitting to our annual conference this autumn, as endorsed by the national executive committee last month, states:
"But the EC is not a unitary state and we do not believe that further progress towards European unity will, or should, lead to a European superstate. The European Parliament should therefore be given the powers it needs to complement —not to replace—national parliaments."
What we want is democratic accountability at every level, and we do not have that in this House.
As well as the deepening of the Community as we approach 1992, there is also the widening of the Community. Again, the Government appear to speak with a forked tongue. Not long ago the Prime Minister said that she could not envisage the speedy entry of East Germany into the European Community, on the ground that it would not be acceptable quickly to have as a partner a nation that had been ruled for half a century by communists and fascists. However, in their response to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Government take a very different view and welcome the idea of a united Germany becoming a member of the European Community. Although the Community will have to allow for that in its approach to the matter, it is undeniable that a united Germany must be a member of the Community.
I am somewhat disturbed that the right hon. Gentleman appears to put on a par the applications for membership from Turkey and from Austria. Turkey's record on human rights is a disgrace. It invaded a member of the Commonwealth and still has occupying forces there. Austria is a well-developed socialist democracy with established democratic roots. Although we would have to wait until the single market had been completed in 1992 before considering early acceptance of new members, I hope that the Community will respond positively to Austria's application.
I very much hope that other countries that are neutral, either by constitution, treaty or policy—such as Switzerland and Sweden—will find it possible to consider application to the Community so that it can become much more of a European Community. That includes considering positively, when appropriate and when the necessary conditions have been met, applications from countries of the former Soviet bloc such as Czechoslovakia, whose well-conducted elections are very
38
welcome. The way in which that country conducted its elections is a great tribute to its inherent strength and democracy, which have survived 40 years of communist domination.
We must realise that if we are to accept, as we very much want to, application for membership from neutral countries, we must rule out any possibility of the European Community taking on a defence or military role. We hope that the Government will stand firm on that—certainly a Labour Government will—first, because NATO already fulfils that role; secondly, because we do not need a new centre of military concentration in Europe apart from NATO; and, thirdly, because a military or defence role for the Community would rule out the possibility of Austria, Switzerland and Sweden becoming members and would arouse great suspicion in the Soviet Union if some former communist countries were to wish to join.
We believe that it is time for this country to have a coherent vision of the future of the Community. It must be a vision of 12 countries or more—however many join—maintaining, asserting and expressing their historic self-identities. That can be done without nonsense from the Prime Minister, when she talks about the Queen's sovereignty being in danger. That is a total absurdity that none of the five other monarchies in the Community has trifled with for internal, party political reasons.
The Community must be a body of 12 or more countries, as others join, which express their history and which are proud of their history, their individual forms of government, and their historic identities. In a future Community we must work together to advance our national interests, the interests of Europe and those of a much wider Europe, embracing east and west.
4.50 pm
Mr. David Howell: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs will be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for his kind references to its recent report on the Single European Act. The report was not just about that Act, although the Committee concluded that it had a considerably greater institutional impact on the Community's development, and on Britain's place in it, than many prophesied or assured the House at the time.
The Committee also examined other major institutional pressures building up in the Community and the way in which they are now forcing themselves to the fore, demanding a complete reassessment of the Community both internally and externally in respect of its relations with the rest of the world—as well as a reappraisal of our national position within the European Community. It is the United Kingdom's responses to those enormous pressures and changes—which are fast building up, and have come to a head even since the report was published —that I want to address in three respects.
The first concerns German unification. The report is not about German unification but deals with its impact on the European Community—which we recognise will be considerable. It will also be very rapid. The view has been expressed that the German reunification process will proceed in an orderly way, perhaps fulfilled and completed next year, and synchronised with the question of the external security status of the greater united Germany in the new European architecture being resolved.

39
I do not think that any of that will work out. On the contrary, the full economic and monetary union of the two Germanies will take place in a few weeks' time, on 2 July. That will require not only changes involving the currency and the full circulation of the deutschmark through Eastern and Western Germany and the setting up of Bundesbank branches in the East German Lander, but a total submerging of East Germany's legal, technical, taxation and social systems, as well as of its governmental systems, into those of the Federal Republic.
We shall see not only economic and monetary union but a very rapid move beyond that, to full political union —possibly before the end of this year. It is certainly my impression, and that of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who visited Bonn since writing the report, that Chancellor Kohl and the Bonn coalition are determined to achieve, in addition to economic union on 2 July, full political union of the greater Germany by Christmas—certainly before the current German Parliament ends on 13 January next year.
Any illusions that we may have that German unification will wait for our considerations of how to change and reform the Community, or until we work out how to achieve a wider security system in Europe that will keep the Soviets happy, should be dispelled. Things will not fall into a neat pattern in that way.
The process of German unification will place enormous stress on the Community, both internally and externally. The external strains are not really the main subject of the debate, although they have been touched on by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). They raise the question of Mr. Gorbachev's position and that of Soviet troops in eastern Germany. There must be a connection between the Germans' desperate hurry to achieve full unification, and quickly, and the obvious inclination of the Moscow policy makers suddenly to discover all sorts of difficulties and reasons why they should delay withdrawing their troops from eastern Europe.
I do not want to spend too much time on that aspect, but my own view is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and policy makers in the west should not spend too much time worrying about Mr. Gorbachev's position, and nor should they take too seriously his apparent attempt to bargain with his army of 320,000 people stranded in East Germany, together with about 180,000 Soviet dependents, in quite nice barracks there.
The question whether or not those forces should be withdrawn, and of whether or not that situation should be used by Mr. Gorbachev not merely for reforming NATO, as no doubt we want to do, but for changing NATO in ways that he wants, into an entirely different security structure, should not be taken at all seriously. Of course we want to reform NATO, but there is no hurry.
We should do that in our own way, in our own time, and not be fazed and compelled into a false timetable either by German impatience for unity—which is utterly understandable and will not stop or be resisted—or by Soviet propositions and fears that must be pacified and bought off by changes to NATO or even by huge bribes to
40
finance the continuation of those unhappy troops in East Germany, or to finance their return to the Soviet Union if they are not to remain in East Germany.
Those are the external issues affecting the Community caused by the move to German reunification, and no doubt we shall debate them further in the months ahead. However, it would be sad if we found ourselves diluting NATO at the diktat of Soviet policy instead of reforming NATO in the way that we want, on the basis of its past success in protecting European peace.
The internal strains caused by East Germany joining fully the greater German republic and therefore automatically the treaty of Rome and the European Community will also be considerable. We can already see the first signs of those strains. They arise on the financial side, by virtue of the fact that East Germany is a bankrupt state and will require billions and billions of deutschmarks to get it up and running again. That will place an enormous strain on the German money supply, monetary system and budget. Some gargantuan figures have already been spelt out as to what the Federal Republic thinks it will have to find from extra borrowing and revenues to finance a reasonably smooth transition—although probably it will not be very smooth at all—from East Germany's rundown, centralised economy to it being a proper part of a free market economy.
The effect will be to place strain on the deutschmark, on the currencies of Europe, and on the European monetary system. Pressures may also come from the Bundesbank —I do not know whether they will be resisted—to raise German interest rates, without wanting all the other western countries to follow. There will also be pressures on German inflation generally.
After 2 July, we shall be heading for a period of considerable turbulence in the European monetary system. It is no surprise to me that the governor of the Bundesbank has been saying, in effect, "For heaven's sake, if we have this problem to handle in the next few months, we can do without the additional problem of sterling trying to join the exchange rate mechanism as well." He has said that more than once, and that worries me. I am one of those —not everyone is—who would like to see the pound have a context in the exchange rate mechanism and a proper policy for sterling that will give it some stability. There is a possibility that our opportunity to do that will slip by. We have taken no action so far.
Now I imagine that my right hon. Friend's plan is to get into the exchange rate mechanism. Then, when the delegates sit at the conference table at the proposed intergovernmental conference on monetary union in December, they will be able to say that we have reached stage 1 and are members of the ERM, and can therefore discuss further stages towards monetary union, why we do not agree with Delors stages 2 and 3 and some other ideas. I am concerned that their plan could be upset by the views that the governor of the Bundesbank is pressing, because he and the Germans will have different priorities during the next few months—to achieve German economic and monetary union in a stable and orderly fashion without creating too much inflationary pressure.
Mr. Budgen: If the Germans decided that they did not want us to join the exchange rate mechanism, would they have the right to refuse our application?
Mr. Howell: I do not think that the Germans have the right in law to refuse, but, as the governors and administrators of the largest currency in western Europe, they can organise matters to make it extremely difficult for sterling to join, and raise the risk of it doing so. However, it is right that no legal restraint can be applied to prevent us from joining.
We are debating European monetary union later and this is not the occasion for a technical analysis of developments within the ERM or monetary union. However, it is a fundamental political issue, so my hon. Friends and I on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs felt that we should consider it. The central question that it raises is that, if we are to have anything like Delors stages 2 and 3 or some other organisation—the current proposal is a federal reserve institution or Eurofed—there will be a fundamental dilemma: independence or accountability. We point out that dilemma in paragraph 48 of the Select Committee report.
The idea that policy makers in Bonn, Paris, Rome or Madrid have a clear answer to that dilemma is thinly based. In discussions with policy makers in those capitals, we found that they were extremely vague about how the idea of independence, which was given so much prominence by the Bundesbank—which keeps emphasising the need for the new centralised institution to be independent of politicians—would be reconciled with the accountability of such a vastly powerful new institution, which would run the monetary policy of Europe, through the democratic forums of Europe.
No clear answer emerges. It is worth noting, as we survey the unfolding scene, that if Eurofed were to be structured in such a way that it was accountable to national Parliaments, the House would gain a vast amount of power. It is untrue to say that the House has ever had much say in monetary policy, the coin of the realm, or monetary issues down the centuries. There was no mention of it in the 1688 settlement. Parliament has little say in how central banks work, how much the Government borrow and how they issue money.
If the monetary authority of Europe is to be accountable by various means through national parliaments, it would be a major shift of power from the Executive to Parliament in this country. That huge constitutional issue has not yet been thoroughly debated. I do not think that some hon. Members have spotted it. Perhaps some of my right hon. Friends within the Executive have seen it coming, but it will come as a surprise to many people, and would not reduce the powers of Parliament but greatly increase them.
Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the alternative, which is to leave the monetary union system entirely in the hands of the Bundesbank, as it is at present—unaccountable to anyone other than the German Parliament—would also be totally unacceptable?
Mr. Howell: It is a nice point that our monetary policy at present is not within the nation's control. We realised that when we fixed short-term interest rates. There are forces at work outside, one of which is the Bundesbank and the power of the deutschmark. Another force is international market pressure. Would monetary policy be more under our control if we were in a Eurofed of some sort? It is hard to say, but the proposition that we could stay as we are and allow the greater deutschmark zone to
42
prevail is not attractive to me, and becomes less attractive if we consider the point that I was making earlier about the large size of the new greater Germany. It will be by far the greatest power within the European Community, and its currency will be even more powerful relative to that of other members than it is at present.
Change must come. I hope that my right hon. Friends will turn up at the intergovernmental conference scheduled for December with good ideas about how monetary union should be shaped. The whole House has accepted the point agreed with the Government that Delors stages two and three are not good enough. They are too like tram lines, they are unrealistic and do not reflect the needs and complexities of running monetary policy for a vast range of different economies throughout Europe. That is not on.
However, will the alternatives suggested by the Government so far—the paper on the evolution of economic and monetary policies, which contains the idea of competitive currencies—suffice? When the Committee tried out that idea on policy makers from Europe, we found polite interest but a general feeling that the idea was not good enough and that a more robust set of propositions were needed.
Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as Mr. Delors and his colleagues on the committee were asked to produce plans, blueprints and ideas for all the stages until completion of monetary union, they can hardly be criticised for having made suggestions for stages 2 and 3? We do not have to regard those suggestions as a rigid mould. Indeed, Mr. Delors subsequently reaffirmed that all such issues can be negotiated anyway.
Mr. Howell: It is correct that the original Delors stages 1, 2 and 3 have now been replaced by more flexible and interesting ideas. This is an opportunity for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and others to come forward with further propositions. It is valuable that we are now in a positive stance vis-a-vis monetary union. We must recall that it was not long ago that my right hon. Friends—some of them—were against monetary union on principle. They said that the whole idea, however it was defined, was bad. We have now moved to a different point, and are in favour of monetary union, but we want it achieved by sensible and practical means rather than by the instant creation of new institutions, which would not be able to do the job.
If such new structures for monetary union are t o come into being, in addition to setting out, from our own considerable experience, how best they might work, in relation to national monetary and budgetary policy-making which will have to continue to a considerable extent, we need to define the legal status of the new bodies. There needs to be a more constitutional approach to the construction of the new institutions proposed by the Euro-planners in Brussels, and a greater readiness to accept that such institutions can work effectively only if their legal status is established and rooted in the basic structure of the nation states that make up the European Community.
That is all that I want to say now on the issue, but we shall hear more about it as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary prepares for the intergovernmental conference in December. I repeat that it will be important for Britain to put forward some new ideas. We shall no doubt have an opportunity to debate them later this week.

43
Our report touched on a third great issue. In the reply to our report, the Government itemised it as one of the six major issues with which the Community is now dealing. I refer to so-called political union. Here we are dealing with far vaguer terminology than when we were talking about monetary union. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to start the debate by asking what on earth people meant by political union. As soon as she asked that question it became clear that it meant different things to different people in the Community and that there were many opinions and no great agreement about how to bring about practical changes.
The Select Committee concluded that the near-obsession in some parts of the Community with the development, on a much deeper and quicker basis, towards full political union belonged to the Europe of phrases, not to the Europe of facts—to use the terminology of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Our main concern, expressed in paragraph 51 of our report, is that if there are to be political developments, they should be detailed and practical—in that they should be addressed to the institutional weaknesses of the Community—and that they should not be governed by a sort of determination that says, "Don't bother us with details; we're heading towards a united states of Europe and we're not too concerned about the items in between." The Committee regards it as important to resist such determinism.
We should reject talk of a political union that implies that we are building a new, gigantic, pyramidical structure, with vast central institutions that will be in the senior category, with national parliaments and national institutions in the junior category, and that we are recreating, on the model of the United States of America —which may have been marvellous in the 18th and 19th centuries—a united states of Europe that is equally centralised, with both the weaknesses and the strengths, but particularly the weaknesses, of the USA system. Wise people, concerned with the 21st century, will try to resist such a political union of Europe. I hope that the Select Committee's report was able to suggest some reasons why they should resist it.
If we are to change the political institutions of Europe, we should think here, too, in constitutional, not bureaucratic terms. The accountability route—running from the European institutions back to the individual—is clear. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Gorton said, that is through national Parliaments working in partnership with the European Parliament. In that way the Community will be made more democratic and flexible and yet will maintain its openness and its ability in due course to embrace new countries, including Austria and the countries of eastern Europe as they bring their economies into the right shape and their price structures into a form that allows them to join a free market structure and the free market philosophy of the treaty of Rome.
Those are the three issues, out of many, to which I wanted to refer and that were raised in the Select Committee's report. Big moments of history are lying immediately ahead as we begin to cope with the new, gigantic, united Germany, right in the centre of Europe, and as we work out with it how it is to express its wish to
44
support western values—as it constantly says it does—and to be part of the free market system by means of the European Community as well, I hope, to be part of the free world defence system, through the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance. That is what we want to see, and that is what we must work for.
My right hon. Friend has guided us through many shoals. He described with the greatest skill the many meetings that he has attended, and is about to attend. He will need all the support and good wishes of the House to see us through if we are to preserve our free institutions and make them adaptable to the totally new conditions of the larger Europe that lies ahead.
5.15 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I agree in particular with the closing remarks of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and with what he said about the desirability of further enlargement of the Community and the importance of retaining, sustaining and reinforcing national parliamentry control.
In a debate of this kind, the temptation to cover almost every aspect is almost irresistible, but it is a temptation that I intend to resist. I shall concentrate on what I believe is the most important issue at present—economic and monetary union. I claim special attention for it because of its central position in current European Community discussions and for four additional reasons.
First, economic and monetary union marks a genuine new stage—a qualitative leap—in the European Community's development. Whereas it was just possible to consider European Community developments up to EMU as consistent with a Europe of independent sovereign states co-operating together—a Europe des patries, to use that old phrase—EMU clearly takes the process into the new realm of a supranational European union. As the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on 14 March 1990 said:
"The thrust towards European union is active and potent and is a major factor in all the proposals for the future development of the Community."
The concluding paragraph of the report states:
"It is clear to us that the Community now developing is very different from the Community that the UK joined in the 1970s."
That is the first reason why we should concentrate on the implications and the meaning of economic and monetary union.
My second reason is that EMU is, more than any other issue, splitting the United Kingdom from the rest of the European Community. It poses the most formidable problems for United Kingdom diplomacy and national policy, as I intend to develop later.
The third reason why we should concentrate on EMU is that the implementation of full economic and monetary union will bring about a further imbalance of power within the existing European Community, where present West German economic leadership will be followed by the economic dominance of a united Germany.
Fourthly, economic and monetary union will create a major new barrier between the European Community of the Twelve and European Free Trade Association and eastern European countries that could otherwise be brought into a wider European Community, which I believe is the wish of many hon. Members in all parts of the House. Both the House and the country should be clear about what is at stake in economic and monetary union.

45
First, the exchange rate for member states would be irrevocably fixed. National currencies would be replaced by a common European currency such as the ecu. It would no longer be possible to depreciate or devalue a currency, which is the only effective short-term remedy for restoring competitiveness with other stronger economies, for getting rid of an unacceptable trade balance and for maintaining employment.
Secondly, the Eurofed central bank would be set up to decide monetary polices, including interest rate and mortgage rate policies for the entire Community. The Bank of England would cease to be responsible to United Kingdom Ministers in the House; it would simply become the London branch of the Eurofed.
Thirdly, central control would be imposed upon the budget totals of member states; they would not be allowed to reflate or expand their economies by operating a budget deficit beyond the limits laid down by the Eurobankers and the Commission, nor would they be allowed to borrow through internal short-term financing or from other Community countries.
It would be difficult to overstate the importance of these proposals. The power over exchange rates, interest rates and the budget balance between expenditure, taxation and borrowing, all of which would be totally lost or severely circumscribed under the Delors plans for EMU, would deliver Britain bound hand and foot to the Euro decision makers. It would be handing over to the European Community the key decisions affecting the economic destiny of Britain and at the same time we should be stripping the Westminster Parliament of effective powers. Of equal if not greater importance, we should be accepting what would be an economic disaster for the British people. I shall develop that point in a moment.
Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman is quite accurate, but if Britain is being bound hand and foot, so equally are France, Italy, Spain and Germany. Are we not entering a common enterprise?
Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious mistake. There is no question of Germany being delivered bound hand and foot, because Germany would be the principal beneficiary of what is proposed.
The heart of the matter is that there are major differences in the economic performance of member states. Like Japan, Germany has persistently out-performed other nations in productivity and efficiency, leading to a markedly higher growth rate and a markedly lower rate of inflation.
To remain competitive with Germany, all states have had to depreciate or devalue their currencies against the deutschmark, to a greater or lesser extent, not only in recent years but throughout the post-war period. As recently as 1985, the pound would buy DM3·9. Today, five years later, the pound will buy DM2·79. Through that depreciation, British exports to Germany are more than 25 per cent. cheaper than they were five years ago, while German exports to Britain are correspondingly dearer. If that exchange rate adjustment had not or could not have been made, British goods would be even more seriously priced out of the German market than they are today. Our trade deficit would be larger and unemployment in the United Kingdom would grow.
No one should have any doubt about the destructive effect of an uncompetitive exchange rate. In 1980 and
46
1981, when North sea oil came on stream and the world considered the pound to be a petro-currency, the Government allowed—or could not prevent—the exchange rate to rise by some 40 per cent. That was the principal cause of the disaster that then overtook British industry—the elimination of more than 20 per cent. of our manufacturing capacity and the horrific rise of unemployment to well over 3 million.
Permanently fixed exchange rates in the EMU would deprive member states of that necessary adjustment mechanism. Germany will continue to be relatively more efficient. German productivity, irrespective of relative wage claims in Britain and Germany, will continue to outstrip that of the United Kingdom for many years ahead. That is the fruit of the vast industrial investment, managerial skills and training that German industry has accumulated over many decades.
Other countries, if locked into the permanently fixed exchange rate mechanism, will be progressively weakened. Unemployment will grow as industries are forced to close, and we shall witness an ever-growing migration of unemployed people seeking work in Germany in the years ahead.
In our most recent debate on economic and monetary union on 2 November 1989, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House:
"Our position on stage 1 is clear and constructive, and we are committed to it, but we part company with the Delors recipe on the next steps."
He went on specifically to reject the proposals for binding rules on national budgetary policy, quoting with approval the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and
Civil Service which stated:
"The power of the House of Commons over the centuries has depended fundamentally on the control of money, both taxation and expenditure. This would be jeopardised by the form of monetary union proposed by the Delors report which would involve central undemocratic direction from within Europe of domestic budgetary policies."
The Chancellor went on to state this further objection:
"The Delors report's proposals on monetary union are unacceptable, for monetary policy is at the very heart of macroeconomic policy and the proposals in the report make no provision for accountability for monetary policy to national Governments or national Parliaments. Yet the electorate would still hold Governments and national authorities responsible for their economic well-being and rightly so."—[Official Report, 2 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 490.]
On 1 May, in her statement to the House following the one-day Dublin summit, the Prime Minister said:
"There will be fierce debate about economic and monetary union. Those debates will be fierce because from what we have seen of Delors stages 2 and 3, which have been rather general, we do not like or accept the idea of going to a single currency or locked currencies or the idea of a central bank, which would take powers away from this House, as was described in the Delors report."—[Official Report, 1 May 1990; Vol. 171, c. 914.]
When the right hon. Member for Guildford said, as he was perfectly entitled to, that he believed that the Government were committed in principle to economic and monetary union, I found that difficult to reconcile with the words that I have just read. I believe that the Government are, rightly, committed to stage 1 of the Delors report and that they are trying desperately to find some way of appearing to be in favour of closer economic and monetary co-operation. Incidentally, the word "cooperation" was used in the Queen's Speech only a few months ago. They cannot and will not go ahead with the

47
proposals for economic and monetary union which are at the heart of the Delors report and at the heart of any proposals for genuine monetary union. We cannot have monetary union without a fixed exchange rate. The Prime Minister has rejected it, and we all have to confront that, however difficult the confrontation may be.
Since last December's Strasbourg European Council meeting, there have been further meetings of Finance Ministers to discuss two Commission papers on economic and monetary union. Discussions there have centred on the degree of central control over member states' budget deficits and on the independence of the proposed Eurofed central bank. Those issues have yet to be decided, and on them the United Kingdom is not completely isolated. However, on the basic issues of permanently fixed exchange rates and the creation of the Eurofed central bank, the United Kingdom is entirely on its own.
There must be no weakening of the United Kingdom's stand on those issues. The House would like to hear from the Minister of State when he replies to the debate a further unequivocal reassurance that the Prime Minister's words, uttered as recently as 1 May, on permanently fixed exchange rates and a European central bank remain at the centre of Government policy. I hope that there will be no ambiguity or evasion, but a clear statement later today on those basic issues.
It would be of some help if an equal assurance were given by the Opposition Front-Bench team. I am aware of the reservations expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor, in the debate on 2 November. He said that he was not prepared to accept binding rules of budgetary or fiscal policy and that he was opposed to
"any system of central banks which would be independent of political control."[Official Report, 2 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 502.]
But, no doubt because of pressure of time, he did not spell out his position on permanently fixed exchange rates or a Eurofed central bank under political control. I hope that those omissions can be put right before the end of the debate. I look forward to the reply from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman tonight.
Assuming that we are given clear assurances from both Front-Bench teams on these vital matters, which I have fairly raised and put to them both this afternoon, I ask them to consider the implication on their resolve to join the exchange rate mechanism. We should be joining not only a fixed and adjustable exchange rate system, like the old International Monetary Fund, but a system that differs from the IMF in at least two crucial respects.
First, exchange rate depreciation would no longer be a national and unilateral decision but one that would be taken only with the agreement and approval of the other member states. That is a profound difference. Secondly, and most importantly, the ERM is universally regarded throughout the European Community as only the first step towards economic and monetary union. Therefore, those who advocate membership of the ERM should be prepared to place their total and public reserve on further commitments towards economic and monetary union.
Of course, it is true that the intergovernmental conference which is due to begin in December to
48
implement the treaty changes necessary for the implementation of economic and monetary union, will need British agreement. But, as the Select Committee report rightly observed:
"The possibility has to be faced that the other 11 might establish procedures outside the EEC Treaties, albeit with considerable difficulties and some regret, which would enable them to go ahead with Stages II and III."
They might establish procedures to enable them to go ahead without the participation of the United Kingdom. That prospect, however unwelcome, must be squarely faced. It is an issue on which we cannot afford to compromise.
I was encouraged and interested to read the speech on 5 June of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He said, after a thoughtful survey in particular of the possibility that the European Community would be enlarged by the entry of east European countries:
"How far individual Member States wish to travel along the road of economic and monetary union would be for them to decide. Could there not be regional groupings within the overall Union, as we already have with Benelux or Schengen Group.
France and Germany could form a closer alliance still if they wished. There could be currency agreements, either of the ERM type or full currency union as envisaged in current plans for economic and monetary union. Those who wish could form joint central banks and manage their currencies. But there should be no compulsion on others to join such arrangements".
That was the major message that the Secretary of State conveyed.
We should continue to seek to persuade our colleagues in the European Communities—the Eleven—to abandon this ill advised and thoroughly dangerous project of economic and monetary union.
Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore: No, I am coming to the end of my speech.
What the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said offers us a common sense and worthwhile alternative which I recommend not only to the Government but to the Opposition Front-Bench team.
5.34 pm
Mr. Ray Whitney: With respect to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the picture that he painted of economic and monetary union and co-operation is both unnecessarily and unjustifiably pessimistic. First, it is unclear exactly what will be the result of the deliberations on European monetary union. The right hon. Gentleman set up what we might call Jacques Delors mark 1 and used it as his target. However, the windmill at which he was tilting may not be there as the deliberations proceed.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman does an injustice to other member states of the Community. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), suggested, other member states have a similar interest to ours in seeking the right balance in what is undoubtedly the extremely daunting economic power of Germany. I have no reason to believe that the French, Italian or Spanish Governments are in any danger of falling into the traps that the right hon. Gentleman envisaged, any more than we are.
Thirdly, there was an underlying suggestion in the right hon. Gentleman's speech that the way out for a weak economy—not that ours is weak, but it could be if certain

49
election results which the right hon. Gentleman desires were achieved—is constantly and forever devaluing its currency. The way out for an economy that is not competitive cannot be endless and constant devaluations, which seemed to be the underlying theme of the right hon. Gentleman's approach. Indeed, the experience of Germany shows that a strong economy makes a currency appreciate. That gives the lie to the right hon. Gentleman's proposition.
It is perfectly clear that this important debate takes place at a crucial time for Europe as a whole, as all hon. Members who have spoken so far have suggested. It could not he a more exciting and more challenging time. My contribution is to suggest to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we must avoid some of the mistakes that we made in our dealings with Europe during the 18-month period which started with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Bruges in September 1988.
As I have said on more than one occasion in this Chamber, the five principles enunciated in the Bruges speech were right, unexceptionable and unchallengeable. However, damage was done, in that forces were rekindled within my party, throughout the country and overseas which created an entirely negative perception of what the Government have achieved and continually seek to achieve in their relations with the European Community. It is important that those mistakes in presentation and attitude are not repeated, because they fundamentally damaged British interests.
We all know the difficulty of negotiating in a group, be it a group of 12 nations or 12 people on a parish council. There must be give and take, and gains and losses occur. We saw that only last week in the negotiations about BSE. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, those negotiations were an extremely good example of the benefits of the existence of the European Community to Britain. We must be constantly aware of our presentation and emphasise our positive assets. We must not lose the political ground which the Conservative party undoubtedly lost, for example, in the European election campaign. The results were there for all to see.
It has been galling for Tory Members who have consistently, although not universally, supported British membership of the European Community to find that some Labour Members now adopt the cloak and mantle of Europeanism. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who always speaks with complete sincerity and consistency, in contrast to the leadership of his party, represents the fundamental centre of gravity of the Labour party on European issues, rather than the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
In the past six months, I have been delighted to observe that the Government have begun to recover from what I would describe as mistaken tactics rather than a mistaken fundamental strategy, and to be seen to make a much more positive contribution, yet again, to the development of this extraordinary adventure—it is, indeed, a unique adventure —of the European Community.
We are faced with the problems of Germany. I say problems, much as I delight, as I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members do, in East Germany moving towards a democratic regime and combining with the Federal Republic into a united and whole Germany. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) rightly
50
examined the economic problems and pressures that that will create not only for the Federal Republic but for all in the European Community.
I am an optimist. Such is the challenge of the task and such the vitality and buoyancy of the Federal Republic's economy, whatever the figures, that it will cope in a way and at a speed which will surprise all of us, and perhaps even the Germans themselves. This massive state with huge economic power and great political potential challenges, creates problems for the other 11 member states, but we must and want to, live with it. I have no fears of a revival of Nazism or militarism or of challenges to the peace of Europe. Inevitably there is a challenge, but it provides us with a great opportunity.
I have had many opportunities to talk to French, Spanish and Italian colleagues regularly, and I have noted their recognition of the challenge and a change in attitude towards the United Kingdom. Without any concept of ganging up on the Germans, we should recognise that this kaleidoscope, having been shaken up, gives Britain an important role. France, in particular, looks to the British Government to play an extremely positive and constructive role in the new balance and I hope that we shall do so. I urge the Government not to be swept away by the personification of some issues. We grew keen on sticking pins into the effigy of Mr. Jacques Delors. I know from speaking to many Frenchmen that they would cheerfully stick even more pins into him. It is important to keep such matters in balance.
We face great challenges of political union. Who knows what that will mean? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to challenge that concept. I hope that she and the Government are encouraged that her challenge of the concept was picked up by our Community partners. They too are questioning and questing. There will be movement. Political co-operation has been developing for many years and is better recognised by those outside the Community than by those of us within it. We should rejoice in that. Further developments will flow from political co-operation. I do not know what they will be. I certainly would not look to a federalist solution; nor would any Frenchman, Spaniard or Italian. We are bound together increasingly, not only by economic forces but, more importantly, by communications and by social and cultural pressures. That is as most of us want it to be.
Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Italians are the exception? While I accept that no one has proposed federalism or a single Government entity in Brussels. the Italians, in their referendum last June which was connected to the European elections, voted overwhelmingly for European political union, leading to a united states of Europe.
Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that correction. Perhaps what was presented to the Italians in the referendum was questionable, and when they get down to the small print during negotiations at the intergovernmental conference, something else will emerge. Whatever happens, it will happen stage by stage and it must be accepted by all Parliaments and all peoples. The same goes for European monetary union, which I dealt with earlier.
The evolution of the European Community is part of the great sweep of history. It has been given a surprising and a much stronger impetus than any of us could have expected by what is happening in eastern Europe. Well

51
disposed as we are to the development of democracy and the establishment of constitutional government in eastern Europe, that cannot be used as a pretext for delaying what we in western Europe have set in hand. We must move on, because that is the nature of things.
The world is now divided basically into three huge groups; Japan and the Pacific rim, which is the first and most challenging, the Americas and western Europe. That will be the shape of the world for the next decade and the first half of the next century. It has nothing to do with eastern Europe or the Soviet Union. If we are to be part of that world, we must play an active, positive part in the European Community.
The vast majority of the British people recognise that instinctively. They do not make calculations about European monetary union and the exchange rate mechanism. Instinctively, they know that our destiny lies in making a positive contribution to Europe. It is up to this House to ensure that mechanisms are created so that we can put the will of our people into practice and exercise political and democratic control as the European Community expands.
5.48 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: I shall come to federalism in a wee minute. I wish that people would stop talking about the German problem. It depends on what sort of German—socialist, Christian Democrat or Liberal—we are talking about. They have different answers and attitudes to the questions of Europe. In the end, it is a political rather than a nationalist answer that will carry the day, and thank goodness for that.
I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) about the potential for increasing democratic involvement, if a relationship develops between the proposed Eurofed and the European Parliament. That would create a beneficial, almost novel situation for the United Kingdom. The idea that the House of Commons has control over the monetary system and policy and control over the budget is illusory. The Chancellor's claim in March that the European Community strictures on national budgetary policy would be an unacceptable loss of our sovereignty is poppycock. Governments have a certain control but we are not used to Parliaments exercising such control.
I am a federalist—I say that unabashedly—and the Liberal Democrats are federalists. That is a phrase and a fact.
Mr. Spearing rose——
Sir Russell Johnston: I shall give way in a wee minute after I have said something about federalism and before the hon. Gentleman attacks what I say.
On Thursday and Friday the ELDR, the federal representative body of all Liberal parties in the European Community, met for its 13th congress in Shannon in the Republic of Ireland. It passed a long resolution on the consequences for the European Community of democratic development in central and eastern Europe. The sentiments expressed in that resolution are shared by the party of Hans Dietrich Genscher, by the party of Ellemann-Jensen of Denmark, the Italians and so on. Among other things, the resolution calls for
52
"a Political Union, that will enable the Community and its Institutions to respond efficiently to the demands of the new situation, and assuring unity and coherence in the Community's international actions"
It speaks of reinforcing the executive capacity of the European institutions and calls for
"the powers of the European Parliament to be increased … the deepening and acceleration of European and Monetary union … a truly proportional system of representative democracy".
Please note. It also speaks of a bill of rights and says:
"the development of a social market economy is part of political freedom … a unified Germany in a united Federal Europe offers the surest way towards the goal of democracy and security".
Those bits and pieces fit together, but that is not the approach of the Government as seen in the bland, blue document, "Developments in the European Community", which is so full of self-congratulation.
I shall not say too much about economic and monetary union, but it is important to refer to the Foreign Secretary's foreword to the White Paper, to which he referred again today, when he said:
"The government's opposition to Stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report was endorsed by all shades of opinion in the House of Commons."
That is not the case, although it may he founded on the fact that during the debate on economic and monetary union in the House my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said:
"It does not follow from what I have said that I have to agree with every word written in the Delors report."
He said that absolute fiscal harmonisation would not be a necessary condition of EMU any more than it is in the United States. He also said that he favoured a European central banking system on the lines proposed by Delors. He concluded:
"Hon. Members who have expressed doubts and tried to introduce fresh conditions want to protect the right of the British Government to devalue our currency"—
that is what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) wants——
"and print more money. We could usefully accept curtailment of those freedoms in order to achieve stable currency, defeat inflation and provide a framework in which Britain can prosper.""—[Official Report, 2 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 542.]
To say that everyone agrees with the Government is not true. The Government have approached these matters in a negative way and they have no enthusiasm for a central bank, even if it was cited in London. They are also outright opposed to a common currency.
I am not an economist, but I do not understand why the United Kingdom alone of all the Twelve—not all of them are economically stronger than us—wants to oppose the central bank and a fixed exchange rate. I cannot accept that there is some intrinsic weakness in our country that makes it necessary for us to be different. I accept that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney has held his views for a long time, but I believe that they stem much more from his views on national sovereignty than from his views on economic theory.
Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the Rooker-Wise amendments? Even if the House does not have the powers over Government finance that he or others want, does not he remember the introduction of those amendments? Can he tell the House whether he favours any Government of this country, or any party aspiring to government, voluntarily handing over powers that the Government still retain through unanimity of the

53
Council of Ministers by transferring to qualified majority voting? Is the hon. Gentleman's party in favour of expanding qualified majority voting, and if so, in what areas of national policy?
Sir Russell Johnston: I shall not try to tackle those questions in detail now. One swallow, rook or otherwise does not make a summer. Qualified majority voting will have to be extended slowly—there is no doubt about that.
On 24 May I attended a conference organised by the Federal Trust. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury also attended and gave a speech that I did not hear. However I read his speech and it was rather extraordinary. He gave his reasons for not wishing to proceed apace with a common currency. He said that we should keep our own currency because it was a symbol of our authority. He also said that it was necessary to retain our currency
"to have the ability to issue money in order to act as lender of last resort to the banking system which requires government regulation to maintain its stability".
British regulation must be better than any other regulation. He went on to say:
"For these reasons states have found the benefits of having their own currency exceed any possible disadvantages their citizens may face through not being able to do business in the same currency when they trade or travel abroad."
The Financial Secretary advanced an extraordinary set of arguments. I should have thought that the common citizen who must change his money endlessly from pounds to deutschmarks, Belgian francs and guilders would take a different view.
We have delayed on ERM. Sir Leon Brittan was also present at the conference and I read the good speech that he made. I could quote much of it, as it is good stuff. Of France he said:
"Since joining the EMS … French inflation has fallen to an average of 2·9 per cent. over the last five years compared with 10·5 per cent. in the five years up to 1980 … This was not done by magic but by a combination of the correct domestic policies combined with the credibility of adherence to the narrow bands of the EMS … Ireland is a further interesting example because until the start of the EMS in 1979 … Irish inflation was always exactly the same as that in the United Kingdom. It is now 3 per cent. Irish growth this year will be 4·6 per cent."
One should remember that Sir Leon speaks with the authority of a Commissioner in charge of such matters and his good reputation on economic and financial matters in the House. He said of Ireland:
"These results were achieved through acceptance of the disciplines of the EMS … When should the United Kingdom join the EMS exchange rate mechanism? Many of us would answer that question by saying: 'Some time ago!"'
Sir Leon's view is different from that adopted by the Government. Their negative attitude covers this matter and imbues their approach to anything supranational. I wish that the Government could articulate their views more frankly as it would then be easier to get a grip of them. Sadly, their views are often cocooned in humbug. Let me give an example of that. Page 31 of our report states:
"The United Kingdom has been in the lead in encouraging better cooperation on cross-frontier issues among member states,"
One may think what one likes about the Schengen agreement, but one cannot say that if those countries are introducing such an agreement that allows free passage, we, who are not allowing free passage, are
"in the lead in encouraging better cooperation on cross-frontier issues".
54
That is a contradiction. Who are the ones opposing the idea of a pensioner card to allow older people the same access to the same facilities throughout the Community? Britain is the one holding back such ideas.
Page 33 of the report mentions
"a directive concerning the labelling of tobacco products … standardized health warnings … a common position … tar yield".
It does not say, "Of course, by the way, don't forget that Britain alone opposed all that." In answer to a question that I tabled, the Prime Minister said that it was a ridiculous idea. However, in the report it is all compounded, and there are many other large and small examples. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) spoke about the environmental issues.
The Government are not addressing the essential argument—or perhaps they are doing so, but are wriggling and not quite sure what to do. It is no use the Foreign Secretary going on about phrases and facts. What are the aims and objectives? That is a much better way of putting it. My objective could not be put better than by a quotation that I read in The Independent last Thursday, which stated:
"I have always been a convinced European federalist and I believe that over the passage of time we will arrive at a federalist solution to our problems."
That was stated in 1969 by a certain Nicholas Ridley. I apologise because we are not allowed to use names, and I should have said that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made that statement. That was a prescient statement, and how right he was.
Monet knew from the start that there had to be supranational agencies in the Community, or it would not work—any more than the League of Nations or the Council of Europe is capable of resolving bitter disputes between countries. There are people who cling with an almost religious intensity to the idea of national sovereignty—no matter that the competitive aggression of the nation state is still seen as an inheritance that must be defended at whatever cost.
The preservation of British national sovereignty is no more than a cover-up for the defence of short-term governmental advantage. In Britain, sovereignty is defined in terms of the ideology of the Government of the day. The Government are absolute and unrepresentative in their majority.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury also spoke about federalism. He made a wide-ranging speech. He said that there were two competing visions: first, what some call federalism, but what might more accurately be called Euro-nationalism. That was the speech of a senior Minister. He said that federalism involved transferring more and more powers to a European super state. The project appeals to those who wish to regain the power to control the economy.
What has been going on in Britain in these past few years? Have we seen more and more power handed out? In 1969—we are talking about when the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, then a Back Bencher, made the statement I quoted—the Maud commission on local government made a report, as did the Wheatley commission, on which I served. All the talk was of more power being handed from the centre to local government. Quite the opposite has happened. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot simultaneously say, "If we

55
go into the European Community, we are losing democratic influence," and at the same time fight any reduction of central power in the United Kingdom.
A federal Europe means a division of powers and acceptance of the subsidiarity rule. There is a great fallacy in the position of the Government and those who support the idea that anything British is always better. That is no more true than it is of the French of Germans. In this small continent, which has such a destructive history, we are trying to produce a unified, representative political and economic structure in which we can pool our resources andof talents and provide some stability in the world system, where before we were so disruptive. We shall not do that if we follow the Government's approach.
The Foreign Secretary began by talking about the challenge of the changes in the east. There is no doubt that the more united the Community is, the more effectively it will be able to respond to, and deal with, the huge economic problems and nationalist strains that have been released as a consequence of the withdrawal of the Soviets. That will also mean giving aid not only to central Europe but to the Soviet Union, which is something that I have argued for in the Chamber and other places, since the beginning of the communist collapse. I am glad to see from today's press that those ideas are now taking concrete shape, and changing from phrases and hopes to facts.
6.5 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I shall refer to the Select Committee's report and add my thanks and congratulations to its chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and his colleagues for their excellent and thorough investigation. I agreed with the points he made in his speech about the various factors beginning to emerge.
I agree—it is only a guess, because, by definition, the future of these complicated developments is unascertainable—with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). We have a feeling—I am sure that we shall be the first to apologise if our prognosis turns out to be incorrect—that the strength of the German Federal Republic's economy is, and will be, so great that the difficulties that it will face in absorbing the East German economy will be considerably less than might be expected if one merely does the literal calculations. I agreed with my hon. Friend when he sounded pessimistic about that and pointed to the dangers of turbulence in the currency markets.
One factor that emerges from the one-deutschmark-to-one-ostmark unit exchange rate formula for a great number of the transactions that will take place and the general investment basis, is that there will automatically be a statistical upgrading of the East German economy. That means that it will be a less qualified applicant for all sorts of assistance than it would otherwise be, including assistance from the European Community budget—most of which, in net terms, emanates from the West German economy.
This is the hallmark of the concentration that we need. As the Foreign Secretary said, I hope that we shall show more self-confidence about such matters in this new era of unification and Community development. I hope that that
56
strength can carry through to the weaker parts of the existing Community, let alone the new small, artificial addition of East Germany.
There were nervous expectations at the time about the Italian lira and, to a lesser extent, the French franc. Successive French Governments have always been nervous about the ability of the French franc to withstand the buffeting of external forces. They wanted to keep it, in the old days, as a small currency, albeit operating in the old French union territories. I remember a newspaper article stating that the Italian lira would be unable to stand entering the ERM of the EMS. However, the contrary has happened—not by accident although there is always an element of good fortune in such matters.
That policy has been run deliberately, despite the fact that the Italians have had a large, internal budget deficit, are always expressing their wish to try to do something about it, and are now beginning to do so, although in their coalition Government system it is difficult to get general agreement for action. The Italian lira has become at least a semi-strong currency; the French franc, contrary to pessimistic expectations, has become a strong currency; and the deutschmark has become a super-strong currency. There will be similar developments in respect of the Spanish peseta, which was also largely written down by the financial commentators when the initial negotiations for the transitional period of Spanish membership were taking place. The system will continue to be highly successful, so it is tragic, unexplained, strange and mystical that the United Kingdom is still not a member.
I say tragic, because we are ideally suited for membership, not because of the fears of our being, as an international currency, a counterweight or negative factor, but precisely because we are used to trading, manipulating and managing our currency in relation to international obligations. So not only technically but in terms of our traditional expertise in the form of the Bank of England, we would be a successful member of the system. Our membership is long overdue; the sooner it happens the better, so that we can begin to see its benefits.
The Italian rate of inflation has fallen from 20 to 6 per cent. in the same period as the decline in the French rate, which was mentioned earlier. That, too, was not an accident.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) intervened to ask the Foreign Secretary about fraud in the Community, and although our right hon. Friend said that he would allude to it later, he did not have time to do so. Unfortunately, I have outside engagements later in the debate, but if I could have been here I would have been fascinated to ask the Minister of State his view of his father's letter in The Daily Telegraph of some weeks ago, in which he gave us the outstanding geopolitical advice that the best way to be a successful member of the Community was to tell all foreigners to get stuffed——
Mr. Maude indicated dissent.
Mr. Dykes: At any rate, he told some or most foreigners to get stuffed. I appreciate that my hon. Friend does not have direct responsibility for that letter, or indeed for The Daily Telegraph—mercifully, from his point of view—but it would have been interesting to hear his answer. Perhaps I could invite one of my hon. Friends to ask him this question latter in the debate.

57
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister, by a nod of the head, has agreed to deal with fraud later in the debate. It is an ideal subject about which to register our legitimate concern that, as soon as possible, through national authorities and their relevant agencies, the police, the Commission agencies and the Court of Auditors, work will he done in concert, powerfully and successfully, to overcome the problem. This is another perfect example of how otiose and old-fashioned is the mystical House of Commons tendency—as shown, for example, by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), although not on this subject—to think that there is something sinister about what other countries are doing, and that we have a monopoly on virtue. The report by the Court of Auditors is crystal clear: all member states are equally at fault in being unable to deal with fraud. We remember the lovely old story of the Italian olive trees; we do not have such trees here, and I gather that the problem of that abuse has decreased, if not been overcome.
Now there are other aspects of fraud. For instance, there is the continuing disgrace of inadequate controls over cold storage contents. I have the greatest sympathy for the small number of hapless, underpaid officials who have to deal with these nightmare matters. They are confronted by sophisticated operators in all member states. The Court of Auditor's report emphasised that the court found difficulty in obtaining the relevant information, and if such control is to be successful, it is crucial that information from member states be forthcoming. The report said that it was not forthcoming from three states, and one of them, terrible to say, was the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Minister must, as a Foreign Office Minister, cover every aspect of these matters; I shall read his comments in Hansard with care, because I should like to know whether the Court of Auditors and the Commission are still having difficulty in obtaining the necessary facts and figures from the Reading intervention agency and other elements of the control and dit system in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Is my hon. Friend saying that he believes that, by increasing the number of inspectors, auditors and accountants, it will be possible to eliminate fraud, especially in respect of goods held in cold storage? Or will he concede that it is possible that the system is at fault and that it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that fraud will be eliminated?
Mr. Dykes: I agree; "eliminate" is too strong a word, and it is true that aspects of the support system produce the problem of fraud. It is a matter of increasing the number of officials and the quality of the scientific control and auditing systems, and of increasing the penalties which, quite rightly, are national penalties, for criminal offences. The agricultural support system must also gradually be reduced to modest proportions. We must remember that there has already been considerable improvement, because surpluses of most of the products on the official list of supported items are now much fewer and there is no significant overall problem, save in respect of one or two items.
Mr. Knapman: The news is just coming through on the machine that spending by the EEC will rise by 13 per cent. to £53 billion next year and that a substantial extra amount for farmers is included in that figure.
Mr. Dykes: It is up to our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to give us more details about that. I welcome the overall increase in the EC budget, as there are many areas of genuine new development that can be best taken care of in the more centralised EC budgetary system—which, despite this increase, still represents a modest proportion of total GNP and public spending in the Community.
Contrary to the rumours, I believe that, by and large, the ecu spent on desirable infrastructure and long-term development projects have been better spent under the Community budget than by most of the member states, in which money has probably been wasted on a greater scale.
I have cited fraud, with justification, as a classic example of a misunderstanding: my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak said that we cannot get the Community right until we deal with fraud. I hope that it does not seem condescending to point out that, with a modern and sophisticated view of the Community, that sounds the same as saying that the nation states should be abolished because we have not yet dealt with fraud in them —which is equally absurd. We must give the Commission, the Court of Auditors and all the other bodies the necessary powers to handle these matters on a European scale, if they involve European budgetary resources. National money is a matter of national fraud.
Political union has been mentioned again and again. I believe that that is closely linked with economic and monetary union, which in itself is a political matter and which I welcome strongly. We should consider the question of political union positively and enthusiastically, on the logical and understandable basis that we want to see what would come out of such a system—because no one yet knows. There is no harm or weakness in that position.
When the post-war Marshall plan and all the other schemes for post-war European recovery and co-operation were being devised, I do not remember anybody saying, "Every jot and tittle has not been worked out, so we cannot agree to it." Those plans proceeded very much along the lines of a grand design, beginning with the framework of an idea, with all the gaps and details being filled in later as the plan proceeded, usually successfully. I believe that the same thing will happen with political union.
The enthusiastic Italian federalists may well eventually want a single Government entity in Brussels. I do not pretend that that is the objective of most of the people with whom I have discussed these matters in most of the other member states, although there are exceptions. Enthusiastic Europhiles in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, this country, Holland and other member states will see political union as the implantation of additional powers for the European Parliament, plus that Parliament's ability to exercise the necessary accountability over the Commission, to which other hon. Members have referred. Understandably, although they must be defeated in this—I use the word "defeated" with some hesitation—other member Governments will regard the element that is necessary to complete that equation as the greater accountability and answerability of the Council of Ministers.
Although I entirely accept the Foreign Secretary's sensible recommendation that many of the negotiations covering various policies and legislative aspects must be private, if the member Governments in both the Council of Ministers and the European Council want to resist the idea of a greater federalist or quasi-federalist input, it is

59
important that they should be positive about other aspects. I refer to the growing demands that have been made by the European Parliament, the national Parliaments and even the members of the Commission.
It is interesting to note that the Commission itself is now worried about its own powers being reduced if there is greater political union. It is therefore important for the member Governments to accede to the growing clamour and demands for the final stage of the legislative deliberations of the Council of Ministers. I am not talking about policy formation per se—especially in terms of the European Council, which cannot be legislative in that sense, although it is in danger of creeping into a quasi-legislative model—but of the final state of the acceptance, agreement and debate—whether the matter be decided by majority voting or unanimity, depending on the article—of the last legislative stage of a directive or regulation that is proposed by the Commission and sent to the Council of Ministers. That should happen in open public session.
The idea of a senate or second chamber has been promulgated in various places, including this country. If that were to develop into something not only elaborate, but open and understood by the electorate as well as by the politicians of the various national Parliaments, perhaps by gradual evolution it could become a second chamber or an upper house of a bicameral European Parliament. That would be a welcome development.
However, in this era of real political union, whatever the matrix in which that may be constructed—it is certainly a complex matter—any such intergovernmental conference would last a long time. If the member Governments believe that they can continue in the old way, at a time of growing demands from the European Parliament for a greater say in such matters, notwithstanding the weakness of the Single European Act, they must accede to the increasing demands for greater knowledge of what they decide in their complicated processes. I am not talking about the meetings of the Committee of Permanent Representatives or its officials and decisions; I am talking about the politicians who represent the various Councils and about the Council of Ministers itself and the way in which they should make their legislative decisions in future.
If they have the courage to adopt such a policy as soon as may be after the intergovernmental conference, we shall see the old phoney danger of super-federalism replaced by a much more rational structure, in which all citizens of Europe can play an equal part.
6.23 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I am always intrigued when I follow the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and am always filled with admiration for his fluency and his depth of knowledge of this subject. I was amused earlier when the Foreign Secretary spoke about stage 2 of Delors and monetary union, because when the right hon. Gentleman said that it would not happen, under his breath his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East said, "Not yet." That has been the story of the European Community over the years. There has been great opposition to a variety of projects, but they have all come about.
60
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) touched on that point when he said that we have become a certain kind of Community that is developing and evolving, although it is not the kind of Community that we were hoping for some years ago. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) praised my right hon. Friend, and said that he was my party's centre of gravity on European Community matters. That provided much amusement for those of us who have long supported the European Community, notwithstanding the difficulties in our party and with the position that it has taken over the years.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) made an interesting speech, in which he referred to the federalist approach to Europe.
The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) spoke more than an element of the truth when he referred to the coming currency union in West Germany on 2 July between the deutschmark and the ostmark. It is clear from the White Paper that stage 1 of the so-called "monetary union", which comes into effect on 1 July, requires us all to be part of the exchange rate mechanism. An announcement may well be made on 1 July that will take the British people into the exchange rate mechanism in conjunction with the unification of the German currencies on the following day. I have no personal knowledge of that, but the right moment for bringing stage 1 into full effect may well be at the same time that the German currency is unified.
The hon. Member for Wycombe also said that he did not really believe that the Labour party had moved in the way in which it has, or that we now embrace the European concept more than we did. He was perfectly right to refer to the fact that, in 1983, we had a policy of pulling out of the European Community. However, we have moved from the stage when we said, "Stop the world, we want to get off," because we are now part of Europe and are determined to play our full part in the affairs of Europe. The policy document to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred is, as he said, the document that will go to the party conference in the autumn and be accepted.
One facet of our policy is that we believe that membership of the European Community must become both deeper and wider. Tonight, we have heard talk of Austria and Switzerland joining. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney used a Gaullist phrase, "Europe des patries", and I remind the House that de Gaulle talked about a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Perhaps that is what will happen gradually.
Earlier, when the Foreign Secretary referred to the extension of Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, "Why not Russia?" Indeed, why not the Russia of Boris Yeltsin? That idea shows the way in which we are seking to expand Europe on the grounds of a mixed economy. We do not want a state-directed or command economy Europe; nor do we want a fully capitalist or market economy Europe. We are looking towards a mixed economy Europe, in which people will have a say and be taken into account. We want a Europe that will build prosperity and remove the great disparities in wealth. The European Community must be a real community. It must be really European—and more than simply a single market.
I turn now to the social dimension. As has already been said, the White Paper lauds the present Government,

61
giving them a sense not only of participating in Europe, but of leading Europe. As we all know, only one Government out of 12 opposed the social dimension—the Conservative Government of the United Kingdom. They do not believe that there should be a social dimension, such as a charter for workers' rights, running alongside the mixed economy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton made it clear that, in meeting after meeting, the Prime Minister blocks this concept of a social dimension because she believes that the European Community is an adventure playground for financial services.
Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, for many people, the objection is not so much to the measures themselves as to such measures being implemented before the economy and the productivity of industry can afford them? We are not against benefits, but we must have benefits that our industry can sustain. Will he also accept that it is not either/or—freer markets or more social benefits? Freer markets should provide more social benefits because more effective and productive industry will improve living standards for everyone.
Mr. Bell: I was under the impression that the Prime Minister was against the social dimension, because, having thrown out socialism by the front door, she did not want it to return through the back door. Throughout the development of the capitalist system, every benefit that has been achieved by those who work, by hand or by brain, has been achieved only through the use, authority and power of trade unions. No free market has ever, of its own will, delivered the goods for those who work in it, for the simple reason that, if it did, it would not make the profits it wants. Therefore, without the social dimension, there would not be the sharing and participation that we want.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said that the Government do not want protection for employed people. As the frontiers come down, the financial services sector will be untrammelled and unrestrained, while those who work by hand or brain will not have the framework to ensure them the fruits of their investment.
The European Community must be a real community for all Europeans and not just a single market. That gets back to the concept of the social dimension. It should be a European Community that strengthens its commitment to help the people in developing countries of the Third world. Therefore, I welcome the section of the report dealing with the fourth Lomé Convention and the financial package of 12 billion ecu over five years for those Lomé countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific.
The Labour party believes that the European Community should develop into a community that sets high environmental standards. The report gives the impression that we are leading the way on the environment. I was amused by the exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and the Minister of State, during which they traded quotes from the European Commission. As my right hon. Friend said, we are being treated as the dirty man of Europe. The White Paper has some positive aspects dealing with the environment, and we shall hold the Government to them.
Mr. Maude: Perhaps we can continue to trade quotations. I should be interested to know the hon. Gentleman's view of what the Commissioner said. He drew up a table of infractions against European Community directives and specifically criticised two
62
countries—Italy and Belgium—for their appalling record on environmental matters. His figures showed clearly that the United Kingdom came out well in comparison.
Mr. Bell: I am sure that in certain areas we will come out well in comparison, but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman said "in certain areas". This is an analysis of environmental measures across the whole board. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to contest the assessment made by the Commissioner, who has no vested interest in supporting the United Kingdom, he should do so, but he has no basis for contesting it.
Mr. Bell: I was referring to the exchange between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and was about to talk on the miscreant litany of neglect in environmental matters. I can give two examples —water and beaches, one of which is before the European Court of Justice now. My right hon. Friend said in response to the Minister, that, when it comes to action in the Community, the United Kingdom blocks policies to deal with global warming that other Governments wish to take.
The hon. Gentleman was a little quick on his feet, because I was about to refer to those parts of the White Paper describing the Government's policy and actions. We shall be watching with interest the Government's progress in the Community on such aspects as health and safety at work and a vigorous environmental policy, which is referred to in the White Paper. It says that 1990 should see the establishment of a European environmental agency to act as a co-ordinating point for environmental information, in association with countries and institutions outside the Community. We welcome those aspects of the report and we look forward to following, with interest, the development of those policies.
I do not wish to dwell unduly on monetary union, a subject on which many hon. Members have spoken with great care, and which no doubt other hon. Members will speak about later. However, I shall refer to the document that the Government circulated among members of the Community entitled "An evolutionary approach to economic and monetary union".
Mr. Giles Radice: A load of rubbish.
Mr. Bell: One does not need to dust off the crystal ball to see the truth of what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). Our colleagues in Europe are treating it as a load of rubbish as well. We have had no sight of this document since it was published.
The Labour party believes that there should be a programme, similar to the Marshall aid programme, for eastern European countries. I remember reading about Ernest Bevin listening to the radio one morning in 1940 and hearing Secretary of State Marshall setting out his ideas for Europe. Mr. Marshall simply had the idea, and Ernest Bevin converted that idea into a package that allowed Europe to develop economically and to become what it is today. The Labour party supports a new programme for eastern European countries so that their economies can be brought up from the ground and developed, and so that they also develop a democratic view which brings them closer to the western European concept.

63
We all know who Jean Monnet is, and that he is said to be the father of Europe. He once said that we are here not to coalesce states but to unite people. The new developments in Europe offer a prospect of uniting the peoples of Europe, bringing them all together in a system based on a mixed economy, democracy and the principle of accountability. We should develop towards such a Europe, whether it is federalist, united or "un Europe des patries"—however one wishes to describe it. Europe is developing itself. We shall see changes for the better and an extension of democracy and the mixed economy. All of us will be the better for it.
6.38 pm
Mr. Michael Knowles: To follow what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said, perhaps I should point out that Jean Monnet's remarks were practically quoted in the preamble to the treaty of Rome. He said that the object was to produce an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe.
I sometimes wonder, when we have these debates, whether those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches, and Back-Benchers as well, have even bothered to read the treaty of Rome or to study what went on at Messina, the objective that lay behind the treaty of Rome, and what has developed across the rest of western Europe, if not in this country. Hon. Members spoke of votes on development towards economic and monetary union ending up 11:1. All too often, it does end up that way, not because of this or any other Government but simply because of our history. The view in the House and our country is different because of what happened during the second world war, when everybody else lost. They were occupied by someone but we were not. At the end of the war, we fallaciously thought that we had won.
Unfortunately, the war had ruined the United Kingdom, but that was not realised. Over the years, politicians involved themselves in various dubious schemes to show that Britain was important. In effect, there were concentric rings. It was said that Europe was important because Britain was a member of it. The Commonwealth was important because Britain was in it. The British-American alliance was important because we were involved in it. It was said that all those involvements made the United Kingdom an extremely important country.
That was political babble talk, and time has shown it to be so. In the end power counts in politics, and power has flowed away from this country. Our power has been spent in a good cause in the defeat of Nazism during the second world war, and I do not regret the decision to fight that evil one jot or tittle. The reality has not been accepted thereafter, however, even though it has been dawning over the years. We did not want to participate in the talks on the European defence community, or those on the European Economic Community. We did everything that we could to thwart the EC by trying to found the free trade area. In the end, the Prime Minister of the day, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), led the country into Europe.
In a sense, most of the United Kingdom was fairly reluctant to enter Europe. It did not understand the politics underpinning the idea of the Community. Many
64
Members of this place and many outside it still fail to understand that underpinning. We still have not succeeded in getting the message across.
I cannot better the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) about the Court of Auditors. Its reports appear almost constantly and we debate them only once a year. It is part of the way in which we delude ourselves that hon. Members go through the reports and select for debate the fraud that has taken place in other countries. We talk about fraud in Italy and France, but there are just as many cases in the United Kingdom. Somehow instances of fraud in the United Kingdom are overlooked.
The Court of Auditors is getting more on top of the fraud problem, but it needs its own independent staff. It cannot depend on the staff in independent states to police their own people, and it is foolish to believe that such a system can operate effectively. We tend to think that fraud is what happens in other nation states whereas it is only bending the rules slightly in our own state to make sure that, patriotically or nationalistically, it gains an advantage. It seems that any fraud in one's own state is not viewed in the same light as that which is brought to bear on fraud in other states. The only way in which fraud can be policed properly throughout the Community is by the Court of Auditors having its own staff.
The terms used in these debates are always delicate. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary talked about political union being a process, and that is true. The implication, however, is that it will go on and on. If that happens, what about federalism? That is what it will inevitably mean in the end. If political union is a process, we are seeing the transfer of power from this place to somewhere else. I am not against that per se, but if the transfer is to take place, I want power to be where there is democratic control. I do not want it disappearing into a European Council which is accountable to no one. I do not want deals to take place behind closed doors. I want public scrutiny.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that democratic control is the preserve of national Parliaments. When Ministers here and in other states talk about national parliamentary sovereignty, all too often they mean ministerial sovereignty. They are saying, in effect, "Now and again we might give the lads a glimpse of what is happening behind closed doors but basically measures will be pushed through with a suitably large parliamentary working majority. It is nobody's business but ours." That might be the unfair suspicion of a Back-Bench Member, but I think that it is shared by many in the 12 national Parliaments.
Mr. Maude: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend. I have some sympathy with what he says, but I think that he is being unfair. The House of Commons has developed a system of scrutiny that is much more advanced than the systems that prevail in most of the other states of the Community. I accept that the system is not as advanced as that in the Danish Parliament, but that system has certain difficulties associated with it. The House has submitted proposals, to which the Government have responded, for advancing the process of scrutiny. All Ministers who take part in these discussions regard our accountability to the House as extremely important and influential. Members of this place—my hon. Friend is foremost among them—have the ability to question

65
Ministers and to hold them to account. That applies to the decisions that Ministers make and the positions that they occupy in the Council of Europe. That is what matters, and it is extremely effective.
That scrutiny and accountability is being developed increasingly in other national Parliaments. It is true of the Greek and Spanish Parliaments, the Bundestag and the National Assembly in Paris.
Mr. Knowles: I take my hon. Friend's argument seriously. I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, but I would be kidding the House —I see the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), in his place —if I gave the House the impression that the Committee could operate a check and that through its reports the House really knew what the Government were doing in Brussels. The fact is that we respond to bits of paper.
My hon. Friend the Minister says that other Parliaments are copying us, but in some ways they are more advanced than us. For example, there are joint meetings of Members of the European Parliament and Members of the Bundestag. They consider specific reports on current action and discuss future strategy. They try to determine where Germany's interest lies one year or five years ahead. They discuss long-term possibilities. That does not happen during meetings of the Select Committee, nor does it happen on the Floor of the House. Perhaps responsibility rests with Ministers and civil servants, but we miss out badly.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Did the hon. Gentleman notice that the Foreign Secretary spoke eloquently in favour of improving the relationship between Members of this place and Members of the European Parliament? He was coy, however, about particulars that would improve the relationship.
Mr. Knowles: I shall not be trapped into agreeing with an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
Mr. Maude: I welcome the opportunity to expand a little. I entirely share the view of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. It is not for the Government to propound what the exact relationship should be: it is for Parliament to form its relationship with the European Parliament. To the extent that the House wishes to do that, the Government will support it wholeheartedly.
Mr. Knowles rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I understand that the Minister will be seeking to catch the eye of the Chair to reply to the debate. Perhaps he will save one or two of his arguments for that occasion.
Mr. Knowles: Perhaps I am at fault, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being too provocative and leading others on.
Again, I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister says. We all know the realities. We have danced a minuet in this place on the relationship with the European Parliament. If any Member of this place wants to telephone a Member of the European Parliament, or a member of the Commission, to talk about something that affects his constituency, he must pay for the call himself.
If, for example, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) wishes to speak to someone in Edinburgh, which is about twice as far away as Brussels, the call will be paid for by the House, and rightly
66
so. It is clear that we still do not have the right relationship. If a member of this place wishes to visit Edinburgh or Belfast, I would not say that no questions are asked but basically the visit is on. But try to visit Brussels or Strasbourg; that is very different. It is difficult to do so unless the Member is willing to pay the bill himself.
Sir Russell Johnston: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the reference in the report to the European Parliament consists of only three short paragraphs at the bottom of a page? It would appear that the only thing that it does is listen to Ministers.
Mr. Knowles: That is right.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that European monetary union could lay the foundation of a superstate. Basically, he is right. He saw the great drawback to that, which is that politicians would not have their hands on the printing presses to promote inflation. The people of Britain and France, who have the two most politically controlled central banks, might look with envy at developments affecting the Bundesbank and the Federal Reserve bank in the United States. They might see an advantage in wrenching our hands off the printing presses. We must not think that, because we want a bit of power, the people of this country will necessarily see it as in their interests. If we explained the arguments for trying to emulate the Bundesbank and Federal Reserve bank developments on a European scale, there would be positive arguments in favour of doing so and, I believe, strong support outside the House.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said that he suspected that the Government would accept stage I but would try to find ways to derail stages 2 and 3. He was in favour of that as a policy. His suspicions are, however, shared abroad, where people are expecting "the old British tactic". The old Gaullist suspicion of Britain is still there—the fear that we will go in with no real sympathy, and that at very opportunity we will try to slow things up, and derail and sidetrack proposals. Such views are not without reason, as, over the years, successive Governments—Conservative and Labour—have done that.
Enlargement is inevitable. I was interested in the comment by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), that Turkey's application for entry to the Community was probably still not eligible. I think that Turkey's entry will be 10 or 15 years ahead; it is, however, the one state with a promise of eventual entry written into its agreement with the Community. That is a good thing, as we need Turkey to reinforce the Community in the long term.
Mr. Anderson: If the hon. Gentleman recalls, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that the Foreign Secretary had put the claims of Turkey and Austria to membership on a par. The Foreign Secretary failed to appreciate that, given Austria's trading pattern and the fact that it is already being prepared for the time when the doors are open again after 1993, it is in a different position.
Mr. Knowles: The hon. Gentleman is right. Obviously, Austria is much more advanced industrially, as well a s in its political and human rights. Whereas Turkey's

67
membership would not be appropriate for another 10 years, there are perhaps other countries in western Europe that could enter almost immediately.
Mr. Oppenheim: Is not the real reason for the campaign to prevent Turkey from entering the EC the fact that industrial interests, lobbies, trade unions and Opposition Members are terrified of cheap exports from Turkey, especially of textiles?
Mr. Knowles: That is true. An even greater fear is that of cheap labour across the Community. If my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) wants to argue that case on principle, he can also argue for dismantling all immigration controls. Good luck to him if he wants to take that on board; I would not care to do so!
Inevitably, enlargement will mean changes in the structure of the Community. Already the Commission is too large, but every nation state now wants at least its own commissioner. That is nonsense. What we need is a smaller working structure that will appoint the best commissioners. I do not care whether the commissioner is British, German, French or Dutch; whoever is the best man or woman for the job should be appointed. The idea that we must all have a national representative and that national Governments must appoint a commissioner—who will be independent of national Governments anyway—is nonsense. We must shrink the existing structure.
The idea that European Council meetings must be in secret should come to an end: it is indefensible. As far as I know, it is the only legislative body in the western world that meets in secret. The powers of the European Parliament should be enhanced.
There is a great deal of fear about the term "federalism", but we should not be frightened of it. The French make a case for it: they say that if we do not put some bounds round the rights of the European structures, in the end they will encroach on national Parliaments and Governments. They believe that federalism would defend national rights, and do not see it as an encroachment. That is surely a positive way to view the matter.
There was an ambulance strike in this country some months ago; it was debated by the European Parliament. The United States Congress could not possibly have debated an ambulance strike in Massachussets or Texas, because, as a federal structure, it has nothing to do with such matters. However, under the present European structure, there is no limit to how far the powers of the European institutions can be stretched. Before the end of the decade, we may adopt something like amendment 10 to the American constitution. That will reserve all further powers that are not handed over to the European structures for the states and for the people.
People will have to accustom themselves to a powerful Germany. Within four or five years, eastern Germany will have been modernised and integrated with western Germany. We shall then face the problem that has faced Europe for more than 100 years—that of the biggest, most powerful and most dynamic state in central Europe. Part of the argument about European integration has concerned the need to put some chains on the nation state. Although we think in terms of the German nation state, others might think in terms of the British nation state. We
68
must face the fact that, eventually, Germany will be the biggest and most powerful state in the Community. There is no point in shilly-shallying about it.
In the Conservative party, the Bruges group has different policies towards the European Community, including the policy that dare not speak its name—withdrawal. I do not think that withdrawal is realistic, and I doubt whether anyone else involved in politics does either. We must face the truth—even if we British do not like it—that the Community was founded to curtail the power of the European nation state; that is its object. For the past 70 or 80 years, we have managed to reduce the continent that was the producer of most of the arts and science of the modern world to a slaughterhouse—an abattoir. The people of Europe do not want that again. The Community will widen and deepen to do the job for which it was founded, and I for one support it.
6.58 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: I hope that I will not embarrass the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) by saying how much I admired his speech. He put his case extremely well, and I agreed with most of what he said. I found his attitude towards accountability particularly interesting, and I shall refer to it again later.
The Foreign Secretary's foreword to the White Paper, his speech, and the excellent Foreign Affairs Select Committee report—on which I congratulate the Chairman —all rightly emphasise how radically the context in which we consider European Community affairs has been altered by the dramatic developments in eastern and central Europe in the past year. I make no apology for concentrating on those developments in the first part of my speech, before I then discuss how they affect the role of the EC.
All democrats rejoice at the democratic revolution in central and eastern Europe, of which the impeccably conducted Czechoslovakian elections are but the most recent manifestation. As I stood in Wenceslas square three weeks ago and saw the hoardings, lamp posts and shop windows festooned with the election posters of the 22 parties contesting the first free elections for more than 40 years, I understood something of Wordsworth's passionate response to the French revolution:
"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive."
Certainly, President Havel—[Interruption.] I did not continue that quotation because, unfortunately, the second line is no longer relevant. President Havel was right to say that yesterday's election result was a victory not only for Civic Forum but for all Czechoslovaks.
Whatever our delight with what is happening in central and eastern Europe, most of us feel some apprehension about the extent of the conceptual and strategic challenge that the changes present. After 40 years in which the shape and division of Europe have been more or less taken as given, all is now in flux. The sudden collapse of Soviet power and influence, triggered by Mr. Gorbachev's far-sighted and courageous refusal to use Russian troops to bolster Communist regimes in central and eastern Europe, has had radical consequences.
First, it has led to the emergence of an independent central and eastern Europe for the first time since the inter-war period. Secondly, it is leading to the unification of Germany—an objective for which western European leaders originally called, but which they never expected to happen. Last, but by no means least, it is undermining the

69
old cold war assumptions and alliances. Last week saw the formal winding-up of the Warsaw pact as a working military alliance and the declaration by the NATO Foreign Ministers that the cold war is over and that NATO needs to develop a political dimension—all of which have implications for the EC.
The task facing European leaders is to fashion what amounts to nothing less than a new European settlement that will not only guarantee frontiers, but will create a framework that will provide stability, security and prosperity into the next century. In this difficult and delicate period, a special responsibility rests on European leaders. They must discard old habits and old assumptions and eschew short-term, partisan responses. Perhaps Mr. Kohl might have thought about that over the Oder-Neisse line. Indeed, when the Prime Minister was in the Soviet Union last week, perhaps she should not have said so publicly that she wanted to put new nuclear weapons in western Germany. It was not the most appropriate and tactful remark. Politicians must think imaginatively and, above all, they must think about the institutional framework of the new Europe—or the new European architecture, as the Foreign Secretary called it—and especially about the respective roles of NATO, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and, above all, the EC.
I want to say a few words about NATO and the CSCE, to which the Foreign Secretary also referred. There are those who believe that the EC should assume a security role. I do not share that view. It was once said of NATO that its original task was to keep the Russians out, to keep the Americans in and to keep the Germans down. In 1990, those objectives appear to be either out of date or in need of substantial modification.
First, the Russians are arguably no longer in a position to mount an offensive land attack in western Europe. Secondly, Germany is by far the most powerful nation in Europe, and it is becoming increasingly unenthusiastic about the permanent stationing of foreign troops—and especially nuclear weapons—on her soil. Thirdly, in the United States domestic and budgetary pressures are pushing the Congress and the President towards radical cuts in American forces stationed in Europe.
Does that mean that we should try to change NATO's role, or even to do away with it? It is pointless to dream up new tasks for NATO under the vague heading "political", whatever that may mean. It would be most unwise for NATO to become the policeman of eastern Europe, let alone the policeman of the remainder of the world, as the Prime Minister appeared to be implying last week. However, there remains a case for NATO to continue to exist, although at a much reduced level, if only to keep a minimum level of deterrence against unfavourable changes in the Soviet Union, and to ensure that any European settlement is underwritten by the United States. That is very important.
Pan-European security, especially the future security of eastern and central Europe, needs to be considered within the framework of the CSCE. What is needed is a new treaty, as the leaders of Europe have suggested, backed by existing CSCE countries, especially the United States and the Soviet Union, to endorse existing frontiers. We need mediating and conciliating machinery to deal with frontier or other disputes, especially those arising from minorities. We need a permanent secretariat, although not a European security force, be it provided by NATO or
70
anyone else. That would not be either possible or acceptable. In any case, in the longer term—as has happened with EC countries—the best guarantee of peace and stability in eastern and central Europe is likely to be the development of lasting economic and cultural ties.
The role of the EC will be vital to the new European settlement. As I have already implied, I do not believe that the EC should become a super-state—certainly not in my political lifetime, or even in the lifetime of my children. Nor should it have a security function. A European defence community would not only exclude the United States: as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out, it would rule out Austria, Sweden and Switzerland from eventual membership of the EC. However, the European Community is, to a considerable extent, the motor of the new Europe.
If any hon. Member doubts that, he must think about the enormous economic power of the EEC; reflect on its renewed growth, especially during the past three years; remember that the EC was given the primary role in helping eastern Europe; go to Vienna, where the Austrian Government are applying for membership; or go to Prague, Budapest or Warsaw, where the new democratic Governments are turning to the EC first for association and, secondly, for eventual membership. My judgment is that, if the new European settlement is to be lasting, above all it needs to be underwritten by the economic and political dynamism of the European Community.
I strongly support the widening of the EC, as do many hon. Members. It must be prepared to reach out to eastern and central Europe, first in association agreements and secondly, in the course of time, in full membership where that is appropriate. In doing so, it must not exclude those EFTA countries such as Austria, Norway and others, all of which have long-standing democracies and developed economies. Many of them will wish to join before the end of the century. The new European settlement will need an open EC, but I do not believe that widening should be at the expense of deepening.
If the EC is to act as the economic and political motor of Europe, further integration will be required. The meshing of the European economies, which will be further stimulated by 1992, has already resulted in considerable economic and monetary co-ordination. Any right hon. and hon. Members doubting that should remember what happened when the Bundesbank raised interest rates last year. Other countries, including the United Kingdom, immediately followed—which showed just how strong is the economic and monetary co-ordination. We are already in a Bundesbank regime—a deutschmark currency area. The project for economic and monetary union, which will be discussed at the intergovernmental conference at the end of this year, is formal recognition of what has already occurred.
The case for greater co-ordination is strengthened, not weakened, by the challenge of eastern Europe. If we are to help eastern and central Europe, we must ensure that the Community is both dynamic and cohesive. Greater economic and monetary union is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the Community. On that, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Later, I shall say more about Britain and economic and monetary union.
I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, East that a Community strengthened by greater economic and

71
monetary co-ordination will need a more powerful political dimension—hence the case for more majority voting on issues such as the environment and social matters, and for a strengthened European Parliament, both of which are proposed in Labour's policy document.
There is a further argument for the deepening of the Community, and one which perhaps dare not speak its name. If there is fear of a unified Germany—although it is not one that I personally share—then the more Germany is bound by economic and political ties to its neighbours the better it will be for the rest of Europe.
I turn to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a medium-sized European power. It still has a significant role to play, but that influence is best exercised in co-operation with its partners inside the European Community. It is essential that the United Kingdom plays a positive rather than negative role in the Community's development. It must put forward creative ideas, seek allies for them, and play a constructive part in the subsequent debate. That has seldom been the case under the present British Government. Consequently, British influence over European affairs has been diminished rather than increased over the past decade. I hope that Britain will be more effective in the debate on economic and political monetary union than it has been in the past.
I do not share all the fears of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney on economic and monetary union. I believe that he was in a sense tilting slightly at windmills, because he was putting up Delors mark 1, not Delors as defined by subsequent debates. As to devaluation, I do not believe that it is an end in itself. It may have some short-term uses, but we have seen the dangers of countries relying too much on devaluation. The problem is that it feeds through to inflation. There is a strong case for a more stable currency regime of a kind from which we would have benefited if it had been in force over the past 10 years.
The French experience shows that it is possible to be a member of the exchange rate mechanism, enjoy a low rate of inflation, and compete relatively successfully with the more powerful German economy. I notice that the French balance of payments deficit has fallen quite markedly over the past year. The French have been enjoying a decent rate of growth over the past three years. The blot on the horizon is their unemployment levels, although these are beginning to improve, whereas our own are beginning to increase. So we should not make as much of devaluation as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney.
There is no reason why we should not enjoy freedom of budgetary manoeuvre within European monetary and economic union. There is no reason either why we should not have a European regional policy, which would partly have the effect of devaluation and would protect parts of the country against the kind of shock that one needs to inflict with devaluation in other circumstances. Again, my right hon. Friend did not make enough of that.
Also, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney assumed that Britain will enter into a fixed exchange rate regime for ever more straight away. We do not yet know the date for our entry into EMU, and there may be a much longer period of adjustment than that which my right hon. Friend assumed. Finally I do not find
72
my right hon. Friend's alternative of a two-speed Europe very attractive. I do not want Britain to be left outside. We were left outside before, when we were excluded from the Community. We have been left outside the exchange rate mechanism, and that has not been a good thing.
It is essential that the Government play a constructive part in Europe, which will give us far more influence. Fortunately, there is every prospect that the next British Government will be a Labour Government, which will take a more positive and constructive line. That will be for the benefit not only of the United Kingdom but of the European Community as a whole.
7.16 pm
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I agree with the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) that the speech that must be answered in this debate is that of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). However, both the hon. Member for Durham, North and his right hon. Friend have one characteristic in common. In loyalty, they gather around the Labour party's present commitment to enter the exchange rate mechanism. I am bound to say that I thought that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney damned it with the faintest of faint praise. The way in which he said that he would tolerate that development showed that he would just about vote for it if three of the four of the largest Labour Whips sat on him, pummelled him, swore at him, and reminded him of the many occasions on which Labour party members voted for things of which he was in favour but which they hated.
It would be ungracious of me not to express a few words of thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It is not often, when I intend to make a speech, that he goes to the trouble of trailing it the week before. I am most grateful to him for doing that. He recommended that a junior economist should have a word or two with me over the weekend. That did not happen.
My views—they may be mere prejudices—have mainly been arrived at from observing the way in which the economy works. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has been among my most important tutors. Between 1972 and 1974, I observed his economic policies—it was a period that exerted an enormous influence on the rest of the 1970s. My hatred of inflation for its social evil and the political disturbance that it causes is based mainly on my observations of my right hon. Friend's economic policies between 1972 and 1974. I hope that he will forgive me if I have not had the interview with the junior economist that he suggested.
As regards the proposals, that seem to be abroad in my party, for going into the exchange rate mechanism—I address my remarks most of all to those hon. Members who believe that that would be a splendid wheeze, by which we might win the next general election—my prejudices are in favour of floating exchange rates, and attempting to reduce inflation by a progressive squeeze on the money supply, however it is defined. However, I accept that a measure that is designed to hold up the value of the pound may have some temporary advantage, in that while that certainly does not cure inflation, because it does not stop all prices rising, it prevents some prices from rising. It has much the same shocking and distorting effect as a prices and incomes policy when it is first introduced.

73
If the object of policy at any one time is to hold up the value of the pound, it is true—as we can observe from recent market sentiment—that if we announce that we are going into the exchange rate mechanism, it is probable that there will be an increase in the value of shares and that the pound will temporarily increase in value. That is a temporary advantage. We must ask ourselves whether a system by which we rig exchange rates is advantageous over all. Here I agree with much of what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said. We can observe the truth of that by comparing two situations.
In the period between 1979 and 1981, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there was a squeeze on the money supply at first. It was not an entirely consistent squeeze, and not as harsh a squeeze as was predicted by the Government at the time. None the less it was a squeeze, and it was accompanied by a sharp increase in the value of the pound against other currencies. As a result, much of our manufacturing industry was squeezed out. The consequence was that the squeeze on the money supply, which was the important factor, was harsher than intended. The pound was freely floating and there was no way in which its value could be brought down.
Compare that time with the period since the middle of 1988 when a steady squeeze has been applied to the money supply—not a harsh or dramatic squeeze, and with none of the discontinuity that occurred in 1976, but none the less a squeeze. The social and political cries against that squeeze have been nothing like as great as they were between 1979 and 1981. That is because we have had a relatively free-floating pound, which has gone down in the past year by 8 per cent. against the trade-weighted index of other currencies. Yes, there has been a rise in unemployment. Sadly, it is probable that if we are going to squeeze inflation out, there may be a further rise in unemployment, but at least while the squeeze on the money supply continues, British industry can expand by exporting. That is the advantage, on occasion, of allowing the exchange rate to depreciate.
I am smiling to emphasise the way in which the Treasury keeps saying, in a macho way, "We won't allow devaluation." It is important to understand that there is a term of art involved here. A depreciation is something that is allowed by markets. However, devaluation is carried out by Government. Therefore, when the Chancellor says that there will be no devaluation, those who wrongly believe that the words "devaluation" and "depreciation" mean the same thing, conclude that there will be a massive attack on speculators. There will be no such thing. That shows the advantage of employing a large number of classicists in the Treasury. That is an example of the way in which a floating rate may assist a squeeze on the money supply.
We ought also to consider the way in which entry into the exchange rate mechanism may turn out to be inconsistent with the requirements of domestic policy. There are two good examples of that. The first is the period between 1987 and 1988, when, as everyone knows, we were an informal member of the exchange rate mechanism. At that time, the pound was rising inconveniently against the deutschmark and the only way to get it down to what was regarded by the then Chancellor as a satisfactory level, was by lowering interest rates. There is no secret about that.
The lowering of interest rates, it has been said, was caused principally as a response to the fall on the stock market, but long before that fall, and long after it became obvious that that fall would not be prolonged, it was stated
74
that the reason why interest rates were kept too low was that it was considered necessary to hold the pound down against the deutschmark, and we are still suffering from that now.
Mr. Keith Mans: In view of the comment that he has just made, will my hon. Friend suggest to the House what would have been the effect on inflation today if we had joined the exchange rate mechanism in 1985?
Mr. Budgen: That would have depended entirely upon our domestic policy on the control of money supply. There are times when the requirements of rigging the exchange rate and the requirements of strengthening or loosening control on money supply, may go in the same direction. There may be other times when those objectives diverge. However, between 1987 and the middle of 1988 we had divergent objectives. Lower interest rates were being used to pull the pound down, but domestic conditions in this country—for example, house prices rose by between 20 and 30 per cent.—meant that the rate of growth was at an all-time high of 5 per cent., which in my opinion is completely unsustainable in our economy, and that showed that we ought to have had higher interest rates.
I use those two examples because the Treasury tells us that all the indicators for the increase in money supply are no longer reliable. Even so, those two external indicators clearly show that the economy was overheating in that period. Interest rates, however, came down and we are now suffering the consequences.
The same thing is happening now. The peseta has risen recently by about 3 per cent. In order to keep the peseta within the exchange rate mechanism, the great and the good of Europe are leaning on the Spanish authorities and telling them that they ought to reduce their interest rates. However, the Spanish economy is in exactly the same position as the British economy in 1987: asset prices are booming, inflation is coming down, growth is going like mad, Spanish wage costs are increasing and the Spaniards are considering ways of controlling credit, apart from increasing interest rates, thinking of ways to apply a prices and incomes policy and doing all the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup would consider to be a means not of halting inflation—he is not in favour of that—but of distorting inflation and presenting it in a more positive light.
Mr. David Howell: The Spanish economy is not in the same position as ours. The Spaniards have had a large budget deficit for years, whereas we have had a budget surplus in recent times and continue to have one. That is a fundamental and important difference.
Mr. Budgen: I respectfully disagree with my right hon. Friend. The question is not whether one had a budget deficit or a budget surplus. It is possible, as this country has demonstrated, to have a budget surplus and also to print money. I see the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney nodding in agreement. It is also possible theoretically, as was demonstrated by the previous Labour Government, to have a large deficit but to cover it without printing money, provided interest rates are high enough. The fact that there is either a surplus or a deficit is irrelevant.
There are signs that the Spanish economy is overheating. I am not one of those who keep saying that everybody wants to halt inflation. I accept immediately

75
that in this country most people like inflation but, unlike most people, the politicians keep saying that they intend to halt inflation. I am unusual in believing that, on the whole, the cant is right; it is just that politicians do not like to follow general observations and take measures to reduce inflation.
If the Spanish people wish a slight reduction in the future rate of inflation to take place, I assert that it will be necessary for them not to lower but to raise interest rates. That is one of the contradictions. Let me consider, however, for a moment what is regarded as the smart option. Those who believe that they can win the next general election by going into the exchange rate mechanism consider the smart option to be that, about a week before the Labour party conference, the Government should announce that they intend to enter the exchange rate mechanism, thus stealing the Labour party's clothes. The pound will certainly rise in value, in the short term there will be a great boom on the stock exchange and everybody will say, "The Tories are going to win the next general election."
Let me, however, deal with what may happen in later months. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the public opinion polls suggest a triumph for the Tories similar to the triumph that we enjoyed in the recent local elections. Let us further suppose that some world speculators begin to grow a little uneasy with the pound. If the pound drops in value just before the next election and if we persist in arguing that control of inflation must be achieved by keeping up the value of the pound, let us consider what happens then.
If the next election, for the sake of argument, were to take place in the spring of 1991, we have to remember that there has been some squeeze on money supply since the middle of 1988. By the middle of 1991, therefore, there will have been a long squeeze and it may not be necessary then to raise interest rates. We may, however, find in the period coming up to the general election that a certain course has to be followed. We can be sure that, if we enter the exchange rate mechanism just before the Labour party conference, it will not be put forward as something that might have a peripheral effect; it will not be put forward modestly as the least bad solution, in the circumstances. This will be the new solution. It will be similar to prices and incomes policies and all the other measures that are supposed to cure inflation and make life easier and better for the British people, the country going onward and upward for ever more.
In those circumstances, it will be difficult in the spring of 1991 to say to the people of Europe, "We were only in the snake for a couple of months in 1972. We have come into the exchange rate mechanism for three or four months but we are rather uncomfortable in it; we are not at all sure that it is anything like what it was cracked up to be, so we shall come out again." But we shall be unable to do that. If the pound starts to fall, we shall have to raise interest rates. We shall be hoist with our own petard. We may find that, rather than winning us the next election, that smart little ruse causes us to lose it.
That brings me to my final point, which, I regret to say, is the inconsistency of the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. If we enter the exchange rate mechanism and currency speculators
76
believe that there is no downside risk with the pound, they will accept a lower interest rate for their investment, but that is because they will believe that we shall be cajoled, through swimming along the stream of Euro-babble, into something that approaches Delors stages 2 and 3. When we say that we want to discuss Delors stages 2 and 3, it is thought that we are saying, "Provided you change some of the punctuation so that we can describe it as a great change of principle, all will be well." That is not, however, what is being said either by the British people or by the Prime Minister.
There are some essentials of stages 2 and 3 that very few hon. Members will accept. If the speculator is to be assuaged, he must be satisfied that this country is moving towards locked exchange rates. If we are moving towards locked exchange rates, we must be moving towards a common currency. If we are to have a common currency we must, at the very least, have a common monetary policy.
I agree that there can be some fudging about the institution that imposes the common monetary policy. We could have, rather than a single central bank, a system of co-ordination between national central banks. But we must have a common monetary policy.
It must be clear to anyone who has considered the details that the British have no intention whatever of entering a common monetary policy, of having permanently locked exchange rates or of agreeing to a single European currency. If that is so, the speculators' belief that there is no downside risk in the pound will be shown to be wrong, in which case the scenario that I put forward, that we might join the exchange rate mechanism with a great deal of froth and euphoria and that the speculators might then say, "My goodness, these Brits really are serious about having no intention of being carried along into Delors stages 2 and 3; they do not want a common currency," suggests that there is a downside risk.
If we accept anything approaching stages 2 and 3 with a common currency and common monetary policy, it will be extremely difficult for the present Government to present the necessary legislation to the House of Commons. Of course all politicians have to be prepared and able to eat a large number of their own words, but the Prime Minister has spoken about stages 2 and 3 in language reminiscent of that used by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. There is not much room for fudging over the issues of sovereignty, a common monetary policy or a single currency.
So there must be a real risk that those who buy pounds in October will become disenchanted with them by next spring, in which case I say to my hon. Friends who consider it to be a wheeze that, if they think that they will be able to persuade the Government and the Prime Minister to accept stages 2 and 3, although they have said that they will never do so, I agree that that has happened before and that we who have tried to resist the embraces of Europe have usually lost, but if we lose on this occasion, there are an awful lot of words that we can call upon and it will be a most uncomfortable business if the Government have to present us with legislation demonstrating that they are in substance accepting stages 2 and 3.
I suggest to my hon. Friends who think that we can win the next election by joining the exchange rate mechanism that, if they do not want stages 2 and 3, the honourable thing would be to say that now and to say it in Europe and

77
to let the people of Europe know. Unless we are prepared to concede ultimately by accepting stages 2 and 3, it would be not simply a con on the financial markets, but a serious con on the remaining 11 countries in Europe.
Mr. Spearing: I am sure that the entire House has been following closely the hon. Gentleman's most interesting speech. Debates at leisure allow such consideration to take place. However, does he agree that the matter is much more fundamental than an attractive or unattractive wheeze? The alternative to accepting stages 2 and 3 will be as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) suggested: we shall be told by the rest of the EEC, "We will go it alone and you will be left out." In which case we shall be told by the City——
Mr. Radice: And by me.
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend says that we shall also be told by him. We shall be told that we cannot afford to do that for the sake of future prosperity, and that at some stage we shall have to join. Bearing in mind the fact that the intergovernmental conferences may continue into next year, is it not a possibility that if there is any eating of words, it will have to be after the next general election?
Mr. Budgen: Obviously, stages 2 and 3 require legislation. so I suppose that a cynic might say that, in two, three or four years' time, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may not be leading the Conservative party and that a new, more European and progressive leader might wish to take us into something approximating stages 2 and 3. Obviously that is a possibility, but I should have thought that every prominent politician in the Tory party has so far adopted the language of opposition to stages 2 and 3. The language of opposition is all in terms of the Bruges speech: sovereignty and fundamental opposition to a single currency and a common monetary policy. Whoever leads the Tory party in the next five or 10 years will have a most indigestible time if he or she comes to the House with suggestions based on Delors stages 2 and 3.
7.45 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: We have heard a number of extremely interesting speeches from my right hon. and hon. Friends and from Conservative Members. The barbed and witty speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) was certainly one of them.
The House will forgive me if I concentrate on one narrow issue in an attempt to nudge the Foreign Office some of the way into coming to believe that the situation that has developed at the natural history museum in south Kensington concerns the Foreign Office and our European policy.
I take as a text page 28 of the White Paper, which states, under the heading, "Research and Development":
"On 15 December the Research Council reached unanimous agreement on a new Framework Programme for 1990–94. The total level of funding agreed was 5·7 billion ecu".
There follows a list of relevant figures. Among the matters on which there is to be concentration are the environment and life sciences and technology.
From the point of view of relevance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that page 30 of the document contains a reference to
"access of information to the environment held by public authorities".
78
Paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum on the European Community document states:
"Fifteen specific proposals foreseen in the research framework programme will be brought forward during the year. On the environment there will be further work to establish the European Environment Agency and a study of the possible harmonisation of environmental, economic and fiscal instruments."
I say that specifically to place myself firmly in order.
When the Foreign Secretary kindly gave way to me earlier, I said that I had a wad of letters from Europe on the issue. The first is signed by Docteur Francis Petter of the Musée Nationale d'Histoire Naturelle. He says:
"Monsieur,
J'ai été stupéfait d'apprendre que les responsables du Natural History Museum de Londres ont décidé la suppression de 60 postes et, parmi ceux-ci, de responsables des bases de données les plus prestigieuses au monde.
Pendant toute ma carrière, ce sont les riches collections du British Museum de Londres que j'ai consultees presque chaque année"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I am not to rule the hon. Gentleman out of order on the points that he made earlier, I draw his attention to the rules of the House, which require speeches in the House to be made in English.
Mr. Dalyell: It seems that even in the European Community we require English speeches.
The French have all written in French so suffice it to say that such letters come not only from Dr. Petter but from the palaeontology museum in Paris to talk about the author's "inquietude" and "tristesse"—to translate that for the House, he spoke of his sadness.
Dr. G. de Beaumont, the curator of the museum in Geneva, wrote another letter. I shall not argue with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about whether I should quote the French, but it is all there and these letters will be given to the Foreign Office. From the geology museum, Dr. Marc Weidmann wrote in the most formidable terms.
One of the letters from France is in English, so I can quote it. Dr. Pascal Tassy said:
"What we read on the fate of the Natural History Museum is astonishing.
As a palaeomammalogist who visited the Museum several times for research purposes, I cannot imagine the demise of the fossil mammal Section. This section has in charge a unique collection of fossil mammals which is part of the world heritage."
That is a point that is repeatedly made in these letters. What we are talking about in South Kensington is the world heritage. The letter continues:
"My colleagues, A. Gentry, J. J. Hooker and A. Currant always helped me fruitfully, and, moreover this help was a scientific help. Collections can be properly curated only by competent scientists. Indeed, my colleagues in the palaeomammology section are highly rated at the international level. To stop research in the field of palaeomammology in the Natural History Museum will not only damage the cultural renown of the United Kingdom, but as a consequence, we, palaeontologists in the world will lack major scientific contributions … I understand that whole parts of the systematic research are planned to be cut down. This is unbelievable. To suppress natural history research in a Natural History Museum is nonsense."
You will be glad to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not resort—even if you would let me—to German because the Germans have written in English. From the central museum there comes:
"Sehr Geehrter Herr Minister!
It is with great concern that I have learned of plans for the radical restructuring of the Natural History Museum."

79
From the geological museum in Copenhagen comes a powerful letter:
"Since the British"—
the House will be spared my best Danish—
"after the French, in the course of last century and the beginning of this on the basis of worldwide influence and contacts built up a bastion of knowledge, that is the British Museum, educated people in all countries have regarded it as one of the foci of Western culture."
That is the strength of feeling expressed by our European partners. Representations have also been made by Spain and Italy. I ask the Foreign Secretary to honour his promise—I am sure that he will, because in all my experience of him, if he says in the House that he will do something, he does it—to appoint some, I hope fairly senior, thoughtful Foreign Office official, because I am an admirer of Foreign Office officials, to find out what assessment has been made of the drastic reduction in the heteroptera section of the natural history museum and the implications for work sponsored with British money by the Foreign Office in Surinam on shield bugs.
Shield bugs are devastating coconut plantations. The research is into the whole question of the transmission of disease, and coccid research is also being carried out—[Interruption.] If I may explain to the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), this is all about mealy bugs and their agricultural implications for Nigeria, Ghana, Togo, Kenya, South Africa, Zaire, India, Guyana, Costa Rica—dare I mention the place tonight? [HON. MEMBERS: "What was the score?"] It was 1:0. Brazil and New Zealand may also be affected.
Through the Foreign Office, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether, in the light of her speech of 22 March, primarily about global warming but also about the need for databases, what proposals the Government have to promote identification programmes for scientific and popular use, and the development and management of the European plants database, and the British plant database with reference to the work of Dr. Richard Pankhurst. Dr. Pankhurst is one of a number who will be declared redundant.
How can the Government talk about sensible contributions to the framework programme which is on the agenda for this debate when one of our major contributions is being dismantled? In particular, will the Foreign Office discuss with the Governments of France and Germany the taxonomic support for West German teams working in Malaysia and French teams working in Cameroon in the light of the drastic reductions at the natural history museum? That may be a question for the Foreign Office or for the Department of the Environment. One difficulty that the natural history museum has faced is that many Departments are involved. Where Departments can pass the buck, they are tempted to do so.
What assessment have the Government made for the policies on the environment of the drastic reduction of the aculeate hymenoptera section at the natural history museum? That section deals with wasps, bees and stinging ants. Again, it is a matter of considerable importance to the environment.
The next question may be for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or for other Departments. What assessment have the Government made of the implications for agriculture of the drastic reductions in the
80
homoptera section of the natural history museum and for fisheries in relation to their role as primary producers, on which ultimately all fisheries depend? That is the whole study of diatoms. Diatoms are absolutely crucial to the environment and to fisheries. Incidentally, they produce about one third of the oxygen in the world. Those who make speeches about green issues, global warming and environmental co-operation had better not be responsible for dismantling a unique facility such as that in south Kensington.
I ask Ministers—primarily Health Ministers—what assessment they have made of the effect of closing down the heteroptera subsection and, for instance, the redundancy of Mr. William Dolling of the natural history museum. That work relates to the discomfort and diseases caused by bed bugs and, indeed, other bugs which are vectors of disease with reference to—here the Foreign Office has a responsibility—British scientists' work. Most of the money for their work is Rockefeller-funded. What assessment has been made of the drastic reduction in the homoptera section of the natural history museum for agriculture and horticulture?
The whole scheme was worked out without consulting staff of the natural history museum below the rank of deputy keeper. It came out of the blue on 23 April 1990. I have it on the authority of Bill Brett and Mr. Finlay of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists that the professional associations and trade unions concerned were absolutely appalled that they were not consulted.
One of the hardest-hit sections of entomology is hymenoptera. All research on most of the aculeate forms will be stopped under the plan. The aculeate hymenoptera have stings and include ants, bees and stinging wasps. Research on ants would continue, but research on bees and stinging wasps would stop. Bees are the most important insect pollinators, and stinging wasps, which are the birds of prey of the insect world, are important predators. Therefore, both groups are of first-class environmental significance.
Three scientists in hymenoptera are at risk—Mick Day, Colin Vardy and George Else, the first two of whom are being told to leave the museum. At Question Time I raised the case of Michael Day, which is disgraceful. The way in which he heard the news of the axing of his job is ironic, considering that the plan is supposed to be conservation minded. He spent much of last year compiling an account of the situation of hymenoptera, in Europe, with particular reference to endangered species. He had just lectured on that work to a large audience at an international conference on conservation in Strasbourg in late April when he was told by telephone at his hotel that his job was to be axed. As a result of his efforts, EC money is being made available in several parts of Europe for study of the hymenoptera, but research on most of the aculeate hymenoptera at the natural history museum is to stop. It is a feature of the plan that the cuts do not relate to stated aims, even when the aims are the Prime Minister's.
Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall not abuse the time of the House. I hope that Foreign Office Ministers will keep their promise. There will be a cascade of questions, but at least a fortnight to answer them in. I am not asking for answers within 48 hours. I hope that the whole issue of the natural history museum will be properly discussed.

81
It is equally valid to say that the rain forest problems should he tackled on a European basis. I am pleased that the Select Committee on the Environment, under the leadership of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) is to visit Brazil from 1 to 8 July. I am pleased that the distinguished Edinburgh scientist, Jim Ratta, has been appointed as its specialist adviser. I lay down the marker here and now that I hope that, between 8 and 20 July, or whenever the House rises for the summer, there will be an opportunity for the House to debate the Select Committee's report, because the matter is urgent. The rain forest too, should be dealt with on a European basis. I hope that I have made my point clearly.
8.3 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: I hope that you will excuse me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I do not follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) down that particular road, as they say.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I did not realise entirely how important it was until I listened to the BBC "Nine O'Clock News" only last week and the reporter breathlessly told us that he was speaking from Brussels, "the capital" of Europe. Obviously, the developments in the European Community between July and December 1989 were extremely dramatic.
I too listened to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) with considerable interest, particularly his remarks on the exchange rate mechanism. I am not an economist. Indeed, I cannot help my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) as I am not even a junior economist. I estimate that, of my 360 colleagues, probably 300 are, so no doubt he will receive ample help.
I can see that the exchange rate mechanism is good for exporters and the City. They want a stable exchange rate, in which case they should be able to have five-hour rather than three-hour luncheon breaks, because all they will then have to watch is interest rates. However, I wonder what the effect would be on those with small businesses such as garages and post office stores. They are not particularly interested in exporting, so they are not interested in the exchange rate, but they are extremely interested in interest rates.
If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West suggested, interest rates were to rise over a sustained period, I wonder how that would affect them. If, after so many centuries, we have suddenly found a complicated structure, the ERM, which defies the laws of supply and demand and means that we can have a stable exchange rate, why was it not thought of before?
I listened with considerable interest to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). The Labour party's sudden interest in the environment is touching. However, the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen did not mention that not one prosecution was brought under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 while there was a Labour Government from 1974 to 1979. We can judge their deeds against their words this afternoon.
My few brief remarks will relate to the booklet "Developments in the European Community, July-December 1989." These booklets, which are produced every six months, remind me of end-of-term reports. If judgment were to be passed on us, it would be, "sound and
82
steady work". The United Kingdom came first in one subject, or possibly first equal with Denmark, because we have listened to and applied more directives than any other country. That is good.
What is not being said in this end-of-term report is that some of our classmates, particularly Italy, do not seem to take the subject seriously. Even when the directives are being passed, it seems to have precious little intention of implementing them. I do not say that Italy shows bad judgment in that. I much prefer the approach of "When in Rome do as the Romans do" to the most recent directives, such as the one that suggests that, when pheasants are shot, they should be in a refrigerator before they hit the ground.
Over the past six months, our school activities have been disrupted by certain anti-social characters. Within a few weeks of the visit by Mr. Delors and other prominent socialists, no doubt at considerable public expense, to Dublin, with all their great designs and grand dreams, we have an about-turn and yet another awakening to their true position and their protectionist instincts, particularly those of the French about British beef. I imagine that most of my hon. Friends have no doubt that the French and West German Governments have contravened article 30 of the treaty of Rome. I hope that, in due course, we shall receive full compensation for our farmers, the meat trade and all who have an interest and who have made such horrendous financial losses in recent weeks, possibly of the order of £600,000 a week.
Although I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the best possible deal that he could achieve in the circumstances, the problem arose because our partners were being unreasonable and were not acting in a communautaire fashion. A failure to reach agreement would have resulted in lengthy court action, and during that time there would have been no prospect of beef exports recommencing.
I was greatly reassured by the Bruges speech —the only sane voice on the European scene after some years. Equally, I was encouraged by the splendid speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry only last week to the Bruges group—a group of seven sovereign nation states co-operating for mutual benefit. That definition is more or less the same as the words used by Mr. Yeltsin only last week to describe Russia. He said that he hoped that Russia could be a sovereign nation state—I am not sure how he worked that out—within a federation.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) preached the merits of federalism. There is an irony in the fact that, as Mr. Yeltsin is suggesting that he would like a sovereign nation state within a federation, we, who have just that—I hope we still do—are going the other way, into a federal system. It will be interesting to see who is proved right.
The fact that we are passing directives and being communautaire means that the Conservative party is the true party of Europe. Others have tried to purloin the title of "good European," but they mean that they favour a particular type of Europe. The Conservative party has a vision of a particular type of Europe. It may not be the kind favoured by our critics, but our vision of Europe is positive and forward-looking. I have a vision of a free Europe, free from restrictions on trade and restrictions on the individual imposed by the state. By Europe, I mean the continent of Europe rather than some small part of it.

83
Britain is at the forefront of pushing for freedom within the context of the European Community. The Government are committed to the principle of the European single market, not least because we have already passed so many of the provisions needed to implement it. Other member states give voice to the principle, but it strikes me that they are selective when it comes to practice.
Freedom should not be the exclusive preserve of some small club of European states; surely it should extend across the continent. We have always set our face against fortress Europe—the idea of freedom within insularity. The Conservative party has a clear guiding vision as to what should happen in Europe. That vision dictates a clear stance in relation to the developments now taking place in eastern Europe, which offer new opportunities.
For those who favour a bureaucratic, unified Europe of 12 states, the developments pose a particular dilemma. The developments in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe are welcome, as they represent the collapse of Soviet hegemony and the fall of the iron curtain. Now that we see behind the curtain, we can also see the challenge ahead. For the countries of eastern Europe, the task of economic, political and social development is massive. The west must help, but in what form? Do we give charitable handouts or more substantive assistance to bring those countries within the economic framework of Europe? If the answer is to provide substantive assistance, how do we go about that?
For the little Europeans, those who want some integrated 124 member-state European Community, there is a problem. To exclude the east European states from membership of the Community encourages the perception as well as the actuality of a fortress Europe—a club of haves excluding the neighbouring have nots. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred to pulling the drawbridge up on the ark. I am not too sure whether arks have drawbridges, but the analogy is right.
Associate membership of the Community would create a two-tier Europe—one of those who have and those who have not so much. To bring the eastern European states into membership of the EC would create a different Community that would not be recognisable to its founding fathers. Achieving economic integration would be a mammoth task and achieving political union would be impossible. That is near-impossible in the context of the existing Community, even though it is the direction in which some want to push it. To widen the European Community to encompass eastern Europe would kill the notion stone dead.
Although there may have been an outbreak of democracy in eastern Europe, there has not been an outbreak of liberal democracy. Old prejudices and identities are coming to the fore. Some of the new regimes may prove as oppressive to certain minorities as their predecessors. They are different in type and national character from the nations of western Europe, and forcing them into some common Community will not overcome the national and ethnic tensions that will mark eastern Europe for some time.
The Community, even based on the Single European Act, cannot be extended to encompass the states of eastern Europe, but nor can it continue in its present form, because eastern Europe must be taken into account. What
84
is the way forward? The European Commission must complete the single market and, once that is achieved, it must start to reach accommodations with its neighbours in the east, expanding the boundaries of the free market ever outward.
In short, we must co-operate with our neighbours, but not integrate. As we expand the boundaries of the free market, so the nature of the European Community will change. The case for a bureaucratic, unified Community will be increasingly undermined and eventually destroyed. A bureaucratic Community in the heart of a free-market Europe will make no sense.
The way forward is a pan-European network based on co-operation, rather than a sub-European Community based on integration. That is the positive, visionary and European way forward. Those who hanker after a bureaucratic, integrated Community of 12 states are insular and time-bound Europeans. They no longer offer a vision of the future that encompasses what is truly Europe.
8.16 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I am one of those Conservative Members who are delighted at the belated embrace of the European Community by Labour Members. We have heard few words against the EC during the debate. There is a danger, however, that late converts sometimes become fanatics. It is odd that the anti-European party of a few years ago now finds itself in the position of carping at the Government for not being European enough. If the Opposition are criticising the Government for not rushing headlong into monetary and political union, they should come clean with the electorate and say so. If they agree with the Government, however, they should stop carping and at least give the Government some support for their cautious policies.
Another area of confusion in the Opposition's policy on Europe relates to the social charter. Some Labour Members seem to suggest that we need the charter to compensate for the freer market after 1992. Surely the whole point of freer markets is that they enable an economy to work more efficiently and industry to be more productive. As a result, everyone benefits and living standards rise. Along with rising living standards, we can also, I hope, afford to pay for better standards at work.
In that respect, it is interesting that a recent report of the European Community suggests that the savings resulting from a totally free internal market—one that I suspect we shall never see—would be about £80 billion a year. That is a substantial gain. It is not just big business and financiers who stand to gain from the free market: it is everyone, because capital will work more efficiently, and productivity will rise, which will also allow wages to rise.
The Opposition are also confused about the ERM. What they have signally failed to spell out is exactly what the conditions of entry of ERM would be under a Labour Government. I repeat the question that I asked the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) earlier: how would a Labour Government, if one ever came to power, hope to maintain the parity of the pound in the ERM if that Government were cutting interest rates and at the same time massively increasing public spending? I do not see how that equation can work out.
I now move to Euro-fanatics in general. One of the problems with Euro-enthusiasts is that they tend to be too uncritical about what the EC, particularly the

85
Commission, does. They equate everything done in Brussels with goodness and light. They do not give Britain its due credit for all the good things that it has done in Europe. Not only are we way ahead in many of the 1992 directives, but many of the countries that often pose as great champions of European unity and greater co-operation and integration are the ones that are most protectionist when it comes to their own internal political interests.
The truck industry in Germany——
Mr. Gill: Is not the great political significance of last week's events, when our Agriculture Minister went to Brussels to fight our corner, that he brought Europe back from the brink of protectionism and defended the important principle of the free market?
Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend unerringly goes to the nub of the issue. It would be nice to think that the Minister of Agriculture was defending the cause of the free market in Europe, and achieved a great victory. I think that it was one small but important victory towards securing a free market. However, as I develop my speech, it will be seen that the problem with Europe is that it is an extremely protectionist bloc of trading nations that not only protect their own national markets but are exclusive when it comes to the non-EC market. That is one of the biggest dangers with the EC at present.
Germany poses as the champion of the European cause and of greater co-operation and integration. However, when it came to liberalising the truck market in Germany to allow French, Belgian and British trucks to go freely into Germany, the Germans clammed up. Now, the Germans are effectively levying a £4,000-a-year road tax on foreign road hauliers that they do not levy on their own. The result is that lorries that are on average 30 per cent. empty criss-cross the borders of Europe, adding to congestion and pollution.
France is often hailed by the Opposition as one of the great leaders in the European movement. However, when a British airline—British Midland—wanted to fly reasonably freely with lower fares into Paris, the French put up their barriers and we had a great fight. I am pleased that the Government won that fight to allow British Midland to fly in.
Another example is telecommunications. Every other member of the European Community operates nationalistic procurement policies and major trade barriers in their internal telecommunications markets. At least we in Britain have some liberalisation and freedom in our telecommunications markets. However, it is almost impossible for British manufacturers to sell telecommunications equipment to France, Germany, Italy, Belgium or the Netherlands.
The Euro-enthusiasts sometimes talks as though entry into the ERM will be a panacea for our industry. It is worth reminding them that during the 1980s Britain out-performed almost every other European Community country. Whereas in the 1960s and 1970s we lagged behind our European neighbours in manufacturing output and productivity, in the 1980s, when they were in the ERM and we were not, our manufacturing output expanded faster than that of France, Germany, Italy, Holland and Belgium, and our productivity in manufacturing expanded even faster.
86
My key criticism of Euro-enthusiasts is that they are not critical enough of the faults of the European Community—particularly the Commission. An advertisement in the Financial Times 14 February stated:
"Dear Customer,
We want to tell you that we care and to thank you for the way, year after year, you have responded with your trust and respect. WE will do anything for you. That is why we have made service our number one corporate priority. No task is too small. We want to dedicate it to you, as we have dedicated everything to you, because we love you, our customers."
That sweet Valentine message was placed in the Financial Times by a Franco-Italian state-owned company called SGS Thomson. It was particularly nice of it to send such a Valentine message to its customers because three years of lobbying had just won that company major trade barriers against lower-cost, better-quality Japanese semiconductors, which means that European semiconductor users such as computer or consumer durable manufacturers have less choice of semiconductors and have to go to companies such as SGS Thomson for many of their requirements. Unfortunately, that is typical of the sort of protectionist barriers that the EC is, at an accelerating rate, raising against competition, particularly from Japan and eastern Asia.
I view the danger of the European Community turning into a protectionist bloc as one of the greatest perils that we face at present. It is moving towards the break-up of the world into three partly hostile trading blocs based round east Asia, north America and Europe. That contains some unpleasant echoes of the breaking up of the international trading order in the 1930s. In Europe, there has been a massive web of voluntary restraint agreements, quotas and tariffs, covering virtually everything imaginable. There is almost no product made outside the EC—from shoes to steel and from cars to ships—that is not covered by a web, a complex labyrinth, of trade restrictions.
The latest EC wheeze is to put an EC-wide "import quota" on cars from Japan after 1992. The supposedly liberal Commissioner, Andriessen, went to Tokyo recently and said that it was even proposed that cars made in Britain by Toyota, Nissan or Honda with an 80 per cent. EC content but made by a Japanese company, should be counted as Japanese. We do not say that cars that are made by American companies such as Ford and General Motors in Belgium, Spain, Germany or Britain are American, so why on earth should we say that cars made by a Japanese company in Britain are Japanese?
It is madness, but what lies behind it is heavy lobbying by the heavily protected European car industry—particularly companies such as Fiat and Renault. The net result of those efforts is that we shall almost certainly end up with stringent barriers against Japanese cars after 1992 that will not only compound the inefficiency of the European manufacturers that are already protected by national quotas, but will massively push up prices for consumers in the European market.
In Europe, because we spend so much time complaining about trade barriers from other countries, the Commission has generally found it distasteful to erect overt trade barriers. The chosen instrument for its protectionist fortress Europe policy involves anti-dumping duties. Regulation 2423/88 covers European policy on antidumping. Dumping is the practice of selling into an export market at a price lower than that charged in the home domestic market.

87
The problem with regulation 2423/88 is that it is so drawn up that it can find huge dumping margins even when foreign manufacturers are selling on their home markets at lower prices than they are in the export markets. Every objective observer who has looked into the regulation has agreed that it is grossly unfair. The most recent report on this was by the National Consumer Council.
There was also a report not long ago by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, written by Michael Davenport, a former senior economist at the EC Commission, so he should know. He said:
"Not only do the Community's rules overtly discriminate against foreign companies, but, in common with other import restraining measures, they ignore the damage inflicted by anti-dumping duties on the users of imported products. Instead of encouraging competition, as intended, antidumping action seems to be frustrating it."
I shall not go into all the intricate detail of how the regulations are grossly unfair, since other hon. Members are waiting to speak, but a lawyer called Chris Norrell has done a great deal of work in this area and conclusively proved that the Community regulations are protectionist and slanted towards finding dumping margins even when they do not exist.
As further proof of the unfairness of these regulations, I point to Hong Kong. In theory, if a company engages in predatory trading practices or dumping, the idea is that it has a large protected home market on which it can charge high prices to subsidise its export prices, with the idea of driving other manufacturers out of business so that eventually the predatory company can reap monopoly profits. But how can a Hong Kong company do that?
Hong Kong is a relatively small market and almost all Hong Kong manufacturers export 80 or 90 per cent. of their production, so how can they be found to be dumping? Yet on numerous occasions under these Community regulations, Hong Kong manufacturers have been found to be dumping everything from textiles to video cassette tapes, and large duties have been levied on them as a result. That is a clear sign of the unfairness of the regulations, yet between 1980 and 1988 the Commission undertook no fewer than 357 anti-dumping investigations and took action in almost all of them—duties have been levied or the foreign manufacturer has had to undertake to raise his prices in the European market.
More and more, these anti-dumping actions are being taken against Japan and east Asia economies, and more and more they are being applied to high technology products such as photocopiers, computer printers and so on.
Sir Russell Johnston: Is the burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument that he thinks that the British Government have been less than active in objecting, on their own behalf as well as that of other countries, to restrictive trading by the European Community? Does the hon. Gentleman think that the British market should be more open to the products of the Japanese?
Mr. Oppenheim: On the second point, the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether I believe in free trade. The answer is that I do. Just because another nation is more advanced and more competitive than we are, that is
88
not necessarily a reason to exclude its products. I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's first question about the British Government shortly.
I want to deal briefly with the photocopier market. In 1985, the Commission instigated an anti-dumping investigation at the behest of a small group of European manufacturers which had damaged themselves in the previous decade by producing poor-quality, overpriced products. The Japanese, by contrast, must be said to have produced high-quality products which they marketed aggressively; they were reliable, low-cost products that people wanted to buy. Yet the European companies complained to the European Commission, and as a result of the anti-dumping investigation, large dumping duties were imposed on the Japanese photocopier manufacturers.
Then the EC went further and decided to impose what are called "screwdriver duties" on Japanese-owned factories in Europe, under which factories owned by Japanese, Korean or Taiwanese companies on which anti-dumping duties had already been imposed, but which subsequently manufactured in Europe, had screwdriver anti-dumping duties levied, which meant that a product with 80 per cent. EC content could still have anti-dumping duties levied on it.
This is both unworkable and unfair, particularly in complex industries such as electronics. How does one determine the country of origin of something like a printed circuit board which has 10 or 20 different components from all over the world—components which might have been fabricated in different stages of their production in different countries? The idiocy of some of these rules means that Japanese-owned plants in the Community cannot buy components from factories that their own company owns in Japan, but their European competitors can buy components from those same factories.
The drift of my argument is that, behind these trade barriers—they do not receive much coverage in the press because they do not excite much political passion, but they are being rapidly erected—is industrial lobbying by large European companies such as Siemens, Olivetti, Thomson and Philips. They have all lobbied hard for many years for ever more protection at the expense of European consumers and for more and more subsidies from national Governments and the EC—which they have got. The hypocrisy of their position is that the same companies lobbying against what they call cheap dumped imports from Asian countries make huge quantities of their products in Asian factories that they own.
For instance, when European television manufacturers asked the Commission to impose anti-dumping duties on Korean television makers and included, by way of justifying statistics, the fact that imports of televisions from Asia had increased dramatically in recent years, a large percentage of that increase came from factories in Asia that they owned themselves. Needless to say, the Commission swallowed their case, hook line and sinker. It imposed anti-dumping duties on South Korean televisions, with the result that the Koreans are hamstrung when selling products in Europe, but Philips and other companies happily run large factories in Asia and import their products to Europe with no anti-dumping duties.
The benefits of hamstrung competition and of higher prices for the European industrial lobbyists which have so successfully had anti-dumping duties imposed on their east Asian rivals are obvious but, as with any form of protection, such advantages are likely to be only

89
short-term. One of the dangers is that, if people are genuinely convinced that the Japanese and others have succeeded by unfairly dumping products on the European market, they may not realise that the real problem lies with European industry, so the motivation for industrial reform in Europe will become less urgent. So although the draftsmen, architects and masons of the Commission may genuinely believe that, by erecting what is sometimes called fortress Europe, they are helping European industry, in fact they are merely locking it into a high-cost, low-productivity, uncompetitive ghetto Europe.
The significance of the problem for Britain is that we pay a high price for these protectionist measures. I know that most hon. Members in this debate have gone for the broad, grandiose sweep of policy, but I do not apologise for homing in on one way in which the EC works. This is an area that the EC pretty well controls already—our trade policy. As a result, we are putting up more and more barriers, and British consumers are paying an ever heavier price. A recent National Consumer Council report said that the variety of anti-dumping duties on east Asian electronics products resulted in British consumers paying about 5 per cent. more for those products than they otherwise would have.
Unfortunately, because Brussels runs our trade policies, we have little control over them. Ministers are often unwilling to get involved in more fights with Brussels; quite often they are busy with a range of subjects, so even a liberal, free-market Government such as ours end up rubber-stamping most of these protectionist measures. But this example of how the EC operates should set alarm bells ringing in the Chamber. We already have little control over large areas run by the European Community—by a bureaucracy which is fairly unaccountable and which tends to be far more prone to follow lobbying by powerful pressure groups such as large European conglomerates like Siemens, Olivetti and Philips.
In the areas that the EC has taken over, such as trade, there is little power these days for Ministers, let alone for individual Members of Parliament. Is that what we really want? Surely there must come a point at which the advantages that we gain from co-operation within Europe, which I too want us to enjoy, are outweighed by the disadvantages of creating a large, unaccountable and bureaucratic structure where decisions are remote and individual Ministers and Members of Parliament—let alone our constituents—have virtually no influence, and where the people who really do have the influence are the powerful industrial lobbies which always seem to get their way in Brussels when they whinge about unfair competition, wanting more subsidies and yet more trade barriers. I believe that we are already close to the point at which the advantages of co-operation within the European Community are outweighed by the disadvantages.
8.40 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall not follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) except to say that he seems to envisage a world in which free marketeering reigns supreme and the workers go to the wall. He can make that claim, as he has fairly comfortable personal circumstances. However, he should bear in mind the lack of trade union rights and of
90
health and safety standards in countries such as Taiwan. The notion of a free market, with what is generally termed "a level playing field", is not always what it appears.
I remain an unremitting critic of the Common Market. The Labour party's shift from what was a reasonable and critical stance on this issue does not have my support. The EC has been a burden on our backs. Since 1979, this country has paid £10,000 million net of grants and rebates to the Common Market. I notice that, this year, the White Paper has abandoned the neat but informative table of net payments made to the Common Market. No doubt one of the Government's advisers, lavishly paid by the taxpayer, and seeking to improve the presentation, suggested that such information should be excluded because it is damaging.
At the moment, several local authorities are making supplications to the Common Market simply to get some of our money back. It would he more efficient if central Government paid that money direct to the local authorities rather than paying it to the Common Market so that it can make arbitrary decisions and so that local authorities can make expensive representations simply to get back a proportion of that money for much-needed transport infrastructure improvements and for the social needs of the regions.
The common agricultural policy is not at the forefront of discussions nowadays, but it still costs us nearly £20,000 million. It is still inefficient and it is still one of the major factors that has resulted in the pouring of huge quantities of nitrates on to our soil. It is still a potent source of pollution in Britain and in other countries. I am not saying that simply because concern about the environment is fashionable these days; I was saying it 10 years ago when the guaranteed intervention prices and the guaranteed purchasing of crops from farmers was leading to ever-more intensive farming, with ever-increasing quantities of fertilisers being poured on to our soil. The CAP is still costly and still damaging. It has not gone away. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is still arguing about free butter distribution in the United Kingdom, because there is so much butter that it is spreading everywhere. The notion that the EEC has been magically reformed is not true.
Some members of the Labour movement regard the social charter as a great step forward. It is a collection of generalised platitudes which, for example, do not provide civil servants with trade union rights. The social charter will not restore the jobs of the workers who were thrown out of GCHQ. It is claimed that health and safety legislation is being improved as a result of our membership of the Common Market and as a result of the Commission's concern for health and safety standards. That is simply not true. In fact, the reverse is the truth. Health and safety standards from our legislation are being eroded by the platitudinous generalisations of the health and safety proposals in directives from the Common Market.
To get round the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which states that all regulations must aim at least to improve the existing standards, the Health and Safety Commission is now talking about a package of regulations that will repeal the absolute provisions of our existing legislation to ensure that we conform to the generalised "so far as reasonably practicable" terms that have been put forward in Common Market directives. As hon. Members will know, "so far as reasonably

91
practicable" is a term of art which means that the fact that something is too costly is a defence and that in any subsequent action that arises from an accident to an employee, the employer can say that it was too costly to provide adequate safety measures.
Therefore, the health and safety provisions of the social charter do not represent a great step forward. They are a clever device by Jacques Delors to show some social concern, and even those provisions have been minimised over the past 12 months.
These days some Conservative Members criticise the Common Market. One or two have referred to the Bruges speech as a landmark of criticism when the Prime Minister stood up against the federalism of the Common Market. The truth is that, since her election in 1979, the Prime Minister has enmeshed us more deeply in the Common Market. It was the Prime Minister, in conjunction with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Leader of the House, who removed our derogation on the freedom of movement of capital within the Common Market. Immediately after taking office, that Chancellor removed the Treasury's power over the movement of capital—limited though it was. Some free marketeers would say that is perfectly proper, but the treaty of Rome gave us a derogation that allowed the United Kingdom Government —of whatever political complexion—some intervention in the money market.
Conservative Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that the Prime Minister is standing up to the Common Market when, on taking office, she removed an important derogation that had been negotiated with the Common Market, especially when that derogation had not been removed up to that point by Governments of either party.
The Prime Minister organised the Single European Act of 1986, which went through the House on a three-line Whip. Paragraph 8 of one of the reports produced by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs makes it clear that the effect of the Single European Act has been to diminish, and in some cases to remove, member states' right of veto. That is not standing up to the Common Market; it is co-operating with it. That has been the effect of the Single European Act.
It was also the Prime Minister who signed the channel tunnel agreement. Inside the Common Market, the channel tunnel was not hailed as a transport development; it was hailed as a knot that would tie us more closely to the Common Market. It will be a costly venture, which will suck investment in the railway and transport infrastructure away from the regions, down to London and the south-east. It is typical of British Rail that its only investment in an inland port is in London rather than in Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield or anywhere in the north. It is developing a terminal in Willesden and facilities in Kent and the channel ports.
The Tories are pressing ahead with the removal of barriers, as the Foreign Secretary said. However, problems remain and the solutions are never made clear. Ministers always say that policies made in the Trevi group of EC Justice Ministers will protect us against the growth of drug trafficking, but we are never clear how that will be done. The Government say that they will remove the barriers but at the same time protect us against arms trafficking, of
92
which we have had a recent and most dramatic example. If we did not have supervision at customs points and at points of entry, how could we receive information about guns made in Sheffield and elsewhere for export to Iraq? We are also concerned about the potential spread of rabies if we do not have sovereign scrutiny at our borders.
We are an island and have a sea around us. Sometimes that is an advantage and sometimes it is not. In case the Minister makes some off-hand remark about little Englanders not appreciating the advantages in the growth of a European entity and federal organisation, let me remind him that I am a long-standing advocate of international agreements such as the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I went to the United Nations second special meeting on peace and disarmament in 1982. I want nations to work together, but to do so as independent sovereign states with a common policy in various sectors. The worst thing that can happen is for a centralised organisation to tell sovereign states what to do. That leads only to friction and antagonism, and we should not do it.
I emphasise what I have said before, and I hope that people outside take notice of this. There are stirrings. The Prime Minister is raising an issue, although she is doing it without any record of action. There is a strong and powerful move in the EEC for a federal union, in which places such as this will be demoted to the level of a town council.
Tory Members have called for a free market and even for all trade barriers to be removed to ensure that the treaty of Rome is properly and fully applied. The free market is a danger to workers. It implies a competition. The winners in such competitions are those who are successful and the losers are those who, for whatever reason, are unable to compete. The workers go to the wall. When Coloroll was taken over by a business man of the year, one of the new yuppie breed whom the Tories so admire, he made a number of fatal decisions, and now the company is in dire straits. Its workers, who have done nothing except increase productivity and maintain traditions of skill and ability, are wondering what will happen to them. That is the result of competition in a free market.
A Labour Government must be able to ensure that damage such as that, which is done not just to workers but to the economy, does not take place. A free market will not provide remedies to such problems and the Government have to be able to intervene either to support or, if necessary, regulate the flow of trade. It is only sensible for Governments to intervene in the marketplace to protect an industry and the jobs that go with it. Such a move would be difficult inside the Common Market, because the Commission would say that it was in breach of the treaty of Rome.
Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is attacking free competition. Does he agree that the countries of eastern Europe are not a recommendation for protected economies?
Mr. Cryer: That is a fashionable thing to say after the recent changes in eastern Europe, which are connected not only with the economy but with the lack of opportunity for the exchange of ideas and for discussion. There is no doubt that a wind of competition is blowing through some of those countries, and with it comes the creation of dole

93
queues. In a few years, there will be a marked difference, because people do not like being put on to dole queues. There will be a reversal of the coin, with protests, demonstrations and outrage about the extent of unemployment. A free market economy is not a satisfactory solution in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman's glib intervention.
In my constituency is a carpet factory owned by Coloroll that has always produced a high standard of output. Several hundred workers in it are apprehensive about their future. I hope that, as a good viable unit, it will be retained, but there is no guarantee. That is the position for workers who have been facing the effects of this enterprise culture. A centralised, decision-making economy with a fortress around it is not the solution. We must have a bit of both, but we must have a reserve position so that the Government can intervene. In the Common Market under the treaty of Rome, if it is applied, it would be difficult for a Government to intervene. That would be a handicap for a Labour Government concerned about maintaining our manufacturing industry, as we must.
This somewhat vague document has a table. The Government used to provide actual deficits, but now they have decided to show deficits in manufactures in percentage terms, because that glosses over the facts. From 1973, the balance of trade in manufactures between Britain and the European Community has gone inexorably upwards from 0·4 to 13·6 per cent. The Government say that the larger the deficit the more successful we are, because we are exporting more as they are exporting more to us. That logic is absurd. The Minister can tell us how we can eradicate that deficit. Will we be able to sell as many goods to them as they to us, and will our manufacturing industry be buoyant and confident, as it is not at the moment?
There has been much talk about the exchange rate mechanism as a magic cure for the problems of our exchange rate. We shall have a debate about this later in the week. Where we have had a fixed exchange rate, it has always been accompanied by a large-scale spread in unemployment—for example, in 1925 when we went on the gold standard. That is a warning. The Labour party is not the party of unemployment. Indeed, the very reverse is the truth.
If we wanted at any time to alter our rate of exchange, to whom would we apply within the exchange rate mechanism? The other Common Market countries are dominated by West Germany, which has a massive balance of trade surplus with us. Is it likely that in those circumstances a group of countries with a massive balance of trade surplus with us would be likely to agree to any alteration of exchange rate that would place us in a more competitive position? I think not. Our membership of the Common Market has been a burden. It has been a millstone round our neck throughout our membership, and it remains so.
8.59 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: In answer to a parliamentary question, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office told me that the Government's objective
"is practical progress towards a robust and realistic form of economic and monetary union, with full regard to democratic accountability and the doctrine of subsidiarity."—[Official Report, 7 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 688.]
94
I have read carefully the documents before us to find any evidence of the principle of subsidiarity being applied. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to paragraph 3.14, which refers to food law:
"The principles are designed to ensure as far as possible that a foodstuff lawfully produced and marketed in one member state should not be subject to marketing or import restrictions in another."
That accords with the principle of subsidiarity.
Perhaps at this stage I should declare my interest in the meat trade. It is with regulations affecting minced beef, for example, or even the great British sausage, that we see the principle of subsidiarity being ignored. That worries me. If we are saying that we can accept so many tenets of the European Economic Community provided that the principle of subsidiarity is being maintained, why is the principle so often
"more honoured in the breach than the observance?"
We must ask ourselves where the evidence of subsidiarity working affectively exists. Where are the historical precedents?
Power and decision making are subsumed inevitably by the centre. That must be inevitable in any bureaucratic organisation, whether we are talking about Governments, Churches, nations or empires. I invite the House to speculate on who is to decide which matters should become subsidiary and which matters we should allow the lower orders to take control of. I suggest that the answer is——
Sir Russell Johnston rose——
Mr. Gill: I see that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) wishes to intervene. I shall give way to him in a moment. I wish only to add to my previous remarks that it is always the central authority which calls the shots, and that in practice it has little regard for the principle of subsidiarity.
Sir Russell Johnston: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman conveys his sentiments to Mr. Brian Mulroney of the Canadian federation. They will be of great comfort to him.
Mr. Gill: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that advice. I invite hon. Members to consider national examples of things that we and our constituents feel strongly—in some instances passionately—could be done by a parish council or a district council rather than by county councils or Government Departments. Each right hon. and hon. Member will have his own examples.
In my constituency, parish councils, town councils, district councils, county councils and myself are all in favour of a new bridge over the River Severn near to the historic bridge at Ironbridge. However, that is not to be. We must have a public inquiry into the matter. Imagine how that requirement would have affected the course of history if, in the 18th century, the great ironmasters could not have built their bridge without reference to a higher authority.
In saying these things, I am not alone. Boris Yeltsin is on record this week as saying, when asked what role he foresaw for the President of the Soviet Union:
"he should concern himself with defence, foreign policy and other nationwide programmes".
On the basis of his dramatic experience in eastern Europe, he feels that enough is enough, and wishes to see institutions restored to a lower level of democratic decision making.

95
If we fail to understand and to manage the principle of subsidiarity, inevitably the bureaucracies will continue to burgeon. As we all know, once they are created it is difficult to get rid of them. There will be an insatiable appetite for cash, with the concomitant waste and fraud.
Page 14 of the report mentions "doubling of the funds for regional aid" in Delors stage 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) mentioned in an earlier intervention that the Community budget is proposed to increase by 13 per cent. in the next year. We should beware the political damage that failing to manage subsidiarity would do the Conservative party. We run the risk of perpetuating many of the socialist principles to which we are opposed.
Structural funds may, by their very nature, contradict the principle of subsidiarity. It is clear from the papers before us that the decisions are made remotely and arbitrarily. Such funds may also be a negation of that most attractive and practical feature of the Community—the single, free market, with all the physical, technical and fiscal barriers removed. It is from that free market that Conservative Members believe that the benefits to all member nations of the Community will inevitably flow. I feel strongly that, with the United Kingdom's balance of payments deficit with the European Community at a record level, and given that we are a major contributor to the European Community budget, it is time for us to consider that charity begins at home.
I seldom agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but I agree that it might be a more economical, sensible and intelligible policy, instead of remitting money from this country to Brussels, to pay it from our national Exchequer to those who will be spending it in this country. There is much evidence of tax churning. I am fond of quoting the example of the roundabout on the A454 in my constituency, which proudly bears a placard reading
"Partly financed by the European Community".
That says it all in terms of funding, and it also says a good deal about subsidiarity: again, it negates the principle of subsidiarity. The decisions are not being made in this country, but are being delegated to the European Community, and in many cases we are having to accept arbitrary decisions.
Whether we like it or not, we must ask why we—through the medium of the European Community structural funds—subsidise our competitors. Why do we remit moneys to Brussels that might, for example, be used to build an autostrada from Calabria across France to Calais to speed the cabbages on their way to Coventry, at a time when the industrialists of the west midlands have not the facility of an equal road transport network to the ports at Felixstowe and Southampton?
I venture to suggest that we are now facing a similar dilemma in our attitude to the channel tunnel. On the continent, great efforts are being made to improve the rail network to the channel tunnel, while we continue to argue the toss. There is a good case that any moneys that we have would be better spent at home on such projects rather than in the countries of southern Europe.
The new buzz word "subsidiarity" has sometimes been used quite irresponsibly. It has been used to legitimise some of the worst features of the European Community and to disguise some of them from the British electorate.
96
In many ways, it is a deception. My right hon. and hon. Friends must beware of selling the pass. Subsidiarity could be the Trojan horse for a centralist Europe.
9.11 pm
Mr. Michael Irvine: One of the most interesting and significant parts of the White Paper is that relating to the progress of the single European market. It is good to know that this country is leading the field in the table of measures adopted and that, behind Denmark, it is vying for second place with the Federal Republic of Germany and France as regards measures already implemented.
What angers me is the way in which our readiness to adopt, implement and comply with European directives is often overlooked by those who point the finger and accuse us of being bad Europeans, difficult partners and not having the European enterprise at heart. I was sorry to hear the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) line up with them and accuse the Government of being far too often isolated on Community issues. It is often right to take an independent line. It is often right to ask awkward questions. The questions being asked by the Government about democratic accountability need to be addressed, not only by this House and by the other national Parliaments, but by the Community as a whole. The structures for democratic control and accountability are badly wanting.
My hon. Friend the Minister intervened to praise the quality of scrutiny by this House, but I thought that he was over-egging the pudding by a good margin. He said that our scrutiny was good and much more advanced than in most countries. My hon. Friend is entitled to his view, but I believe that the scrutiny of European legislation by this House is woefully inadequate, as regards both the hour at which we usually consider it and the quaint way in which we are invited to take note of EEC directives, all too often well after they have been decided by the Council of Ministers. I hope that the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure on scrutiny will be implemented speedily. Even if they are, I fear that there will still be a substantial democratic deficit.
My hon. Friend spoke also about the ability of the House to question Ministers and to hold them to account. He overlooks the fact that increasingly the situation arises of Ministers at the Dispatch Box saying, in relation to, say, fishing quotas, Sunday trading laws, seat-belt regulations for coaches, BSE, or VAT on commercial and industrial construction, "We do not like it. The situation is unsatisfactory. There is force in your criticisms—but our hands are tied." That is not what I call proper accountability.
What of the role of the House in decisions taken by the Council of Ministers? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in his opening speech that one important role of a national Parliament is to exercise democratic control over the Council of Ministers. He overlooks the fact that the Council meets behind closed doors and that the bargaining and making of compromises that goes on behind them is not open to the scrutiny of national Parliaments. My right hon. Friend also overlooks the fact that an increasing number of the Council's decisions are taken by majority voting. In relation to majority decisions, the democratic control of our Parliament at Westminster is non-existent.

97
It does not end there. There are other major flaws in the Community's structure of democratic control and accountability. Too much power is in the hands of the Commission in relation to its monopoly on the intiation of legislation. That co-exists with wholly inadequate machinery for policing and enforcing that legislation. In the face of such weaknesses and shortcomings in the system of democratic control, scrutiny and accountability, would not it be better for the countries of the Community to concentrate on dealing with them before rushing on to the ambitious and grandiose schemes that so bedazzle the Commission and some European politicians?
It seems sometimes that we are confronted by a helter-skelter dash towards the horizon, with unrealistic demands for a rush forward to full economic and monetary union coupled with high-flown talk about political union. That high-flown talk has dangers for the Community. If such a helter-skelter dash towards unreal goals is pursued, the Community will hit trouble. If it assumes control over vast areas of our economic, political and social life without proper systems of democratic control and accountability, it will lose touch with the people. Somewhere along that line, the raw nerve of British nationalism—and of other nationalisms, too—will be touched. That could all too easily damage the Community and put its development into reverse.
One need only look east to the Soviet Union to see just how rapidly a centrally controlled, over-bureaucratic and undemocratic union of nations can unravel—which is why I believe that the cautious and pragmatic approach of the British Government to Community issues is, by and large, wise and sensible. Better to be isolated but right, better to ask the awkward questions, and better to adopt a pragmatic attitude than rush forward heedless of the need for democratic scrutiny and accountability.
Our parliamentary traditions fit Britain particularly well for that sceptical but profoundly necessary role. It is a role that we should not be ashamed to undertake.
9.19 pm
Mr. George Robertson: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate and it vindicates the decision that it should be an opportunity for looking forward, especially to the European Council meeting in a fortnight, as well as back to a period in the European Community's history which ended some six months ago. We have heard some remarkable speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) took a constructive role, and although I did not agree with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said—we spar here and in other Rooms in the House—he made a valuable contribution to a debate which is only partially completed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a remarkable speech by any standards, which was fully within the rules of order, and was a test of the Hansard stenographers' skills which, if they passed, should be the subject of an award.
We look forward to the European Council meeting with interest and, no doubt, trepidation. Two items above all others will dominate that meeting. One is European monetary union and the other is the debate on political
98
union, and the now virtual certainty that another intergovernmental conference on that subject will be set up. Hon. Members have mentioned that this evening.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) gave us his usual entertaining, if dissident, view on the matter, which I am sure will have been listened to with the same care as he is always listened to.
Hon. Members who come to such debates have an eternal sense of déà vu. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, made his speech. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has made his speech so often that they gave him a knighthood for it. The world moves on—the Berlin wall has come down, democracy has come to most countries in eastern Europe—but sadly, we still seem to be making the same speeches. However, we move on to the Dublin summit. What is our stance on the great issues which will be the subject of decisions there?
Stage 1 of the Delors report, whatever we say about stages 2 and 3, which I shall come to in a minute, implies full membership of the existing exchange rate mechanism. The Government committed themselves at the Madrid summit, under the skilful tutelage of the then new Foreign Secretary, to full compliance with stage 1, a condition which has still not been satisfied. Perceptive people who read the press with great care will notice that a variety of personalities within the Government are slowly beginning to change the rules so that humble pie can be consumed in larger and larger quantities—to use the analogy of' the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the former Foreign Secretary—said that the yardstick for inflation would no longer be the retail price index, by which inflation has been measured for many years, but the underlying rate of inflation. We are beginning to realise that the measurement of inflation will be subjected to exactly the same test as the measurement of unemployment—during the 11 years of office of the present Government, its calculation has been changed 19 times. Of course, we shall not embark upon a process to prove that inflation is not 9·4 per cent., but is probably about 2 per cent., and should therefore be in the record books rather than the bank books. The tragedy is that it produces chaos in the City, which is in a permanent ferment as rumours about joining, not joining or being about to join the ERM, sweep in and out every second day, like garbage on the tide.
The Government display even more disarray over the question of political union or, as Mr. Jacques Delors redefined it, the political dimension of the Community. It is grandly known as European political union, but even that title appears to have disappeared at Foreign Ministers' meetings.
Last week, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry took a little time off from supervising the economic miracle that we are experiencing to speak to the Bruges group. That group is an important component of the Conservative party, but clearly it is having a night out since all its leading personalities seem to have abandoned the debate. It is about the only thing that distinguishes this debate from most of the other Community debates. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is addressing the Bruges group again tonight.
He said on that occasion that others should not be hustled at breakneck speed, let alone presented with a fait

99
accompli and a direction in which they may not want to go—a direction which could be inward-looking and closed. He also said that how far individual member states wished to travel along the road of monetary and political union would be for them to decide. He articulated a two-speed Europe. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was, suitably, in the second-speed group.
It is sad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney endorsed, even if it was only a limited endorsement, the views of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. On Friday night, the deputy Prime Minister and Lord President of the Council made a speech to an audience at the London School of Economics—one of the most appropriate audiences that one could find—and said, "We want to be inside, not outside." He also said that Britain did not want to be like Austria, in having frequently to respond to patterns set by the Twelve. A Sunday newspaper said, rightly, that that shows that there is a major split on a fundamental issue two weeks before the Dublin summit. It is a matter of acute importance inside the Cabinet. Is it the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who speaks for the Government, or is it the former Foreign Secretary, now the deputy Prime Minister? I am sure that the public would like to know.
According to the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, they have no difficulty in contemplating a further round of institutional reform, which would have an effect similar to that of the Single European Act. They implied that they would put forward constructive proposals. We await them with great interest. There have been only a few hints so far, including making the European Parliament into a glorified Public Accounts Committee, strengthening the European Court of Justice and beginning a massive crackdown on fraud, as well as a crackdown on the European Commission. The Foreign Secretary referred to a crackdown on the European Commission only this afternoon.
Mr. Jacques Delors's term of office—Mr. Delors is as popular within the Conservative party as the deputy Prime Minister—finishes at the end of this year. It is up for renewal. I hope that the Minister of State will consult his boss before he responds to the debate and will tell us whether the British Government intend to vote for an extension of Mr. Delors' term of office. Many people, including Mr. Delors, would like an answer to that question.
These are all commendable suggestions and we agree with most of them, but they tinker with the problem and are an insufficient response to the drift away from accountability, political and economic, which has occurred as the Community has taken on more and more competences.
I venture to suggest that the package will be seen for what it is—simply a smooth cosmetic cover designed by the Foreign Secretary for a book entitled "No Way" written by the Prime Minister in her own blunt Bruges words. In contrast, the Labour party has set out its agenda for a deeper, wider, more accountable and more relevant Community. We strongly support enlargement of the Community to Austria, Norway, Switzerland and other countries. We believe in extending the majority voting in the Council of Ministers to environmental and social issues.
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is referring to the Labour party document, "Looking to the Future". Does he agree that certain procedures have to be gone through before that document is distinctly party policy? It may be agreed, but it is not yet de jure.
Mr. Robertson: Neither my hon. Friend nor I are Members of the national executive committee, an exalted group of people. I understand that no vote has taken place on the measures to which I am referring, and although they clearly have to be passed at the annual Labour party conference in October, the sizeable majority that was achieved in favour of the entire document allows me to assume in the interim that they represent the views of the party. Unlike the Tory party, the Labour party votes on party policy.
We believe that the European Parliament's cooperative procedures should be extended and that the European Parliament, subject always to the final decision by the Council of Minister, should have powers to initiate legislation. We believe that the social charter is an essential practical part of concluding the single European market and that Europewide policies to protect the environment are urgent and necessary.
Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House whether the Labour party is excited by the progressive new proposals in the Delors report for a massive extension of the regional and social fund? There must be much for Labour in that.
Mr. Robertson: We believe that part of the development of the single European market must be a robust social and regional fund to provide a proper balance in the development of that market. It is no secret; it is in our document. All that the hon. Gentleman need do is purchase a copy and the answers will all be there.
We believe that real accountability in national Parliaments for EC decisions is a fundamental part of developing the Community and we must start here in the House. The feeble suggestions from the Government in response to the Procedure Committee go no way towards giving Parliament back the right to hold Ministers accountable. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) made a valuable point in drawing attention to the way in which power has been allowed to drift away from the House. I fear that the dilution of the Procedure Committee's own diluted recommendations will give precious little back to the House of Commons by way of holding Ministers of the Crown accountable for that huge area of policy.
Mr. Shore: It is not just a matter of the drifting away of power; it is the positive transfer of power and precisely what is centrally involved in the proposals for economic and monetary union. My hon. Friend has said a number of things that the Labour party apparently believes in, but will he make it plain that the Labour party does not accept or subscribe to any commitment to permanently fixed exchange rates between the pound and other currencies? Will he give me that reassurance?
Mr. Robertson: I refer my right hon. Friend to the document, "Looking to the Future", adopted by the Labour party national executive committee, which gives definitive answers to the points that he makes. It says:
"Given the effect of the Single Market, and Britain's likely participation in the ERM, closer co-operation on monetary

101
policy between the EC countries is both inevitable and desirable. But we would oppose the proposals for an all-powerful, but unaccountable European Central Bank, as outlined in the Delors plan for Economic and Monetary Union—just as we would not advocate an independent Bank of England. As the central banks of the EC countries gain experience of working more closely together, with Britain as a full member of the ERM, it may be that the need for a new institution will emerge. But any new European system of central banks must be politically accountable."
I can only say to my right hon. Friend——
Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene in the answer to an intervention.
Mr. Robertson: —that if he wants any expansion of that statement he should consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who, I am sure, will be glad to give him whatever information he has.
The Government's policy, as outlined in the report to which I referred, contrasts with the positive programme put forward by the Labour party. The Government talk green but they sent the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Environment Council last week to weaken curbs on carbon dioxide. The Government preach that the single market, to quote the glossy documentation published by the Department of Employment, entitled "The United Kingdom in Europe: People, Jobs and Progress":
"is not a charter for business alone. It is for people, essential if their quality of life is to improve."
The Government also say in response to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs report:
"There should be fair competition and a level playing field across the Community (which requires proper enforcement)."
But at the same time they stubbornly and ideologically oppose the action programme and the social charter.
The Government's document also says:
"Training for skills and jobs is vital … we cannot afford our workforce to be undertrained and undereducated compared to our competitors."
In that respect, I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, a speech by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) which should be read by every Conservative Member of Parliament. I have chosen three quotations from it:
"We have a large and skilled army on the Rhine and an army of semi-literate unemployables at home. We have well-equipped forces to help us win wars which seem increasingly unlikely to happen, while we strive to win contracts with an under-skilled and under-educated workforce … When it comes to staffing our Embassies abroad, we are highly selective. Only the best will do."
[Interruption.] I welcome the author, and take him back to his speech last Thursday when he said:
"In stalling our schoolrooms, we take on anyone who is willing to do the job … The Victorian staircase of the Foreign Office is expensively re-gilded to delight the eye of foreign Ambassadors, while our shabby schools are administered from a squalid sixties building on the wrong side of the river."
Those are not the words of a Labour Member of Parliament but of the former Minister with responsibility for higher education in the Prime Minister's Government, and I pay tribute to what he said.
Mr. George Walden: I apologise for coming in halfway through the hon. Gentleman's speech. I sense that he may be quoting me just a trifle out of context. At the end of my speech I made the important
102
point—at least it seemed important to me—that I would not spend a single penny on the current education system without insisting on quality in return for every penny. That is the crucial difference between my position and that of the Labour party. It would throw money at the system for no quality in return.
Mr. Robertson: Clearly, the Prime Minister has shaken the hon. Gentleman warmly by the hand in recognition of his sympathetic views. He may choose to disagree about the prescription, but his diagnosis is in stark relief to the expensive, cosmetic propaganda of the Department of the Environment about the quality of our education and trained labour force. He is closer to the mark than the propaganda.
This is a stirring time for European unity. On a continent where the east has dramatically and fortuitously opened up after 40 years of sterile oppression, the Community is a role model of non-coercive economic and political co-operation. As such, it offers and must be allowed to offer, an example and an eventual home for those countries which have been brought back to democracy and a mixed economy by their people. The Community must develop in a balanced way, thinking of ecology as well as economy, of workers as well as business and of controls on speculation as well as freedom of movement for capital. It must be a Community concerned with the substance of that which concerns the citizens of Europe—their education, housing, jobs and environment —and not just with the constant creation of money and movement of business men.
Whether we like it or loathe it, whether we welcome it or revile it, many contemporary forces have become European by circumstance or by the decision of free people. It is our duty to ensure that the decisions which ensure from that reflect the will of our people and that democratic accountability follows the sharing of political power. If we do that in the European Community, it has a future of enormous potential.
9.41 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): This is the third of the traditional six-monthly debates on the European Community, in which I have had the pleasure of participating. I do not know whether that qualifies me as a veteran, but I certainly feel like one. I sympathise with hon. Members when they say that there tends to be a hint of déjà vu about these debates.
Our debate in November last year was perhaps rather special. It took place in the days immediately following the breaching of the Berlin wall. Several hon. Members ranged free and cast their mind into the past with a sense of history and into the future with a sense of prescience, which was illuminating for the House. Today we may have reverted to the more traditional pattern, but nevertheless, there have been some fascinating innovations. The speech of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will live with us for some time. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not respond in detail to his remarks. They deserve a detailed response. I can reaffirm what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said at the outset: the hon. Gentleman shall have an answer, but not from me tonight. Certainly, his anxieties will be properly considered.
Another traditional and welcome feature was the distinguished and distinctive speech of my right hon.

103
Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). He speaks with the authority which he carries naturally and with the authority of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, whose illuminating report we have before us. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) argued intensely, with great knowledge and some wisdom. That, too, enlightened our debate. Further speeches were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles), the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and, most especially, by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). He argued persuasively that he did not need to be lectured to by a junior economist. In those circumstances I am sure that he will forgive a junior Minister for failing to lecture him as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) spoke powerfully about his concern at the way in which European Community trade policy sometimes operates. I assure him that the concerns that he has about the methodology applied in anti-dumping cases has been a matter of concern to us and we shall continue to raise them where appropriate. I can reassure my hon. Friend on some of the specific points that he raised. Considerable progress has been made on road haulage and qualified majority voting has enabled us to get some liberalising measures through against protectionist resistance by some of our partners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and others talked about fraud, which must be a matter for continuing concern. The Court of Auditors' recent report was welcome, thorough and good. It is essential to combat waste and fraud involving Community money. For some time we have pressed for more effective anti-fraud measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who expressed to me his regret that he would be unable to remain for the entire debate, wondered whether my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has dealt with fraud in his speech. My right hon. Friend urged an important institutional step, the strengthening of the capacity of the European Parliament in effect to enable its budgetary control committee to replicate our Public Accounts Committee, which is so effective.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) particularly raised the issue of cross-frontier co-operation. When one listens to him one occasionally gets the impression that he feels that it is wrong to resist any proposal that is made in Brussels. One gets the impression that he feels that as soon as a proposition is made by the European Commission, the other 11 member states immediately sign up and say, "Yes please, we must have that because it is European." I assure him that they do not. There are many lively discussions in Brussels and the number of times that we are isolated is small. We have extremely good arguments and we win most of them. The number of times that we are in the minority and are out-voted is tiny.
The hon. Gentleman queried our assertion that we have led in cross-frontier co-operation. Our role has been particularly effectively in, for example, the Trevi group on co-operation on police liaison and we chaired the expert working group on customs co-operation fighting to
104
control drugs traffic. We have also introduced the single immigration channel for all EC nationals. That is a more forward step than those in many other member states and Heathrow airport is far quicker than Brussels.
They are important moves. Nothing dramatic and no great ideals have been expressed, but they are useful measures that make the lives of our citizens better in some relatively minor ways.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Last week in the debate on children I said that in 1992 there will be few restrictions on the admission of pornography that particularly affects children. It would not be helpful if the Government did not take an active part in forthcoming debates to ensure that our adequate Customs and Excise laws are not thrown over in some spurious attempt to create a European ideal.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady is right to point out that there will always be some matters that our citizens require us to take seriously, in terms of restricting access. The treaty of Rome gives us the power to restrict access for reasons of public morality and we shall certainly not hesitate to use it if appropriate. The hon. Lady says that we should be in there arguing our corner fiercely. I assure her that we shall, but sometimes one is faced by a dichotomy of argument. There are those who say that one must not resist measures and be an awkward member of the Community. The same people frequently say that one must not stand on the outside; one must be involved. Frankly, being involved quite often means arguing our corner fiercely and making our case heard.
Sir Russell Johnston: All that I said was that one could not at one and the same time claim to be in the lead on cross-frontier co-operation, when the Schengen agreement allows free access. That is a contradiction.
Mr. Maude: It is not a contradiction. Our citizens require sensible relaxations in frontier crossings to protect their interests and make their lives easier when crossing the frontiers, and to protect their safety. That is what we do. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the Schengen group, who were talking about land frontiers between them, are in a wholly different category from us and a number of others with similar concerns about such measures.
The issue of German unification was raised by several hon. Members. It is important that it should be fully considered by the Community in the coming months. It is important that there should be full assimilation and that European Community law should be applied to the German Democratic Republic as soon as possible. This morning I heard from the Minister for Economics of the GDR in Berlin that that was the intention of the GDR, which is good news.
Eastern Europe is another theme that floated through the debate. There is a sophisticated programme of support from the Community, with a range of trade and co-operation agreements being revitalised, and association agreements coming forward during the next few months to enrich the relationship between the reforming countries and the Community. Of particular significance to us is the decision to locate the European bank for reconstruction and development in London, thus decisively confirming London's position as the financial centre of Europe. It is important that, as the major source of finance, it should have—as its articles require—a heavy emphasis on the

105
private sector. It is equally important that economic reforms in the countries that will benefit should proceed apace to allow free enterprise to bring the benefits that have been brought elsewhere.
Reference has been made to some of the countries of the European Free Trade Association. The House will know that discussions are proceeding to develop what has become known as the European economic area. We regard that as an important move that will create, if it succeeds, a single market of 360 million people, bigger than Japan and the United States combined. The achievement of that large area will be beneficial to us and the EFTA countries that sign the agreement. As is widely recognised by the EFTA countries, it could also be no more than an intermediate stage towards full accession as members. When talking to colleagues in Scandinavian countries recently, I found that there was a strong feeling that full application could be contemplated before long.
I do not think that there was any dissent among hon. Members that the Community should be ready to envisage a further widening and enlargement of the Community. It is difficult to contemplate that, at the end of this century, the Community will still be a Community of 12. When it started in the late 1950s the Community comprised no more than one third of Europe; it is now perhaps one half of Europe. None of us believes that its founders intended that it should remain so for ever. There is a strong belief that we should eventually move towards widening the community, but we must also deepen it, and do so quickly.
Much emphasis in the debate has been on economic and monetary union. I had the pleasure of winding up the full-day debate on that subject in November last year. I found it most interesting and enjoyable. I am pleased that on this occasion I can leave the pleasure of giving the Government's view to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who will contribute to the debate on this subject on Friday.
Mr. Shore: The House will be very disappointed if the Minister does not address himself not to the technicalities of European monetary union but to the essential political objectives. Differing emphases have been expressed on the Government's commitment to economic and monetary union—particularly under stages 2 and 3—and I gave the Minister long notice of my direct question about it. Will he repeat the assurance given by the Prime Minister on 1 May, that we are and will remain opposed to locked, permanent exchange rates in EMU and equally opposed to the setting up of a central bank to control the monetary policies of the whole European Community? That is what the right hon. Lady told us on 1 May; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will endorse it tonight.
Mr. Maude: What was said by the Prime Minister five weeks ago certainly needs no reinforcing by me—[Interruption.] I have nothing to add to or subtract from what she said, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to have another attempt, I invite him to come along on Friday and try with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Several hon. Members have spoken about what has become popularly known as political union. These debates about the future shape of the Community are wide ranging. None of us argues that the Community is perfect. It is a unique structure. It may not be a federal structure; it may not be a confederation. It is a model based on
106
co-operation between nation states in which the right of decision making is ceded voluntarily. Further cessions of decision-making power cannot be forced, and when there is cession it can be revoked. Concessions on decision making have been made in the past out of hard-headed calculation of national interest, both by us and by other member states. I assure the House that subsequent decisions will be taken on the same basis. Treaty changes can be made only by unanimity and there can be no question of our being forced into changes to which we object.
The present debate, therefore, is not about radical restructuring: it is about practical changes to make the European Community more effective, and it includes the subject of subsidiarity, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) spoke. He was right to say that it can be a snare and a delusion if it is not handled properly. We shall make sure that it is handled properly and used in a way that tends to decentralise decision making in the Community. My hon. Friend is right to say that it alerts us to the inherent tedency in organisations of this type for decision making to migrate to the centre. That must be resisted and what we propose will help to resist it.
There are some lessons for us to learn from what is happening in eastern and central Europe. There, we see countries that are rediscovering their nationhood—their sense of national identity. They are painfully and painstakingly developing autonomous national policies and rejecting centralised control, state intervention and the parasitic bureaucracies that have damaged them for so long.
The most important aspect of integration at the moment is the single market. I was sorry to hear the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) sneering at it. That showed that the Labour party has never understood the single market—or markets in general. It has never liked or trusted them. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to our priorities and to those of the wider Community—financial services, insurance, transport—he called them an adventure playground for financial institutions. The fact that neither he nor the Labour party has understood is that markets do not exist to benefit producers; they are there to benefit consumers.
Airlines are not hurt by the present arrangements by which cartels keep air fares high. It is the customers—the passengers—who suffer. It is the constituents of Opposition Members and of my hon. Friends who suffer, and it is they whom we seek to benefit by driving through these improvements. Similarly, it is not the German insurance companies that are hurt by the German restrictions on where German customers can buy their policies; it is the citizens themselves. If we are serious about creating a citizens' Europe—a people's Europe—we must drive the single market forward and widen and open the market.
That is where the concept of a "social Europe" comes in. It is about increasing standards of living and increasing the prospects of our citizens. That is what we shall continue to argue for forthrightly and plainly and we are winning the argument. We have decisively changed the way in which the European Community is oriented. We shall continue to win those arguments.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,

107
That this House takes note of the White Paper on Developments in the European Community (July—December 1989) (Cm. 1023).

European Community (Developments)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendment to the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day
  Property Services and Crown Suppliers Bill
  Lords amendment considered.
  Property Services and Crown Suppliers Bill
    Clause 2

      TRANSFERRED STAFF
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
      "(b) his ceasing to be employed in that service shall not be regarded as an occasion of redundancy for the purpose of the agreed redundancy procedures applicable to persons employed in that service."
      10 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      10.1 pm
      Mr. Clive Soley: This matter should not take long, although I had thought that the Minister would take the time to explain to the House why, after a great deal of argument by myself and my hon. Friends in Committee, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), at that stage the Minister did not see sense, and why he has come to see sense as a result of what happened in the Lords.
      The amendment is very much along the lines that we suggested in Committee. It will provide greater protection for the work force, which is what we were arguing for. If the Minister had agreed in Committee, it would not have been necessary to proceed in this way, but the House of Lords has seen fit to disagree with the Minister, and I am pleased about that. I am also pleased that the Minister accepts the Lords amendment. As I have said, it would have been easier if he had accepted that view in our Committee, but who am I to be churlish at this late hour and not to accept the Minister's late conversion?
      I still have anxieties about the Bill but, as we are limited in what we can say in a Lords amendment debate, I shall simply say that it is a pleasure to accept the amendment. I do so happily, because it improves the position of the employees in the service, which is what is important to us.
      10.2 pm
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: If it is within the bounds of order, Mr. Speaker—I realise the limitations on a Lords amendment debate—may I invite the Minister to say whatever he can about any progress that has been made since the Committee stage? One of the troubles with the House of Commons is that we pass all these laws but do not monitor them properly. In a year's time, I for one would like to see how the provisions have worked out and to be able to read a serious report on what has happened. In the meantime, if it is in order, I invite the Minister to comment on how things have progressed since the Bill was in Standing Committee.
      Mr. Chope: I am invited to do that, but all that I can say is that bids for the Crown Suppliers are under consideration at the moment. That is the current position.
      Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister have a timetable for when the decision is likely to be made? This matter seems to be going on and on, and some of us were under the impression that things would have been finalised by now. We may not have liked the Bill, but we thought that matters would be finalised.
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: I very much welcome the amendment, because it clarifies a previously uncertain situation. Although it does not meet the needs of everyone concerned with employment in PSA, at least we now know exactly what the position is and can respond properly to our constituents.
      10.3 pm
      Mr. Bob Cryer: This amendment relates to what is effectively the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers. I ask the Minister for the assurance that, if bids are accepted, any and all information relating to the procedure will be given to all the bidders and that there will not be any secret information to be given only to civil servants, as has happened with the privatisation of the skill centres, which involved a good deal of criticism, not to say cynicism. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that everything will be completely open and above board, with all the bidders following the same fair and square procedure, with no insider dealing.
      10.4 pm
      Mr. Chope: I am happy to assure the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the House that all the bids are in and are being considered on the same basis.
      Mr. Cryer rose——
      Mr. Dalyell rose——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a Committee.
      Mr. Cryer: I was intervening in the Minister's speech.
      Mr. Speaker: I think that the Minister had sat down.
      Mr. Chope: Yes.
      Mr. Speaker: In that case, I must put the Question.
      Question put and agreed to.

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

      ANIMAL HEALTH
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4796/90, relating to animal health requirements for marketing certain animals and products of animal origin; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to ensure effective safeguards against the spread of animal disease.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
      Question agreed to.

      FISH AND SHELLFISH
      That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4699/90 and 4779/90, relating to health conditions for the production and marketing of live bivalve molluscs and of fishery products, and 4783/90, relating to animal health conditions for the marketing of aquaculture animals and products; and supports the Government's aim of ensuring that any Council Regulations resulting from these proposals contribute to effective and efficient hygiene and health controls throughout the Community. —[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
      Question agreed to.

    SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That, during the proceedings on the Scottish Estimates, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of Standing Committees) the Scottish Grand Committee shall have leave, at their sitting in Edinburgh on Monday 18th June, to sit until half-past Three o'clock; and that sitting shall constitute consideration on two days for the purposes of Standing Order No. 96 (Scottish Estimates)—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  Radio Reception (Yorkshire Dales)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  10.5 pm
  Mr. William Hague: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the FM radio reception in the Yorkshire dales and I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for being here to reply to the debate. This is a matter of concern to many of my constituents who live in the deepest and most remote dales, particularly Upper Swaledale in north Yorkshire. In some such places, it has never been possible to receive the FM signal of BBC radio stations. Although some of my constituents have thus been denied the opportunity to sample the superior stereo quality of FM broadcasts, they have accepted this as an understandable disadvantage of living in mountainous surroundings and have tuned into medium-wave broadcasts.
  But this minor irritant is about to become much more serious. From August this year, Radio 2 will be broadcasting only on FM, to enable its medium-wave frequencies to be used by the new Radio 5. In addition, I understand from the BBC that over the next few years, both Radio 1 and Radio 3 will become FM-only networks so as to free their medium-wave frequencies for use as national commercial radio outlets.
  I accept that these changes are an important prerequisite of the substantial future expansion of radio services and that the overall effect for the great majority of people will be a widening of choice and the availability of a greater variety of programmes than ever before. That is obviously a good thing. However, on current plans the extension of choice for most of the country will be at the cost of reducing choice in services for a small minority. In my opinion and that of many of my constituents, that is not an acceptable trade-off, nor is it necessary. The provision of additional transmission facilities to serve regions such as Upper Swaledale would allow the whole population to share in the widening of choice rather than imposing on that minority a narrower choice.
  I accept that this is a problem for the BBC to solve. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs about the matter, and he replied:
  "In the cases of services in the Swaledale area it will be for the BBC to decide how best to fill any holes left in VHS FM services."
  That would be fine, but the BBC has decided not to fill some of those holes for the foreseeable future.
  I have already corresponded with the director general of the BBC about this matter and he has been kind enough to explain that 98 per cent. of the United Kingdom population is served by FM radio and that the extension of this service is a high priority. That is fair enough. However, the director general adds:
  "Although a relay is planned in due course to cover the deficiency in FM coverage in Richmond, it will probably not prove to be technically possible for this relay to serve all those currently without FM radio in Swaledale. Given the limited size of the population it is unlikely that parts of Swaledale will be served in the foreseeable future."
  The director general concludes:
  "I realise how disappointing this reply may be to those living in Swaledale, but it would clearly not be right for me to raise any false hopes of an early solution to this very difficult problem."
  112
  I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to encourage the BBC to find a solution to this admittedly difficult problem. My constituents in Swaledale may be few in number but they pay their television licence fee for the services of the BBC like anyone else. They are joined in the summer months by many thousands of tourists and other temporary residents who also have every right to be able to receive BBC transmissions. They are able to receive the transmissions of local radio stations such as Radio Cleveland and Radio Tees with sufficient signal strength to enjoy stereo reception.
  They are therefore rather sceptical of protestations about extreme technical difficulties when it comes to national radio. If the BBC had at least a plan for rectifying the problem in Swaledale in advance of the transfer of Radios 1 and 3 to FM only, I think that we would have to say that that was fair and acceptable. My hon. and learned Friend will understand that the absence of any plan or hope while the plans to transfer radio stations to FM continue apace is not regarded as fair or reasonable by listeners or licence fee payers.
  I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be able to put the matter to the BBC in his future discussions with it. We are talking about people living near the middle of the British Isles in the late 20th century who are unable to receive the greater part of the broadcasts of the national state-run radio service.
  Clearly the problem is not confined to Swaledale. It sounds impressive that 98 per cent. of the population is served by FM, but that means that about 1 million people are not served by it. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will convey to the BBC the likely feelings of the 1 million and inquire how many of them will continue to be without FM transmission when Radio 2 becomes FM only. Perhaps he will ask also how many are still likely to be in that unfortunate position when Radios 1 and 3 become FM only.
  As far as I can tell from the BBC's engineering information maps, there are many gaps in coverage in the Pennine area, including parts of Teesdale, Wensleydale, Wharfedale and areas in west Yorkshire. Swaledale may be one of only a few areas that will still not be served after a few years have passed. If so, my hon. and learned Friend will understand that the irritation caused will be even greater. If there are to be only a few remaining gaps, it is surely worth the effort and expense involved in filling them and providing complete national coverage.
  I am not technically expert in these matters and probably my hon. and learned Friend is not either. But he may have expertise. Perhaps his great abilities include this technical expertise. I understand that the solution lies in the provision of an additional repeater station or in the use of the Bilsdale moor mast. The transmitter, which is in my constituency, is used to transmit Radio Cleveland and Radio Tees and by the BBC and Tyne Tees Television to broadcast television programmes. Its signal for all those services is recieved all the way up Swaledale. There may be technical difficulties in the further use of the Bilsdale mast of which I am not aware, but if so they need to be fully explained. The alternative of a further repeater station would present siting problems, but that problem has been overcome elsewhere and I am sure that it could be overcome in Swaledale.
  So far, the BBC has not made a very good job of satisfying local concern. Replies to letters of complaint from individuals and parish councils have often included

  113
  leaflets advising people to listen to stereo radio, how to buy portable sets to receive it and how good the quality of FM reception is. Not surprisingly, that has infuriated many people. I hope that the BBC will not be daft enough to do it again as long as the problem remains. It is senseless to ask people in areas such as Swaledale to purchase multi-element aerials and FM radio sets if the signal is absent or too weak to be of value: when nothing is multiplied by something, the answer is still nothing. All the high gain aerials and signal booster amplifiers are a waste of money in areas of negligible signal strength, let alone on the radio set itself.
  Presumably the key problem for the BBC is one of resources. It will not have sufficient money or engineering staff to cover all the gaps at once, or even over several years. Perhaps I can prevail upon my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to question the BBC about the cost of removing the gaps in coverage in areas such as Swaledale. Many of us would regard it as no more than a necessary cost of the changes in radio services to attend to that problem. If 98 per cent. of the nation is to benefit from increased choice, it is not unreasonable to expect some of the money provided by the nation for radio services—through the BBC licence fee—to be used, as a high priority, to ensure that the other 2 per cent. does not suffer restrictions in service as a result.
  Let me provide an analogy. Let us suppose that my hon. and learned Friend and I go into a restaurant where there is a fixed-price menu, and are told that at our table most items on the menu are about to be taken off indefinitely, and one course to be omitted altogether. On inquiring why, we are told that the reason is to allow a better and extended a la carte service to be offered to all the other tables in the building. In that event, my hon. and learned Friend would complain to the management, and then to the owner. I am here tonight complaining to the owner, having received no satisfaction from the management.
  I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will accept that there is a powerful case for the matter to be examined again by the director general of the BBC, and I hope that he will encourage him to do so. It is all too easy and convenient for large organisations such as the BBC to forget people in sparsely populated rural areas. However, it should be remembered that those people pay the same fees, and live in the same country, as everyone else. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can assure me that the Home Office will do everything that it can to encourage the BBC to rectify this irritating problem.
  10.17 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) courteously said how good of me it was to attend. I echo and reciprocate that sentiment. His speech was the only jolly part of my evening: I arrived here post haste after watching England fail to defeat the Republic of Ireland. What a joy it is that you, Mr. Speaker, are present for the debate, rather than one of your deputies. Clearly I must raise my game—as England were unable to do—to answer my hon. Friend's cogent points.
  Obviously, we must examine what we are doing to radio generally before turning to its controversial impact on my hon. Friend's constituents. We have arrived at an important stage in the history of radio. Until 1973—less
  114
  than two decades ago—there was only BBC radio. However, since 1973 there has been independent local radio, which has proved very popular. Those stations have provided the BBC with a degree of competition, and the listener with additional and enhanced choice. That represents a considerable achievement on the part of the companies concerned and the Independent Broadcasting Authrity, which has effectively regulated the arrangements.
  As the Government said in the Green Paper of 1987, there was evidence of stagnation nearly two decades on, and changes were needed to build on the success that had been achieved. Those changes were heralded in the Broadcasting Bill. We stand on the threshold of a major radio expansion: while much of the discussion of the Bill has focused on television, some of its most important impact will be felt in radio.
  Over the next few years, we can expect the new Radio Authority to introduce several hundred new services, which will range from the existing wide-area stations down to services for very much smaller communities. There will be no reason why a station should not serve just a small neighbourhood or an audience that shares a particular, specialised taste in music if there is sufficient demand for that to be viable. Broadcasters will need to cater specifically for the interests of their audiences in a way that has never been required before.
  At the other end of the scale, there will be three independent radio stations to provide competition to the BBC at the national level for the first time ever. Under the Bill, those services will provide a challenge to the BBC on a broad front. One will be a speech-based service, another will probably broadcast music other than pop music—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) will share my enthusiasm for that— and the third licence will be unspecified, and it will be open to advocates to put forward other ideas. I suppose that those will be inevitably bound up with pop music in some shape or form.
  In order to introduce those new services, we must find new frequencies for them—and here we come to the heart of the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. For two of the new independent radio services, we have had to re-assign frequencies from the BBC. At its suggestion—I am grateful for its co-operation —we have selected the medium wave networks currently used for Radio I and Radio 3. That will leave the BBC with six networks on which to provide its services, and it is for the BBC to decide how to use those frequencies to fulfil its public service obligations.
  There will be an end—and this is important—to the waste of scarce frequency brought about by simulcasting —that is, putting the same programme on two different frequencies. That is a luxury which, in truth, we can no longer afford. It is a waste of the ample range of creativities that exists within our broadcasting community and that would allow each of those frequencies to be used by a different service.
  The BBC says that, in this new environment, it intends to make Radio 1, 2 and 3 FM-only services. Radio 4 would be on FM, but much of its output would continue on long wave as well. Speech-based services can exist much more readily on the AM network than can music, which undoubtedly benefits tremendously from the FM wave band. The remaining network on the medium wave will be used for the new Radio 5, to be launched in August. I

  115
  gather that it will be mainly sports and education programmes, and will therefore continue to be an exercise in masochism for those of us who admire English football. There will also be room for children's programmes to make a welcome return—certainly a welcome return from what has been happening in Cagliari.
  Those changes have implications for listeners, and not just the listeners in Swaledale, to whose legitimate concerns I shall come in a moment. Most people will have only to switch their sets from the AM to the FM band. If, as most people do, they already listen to FM, they need do nothing unless they want to tune to the new Radio 5 to find out whether Scotland has finally managed to beat Costa Rica.
  The remainder may have problems. Some may need to purchase new radios if they wish to continue to listen to Radio 2 and if their present set receives only on medium wave. The great problem is that suffered by a small minority, but nevertheless they are an important group of people. As my hon. Friend said, in a true democracy all are entitled to equal attention. I take his point on that, and not simply because he mentioned matters gastronomic, which he well knows are a particular interest, if not an obsession, of mine.
  A number of areas have no FM reception, so in those places listeners will not be able to receive Radio 1, 2 and 3. Obviously that is a matter of real and genuine concern. My hon. Friend was right to raise it, and he has done a service to more than just his own constituents in doing so. While it is true that services reach 99·2 per cent. of the public, that does not mean that we can be complacent about the 0·8 per cent. of people who are not properly served.
  I hope, believe and expect that the loss of those services will be only temporary. The BBC is currently engaged in a programme of building new transmitters to extend FM broadcasts to areas that are not presently served. It is for the BBC—because it is independent of Government, and it is only right that it should be—to determine the speed with which, and the order in which, it intends to carry out that programme within the resources that it has available.
  I know that the BBC would assert that it is moving as quickly as it can to minimise inconvenience to listeners. It aims at building 20 new transmitters each year—more than three times the average number built in the last decade. In the current financial year, the BBC will spend more on radio transmitters than television transmitters for the first time since television was first introduced. Over the next five years, the BBC will spend about £26 million on the radio project.
  About 150 new transmitters will be needed, and clearly their construction will take some time. Generally, the BBC will give priority to the larger unserved populations, which means that smaller communities will be at the back of the queue. I understand why my hon. Friend should, on behalf of his constituents, find that irksome, and he is right to protest about it. However, I hope it is clear that there is a genuine will and intention to extend FM reception to as many listeners as possible as quickly as possible—although I accept that that will not be achieved as quickly as my hon. Friend thinks desirable.
  As to the loss of Radio 1, 2 and 3 on the medium wave, when the BBC stops transmitting those services on AM,
  116
  radio sets across the country will not simply fall silent. Listeners will find BBC Radio 5 on the Radio 2 AM network, and in truth one might prefer listening to a programme about England's labours in Italy to the prospect of an easy listening music show as an alternative.
  New independent national radio services will be broadcast on the Radio 1 and Radio 3 frequencies. The intention behind what will have to be a commercial venture is that they should offer services that will be attractive to the public. While I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the loss of BBC services, albeit temporary, it will be made up for by the existence of new national independent services, which I have every reason to hope and believe will be good and attractive.
  I accept that there will be inconvenience, and it is probably precious little consolation that, nationally, the disturbance will be outweighed by the enhanced radio choice that will become available to listeners over the next few years. Nevertheless, I am confident that, overall, over less than a decade those developments in radio will be in everyone's interests.
  Turning to the specific problem of the Yorkshire dales, the BBC has established a tuning clinic that visited Richmond recently, as part of a service that it is offering to several parts of the country where there are similar problems. It offers advice to listeners about how they might best cope with the changes. The BBC recognises that there is a reception deficiency and that it will be answered only by the provision of additional transmitters. My hon. Friend mentioned the Bilsdale transmitter. It is primarily used for TV transmissions, although it does have transmitters also for BBC Radio Cleveland and an ILR station, TFM Radio.
  I hope that the BBC will bear that in mind when considering that site, although from the inquiries that I have made—as my hon. Friend rightly surmised, I am a bit of a babe unborn on such technical matters, but I am doing the best I can—I am led to believe that it does not provide a simple solution. The BBC would need to check whether the site could accommodate additional transmitters, and would also need to find frequencies for use at high power to reach the areas concerned. Such high-power frequencies are in short supply, and a more efficient use of spectrum might be to provide low power relays for Richmond and Swaledale, rather than to increase simulcasting over a wide area. I hope that what I have said at least shows that the BBC has considered and is considering the matter.
  I have every sympathy with the difficulty faced by my hon. Friend's constituents, and it is sad that even the expedient of putting a rooftop aerial up does not provide a satisfactory remedy for many of them. As a result, and having regard to what my hon. Friend has said, and the eloquence with which he has drawn attention to their difficulties, I would wish to bring his remarks to the attention of the BBC as a result of this debate.
  In so doing, I assure my hon. Friend that I shall make clear to the BBC the importance and the urgency of providing the necessary transmission facilities in the area for FM reception, and of bringing them on to the air as quickly as possible. As my hon. Friend says—a Yorkshireman who speaks about money speaks with a special authority, as we know—the people of Swaledale are paying precisely the same sum for BBC services as the

  117
  rest of us and, at the earliest possible moment, they are entitled to be able to receive all of its services. Therefore, I hope that it will not be too long before they do so.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Stockton, North,Official Report, 9 May, column 159, on the disposal of toxic wastes at Atomic Energy Association technology sites, he will make a statement on the specific material provisions for the management and disposal of toxic wastes; and what financial resources have been committed to the development and execution of the programme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is the UKAEA policy to minimise toxic waste arising so far as is reasonably practicable and to dispose of any arisings in accordance with legal authorisations. Costs incurred by the UKAEA are part of the normal operating costs of each site.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the net incremental cost of exempting from the community charge(a) all persons over the age of 70 years and (b) all persons above the age of 75 years, taking into account the number of such persons already receiving rebate, transitional relief or exemption from the charge by reason of residence in registered residential or nursing homes or others.

  Mr. Chope
  I estimate the additional cost of exempting persons over the age of 70 from the community charge would be about £950 million whilst exempting persons over 75 would be about £600 million. Both figures are in addition to reductions already received in respect of transitional relief and community charge benefit.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will produce in tabular form for each district council in England and Wales the percentage figure of non-payment of the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his oral reply of 23 May to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn)Official Report, column 280, when he expects to be in a position to reply to the letters of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills of 19 March and 10 May concerning proposals by Walsall councillors to direct resources and services away from wards on the basis of how they vote.

  Mr. Chope
  I have now written to the hon. Member.

  Housing, Basildon
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the average value of a Basildon new town corporation three-bedroomed house;.
  2
  (2) what is the average length of tenancy in a three-bedroomed Basildon new town corporation home.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is not collected in the form requested. The Commission for the New Towns in Basildon estimates the open market value of a typical three-bedroomed house to be £57,000, and the average length of tenancy to be 18 years.

  Druridge Bay
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Northumberland wildlife trust and others regarding sand extraction at Druridge bay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received no representations from the Northumberland wildlife trust. Representations have been received from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and Councillor K. L. P. Flaherty of Northumberland county council that the Secretary of State use his powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to revoke the planning permissions for sand extraction. However, the county council has the necessary powers themselves under the 1971 Act to review mineral working sites in their area and to revoke or modify planning permissions as they consider necessary.

  Environmental Assessment Directive
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to whom his Department has let the contract for monitoring the implementation of the environmental assessment directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The contract for the research project on "Monitoring Environmental Assessment and Planning" was let to the EIA centre of the university of Manchester's department of planning and landscape on 3 May 1990.

  Nature Conservation
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain a copy of "Economics of the Environment: the Conservationists' Response to the Pearce Report", produced by the British Association of Nature Conservationists for his departmental library.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department already has a copy of this publication and I understand that a second is on order.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to reduce the imput of dichloros into the marine environment, in accordance with its red list status;.

  (2) what records he has of the inputs of dichloros into the marine environment for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is estimated that around 15 tonnes of dichloros were input to United Kingdom coastal waters in 1989; figures are not available for earlier years. At the recent North sea conference, Ministers agreed that inputs of dichloros into the North sea should be reduced by the order of 50 per cent. by 1995. The Government intend that such a reduction should be achieved for inputs to all seas around the United Kingdom.

  Recycling
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to whom his Department has let the contract for the removal, sorting and recycling of waste paper and other waste from. the Palace of Westminster; how long they have had the contract; and what guarantees have been written into the contract to ensure that no paper set aside for recycling ends up in landfill.

  Mr. Chope
  Following competitive tendering a contract for the disposal of waste from the Palace of Westminster was let to the city of Westminster cleansing department on 1 November 1988 for three years. The paper is collected free of charge as salvage so it is in the contractor's own interest to ensure that it is used to the greatest economic advantage.

  Commission for Local Administration
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the service of the Commission for Local Administration in England costs; and what steps have been taken in recent years to measure the efficiency of the service.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The grant to the Commission for Local Administration in England for 1990–91 will be £3,834,119. Management consultants carried out a study of the working of the commission in 1989.

  Planning Application, Brentwood
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is considering calling in planning application No. BRW/772/89 Wash road, new industrial area, Brentwood.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Brentwood district council has been directed not to grant permission for this application without the consent of the Secretary of State. As the application affects land in the green belt, the district council have decided to advertise and consider the application formally when they publish their draft district-wide local plan for public consultation. At that stage, we will consider whether or not the application should be called in.

  Beaches
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to require the water companies to clean up the beaches which do not meet the safety standards set by the European Community within a stated time limit.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend announced on 5 March at column 452 that in general all municipal sewage should receive secondary treatment, but that primary treatment would be more appropriate for discharges to sea where it can be shown that this does not adversely affect the environment. The estimated cost of this new programme is around £1·5 billion. It will be fully integrated with the £1·4 billion programme announced last year to improve bathing water quality and it will be completed as soon as practicable. Discussions with the National Rivers Authority, the Office of Water Services and the sewage undertakers are taking place to work out the arrangements for implementing this policy.

  Reservoir Pollution
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has commissioned following human poisoning and pollution by blue-green algae of reservoirs; and what action he proposes to take to prevent a similar occurence this summer.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department has not commissioned any research following the occurrence of toxic algae in reservoirs and lakes. However, the National Rivers Authority has just announced a monitoring campaign to detect the occurence of potentially toxic blue-green algae at some 500 sites concentrating on those which are used regularly for water sports and to which the public has ready access. The NRA has at the same time issued a leaflet which incorporates advice from the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the effect of toxic algae on humans and health. There is no evidence that treated water supplied from reservoirs with algal blooms is detrimental to public health.

  Environmental Conferences
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the future environmental conferences, seminars and meetings which Ministers or officials in his Department will be attending in the next four months and the date of each.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Over the next four months Ministers are to attend the following environmental conferences, seminars and meetings:

  June

  7–8

  EC Environment Council (Luxembourg)

  8

  British Steel Tin Plate Environment Programme

  12

  92nd Annual Waste Management Conference

  16

  EC/Eastern Europe/EFTA Environment Meeting (Dublin)

  19

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations White Paper Seminar

  20–24

  Opening Green Show (Birmingham)

  20–29

  Second meeting of Montreal Protocol Parties (London)

  21

  International Building Bureau Conference on Energy Efficient Buildings (London)

  21

  Mineral Industry Research Organisation Conference on Mineral Wastes

  24

  Sevenoaks Summer Festival—Environmental Question Time

  25

  East Midlands Recycling City Seminar

  26

  Association of Municipal Engineers Annual Conference

  27

  Food, Industry and the Environment Conference

  29

  Fourth Environmental Education Conference for Secondary Schools

  July

  3

  United Kingdom Environmental Law Association Conference on the Protection of the Rural Environment

  4

  Royal Society for the Arts Conference on The Future of the Countryside

  9–10

  European Parliament (Strasbourg)

  10

  Department of Trade and Industry Seminar on Waste

  11–12

  Meeting with senior officials at the OECD (Paris)

  17

  Engineers and the Environment Conference

  August

  1–3

  Session of UNEP Governing Council (Nairobi)

  September

  10

  Institution of Environmental Health Officers Congress

  12

  Landcape Conference on Landscape Design (Durham)

  13

  Business in the Environment Conference

  5

  18

  UNEP Seminar on Clean Technology

  20

  International Conference on Acid Deposition and Implications

  21

  Royal Institute of Public Administration Conference on Greening the Administration

  25

  National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors Annual Conference

  October

  4

  EC Environment Council (Luxembourg)

  4

  Polite Society Conference on Noise

  5

  Somerset County Council Environmental Conference

  Officials will be attending all of these meetings and many more.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will be sent a reply to his letter of 26 March concerning Mr. and Mrs. R. F. Morgan of Kenilworth.

  Mr. Chope
  I replied to my hon. Friend's letter on 7 June.

  Regional Planning
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the policy planning guidance note on structure plans and regional planning guidance.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, entitled "Regional Planning Guidance, Structure Plans and the Content of Development Plans", was published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on 25 May. I shall send my hon. Friend a copy.

  Oil Pollution, South Devon
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any oil pollution still remains on the south Devon coastline following the holing of the supertanker Rosebay.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand from reports received from the South Hams district council, which, as the affected local authority in Devon, has the responsibility for dealing with oil pollution once it is washed ashore, that all holiday beaches in their area are clear.

  The local authority is continuing to monitor beaches but there are no reports of further oil landing apart from a small quantity sighted at Hope Cove and Thurleston over the weekend of 2–3 June. There is still some oily scum around the more isolated rocky coves and some remaining bagged oily waste will be cleared from Gull and Causewell coves this week.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to find suitable sites for the long-term storage and ultimate dumping of polluted sand and seaweed scraped off the beaches of the south Devon coastline; and if he will make a statement as to progress to date and the proposed timetable.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The responsibility for identifying sites for the storage and disposal of polluted sand and seaweed lies with Devon county council as the relevant waste disposal authority.
  6
  I understand from the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit, which set up a joint response centre with the local authorities involved in the clean-up operations following the incident, that the county council are currently considering, on the basis of MPCU advice, various options for the treatment and disposal of the oily waste collected.

  These options include: assisting the natural degradation of the oil by bacterial treatment prior to disposal to a registered landfill site; stabilising the material to prevent further leaching of oil by treatment with quicklime and then, either disposal to landfill or use of the stabilised waste as a bedding for road building or car park construction.

  The timetable will be set by the method eventually chosen and the wish of the county council to avoid any adverse traffic effects that might be caused during the busy summer season by the movement of the mass of collected material.

  This material amounts to approximately 1,500 cubic metres and is currently being held in temporary lined holding sites.

  Hunterprint
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the company Hunterprint had, or has outstanding, any printing contracts for work associated with the privatisation of the water industry.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Hunterprint was employed last year as sub-contractors to Burrups for the printing of water privatisation documents. There are no outstanding contracts with the company.

  Hydrofluorocarbons
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department is to propose any controls on HFCs for non-essential usage.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No.

  Methyl Chloroform
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy on phasing out the use of methyl chloroform; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is the Government's aim ultimately to phase out all ozone depleting substances. In response to a United Kingdom initiative, the EC Environment Council have agreed to press for a 50 per cent. cut in methyl chloroform production and consumption by the year 2000 in the renegotiation of the Montreal Protocol.

  Urban Organisation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what support Her Majesty's Government are giving to the European Community proposals on the protection of people living in big European cities against health and environmental hazards produced by bad urban organisation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 8 June 1990]: I have not seen the proposals described although I understand that

  7
  the European Commission is publishing a Green Paper on the urban environment. The Green Paper will be the subject of consultation with member states and we will give it careful consideration.

  Wildlife Protection
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list his responsibilities in relation to Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities and policies on the worldwide protection of wildlife.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Formal responsibility for the conclusion of all international agreements and conventions rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Within the context of collective Government responsibility, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment implements our obligations under the Washington convention on international trade in endangered species (CITES), the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance, the Bonn convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals and the convention for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. He also has responsibility for formulating the United Kingdom's contribution to the world-wide development of those conventions.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the annual load factor achieved by(a) the Central Electricity Generating Board nuclear power stations and (b) the South of Scotland electricity board nuclear power stations for each month within the last financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is an operational matter for Nuclear Electric plc and Scottish Nuclear Limited.

  Gas Turbine Electricity, Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has received for the private generation of electrictity by gas turbines by DREH Resources of Milton Keynes in Clwyd and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  On 24 May 1990 Deeside Power Development Company Ltd., in which I understand that DREH resources is a partner, notified my Department, pursuant to regulation 6(1) of the Electricity and Pipe-line Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1990, of its intention to make an application for the Secretary of State's consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct a 450 MW combined cycle gas turbine power station at Shotton in Clwyd and to submit an environmental statement with its application.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the impact upon the Merseyside and North-Western electricity board of proposals to construct a gas turbine electricity station in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tony Baldry
  This is a matter for MANWEB plc.

  Connah's Quay Power Station
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of Connah's Quay power station; and what is the estimated value of Connah's Quay power station and its surrounding land.

  Mr. Baldry
  Decisions on the future of power station sites are a matter for the day-to-day management of the generating company concerned. The estimated value of a power station is a commercially confidential matter.

  Radiation and Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to establish a scheme to assist redundant or former nuclear scientists of the Atomic Energy Authority and Nuclear Electric to provide technical assistance to foreign nuclear generators in radiation and nuclear waste management under article IV of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Baldry
  No, though the United Kingdom makes every effort to meet its obligations under the terms of article IV of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many permanent withdrawals from safeguards of plutonium under article 14 of the 1978 tripartite safeguards agreement between the United Kingdom, Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency, have been made; what were the quantities involved; and what were their isotopic compositions.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 21 May 1990 at column 12.

  Tritium
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what safeguards measures exist in the United Kingdom to ensure detection of the diversion of tritium from peaceful to non-peaceful applications.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) to the hon. Member for Meirionydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas),Official Report, 30 November 1989, columns 400–1.

  Hunterprint
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the company Hunterprint had any printing contracts for work associated with the privatisation of the gas industry or has any outstanding printing contracts for work associated with the privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Hunterprint were involved in printing material used in the flotation of British Gas plc. The question of their participation in the forthcoming privatisation of the electricity industry is a matter subject to commercial negotiation.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  May Inquiry
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to make additional powers available to the May inquiry.

  The Attorney-General
  No. Sir John May has made no suggestion to me or to the Home Secretary that the effectiveness of his inquiry is being impaired by its non-statutory basis.

PRIME MINISTER

  Rockall
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for matters relating to the Isle of Rockall.

  The Prime Minister
  In terms of the Island of Rockall Act 1972 as read with the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, Rockall is part of the Western Isles Islands area. It forms part of the Crown Estates. The responsibilities of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State extend to Rockall as to the rest of Scotland.

  Rivers, Estuaries and Bays
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list all studies being carried out with money from the United Kingdom Government or European Economic Community funds to provide new crossings, barrages or major environmental schemes in United Kingdom rivers, estuaries or bays, and indicate when each report is expected to be completed.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ivory
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy not to extend the reservation enabling Hong Kong ivory traders to dispose of their stocks when it expires; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs stated in his reply of 11 May to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), the six-month reservation will be withdrawn on 18 July 1990. It will not be extended.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any proposals to extend the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to include the administration of local enterprise companies.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so. Local enterprise companies will be private companies formed under the Companies Acts, and as such are outwith the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, which encompasses Government Departments, public corporations and public bodies whose functions are exercised on behalf of the Crown.

  Leaks
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the number of leaks from Departments of State since June 1983 and give details of the steps which have been taken to trace such happenings and the numbers of individuals who have been held accountable.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Redistribution of Wealth
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to commemorate in some form those who devoted their activities to trying to bring about in the United Kingdom a redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer citizens.

  The Prime Minister:
  No.

  Salman Rushdie
  Mr. Winnick:
  To ask the Prime Minister if it remains the Government's policy that Mr. Rushdie will receive the full protection of the authorities, regardless of any financial and manpower cost, so long as there remains a threat to his life.

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Rushdie's protection is a matter for the police, who will take any action that they consider necessary in the circumstances.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy in respect of the trend towards increasing foreign control of United Kingdom manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 7 June 1990]: The Government's general policy is set out in the blue paper on mergers policy, published in 1988.

  Our policy towards inward investment by foreigners in the United Kingdom is to welcome it and, broadly speaking, this applies to inward investment by way of acquisition of existing companies as much as to direct inward investment. United Kingdom companies engage in a considerable quantity of overseas investment, including acquisitions of foreign companies, and it is in the interests of the United Kingdom economy that there should be as little official interference as possible in this two-way flow.

  For this reason, it is also our policy to try to reduce the barriers to takeover that exist in the European Community. The European Commission brought forward a set of proposals in May to reduce and eliminate barriers within the Community.

  Nevertheless, there are instances in which foreign ownership of a United Kingdom company may raise particular concerns, and in such cases the power to make a reference to the MMC is available for use.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Global Warming
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, as a result of the Bergen conference, he has any plans to provide new funding to assist developing countries in their efforts to reduce emissions of global warming gases.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The issues covered by the Bergen ministerial declaration include assistance to developing countries in the context of global environmental problems. The Government expect that the international community will take this into account in developing a global response to possible climate change. The Government are planning to allocate additional resources to helping developing countries to deal with sources of greenhouse gas emissions such as deforestation and the inefficient use of energy.

  Environmental Programmes
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to help developing countries with their environmental programmes.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our policies are set out in a new booklet, "The Environment and the British Aid Programme", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  I have arranged for a copy to be sent to my hon. Friend.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Channel Tunnel (Policing)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an application has been received from Kent county police to enable further police officers to be recruited to police the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received an application for 52 posts in 1991–92 for policing the channel tunnel. This will be considered in the coming months with advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. Seventy police posts have already been approved in connection with the tunnel.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any discussions have taken place between the developers of the channel tunnel and his Department over the level of police manpower required to police the tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  No. Under section 14 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 the policing of the tunnel system is a matter for the chief constable of the police force for the county of Kent.

  West Midlands Serious Crime Squad
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of West Yorkshire as to whether DCI Matthews was interviewed in connection with the inquiry into the west midlands serious crime squad during his recent visit to this country.
  12
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Swansea Prison (Dispute)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the impact of the dispute at Swansea prison on detention conditions for persons detained by the police in south Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  I very much regret that the dispute at Her Majesty's prison Swansea has led to a number of prisoners having to be held in police cells in the area.

  The responsibility for the care and conditions of prisoners in police custody rests with the chief officer of police concerned. We recognise that police cells are not designed for long-term detention and that therefore their use for people who ought to be in prison leaves a lot to be desired. I am sure that the police are doing the best that they can in the difficult circumstances under which they are operating.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to try to resolve the current dispute at Swansea prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  A meeting between representatives of local and regional management, and local and national Prison Officers Association was held on Tuesday 5 June. Whilst the actual dispute was not resolved, sufficient good will now exists between the two parties which should enable police cells to be cleared of prisoners by Wednesday 13 June.

  It was agreed that local management and POA should meet locally in an attempt to resolve the current difficulties.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of(a) police officers and (b) other staff employed by each police force in England and Wales in (i) 1974, (ii) 1979 and (iii) the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested for 1974 and 1979 can be found at appendix 1 of the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for 1974 and at Appendix 7 of the annual report for 1979, copies of which can be found in the Library.

  The comparable position at the end of 1989 is set out in the table:

  At 31 December 1989

  Force

  Police

  Civilians1

  Traffic Wardens

  Cadets

  Avon and Somerset

  3,055

  816

  145

  —

  Bedfordshire

  1,038

  341

  32

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  1,190

  453

  43

  —

  Cheshire

  1,874

  503

  40

  —

  Cleveland

  1,468

  457

  31

  —

  Cumbria

  1,152

  361

  32

  —

  Derbyshire

  1,790

  690

  80

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,830

  914

  114

  —

  Dorset

  1,258

  487

  66

  15

  Durham

  1,357

  532

  22

  —

  Dyfed Powys

  934

  234

  21

  —

  Essex

  2,799

  986

  123

  33

  Gloucestershire

  1,162

  337

  35

  —

  Greater Manchester

  6,965

  2,098

  195

  —

  Gwent

  1,000

  250

  21

  9

  13

  Force

  Police

  Civilians1

  Traffic Wardens

  Cadets

  Hampshire

  3,118

  939

  85

  —

  Hertfordshire

  1,647

  526

  79

  —

  Humberside

  1,993

  668

  68

  —

  Kent

  2,978

  962

  119

  —

  Lancashire

  3,174

  1,077

  116

  —

  Leicestershire

  1,748

  612

  92

  —

  Lincolnshire

  1,185

  427

  21

  —

  Merseyside

  4,680

  1,391

  139

  —

  Norfolk

  1,353

  386

  40

  20

  Northamptonshire

  1,119

  366

  37

  —

  Northumbria

  3,526

  1,157

  155

  —

  North Wales

  1,332

  423

  33

  —

  North Yorkshire

  1,379

  436

  22

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  2,320

  612

  74

  —

  South Wales

  3,118

  1,082

  97

  —

  South Yorkshire

  2,946

  869

  66

  —

  Staffordshire

  2,172

  651

  39

  68

  Suffolk

  1,184

  419

  33

  —

  Surrey

  1,654

  506

  43

  —

  Sussex

  2,924

  875

  138

  —

  Thames Valley

  3,645

  1,243

  150

  —

  Warwickshire

  977

  319

  23

  —

  West Mercia

  1,974

  822

  47

  —

  West Midlands

  6,846

  2,230

  244

  32

  West Yorkshire

  5,217

  1,710

  193

  33

  Wiltshire

  1,119

  435

  40

  —

  City of London

  785

  304

  73

  —

  Metropolitan

  28,176

  13,083

  1,338

  178

  1 Full-time plus part-time on 2:1 basis.

  Arms Theft, Kent
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call for a report from the chief constable of Kent on the circumstances of the burglary of rifles and ammunition from a cadet force armory at Longfield upper school, Dartford, Kent.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The burglary of rifles and ammunition at Longfield upper school is an operational matter for the Kent police and is already under investigation.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to improve the clear-up rates of police forces in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Decisions about the priorities and methods for the investigation of crime are a matter for chief officers in the light of local circumstances. They already seek to target their resources on those crimes which are of most concern to the public. Clear-up rates for the most serious offences, including violence against the person and sexual offences, remain high at 75 per cent. or more. Most crime is against property, where there is a range of practical preventive measures which we can all take to help the police.

  Salman Rushdie
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps are being taken to ensure that the police and security protection given to Mr. Rushdie is adequate, in view of the further threats to his life.
  14
  Mr. Waddington
  It would not be sensible to give details of the protection afforded to Mr. Rushdie, but the police will take whatever steps they judge necessary in the light of the threat and any other relevant circumstances.

  Police Budgets
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the percentage increase in the budget of each police force in England and Wales in each year since 1974 in(a) money and (b) real terms; and if he will make a statement on efforts being made by his Department to improve value for money in the police service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information relating to police force budgets is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The Home Office is strongly committed to encouraging better value for money in the police service, in partnership with chief officers and police authorities. The main elements in Home Office activity are:

  (1) inspection of forces by HM inspectorate of constabulary: developments include further extension of the matrix of indicators used by the inspectorate to assist the inspection process, the publication of inspection reports and the appointment of a business consultant:

  (2) encouragement of a programme of efficiency scrutinies in forces, with 19 scrutinies completed or under way;

  (3) through controls on police establishment, encouragement of civilianisation, which has released 4,700 officers for operational duties over the last 7 years, with a further 800 posts due to be civilianised this year;

  (4) following a Home Office/Treasury study on police manpower, a programme of work is under way to improve and standardise measures of police workloads, activity and effectiveness;

  (5) follow-up action on papers produced by the Audit Commission as part of their current programme of work in the police service, include monitoring by HM inspectorate of action taken by forces.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he takes to ensure that no overseas elector has his name included on an electoral register in circumstances where his name was not previously included on the register for the same electoral division.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In order to ascertain the eligibility of applicants, electoral registration officers will as a matter of course check old registers, to ensure that potential overseas electors (or, in appropriate cases, a parent or guardian) were included on the register for the constituency within the previous 20 years. Guidance recently issued to registration officers by the Home Office explains which registers should be checked in particular circumstances, and how old registers can be checked when copies are not available locally.

  Birmingham Prison (Shortages)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what shortages of kit at Birmingham prison were discovered as a result of the special stock-taking early in the curent year.

  Mr. Mellor
  A full check in March showed significant shortages of shirts, pants, socks, shoes and towels against the scales laid down to ensure adequate stocks in use, being laundered and in store. Stocks have since been replenished.
  15
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are adequate stocks of underwear at Birmingham prison to enable each inmate to be given a weekly change of underwear.

  Mr. Mellor
  Yes.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when, further to the letter of 8 May from Mr. A. H. Chapman of C3 division to the Rev. J. Gilmore, the document publicised by Granada Television was made public and by whom.

  Mr. John Patten
  The letter to the Rev. Gilmore contained a typographical error. The document to which it referred was a police report and not, as wrongly stated, a public report. A letter correcting the inaccuracy has been sent to the Rev. Gilmore.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has anything further to add to his Department's statement on the Birmingham pub bombings, dated 29 March, that the document publicised by Granada Television was written before the original trial.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that the document in question was in fact written in 1975 after the trial of the six men for the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Prisons, South-West
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison spaces in the south-western region need to be replaced or refurbished as a result of recent riots.

  Mr. Mellor
  A total of 407 cells at Bristol, Dartmoor and Pucklechurch were damaged to such a degree that major refurbishment work will need to be undertaken before they can be brought back into use.

  Cells damaged at other establishments where disturbances took place have already been repaired.

  Hilda Murrell
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest representations made to him by the chief constable of West Mercia in the case of Hilda Murrell.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not received any recent representations from the chief constable of West Mercia police on this matter.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average length of sentence for young offenders in(a) Wales, (b) England and (c) England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information for 1988 is given in the table. Data for 1989 will not be available until autumn 1990.
  16

  Average length of sentences of immediate custody for offenders aged 14 to under 21 years

  Months

  England

  8

  Wales

  8

  England and Wales

  8

  Chinese Citizens (Temporary Asylum)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Chinese citizens in the United Kingdom seeking temporary asylum.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  All applications for asylum in this country are considered in accordance with our obligations under the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees.

  While the situation in China remains uncertain we are continuing to allow Chinese nationals who were in the United Kingdom on 4 June 1989 to remain here on an exceptional basis. Applications from other Chinese nationals are considered on their individual merits.

  Laboratories
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received on the plan to make his Department's laboratories self-financing from April 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The plans to introduce direct charging for forensic science services from 1 April 1991 are being developed in consultation with representatives of police authorities and their chief officers and their views are being fully taken into account. No other representations on this matter have been received.

  Police Civilian Staff
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Association of Chief Police Officers about trade union membership of police civilian staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There have been discussions between the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the local authority associations on a range of issues affecting police civilian staff including training, gradings, career development and representation.

  The ACPO has suggested that civilian staff should be represented by a single union. Any such development would be a matter for the staff themselves and their local authority employers. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to require police civilians to belong to a single union or to restrict their trade union or bargaining rights.

  Prisoners (Early Release)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has undertaken any study to ascertain whether early release from prison for prisoners serving short terms could be allowed under executive release powers with minimal consequence to the community in order to bring occupancy of prisons nearer to their design capacity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend has seen no need for such a study.

  London Fire Brigade
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each fire station in the London fire brigade that does not have any accommodation or facilities for female firefighters; and if he will call for a report from the London fire and civil defence authority explaining what proposals it has in the case of each fire station in this category.

  Mr. John Patten
  With the exception of Leyton fire station, all fire stations within the area of the London fire brigade have facilities for female firefighters. The existing fire station at Leyton cannot be adapted because of its size and design, but the London fire and civil defence authority is currently constructing a replacement fire station which, when completed, will provide separate facilities for female firefighters. On present plans the new station will open during 1991.

  Prisons (Slopping Out)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales where slopping out still takes place.

  Mr. Mellor
  The majority of prison places have access to night sanitation and we are looking at ways of providing access for three quarters of all places within the next few years. A list of the prisons in England and Wales at which some or all of the places did not have access to night sanitation as at April 1990 has been placed in the Library.

  Fire Prevention
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals for fire prevention campaign activity nationally for the next two years.

  Mr. John Patten
  We propose to build on the success of our smoke alarm television campaign with particular emphasis on increasing ownership amongst the elderly and lower socio-economic groups. The campaign will also seek to emphasise the need for maintenance of smoke alarms.

  We intended to produce an educational and publicity package for five to eight-year-olds. We also hope to produce an integrated educational package to cover the range of school age groups.

  We shall be promoting national fire safety week in October in conjunction with the insurance industry and the fire liaison panel network. We shall be continuing to work closely with fire brigades and we propose to hold a series of national and regional conferences for senior fire prevention officers in order to encourage and foster greater awareness on publicity and education and to establish a co-ordinated approach to local and national publicity.

  It is our aim to help minimise the risk from fire breaking out and thereby reduce casualties and deaths. In addition to the above, there are a number of continuing educational and publicity initiatives concentrating on the main risk areas activated throughout the year with the valued assistance of local fire brigades.

  Merseyside Police Authority
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to meet the chief constable of Merseyside to discuss capital budgets for the Merseyside police authority.
  18
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend discussed these and other issues with the chief constable and members of the police authority during a recent visit to Merseyside.

  Murder Statistics
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murders were committed in the United Kingdom in 1989; in connection with how many of these arrests have been made or convictions secured; and if he will give the comparable figures for 1950, 1960, 1970 and 1980.

  Mr. John Patten
  The data for homicides in England and Wales is given below. Equivalent figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are published by the Scottish Home and Health Department and by the Northern Ireland Office.

  In the absence of a court decision it is not always possible to distinguish between offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide; they are known collectively as homicide.

  Homicides recorded and cleared up in selected years

  Year

  Homicides recorded

  Cleared up1

  Per cent.

  1950

  346

  328

  95

  1960

  282

  270

  96

  1970

  393

  369

  94

  1980

  620

  600

  97

  1988

  624

  601

  96

  21989

  641

  589

  92

  1 Mainly by suspect being arrested.

  2 Provisional

  Sources:

  Criminal statistics, England and Wales Statistical Bulletin 10/90.

  Drug Arrests, Ynys Môn
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested for possession of(a) heroin, (b) cannabis and (c) amphetamines in each year since 1986 on Ynys Môn.

  Mr. John Patten
  Separate statistics are not available centrally for Ynys Môn. In the North Wales police force area the number of persons dealt with by the courts for possession of the specified drugs, which may exclude a small number of persons arrested and dealt with in other ways, was as follows:

  Number of persons

  Drug

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Heroin

  10

  13

  19

  Cannabis

  148

  176

  238

  Amphetamines

  24

  17

  35

  Note: Persons dealt with for possession of more than one of the specified drugs at a single court appearance appear against each drug in the table.

  Prisoners (Life Sentences)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners serving life sentences have been granted parole or released on licence during the past 20 years in(a) England and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  Life sentence prisoners are not eligible for parole but are released on licence. Statistics are not
  19
  available centrally of the areas to which prisoners are released. Information on releases before 1972 is not readily available. The numbers released in each of the years 1978–88 were published in table 8.5 of Prison statistics England and Wales 1988 (Cm 825), a copy of which is in the Library. The table gives figures for those released in the years 1972 to 1977, and 1989.

  Life sentence prisoners1 first released on licence from prison service establishments in England and Wales, 1972–77, 1989

  Year

  Number

  1972

  27

  1973

  35

  1974

  46

  1975

  41

  1976

  85

  1977

  70

  21989

  68

  1 Including persons detained under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

  2 Provisional.

  Metropolitan Police (Complaints)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan police officers are currently under investigation following complaints against them.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that complaints are being investigated in relation to 4,708 police officers in the force. The number of complaints in progress at any one time is a function of the time taken by each investigation, as well as of the number of complaints made. Complaints against officers of the Metropolitan police have been on the decline for some years. In the early 1980's they averaged over 8,500 a year: since 1985 they have generally been fewer than 5,500 a year. In 1989, 5,350 complaints were made against members of the force.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions the ministerial group on women's issues has had about mechanisms for providing child care; and what conclusions were reached.

  Mr. John Patten
  The ministerial group on women's issues has discussed child care at three meetings (April 1989, October 1989 and February 1990).

  The group has concluded that choice and quality are paramount considerations. A range of measures has been agreed, therefore, designed to maintain and improve the standards of the wide range of those providing child care for parents who choose to use their services.

  Summaries of the initiatives on child care agreed by the group are contained in the press release issued after the group's meetings in April 1989 and February 1990, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Women's Issues
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the ministerial group on women's issues last met; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. John Patten
  The ministerial group on women's issues last met on 26 February 1990 and discussed 20
  domestic violence and child care. The group also received a report of the United Kingdom's presentation in January to the United Nation's committee on the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.

  The group will next meet on 19 June.

  Between meetings of the group there are regular meetings between officials in the Departments concerned to ensure that action agreed by the group is taken forward.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation (Performers)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes there have been in the tax treatment of actors.

  Mr. Lilley
  From 6 April 1990 theatrical employers were required by the Inland Revenue to operate PAYE on the emoluments of actors engaged under standard contracts based on terms agreed between Equity and theatre managements. The Inland Revenue's view that these are contracts of employment is based on decisions in the Courts, and has been the subject of discussions with the theatre industry for a number of years. There are, however, transitional arrangements which allow established actors, with a history of payment tax under schedule D, to continue to pay their tax under that schedule, and to receive their earnings without deduction of tax under PAYE.

  Customs Procedures
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he has taken of the impact of the single market on customs-free travel in 1992 when considering the need for pre-boarding customs checks at the proposed international passenger terminal at Waterloo.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government have repeatedly stressed the need to retain essential customs checks on EC traffic after 1992 to guard against drugs smuggling and similar threats to society. Against this background, customs checks on channel tunnel travellers are being design to be as selective and unobtrusive as possible. Checks on departing passengers are expected to be minimal and only a very small percentage of passengers arriving at Waterloo will experience any delay as they pass through familiar airport-style checks.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evaluation his Department made of the feasibility of carrying out all customs procedures on board trains using the proposed international passenger terminal at Waterloo.

  Mr. Ryder
  A joint working party of officials and British Rail carefully consider the options. Channel tunnel traffic arriving at Waterloo is expected to be heavy, with up to four trains an hour at peak times. The working party concluded that, in preference to checks on board trains, traditional airport-style customs checks at Waterloo would be more cost-effective. Under this system, more than 95 per cent. of passengers can expect to pass through customs without being stopped.

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was consulted in his capacity as director of the European investment bank over the recent decision to extend the loan to the channel tunnel company by a further £300,000,000; and which body or organisation provided a guarantee for this further loan.

  Mr. Ryder
  Community Finance Ministers and the Chancellor of the Exchequer form the board of governors of the European investment bank. The board of directors is composed of senior officials and private sector representatives from the member states. In accordance with European investment bank procedure, the loan to Eurotunnel was approved by the board of directors.

  The loan is guaranteed on the same basis as the European investment bank's previous loan to Eurotunnel: that is, by means of letters of credit from a group of first-class commercial banks, and a pro rata share with the syndicate banks in the charge on the project revenues and assets.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the normal practice of the European investment bank in seeking guarantees for loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The statutes of the European investment bank state that:"When granting a loan to an undertaking or to a body other than a Member State, the Bank shall make the loan conditional either on a guarantee from the Member State in whose territory the project will be carried out or on other adequate guarantees."
  The guarantee for each project is determined on a case by case basis.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the impact on the Scotch whisky industry resulting from the elimination of intra-European Community duty free trade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  There are no formal proposals in this area but the Commission have made it clear that as a consequence of the completion of the single market, duty-free shopping for intra-community travel should cease.

  The Government understand the Commission's view that it makes no sense to grant a tax concession for crossing a frontier when fiscal frontiers have been abolished. Equally, the Government are aware of the economic significance of the United Kingdom duty-free trade.

  The Scotch whisky industry and others have made representations about the effects of abolishing duty-free shopping within the Community. The Government will examine all the arguments carefully before any decisions are reached within the Community.

  HMSO (Contracts)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Hunterprint company had, or has outstanding, contracts with Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Mr. Ryder
  During 1990 HMSO has awarded eight printing contracts to Hunterprint plc. Six of these contracts have been completed, one remains due for completion by July and the other is on-going.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Nuclear Accident, Greenwich
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans or studies have been made by his Department to assess measures that would have to be taken in the event of contamination by airborne plutonium resulting from a nuclear weapons accident aboard a Royal Navy ship docked at Greenwich in relation to the impact on schoolchildren studying in the area.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Action in the event of a nuclear accident involving one of Her Majesty's ships is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he collects from institutions of higher education on provision to facilitate access on the part of students with disabilities.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not routinely collected.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate current transitional expenditure on special facilities, residential accommodation and teaching aids for disabled students in higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  The responsibility for such expenditure lies with the institutions, which determine their own priorities within the total resources at their disposal. The information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on current financial support available to disabled students; and what plans he has to uprate this support.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) on 19 March (Official Report, columns 417–18). Social security benefits for disabled students are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate when the loan element will reach 50 per cent. of student maintenance assuming current inflation figures.

  Mr. Jackson
  If inflation were to remain at 9·4 per cent. and the total student support from grant (including any parental contribution) and loan were to be increased in line with inflation while the cash value of the grant remained constant, the average maximum loan facility would equal the average maximum basic rate of grant in the academic year 1996–97. The Government's forecast of inflation for the last quarter of 1990 is 7·25 per cent.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will update his reply to the
  23
  hon. Member for Oxford, East, of 18 December 1989,Official Report, columns 36–40, estimating the public sector borrowing requirement effect of the student loans scheme for each year for which figures are available assuming 80 per cent., 90 per cent. and 100 per cent. take-up.

  Mr. Jackson
  Present estimates of the public sector borrowing requirement effect of the student loans scheme are as announced on 18 December 1989 (Official Report, columns 36–40). The estimates are being revised to take account of new data, including the latest estimates of student numbers, and will be published in due course.

  Armouries (School Premises)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has issued regarding the holding of weaponry and live ammunition at schools maintained by local education authorities; if he will indicate his policy on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice his Department gives schools as to the storage of live ammunition on their premises.

  Mr. MacGregor
  None. Local education authorities are guided in these matters by guidelines issued by the Police Department on regulations issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Haberdasher's Aske's CTC
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what consideration is being given to locating new buildings for the proposed Haberdasher's Aske's city technology college other than those connected with physical education on the site of the current schools' playing fields at Nunhead;

  (2) when the feasibility study by his Department on the establishment of a Haberdasher's Aske's city technology college will be completed; and what arrangements will be made to consult the governors, head teachers and parents at the present schools on the building and curriculum plans resulting from this study.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The provision of accommodation and facilities for the Haberdasher's Aske's Hatcham city technology college has been the subject of feasibility studies. This work is scheduled to be completed by the end of July. Further consultations on the details of the building programme and the curriculum of the CTC are a matter for the Haberdashers' Company, the governing body of the present schools and the Haberdasher's Aske's City Technology Trust, when established, to decide.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what additional provision will be made in the funding agreement for the Haberdasher's Aske's city technology college to ensure that future revenue funding will be distributed between the boys' and girls' sections in direct proportion to the number of pupils of each sex attending the CTC.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The arrangements for recurrent funding of the city technology colleges (CTCs) and the city technology college for the technology of the arts (CCTA) are set out in the final funding agreement, a copy of which 24
  was placed in the House of Commons Library in July 1989. The Haberdasher's Aske's CTC will be funded as one CTC.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what support is being made available through the Universities Funding Council in the form of block grants to universities for research into meningitis.

  Mr. Jackson
  Block grant is not earmarked for particular purposes. It is for universities to decide their own priorities for research.

  School Closures, Gloucestershire
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools were closed in each of the past five years in the Gloucestershire education authority.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The number of schools which were closed in each of the past five years in the Gloucestershire education authority area is as follows:

  Number

  1989

  0

  1988

  9

  1987

  13

  1986

  16

  1985

  23

WALES

  Eggs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make representations, prior to the 1 July deadline, to the European Community concerning regulation 2772/75 relating to the marketing of eggs, in order to safeguard the interests of small farmers in this matter.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No. The proposed Council regulation is only framework legislation. The detail will be included in a Commission regulation which will be adopted under management committee procedure. We shall, of course, bear in mind the interests of all egg producers when the details are discussed and voted on in the management committee.

  Menopause Clinics
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many menopause clinics are available in Welsh hospitals.

  Mr. Grist
  Consultants in a wide range of medical specialties in Wales may hold clinics for menopausal women. However, central records identify out-patient clinics by medical specialty only and menopause clinics are not separately identified.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the role of Cartrefi Cymru in the all-Wales mental handicap strategy; and if he will make a statement.
  25
  Mr. Grist
  Cartrefi Cymru offers to county joint planning teams a range of services concerned with identifying the housing needs of people with a mental handicap, establishing their requirements for support, seeking suitable accommodation from housing providers and appointing, training and managing staff.

  It works on the basis of contracts with social service departments and health authorities, and has officers based in counties to develop and manage accommodation. There is a central administrative base in Cardiff to co-ordinate and administer the services provided.

  M4 (Congestion)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to eliminate traffic jams on the M4.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My plans for major improvements to the M4 are set out in "Roads in Wales Progress and Plans for the 1990s". Traffic management measures are implemented as necessary at particular congestion points and during periods of new construction, improvement and maintenance.

  Assembly of Welsh Counties
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the Assembly of Welsh Counties.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I met the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, which includes representatives of the Assembly of Welsh Counties, earlier today.

  Ex-service Housing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to encourage the award of grants for modernisation and improvement of housing in Wales which is provided to meet the specific needs of ex-service men and women.

  Mr. Grist
  Ex-service men and women, in line with any other owner-occupier, landlord or tenant, can benefit from the revised renovation grant system to be introduced on 1 July.

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated deficit in physiotherapy services in Gwynedd for, respectively(a) pre-school children, (b) children in ordinary schools and (c) children in special schools, at the most recent available date; what were the corresponding figures in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the provision of physiotherapy services for children in Gwynedd following the implementation of the Education Act 1981; and what assessment he has made of whether Gwynedd health authority have acted in line with their strategic plan of 1984.

  Mr. Grist
  It is for district health authorities and local education authorities to determine the level of provision of 26
  physiotherapy services within available resources. The relevant objectives set out in Gwynedd health authority's strategic plan of 1984 indicated an intent to improve facilities subject to the availability of resources and I am informed that the number of physiotherapist/remedial gymnast staff in post has been increased from 40·8 in 1984 to 48·6 in 1989. (Whole-time equivalent at September in each case.)

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the chair of Gwynedd health authority to discuss the proposal to move psychiatric services to Ysbyty Bryn-Y-Neuadd; and if he will take steps to ensure that proposals are consistant with the all-Wales strategy for mental illness.

  Mr. Grist
  I am not aware of any formal proposal to move psychiatric services to Ysbyty Bryn-Y-Neauadd nor have I been asked for a discussion by the chair of Gwynedd health authority.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received from Gwynedd health authority any proposal for the relocation of psychiatric services out of Ysbyty Gwynedd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No. Any proposal entailing a substantial variation in services would of course be subject to the usual requirements for consultation.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the all-Wales strategy for mental illness recommends reversion to the asylum concept of care for mentally ill people, in place of general-hospital-based services.

  Mr. Grist
  No. It is recognised that the behaviour or condition of a small proportion of mental illness sufferers will continue to require the provision of a protected environment for them, and it is anticipated that any necessary in-patient treatment will be provided at district general hospital units. However, it is a fundamental principle of the mental illness strategy that the great majority of those who need assessment and treatment should receive it in their own locality and within their usual social environment.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which health authorities have agreed to the all-Wales strategy for mental illness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  All health authorities in Wales are participants in the relevant multi-agency county-based teams responsible for the planning and implementation of the mental illness strategy at local level. They are thus all party to the local plans which have formed the basis of funding allocated for the current year.

  St. David's Hospital, Bangor
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether Gwynedd health authority will be empowered without reference to his Department to sell St. David's Hospital, Bangor, and to use the proceeds from such a sale at its own discretion.

  Mr. Grist
  Disposal of St. David's hospital, Bangor is a matter for Gwynedd health authority once it has
  27
  complied with the conditions set down in the Department's decision letter of 3 March 1989. In the event that the property is then formally declared surplus to health service requirements, the authority may dispose of it without further reference to the Department.

  The health authority will be entitled to retain the proceeds from any sale of the hospital land and buildings for the provision of hospital and community health services for which they are responsible under the present procedures relating to disposal of surplus land and buildings.

  Beef
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has given any guidelines to health authorities in Wales on serving beef.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department has issued to all health authorities the text of a statement made on 16 May by the chief medical officer of the Department of Health. This statement confirmed that British beef can be eaten safely by everyone, both adults and children, including patients in hospital.

  Ophthalmic Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects figures to be available for new out-patient attendances at ophthalmic clinics in(a) South Glamorgan and (b) Wales for the quarter ending June in the current year.

  Mr. Grist
  The figures should become available during the autumn of 1990.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients are on current waiting lists for hip replacement operations in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  A total of 755.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present average waiting period for patients requiring hip replacement operations at Musgrave Park hospital, Belfast.

  Mr. Needham
  It is 9·5 months.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any proposals to reduce the waiting period for patients requiring hip replacement operations.

  Health and Social Services Board

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  Northern Ireland

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Perinatal mortality

  1986

  106

  9·9

  59

  8·9

  48

  8·7

  55

  10·1

  268

  9·5

  1987

  113

  10·8

  46

  6·9

  65

  11·6

  52

  9·8

  276

  9·8

  1988

  91

  8·5

  56

  8·7

  48

  8·7

  64

  12·2

  259

  9·3

  1989

  84

  8·5

  55

  8·8

  30

  5·8

  45

  9·2

  214

  8·2

  Neonatal Mortality

  1986

  57

  5·4

  46

  7·0

  33

  6·0

  33

  6·1

  169

  6·0

  1987

  53

  5·1

  17

  2·6

  34

  6·1

  31

  5·9

  135

  4·8

  28
  Mr. Needham
  My noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale recently announced substantial additional funding for the Northern Ireland orthopaedic service, in 1990–91. A sum of £270,000 has been allocated to the Eastern health and social services board to enable it to provide an extra 230 operations at Musgrave Park hospital, including an additional 70 hip operations. A further £100,000 has been made available to the Western board to increase the number of orthopaedic and opthalmology operations carried out at Altnagelvin hospital. The Department of Health and Social Services believes that better management of waiting lists will also help to reduce both the length of the lists and time patients are having to wait and consequently supports initiatives by the clinical resource efficiency support team (CREST) aimed at improving waiting list management.

  Whiteabbey Hospital (Orthopaedic Clinic)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how often the orthopaedic clinic at Whiteabbey hospital, Newtownabbey, operates.

  Mr. Needham
  Once per week.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners serving life sentences have been granted parole or released on licence during the past 20 years in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  A total of 122 life sentence prisoners have been released on licence since 1 January 1970. Forty-nine prisoners detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure were released on licence in the same period.

  There is no system of parole for prisoners in Northern Ireland but there is provision for granting a few hours' compassionate home leave in the event of the death or critical illness of a member of the prisoner's immediate family. In addition, prisoners who have served a substantial period of their sentences may be eligible for short periods of summer and Christmas home leave.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the amount of(a) perinatal and (b) neonatal mortality in each health and social services board in Northern Ireland in each of the years 1986 to 1989.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is in the table:
  29

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  Northern Ireland

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  1988

  ·53

  5·0

  32

  5·0

  24

  4·4

  40

  1·1

  149

  5·4

  1989

  ·35

  3·6

  32

  5·2

  15

  2·9

  22

  4·5

  104

  4·0

  Notes:

  1. Perinatal mortality rate is the number of stillbirths and deaths during the first week of the life per 1,000 total births.

  2. Neonatal mortality rate is the number of deaths during the first four weeks of life per 1,000 live births.

  3. 1989 data is provisional.

  Kincora Boys Home
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, in the light of the transcript which has been sent to him of the BBC 2 film on Kincora, and the statements by James, he will set up another inquiry into Kincora.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 7 June 1990]: I have studied the transcript and am satisfied that it contains no material about Kincora not available at the time to Sir George Terry's inquiry. I understand that the individual identified as "James" was in fact interviewed in 1982 by the Royal Ulster Constabulary as part of the inquiry superintended by Sir George Terry.

  As I pointed out in my reply of 19 April at column 987, rumours about the homosexual tendencies of one member of the staff at Kincora were in circulation in the 1970's; these were known to the police but did not amount, as the programme made clear, to substantive evidence of homosexual abuse of boys at the hostel. In these circumstances I do not believe that a further inquiry into the events at Kincora could be justified. However, if anyone has substantive new evidence which is relevant he should give it to the police.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 30, if he will give the figures for energy consumption in kWh for electricity, litres for oil, therms for gas and tonnes for coal.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 6 June 1990]: The amount of energy consumed in 1988–89 in the buildings occupied by Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office is as follows:

  Energy consumed

  Electricity

  94,055,748

  kWh

  Oil

  20,149,234

  Litres

  Gas

  1,485,202

  Therms

  Coal

  196

  Tonnes

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: A total of 284 energy audits were carried out over the past five years in the Northern Ireland and Government Office estate.

  A statement of main conclusions for each audit could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what consideration he has given to the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on the civil service pay and conditions of service code.

  Mr. Luce
  The Committee's recommendations are being considered and the Government will be publishing its response in due course.

  Agencies
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what proportion of the civil service is now covered either by established agencies or agency candidates.

  Mr. Luce
  There are at present 31 established agencies, employing some 69,000 staff, and a further 125,000 staff in the 25 announced agency candidates. Together these account for about a third of the civil service.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which countries the United Kingdom has agreements to hold low-flying exercises.

  Mr. Neubert
  Under long-standing arrangements, the Royal Air Force carries out low flying training in the United States and Canada (including a significant proportion of training under 250 ft). RAF aircraft stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany also carry out a high proportion of their training in the FRG. Small amounts of low flying may also be carried out in other NATO countries and elsewhere by mutual agreement.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to his Department for low flying facilities used by the Royal Air Force in Labrador and Quebec.

  Mr. Neubert
  Payments to Canada for Royal Air Force low flying facilities over Labrador and Quebec in the year 1988–89, the latest year for which final bills have been presented, were £5·5993 million.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many farmers have received compensation in respect of damage to livestock caused by the activities of low-flying helicopters from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 90 and from 1 April 1990 to 30 April 1990;

  (2) how many farmers have claimed compensation in respect of damage to livestock caused by the activities of low-flying helicopters from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990 and from 1 April 1990 to 30 April 1990.

  Mr. Neubert
  Information is not available in the precise form requested and could not be established without disproportionate cost. However, during the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990, 731 claims arising from the activities of low flying helicopters were settled. The figure for 1 April 1990 was 72.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of low-flying military aircraft over rural areas in South Down.
  32
  Mr. Neubert
  There are currently no fixed wing military aircraft undertaking low flying in the South Down area for either operational or training purposes. Flights by military helicopters are carried out for operational reasons, in order to support the RUC in the fight against terrorism. Helicopters are an essential part of the security forces effort to counter the terrorists threat, which in South Down has resulted in the murder of seven soldiers in recent months. Helicopters may need to fly low for operational or weather reasons. I regret the inconvenience that this may cause some of the hon. Member's constituents but I can assure him that low flying is kept to a minimum.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the proposed intermediate-level radioactive waste dump at Rosyth is designed to accommodate waste requirements of nuclear refitting at places other than Rosyth.

  Mr. Neubert
  The intermediate-level radioactive waste store at Rosyth is being designed to accommodate only the anticipated arisings from processes undertaken by Rosyth royal dockyard.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the proposed new intermediate-level radioactive waste store at Rosyth has been designed to permit expansion of the storage facilities.

  Mr. Neubert
  The intermediate-level radio-active waste store at Rosyth is not being designed specifically to permit expansion of the storage facilities.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities currently exist at(a) Rosyth and (b) Devonport for the storage of intermediate-level radioactive waste arising from the decommissioning of nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Neubert
  No special facilities currently exist at Rosyth and Devonport for storage of intermediate level radio-active waste arising from the decommissioning of nuclear powered submarines.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the transport by(a) rail, (b) road and (c) sea of intermediate-level radioactive waste arising from nuclear-powered submarine operations.

  Mr. Neubert
  Ministry of Defence policy for transport of all radioactive waste by rail, road or sea is to apply standards no less stringent than those required by International Atomic Energy Agency regulations.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring has taken place of sites used for sea dumping of British chemical warfare stocks, and what have been the results of any such monitoring.

  Mr. Neubert
  There has been no systematic monitoring of sites where chemical warfare stocks were sea dumped. However, there are no indications of leakage or of any identified hazard to health were that to happen.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations and depths of all sites at sea where British chemical warfare stocks have been dumped.
  33
  Mr. Neubert
  The United Kingdom abandoned its offensive capability in chemical warfare in the late 1950s. United Kingdom chemical weapons were disposed of over a lengthy period and it would require disproportionate effort to research old records for precise locations. However, I can confirm that all known stocks were disposed of, although from time to time there are discoveries of buried items dating back to the two world wars, which are taken to the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down for safe disposal.

  Defence Establishments, Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at which land-based defence establishments in Wales he proposes(a) cuts in establishment numbers, (b) closures and (c) privatisation of services by civilians; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence continues to pursue economies and increased efficiency throughout the Department, including regular audits of establishments. There are currently no plans for significant reductions in establishment numbers, closures, or market testing in Wales.

  Soldiers (Offences)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many serving soldiers have been convicted within the last 12 months of offences involving violence;

  (2) how many soldiers have been convicted within the last 12 months of offences involving dishonesty; and how many have been discharged from the Army;

  (3) how many soldiers have been discharged from the Army within the last 12 months following convictions for offences involving violence.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers are currently serving sentences at Colchester military correction and training centre; of what offences they were convicted; and what are their sentences.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are 142 soldiers currently serving sentences at the military corrective training centre for desertion/AWOL, dishonesty, violence, drug and sex offences. Their sentences range from 28 days to two years, with just over 100 sentences of six months or more.

  Cadet Forces (Armouries)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armouries of service cadet forces are based in(a) maintained and (b) independent schools; and what standing arrangements exist for their security and for the custody of live ammunition.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are approximately 265 detachments of the Combined Cadet Force (CCF), Army Cadet Force (ACF) and Air Training Corps (ATC) based in maintained schools, and 200 CCF detachments in independent schools. Most of these have armouries, but it would not be possible to give exact figures without disproportionate cost.

  Security of cadet force weapons is strictly governed by service regulations. These require arms to be kept securely
  34
  in appropriate containers or armouries, while ammunition must be stored separately, again under appropriate, secure conditions. It would not be appropriate to give details of these regulations, which, in general, require a higher level of security than the equivalent civil standards for rifle clubs or licenced individual firearms holders. All weapon storage facilities are strictly controlled by the Ministry of Defence and are periodically inspected to ensure that proper standards are being maintained.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expected Mr. Calcutt to report on the case of Colin Wallace when he set up the inquiry; and when he now expects Mr. Calcutt to report.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Mr. Calcutt is conducting an independent inquiry and it is for him to determine how long the work will take. No firm date has yet been set for its completion.

  Royal Ordnance Factory, Bishopton
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the action at royal ordnance factory, Bishopton, taken in relation to Graeme Stewart and Allan Milligan of The Scotsman newspaper.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply. On 1 June at the royal ordnance factory, Bi shopton, Graeme Stewart and John Allan Milligan were charged by officers of Strathclyde police with contravening section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. A report was subsequently submitted to the procurator fiscal at Paisley. The matter was referred to Crown Office and Crown counsel have instructed that there be no proceedings.

HEALTH

  Hospital Beds (North Wiltshire)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total of hospital beds in each of the past five years within the constituency of Wiltshire, North.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information about hospital beds is collected centrally by district health authority and is not available for individual parliamentary constituencies. Figures for Swindon and Bath district health authorities are given in the table.

  Average daily available beds and in-patient cases treated Swindon and Bath district health authorities, 1984–1988–89

  Year

  Available beds

  In-patient cases treated

  In-patient cases treated per available bed

  Swindon

  DHA

  1984

  1,377

  27,731

  20·1

  1985

  1,311

  28,458

  21·7

  1986

  1,280

  29,072

  22·7

  1987–88

  1,142

  33,396

  29·2

  1988–89

  1,123

  31,187

  27·8

  Bath DHA

  1984

  2,737

  48,023

  17·5

  1985

  2,681

  49,135

  18·3

  1986

  2,645

  50,213

  19·0

  35

  Year

  Available beds

  In-patient cases treated

  In-patient cases treated per available bed

  1987–88

  2,360

  54,521

  23·1

  1988–89

  2,226

  49,552

  22·3

  Source: SH3 return, 1984–1986

  KHO3 & SH3a returns, 1987–88 onwards

  Tampons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 April,Official Report, column 745, whether he has yet obtained the information regarding the numbers of deaths in the United Kingdom from toxic shock syndrome; and if he will make a statement.

  Amount by which constituency differs from the electoral quota based on the 1990 Register

  Parliamentary Constituency

  Total Parliamentary Electors 1990

  Number of Electors

  Percentage

  Aldershot

  83,356

  13,799

  19·8

  Basingstoke

  83,111

  13,534

  19·5

  East Hampshire

  91,512

  21,935

  31·5

  Eastleigh

  91,259

  21,682

  31·2

  Fareham

  81,399

  11,822

  17·0

  Gosport

  70,903

  1,326

  1·9

  Havant

  77,158

  7,581

  10·9

  New Forest

  76,278

  6,701

  9·6

  North West Hampshire

  72,637

  3,060

  4·4

  Portsmouth North

  81,523

  11,946

  17·2

  Portsmouth South

  77,127

  7,550

  10·9

  Romsey and Waterside

  83,302

  13,725

  19·7

  Southampton and Itchen

  73,223

  3,646

  5·2

  Southampton Test

  74,703

  5,126

  7·4

  Winchester

  79,226

  9,649

  13·9

  English electoral quota

  69,577

  —

  —

  Total excess over quota

  —

  153,068

  —

  Note:

  The total excess of 153,068 is equivalent to a theoretical entitlement of 2·2 seats of average size.

  Transplants
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the management of the United Kingdom transplant service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The United Kingdom transplant service (UKTS) is at present a non-statutory body funded by the health departments via the South Western regional health authority. Its functions have grown in recent years and a more formal management arrangement is needed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has decided in principle that a special health authority should be set up to manage the UKTS. The next step will be an independent implementation study by Dr. John Evans to advise on the structure and operation of the authority. Establishing a special health authority for the UKTS should provide a sound basis for the management of the UKTS for the next few years and pending decisions on any more permanent arrangements.

  Alcoholism
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that, under the new community care system, adequate funding reaches post-detoxification residential care units for people recovering from severe alcohol problems.
  36
  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

  Electorate, Hampshire
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, columns 40–41, if he will now list the number of 1990 electors by which each Hampshire constituency exceeds the electoral quota for an average English seat and the number of additional seats, or part thereof, which would be required to bring the number of Hampshire constituencies up to the English average.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Dorrell
  We shall be directing local authorities to include provision for alcohol misusers in their community care plans. This will ensure that those agencies that provide residential care for alcohol misusers will have access to the funds that are available via local authorities.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources will be made available to the South West health authority to expedite hip replacement operations for those patients aged over 75 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The provision of treatment services in the south west using these and other resources is a matter for the regional health authority.

  The initial revenue allocation to the South Western regional health authority for 1990–91 is £919,011,000, 9 per cent. more than the initial allocation for 1989–90.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list in the Official Report the health authorities which have waiting lists of under 12 months for hip replacement operations;

  (2) if he will list the average waiting time in the South West district health authorities for patients needing hip replacement surgery; and what steps are being taken to reduce this delay.
  37
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on waiting lists is collected centrally by specialty but not for specific operations or procedures. The six-monthly publication of hospital waiting list statistics, which is placed in the Library, provides information about waiting time for admission for each specialty.

  The latest information held centrally about the time waited, by operation, relates to patients admitted in 1985 and is published in "1985 Hospital In-patients Enquiry main tables for England series number 27", a copy of which is also available in the Library. Information on the time waited for specific types of operation in 1988–89 is expected to be available shortly.

  We are committed to reducing excessive waiting and have invested a total of £119 million over four years from the waiting list fund for this purpose. In 1989–90 £8·7 million was allocated to the specialty of trauma and orthopaedics of which at least £441,000 was specifically used for hip operations.

  Funding, Wirral
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason funding for the Wirral family practitioner committee has been cut by £400,000 in the current year; and if he will detail his estimate of the number of reception and support staff local general practitioners will cease to employ as a result of the new budget arrangements.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The preliminary allocation of £1,979,000 to Wirral family practitioner committee for practice staff and premises improvements this year is an increase of over 13 per cent. on its expenditure of £1,745,000 in 1989–90. We shall make any necessary adjustment to this record allocation when we know from family practitioner committees the full year cost of their commitments at the end of March. This will enable family practitioner committees to honour our undertaking to continue full support for existing practice staff.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a clearing house in his Department to facilitate a more efficient use of hospital resources so that general practitioners and consultants can be directed to those hospitals with the shortest waiting list for each particular category of operation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government believe that central direction is not the most effective way of managing

  Notifications of all forms of tuberculosis by Regional Health Authorities in England for 1979 to 19891

  Area

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  19891

  England

  8,752

  7,803

  7,083

  6,501

  5,833

  5,583

  5,743

  4,853

  4,960

  5,241

  RHA

  Northern

  486

  428

  336

  342

  300

  260

  299

  271

  222

  244

  Yorkshire

  722

  603

  627

  539

  468

  415

  437

  355

  403

  418

  Trent

  709

  660

  593

  547

  519

  536

  572

  514

  529

  496

  East Anglian

  146

  114

  96

  106

  95

  101

  91

  90

  80

  74

  North West Thames

  1,350

  1,271

  1,082

  995

  896

  775

  867

  672

  727

  761

  North East Thames

  1,078

  946

  803

  753

  659

  697

  620

  603

  579

  690

  South East Thames

  598

  472

  452

  452

  452

  440

  343

  293

  323

  370

  South West Thames

  411

  384

  319

  326

  262

  254

  301

  244

  231

  198

  Wessex

  161

  182

  191

  169

  145

  164

  133

  120

  145

  124

  Oxford

  308

  254

  248

  180

  215

  171

  148

  199

  188

  191

  South Western

  294

  319

  225

  183

  180

  139

  146

  136

  147

  139

  West Midlands

  1,164

  1,022

  1,045

  900

  848

  813

  855

  663

  671

  849

  38
  the National Health Service. The reforms set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients", and embodied in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, will create both the incentives, and the means, for the more efficient use of resources and improved quality of service to patients.

  Under the new arrangements there will be better information for general practitioners on the waiting times each hospital will be expected to achieve, and greater flexibility to choose the most appropriate package of care overall, taking account of such information.

  Battered Women
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of refuges for battered women; and how many places they provide in each local authority in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. Data held by the National Voluntary Organisation Women's Aid Federation (England) Ltd. indicate that there are 200 such refuges in England. I will write to the hon. Member about numbers of places in each local authority. Refuges in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether enough supplies of tuberculosis vaccine are now available for routine school vaccinations.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Supplies of BCG vaccine for routine school vaccinations were restored in May 1990. We have been assured by the supplier that adequate stocks are now available to maintain a continuing supply for this purpose.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report, the reported cases of tuberculosis for each health authority in England for each year between 1979 and 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 7 June 1990]: The information available is shown in the table.

  Notifications of tuberculosis are collected by local authority area rather than by health authority area; aggregating of data is possible to regional health authority (RHA) level, but not to district health authority (DHA) level because of boundary differences. Information at RHA is shown in the table.
  39

  Area

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  19891

  Mersey

  267

  244

  248

  222

  150

  163

  197

  140

  132

  158

  North Western

  1,058

  904

  818

  787

  644

  655

  734

  553

  583

  529

  1 Provisional.

  Erythropoetin
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newbury,Official Report, 9 March, column 902, whether any decision has yet been reached on licensing of the drug Erythropoetin.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her reply, Tuesday 8 May 1990]: A licence has been granted for the drug Erythropoetin and I understand that the company has now put the drug on the market.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report details of all research into meningitis currently being funded by his Department, indicating in each case the level of funds being made available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has made available £55,437 for a prospective case control study of meningococcal disease in eight west country health districts from 1 May 1988 until 30 April 1990. A final report is awaited.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ravenscraig
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if commercial sections in British embassies have been instructed to seek potential investors in an independent Scottish steel industry, following British Steel's recent decision to close capacity at Ravenscraig.

  Mr. Maude
  Instructions have not been sent to commercial sections. Commercial sections in our embassies are, however, always seeking to identify potential inward investment projects across the range of business sectors and would pass on to the Invest in Britain Bureau details of any interest which may be expressed in steel or any other sector.

  St. Helena
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the improvement in telecommunications with St. Helena, steps can now be taken to establish commercial banking facilities.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are committed to strengthening the private sector on St. Helena. Since improvements in St. Helena's telecommunications and communications links were first planned, we have approached a number of commercial banks to see if they would be prepared to establish a branch on St. Helena. None has yet decided to do so. We are also considering other ways of introducing banking facilities, for example the establishment of a development finance institution which might include a banking function.
  40
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans have been formulated to improve transportation by sea and air to St. Helena and its dependencies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A number of improvements are being made. St. Helena's only regular, though infrequent, link with the outside world is a passenger/cargo vessel built in 1963, which Her Majesty's Government subsidises. The vessel also serves St. Helena's dependencies of Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. Because of its age, the ship is shortly to be replaced by a larger, purpose-built vessel, built at a Scottish yard, which is expected to enter service in late summer. In addition, it has been decided to commence a weekly shipping shuttle, subsidised by Britain, between St. Helena and Ascension Island.

  Israel
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will send a message of concern to the Israeli Government about Israel's continued refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We take every suitable opportunity to express our concern about this matter, and to reiterate our view that the best way to achieve a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the middle east would be for all states in the region to accede to the NPT.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will send a message of concern to the Israeli Government about the continued imprisonment of Mr. Mordechai Vanunu.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to representations from individuals and organisations concerned about the threat that mining could pose to the environment of Antarctica; and if he will make it his policy to press British opposition to any such developments.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 14 May at column 312 to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).

  Wildlife Protection
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list his responsibilities in relation to the worldwide protection of wildlife.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is responsible for the conclusion of all international agreements with other states or international organisations, including their extension, as appropriate, to the Dependent Territories.
  41
  In the case of wildlife, the four world-wide conservation conventions to which the United Kingdom is party are the Washington convention on international trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna, the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance, the Bonn convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild flora and fauna and the convention for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage 1975.

  Within the context of collective government, responsibility for fulfilling the United Kingdom's obligations under these conventions and formulating our contribution to their development world wide rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment; in respect of the Dependent Territories my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has those responsibilities.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on negotiations he has had or is having with the relevant authorities in(a) East Germany, (b) Romania, (c) Hungary, (d) Poland, (e) Czechoslovakia, (f) Yugoslavia and (g) Bulgaria regarding the requirement for British passport holders to have a visa, exchange currency and pre-booked accommodation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have held no such negotiations with the countries concerned. Although the situation varies from country to country, most of these requirements have now been abandoned. We welcome this.

  Nuclear Arms
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which terrorities, for which the United Kingdom is internationally responsible, lie within the zone of application of the 1967 treaty of Tlatelolco; and what are the United Kingdom's rights and obligations under the treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The territories of the Falkland Islands. South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands. Anguilla and Montserrat lie within the zone of application of the Treaty of Tlatelolco.

  Only Latin American states can be full parties to the treaty. The United Kingdom has, however, signed and ratified both the additional protocols to the treaty. Under protocol 1 the United Kingdom, in the territories above, must use exclusively for peaceful purposes the nuclear material and facilities which are under its jurisdiction and prohibit and prevent:

  (a) the testing, use, manufacture, production and acquisition by any means whatsoever of any nuclear weapons directly or indirectly; and

  (b) the receipt, storage, installation, deployment and any form of possession of any nuclear weapons, directly or indirectly.

  Under protocol 2 the United Kingdom has undertaken not to contribute in any way to the performance of acts violating article 1 of the treaty itself in the states to which the treaty applies. Article 1 essentially prohibits and prevents those acts in (a) and (b) above.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) of 4 May,42
  Official Report, column 694, for which regions of the world Her Majesty's Government supports the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We support the establishment of nuclear weapon free zones in those regions where their creation can contribute to regional security, to nonproliferation and to disarmament in general.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the reply on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference,Official Report, 9 May 1990, column 181, what resources and support team of civil servants will be committed by his Department to the review conference; what issues, excepting organisational matters, were raised at the nuclear non-proliferation treaty third preparatory meeting to which he refers; if his Department will provide any resources to non-governmental organisations wanting to attend the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference; and whether Her Majesty's Government will support observer status for non-governmental organisations at the conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Under the financing formula for the review conference, we are committed to paying 6·13 per cent. of the total costs. I expect to lead the United Kingdom delegation initially. Subsequently, the delegation will be led by Her Majesty's representative to the conference on disarmament. The delegation will comprise a number of officials.

  The third preparatory committee dealt only with organisational matters, although other issues were discussed in the margins of the meeting.

  We do not plan to make available any financial assistance for non-governmental organisations to attend the review conference. The draft rules of procedure for the conference do not make any provision for non-governmental organisations to be granted observer status, but they may attend meetings of the plenary and of the main committees, in which case they are entitled to receive the documents of the conference.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has prepared a submission for the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty later in the current year.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 9 May at column 181 to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang).

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives Her Majesty's Government have planned in arms control and disarmament.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We and our NATO allies agreed at the North Atlantic Council meeting, held at Turnberry on 7 and 8 June, that:We would instruct our negotiators at the Vienna talks on conventional forces in Europe to pursue new approaches to mutually acceptable solutions, in particular on armour, aircraft and verification. As soon as a CFE agreement is reached, allies will be prepared to undertake follow-on negotiations to further enhance security and stability in Europe.
  Negotiations on United States and Soviet short-range nuclear weapon systems in Europe should begin shortly after a CFE agreement is concluded.

  43
  The CSCE process should be strengthened and given effective institutional form.

  A copy of the Communique from the meeting is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweatlh Affairs whether any states have indicated an intention to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Romania
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweatlh Affairs what medical supplies, food, clothing and other non-financial aid the United Kingdom has supplied to Romania since 1 March.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development's answer of 19 April at column 1017.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweatlh Affairs if, pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 110, to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), he will list in the Official Report the financial aid supplied by the Government to Romania since that date; and what financial aid he intends to supply to Romania over the next six months.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  Filipino Wives
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases of Filipino wives of British subjects seeking admission to the United Kingdom whose applications were submitted to the independent appellate authority up to the end of March are still outstanding; when the application of Mrs. Nancy Barrera Sanderson will be decided; what are the reasons for the delay in processing such applications; and whether he will take urgent steps to end the distress caused by the delays to lawfully married couples.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested in the first part of the question is not available, as the immigration appellate authorities (IAA) do not record information separately about appeals from Filipino citizens.

  The IAA have now sent the case papers of Mrs. Nancy Berrera Sanderson's appeal to her representatives in the United Kingdom. When the representatives indicate to the IAA that they are ready to proceed to the hearing before the independent adjudicator, a hearing will be set down within four to six weeks.

  Delays in processing appeals at the IAA have been caused by the unexpectedly high rise in the volume of appeals in 1988 and 1989. There was a 60 per cent. rise in 1988; a 30 per cent. rise in 1989; and a further 40 per cent. rise is expected over the next 18 months.

  Significant additional resources were provided to the IAA last year, which resulted in a 50 per cent. rise in disposal rates. However, the increased workload has been so great that the backlog of appeals still remains high, but the situation is being kept under review.

THE ARTS

  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last discussed with the national museums and galleries attendances and admission charges.

  Mr. Luce
  I discuss a wide range of matters with directors of the national museums and galleries on a regular basis.

  The question of whether or not to levy admission charges is a matter for decision by the trustees and directors of individual institutions.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what has been the increase in real terms in his Department's budget since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The increase in real terms in the Office of Arts and Libraries' Budget since 1979 is 48 per cent. This is a clear indication of the commitment that the Government have to the cultural life of Britain.

  Arts Bodies (Administration)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received concerning the cost of administration of arts bodies.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received a number of representations about the cost of arts administration in recent months.

  Three-year Funding
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received concerning the concept of three-year funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received representations from all the bodies that I fund directly, and from many others. There has been a wide welcome for the concept of three-year funding, particularly as it provides a firm base for longer-term planning.

  Arts Funding (Shire Counties)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the contribution per head by each shire county in grants or loans to arts organisations.

  Mr. Luce
  The information is not held centrally. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance (CIPFA) has published the following figures for 1989–90.

  Figures

  Avon

  0·35

  Bedfordshire

  0·44

  Berkshire

  0·12

  Buckinghamshire

  0·60

  Cambridgeshire

  0·21

  Cheshire

  10·70

  Cleveland

  1·51

  Cornwall

  0·41

  Cumbria

  0·26

  Derbyshire

  1·04

  45

  Figures

  Devon

  0·64

  Dorset

  0·27

  Durham

  1·29

  East Sussex

  0·09

  Essex

  0·09

  Gloucestershire

  0·28

  Hampshire

  1·08

  Hereford/Worcs

  0·31

  Hertfordshire

  0·09

  Humberside

  0·56

  Isle of Wight

  2·13

  Kent

  0·29

  Lancashire

  20·88

  Leicestershire

  3·44

  Lincolnshire

  2·09

  Norfolk

  2·16

  Northamptonshire

  0·22

  Northumberland

  10·72

  North Yorkshire

  0·96

  Nottinghamshire

  1·19

  Oxfordshire

  2·06

  Shropshire

  1·05

  Somerset

  1·14

  Staffordshire

  0·88

  Suffolk

  0·71

  Surrey

  0·14

  Warwickshire

  1·11

  West Sussex

  0·05

  Wiltshire

  0·59

  11988–89 figure

  2 figure supplied by Lancashire CC

  Business Sponsorship
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proportion of money received under the business sponsorship incentive scheme goes to small, regional or innovative arts bodies, respectively.

  Mr. Luce
  In 1989–90, 71 per cent. of the award money went to arts organisations outside London, of which 17·8 per cent. went to Scotland and 14·8 per cent. to Wales. Small and innovative arts bodies continue to be successful in attracting sponsorship under the Scheme. I regret that detailed information on the proportion of funds that they receive is not available.

  Theatres (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next plans to visit(a) Nottingham playhouse and (b) Nottingham Theatre Royal to discuss funding for east midlands arts.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans at present to do so.

  Arts Bodies (Regions)
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what major arts bodies have relocated to the regions in the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Detailed information about the relocation of arts organisations is not held centrally. I am aware, however, that a number of major arts organisations are moving all or part of their operations to the regions. They include the transfer of the Sadlers Wells Royal Ballet to Birmingham; the extension of the Tate gallery's range of activities to Liverpool and, in the future, to Cornwall; and the opening by the science museum of the national museum of film, photography and television in Bradford.
  46
  I welcome these and other developments which ensure that the best of British arts is accessible to the widest possible public.

  Arts Funding (NAO Report)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received following the National Audit Office report into the funding of arts bodies.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received no such representations.

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the level of public support for the royal opera house for the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  In 1990–91 the Arts Council's grant to the royal opera house has been set at £15·2 million. This represents an increase of 11 per cent. on last year's figure, well above the rate of inflation.

  "Arts in Education"
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has held with "arts in education" teams.

  Mr. Luce
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and I have both acknowledged the role which the arts will play in the national curriculum. An important booklet, "Arts and Schools", jointly funded by the two departments has just been published and issued to all maintained schools in Great Britain. It includes a number of case studies of best practice in art in education by various arts organisations—including museums, art galleries and libraries—working with schools to widen the boundaries of classroom learning.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he proposes taking to increase cultural links with eastern European countries in the climate which now prevails.

  Mr. Luce
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided an additional £2·25 million in 1990–91 to enable the British Council to increase cultural activity in eastern Europe including new British cultural centres there. I am exploring the scope for mounting cultural initiatives within the remit of the know-how-fund. I have also given an extra £50,000 to the Arts Council and £5,000 to Visiting. Arts to help bring eastern European arts groups to Britain.

  Wilding Report
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what reports he has received on the overlapping between the Office of Arts and Libraries, the Arts Council and the regional arts associations in the light of the Wilding report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I am aware of the recent National Audit Office report to the Parliamentary Accounts Committee which examined the relationship between the Arts Council, the regional arts associations and the Office of Arts and Libraries. I believe that the changes in the structure of arts funding that I announced to the House on
  47
  13 March 1990 will clarify the responsibilities of the Arts Council and the Regional Arts Associations, and strengthen accountability for taxpayers' money.

  Devolved Financial Responsibility
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has received representations from the director of the National Campaign for the Arts on the cost implications of devolved financial responsibility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I believe that my proposals will result in a structure for arts funding which will give even better value for money. It is however too early to say what savings will be released from these changes. More importantly, they will lead to clarification of funding responsibilities, elimination of the duplication and overlap between the Arts Council and the regions noted by both the Wilding and National Audit Office reports, and strengthening of regional accountability for the money that they spend on the arts.

SCOTLAND

  Land Registration
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any additional resources will be made available to accelerate the introduction of the provisions of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 relating to registration; and if he will state for each non-operational area (i) the date up to which the relative Sasine Register has presently been completed, and (ii) any representations as to the possible consequences in conveyancing transactions; and what response has been made.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Department of the Registers of Scotland is required by statute to recover its expenditure from fee income. Since 1989 the Department has had more freedom to finance expansion from extra fee income. I have recently made an order, to come into force on 4 July, to increase some of the fee levels previously set in 1981. The additional income will allow backlogs to be reduced and pave the way for extending the Land Register.

  Information as at 6 June 1990 about the dates to which the Sasine register volumes are complete is set out in the table below.

  Representations have been made from time to time by the Law Society of Scotland about the effect on conveyancing transactions of delays in registration but these have not been specific to individual areas.

  In establishing the Department as an executive agency in April 1990 my right hon. and learned Friend set targets for turnround times to be reduced from 30 weeks in 1989–90 to 17 weeks in 1992–93 as respects the General Register of Sasines, and from 35 to 17 weeks for registration of dealings in the Land Register.

  County

  1989

  Aberdeen

  8 September

  Angus

  22 November

  Argyll

  5 September

  Ayr

  31 July

  Banff

  20 October

  Berwick

  12 December

  Bute

  31 August

  Caithness

  30 October

  48

  County

  1989

  Clackmannan

  16 October

  Dumfries

  2 August

  East Lothian

  10 October

  Fife

  2 October

  Inverness

  17 August

  Kincardine

  24 October

  Kinross

  11 December

  Kirkcudbright

  28 July

  Midlothian

  24 October

  Moray

  23 October

  Nairn

  23 October

  Orkney and Shetland

  16 October

  Peebles

  5 December

  Perth

  5 December

  Ross and Cromarty

  25 September

  Roxburgh

  13 December

  Selkirk

  4 December

  Sterling

  28 August

  Sutherland

  9 October

  West Lothian

  21 August

  Wigtown

  4 August

  Lead Contamination
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money his Department has spent in each of the years between 1979–90, inclusive, on publicising the availability of lead replacement grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no separate publicity on grants for replacement of lead plumbing. The Scottish Development Department publishes a guide to all forms of assistance available under the improvement and repairs grant system. This is distributed, free of charge, to all Scottish local authorities, who are encouraged to make it widely available.

  Fishing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take action to prohibit the use of mobile fishing gear in sea lochs.

  Mr. Lang
  My noble Friend the Minister of State recently issued a consultation paper, "Additional Conservation Measures", in area VIA (West Coast of Scotland) in which views were sought on extending the current winter closure of the west coast sea lochs to a full year ban. The consultation period has now ended and responses are being considered.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has of illegal fishing in the Minch.

  Mr. Lang
  The Minch is subject to regular surveillance by ships and aircraft of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, as are all of the main fishing grounds off the Scottish coast. In 1989 a total of five infringements of fisheries regulations were detected.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on industrial fishing in relation to(a) ammodytes marinus, (b) ammodytes tubianus, (c) ammodytes semiguaranatus, (d) hyperoplus lancealatus and (e) hyperoplus immaculatus.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government's policy in relation to fishing for(a) Ammodytes marinus, (b) Ammodytes tobianus, (c) Gymnammodytes semisquamatus, (d)

  49
  Hyperoplus lanceolatus and (e) Hyperoplus immac-culatus, commonly known as sand-eels, is the same as for other industrial species. Stocks are managed on the basis of scientific advice on the effect of fishing effort on stock size. The aim of such management is the sustainable long-term exploitation of the fishery resource.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue guidance to local authorities to make culverts under new roads cobble-bottomed to assist spawning fish to get upstream.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department is currently considering design improvements for culverts which may assist the upstream passage of fish and is co-operating with the freshwater fisheries laboratory of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland in the assessment of a particular design. If the results of the trial prove satisfactory from both an engineering and fisheries point of view appropriate design guidance will be issued to roads' authorities.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will designate the northern Minch as a marine nature reserve.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for the Nature Conservancy Council, as the Government's statutory adviser, to propose any area for designation as a marine nature reserve (MNR). Two potential MNRs have been identified in Scotland by the Nature Conservancy Council using guidelines laid down in the joint NCC/NERC report entitled "Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment". The northern Minch is not one of those potential sites.

  Recognised Bodies
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he intends to publish draft regulations on exempt recognised bodies and small recognised bodies;

  (2) what consultations he intends to have concerning regulations on exempt recognised bodies and small recognised bodies.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Provided that the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill receives Royal Assent, I intend to consult widely in the first half of 1991 on the regulations to be made about charities.

  Government Buildings (Security)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the performance and cost of security services provided at various government buildings in Edinburgh by Burns Security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am satisfied with the security guarding services currently provided by Burns International Security Services (UK) to the Scottish Office. The contract provided substantial savings for the Scottish Office compared with the previous in-house service.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish his report on the operation of Burns (International Security Services (UK)) Ltd. in public buildings.

  Mr. Rifkind
  There is no report on this subject; in any event I do not regard material dealing with these matters as suitable for publication.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he expects employers to contribute to the costs of providing training for people who have disabilities.

  Mr. Lang
  I see no reason why employers should not make contributions which appropriately reflect the direct benefit which they gain from trainees on placement with them, whether the trainees have disabilities or not, though the level of appropriate contribution will of course vary according to circumstances.

  ROF Bishopton
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Ministry of Defence action in relation to Graeme Stewart and Allan Mulligan in Renfrewshire on Friday 1 June.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On 1 June at the royal ordnance factory, Bishopton, Graeme Stewart and John Allan Milligan were charged by officers of Strathclyde police with contravening section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. A report was subsequently submitted to the procurator fiscal at Paisley. The matter was referred to crown office and crown counsel have instructed that there be no proceedings.

  Training (Orkney and Shetland)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure in each of the last two financial years on(a) YTS and (b) employment training in (i) Orkney and (ii) Shetland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 8 June 1990]: The information requested is as follows:

  Financial year

  Youth training

  Employment training

  £

  £

  Orkney

  1988–89

  336,185

  60,252

  1989–90

  411,223

  59,974

  Shetland

  1988–89

  312,703

  48,403

  1989–90

  331,355

  110,590

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proposed Training Agency expenditure in 1990–91 in(a) youth training and (b) employment training in (i) Orkney and (ii) Shetland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 8 June 1990]: The information requested is as follows:

  Youth training

  Employment training

  £

  £

  Orkney

  347,277

  143,969

  Shetland

  255,890

  137,939

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies have been made of the incidence of leukaemia among children of people working at nuclear power stations in Scotland.
  51
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 June 1990]: A case control study of all instances of childhood leukaemia diagnosed in Caithness between 1968 and 1986 is in the process of being completed. The findings of this study are expected to become available later this year.

  The committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment (COMARE) is currently planning coordinated retrospective studies of all cases of childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the vicinity of all nuclear sites in Scotland.

  Bankruptcy
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will show for each year since inception of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 the number of cases where bankruptcy arose principally through(a) personal debt, (b) business debt, (c) cautionary obligation and (d) other.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not separately recorded.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much, in cash and as a percentage of domestic rates, was met from housing benefit or income support in 1989–90.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Estimated 1989–90 expenditure for housing benefit rate rebates in England and Wales is £1·2 billion, which represents 11 per cent. of domestic rate income. The maximum housing benefit rate rebate payable was 80 per cent. of a claimant's domestic rates liability. Help towards the remaining 20 per cent. contribution for claimants in receipt of income support was included in the income support rates. Detailed expenditure information about this specific aspect of income support is not available. Domestic rates in Scotland were replaced by the community charge from 1 April 1989.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the financial implications of the transfer of local authority residential care homes to housing associations, voluntary and private organisations necessitating increased income support payments to some of the residents concerned.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information about expected numbers of income support claimants and expenditure for future years including the cost of such transfers is published in the Public Expenditure White Paper (Cm 1014). It has never been the practice to publish separate forecasts about expenditure specifically on people in residential care and nursing homes.

  Porthmadog Local Office
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what payments were made by his Department to beneficiaries in the Porthmadog Department of Social Security office area, during 1989–90 or the most recent available year, to help maintain people in(a) private nursing homes and (b) private residential homes.
  52
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that information in the form requested is not available.

  Telephone Relay Service
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, pursuant to his reply of 18 April,Official Report, columns 890–91, relating to the Californian relay system, he envisages a similar national unlimited access telephone relay service for deaf people in Great Britain.

  Mr. Scott
  I am delighted that British Telecom announced on 7 June that it is to provide £4 million over three years to launch the funding of a nationwide telephone relay system in Great Britain. The money will be given to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf (RNID) to meet the costs of building, equipping and running a telephone exchange which will eventually operate on a nationwide basis and provide a 24-hour service.

  The new exchange will replace the experimental scheme which the RNID have been operating in London for some time. Although necessarily limited in scope, the RNID service has demonstrated the benefits of enabling a deaf person to use the telephone to call friends, to contact local services and to make business arrangements. The Government and OFTEL as well as the RNID have been keen to see the service expanded so that deaf people wherever they live and at any time of the day, can have the freedom of the telephone system.

  The national exchange will be sited outside London, but customers will be charged only on the basis of the final destination of the call.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases since April 1988 social fund loans have been refused for reasons which included an assumption that the applicant lacked the resources which would allow repayment to be secured.

  Mr. Scott
  Since April 1988, 39,000 applications, representing 1·3 per cent. of loan decisions, have been refused because of an applicant's inability to repay.

  Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current level of social security benefits received by(a) a single householder aged under 25 years, (b) a single householder with disabilities aged under 25 years, (c) a pensioner couple, (d) a pensioner couple with disabilities and (e) an unemployed man with a dependent wife and two children; and in each case what they would have received at the present time if the pre-April 1988 system of benefits were still operating.

  Mr. Gillian Shephard
  The question is not sufficiently specific concerning the circumstances of each beneficiary to enable an assessment to be made of what benefit they might have been entitled to under the old scheme, or would be entitled to under the present scheme.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates are currently eligible for family credit and/or income support(a) in Wales, (b) in each county in Wales and (c) in each district council area in Wales; and what is the percentage take-up in each case.
  53
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This information is not available.

  Information about the total number of families eligible for family credit or income support can be obtained only for Great Britain, and only retrospectively, from family expenditure survey data.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether claimants for housing benefit can be disqualified from receipt of that benefit if their name does not appear on the community charge register for the appropriate local authority area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Entitlement to housing benefit is not conditional on registration for the community charge. However, one of the conditions of entitlement to housing benefit is that the claimant must normally occupy the dwelling in respect of which benefit is claimed as home. It is for local authorities themselves to decide what evidence is reasonably required to determine whether this condition is met.

  Debt Recovery
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he intends to privatise any part of his Department's debt recovery function;

  (2) what work has been done within his Department concerning the possibility of privatising parts of his Department's debt recovery function.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no such plans. Following a recent efficiency scrutiny on the recovery of money owed to the Department, officials undertaking preparatory work for the ensuing action plan gave some consideration to this possibility. Ministers however have no intention of using private debt collectors to collect money from social security beneficiaries.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the yearly cost of providing(a) spouse additions and (b) survivors benefits to the dependants of national insurance contributors when the benefit paid is dependent on (a) male contribution records and (b) female contribution records.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: The estimated cost in 1988–89 on male contribution records of providing (a) spouse additions is £800 million; and (b) survivors benefits is £5·1 billion. On female contribution records the respective figures are £4 million and £5 million.

  Note: The figures for survivors benefits do not include graduated pension inherited from a late spouse or basic retirement pension paid to certain widows. These could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Source: Government Actuary's Department.

EMPLOYMENT

  Beaches
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to counter the effects of the recent publicity about dirty beaches on the tourist trade from home and abroad.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Department of the Environment Ministers have only recently emphasised the fact that over three quarters of designated bathing waters in England and Wales now meet EC standards; and have highlighted the very substantial programme of remedial works which is currently in hand to bring the remaining bathing waters up to standard.

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures on the job interview guarantee scheme giving the number of participants and employers involved for each of the pilot areas; and whether he has any plans to make participation compulsory for the long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for the job interview guarantee, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990.Mr. Mike Fogclen, the employment service agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady on the first part of her question.

  There are no plans to make the job interview guarantee compulsory for the long-term unemployed.

  Mentally Ill People
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make more funds available to the Training Agency for people with mental health problems.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The overall budgets for training incorporate funds for trainees with special training needs, including people with mental health problems.

  Tourism, South Devon
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the consequences for tourism in south Devon of the holing of the supertanker Rosebay and subsequent oil pollution; and if he will make a statement as to the current condition of the tourist beaches.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Due to prompt action by local authorities, the Department of Transport and the local tourism industry, the tourist areas affected by oil pollution were completely cleared within a week. I understand, however, that there has been a slight decline in new holiday bookings in the area. Some of this decline may be attributable to inaccurate media comment about the extent of pollution. Nevertheless, I am confident that the area's excellent reputation for clean beaches will soon be restored.

  Women with Children
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest estimated figures for the number of women with children aged under five years who do no paid work in Britain.
  55
  Mr. Nicholls
  Preliminary estimates from the labour force survey for spring 1989 show that there were in Great Britain 1,792,000 women of working age, 16 to 59 years old, whose youngest dependent child was aged under five and who did no paid work in the survey week.

  Tourism Projects
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, column 333, if he will list those United Kingdom projects relating to tourism which have been accepted for co-funding by the European Commission.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The 39 projects accepted for co-funding are:

  Calderdale Educational Youth Tourism Campaign. Bournemouth Music Festival.

  Yorkshire and Humberside Tourist Board Youth Travel Consortium.

  Fermanagh District Council Road Show and Patnerschaftfest.

  Youth Hostels Association Gateway Project.

  ICOMOS UK European Conference.

  Priory High School Tourism Video.

  Best Western Hotels Staff Exchange.

  Cornwall County Council Green Tourism.

  "KM 150" International Cycling Festival, Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board.

  Mystery on the English Riviera, Torbay Tourist Board. Carlisle and Hadrian's Wall, Carlisle TDAP.

  Fiddlers Green Folk Festival, Newry and Mourne District Council.

  International Scout and Guide Group, Northumberland. European Soccer Tournament, East Anglia Tourist Board. Ironbridge Gorge Museum and The Wrekin District Council.

  Adventure Centre for Disabled People. The Calvert Trust.

  Childrens Drawing Competition, High Wycombe Town Twinning Association.

  Euro Job Swap Staff Exchange, South East England Tourist Board.

  Southport Flower Show.

  Salcombe Tourist Information Centre.

  Warmest Welcome Awards, South East England Tourist Board.

  Festival '90, Thanet Male Voice Choir.

  Work and Culture Exchange, Youth Training Services YMCA.

  Wine Tasting Competition, Bristol Wine Fair and Festival.

  International Festival of Music and Dance, Inverness.

  European Tourism Week, Brighton District Council.

  St. Bernard Cistercian Trail, Catholic Heritage Tours.

  Welcoming West London, Boroughs Promotion.

  Paisley International Organ Festival, Renfrew.

  Bolton European Awareness Campaign.

  The Grand Tour, Great Britain Cities Marketing Group.

  St. Albans Festival, St. Albans District Council.

  The Jacqueline du Pre International Cello Competition
  Launch Concert, Torquay.

  Durham County Council Town Twinning Project.

  Quarry Bank Mill.

  The Boat Museum Exchange Project.

  Lancashire County Council, European Green Exchange.

  Manchester Olympic Festival.

  Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was discussed, and what decisions were reached, at the most recent meeting of the European Community's Labour and Social Affairs Council.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) on 6 June 1990,Official Report, column 668.

  Home Workers
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of home workers covered by wages councils whose pay was checked by a visit in 1989, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 1 February,Official Report, column 255.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give estimates of the number of home workers covered by wages councils and the statistics on compliance with wages council rates in 1989 for home workers in a similar format to the answer of 11 May 1989, to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist),Official Report, columns 515–16.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information on home workers in wages council trades is given in the table. No count is made of the numbers of home workers covered by the councils, but estimates suggest that the total lies between 20,000 and 30,000.

  Results of wages inspectorate checks of homeworkers pay by trade—1989

  Wages council

  Homeworkers whose pay was checked

  Homeworkers found under-paid

  Percentage of homeworkers checked found underpaid

  Clothing manufacture

  328

  8

  2·4

  Button manufacture

  15

  —

  —

  Hat, cap and millinery

  15

  —

  —

  Linen and cotton handkerchief

  30

  —

  —

  Made-up textiles

  —

  —

  —

  Ostrich and fancy feather

  16

  —

  —>

  Retail bespoke tailoring

  8

  —

  —

  Retail non-food

  —

  —

  —

  Rope, twine and net

  403

  —

  —>

  Toy manufacture

  59

  —

  —

  Total

  874

  8

  0·9

  Results of wages inspectorate checks of homeworkers pay by division—1989

  Division

  Homeworkers whose pay was checked

  Homeworkers found under-paid

  Percentage of homeworkers checked found underpaid

  London

  36

  8

  22·2

  South East

  60

  —

  —

  Eastern

  47

  —

  —

  South West

  443

  —

  —

  Midlands

  80

  —

  —

  North West

  61

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  20

  —

  —>

  Northern

  24

  —

  —

  Scotland

  103

  —

  —

  Total

  874

  8

  0·9

  Action for Jobs
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much of the total expenditure on the action for jobs campaign in 1986–87 was spent on(a) press advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) outdoor advertising, (d) exhibition material, (e) research and (f) presentations.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1986–87 £750,000 was spent on press advertising on the action for jobs campaign; £500,000 was spent of radio advertising; £400,000 was spent on outdoor advertising; £600,000 was spent on exhibition material; £50,000 was spent on research; and £950,000 was spent on presentation.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much of the total expenditure on the action for jobs campaign in 1988–89 was spent on(a) press advertising and (b) radio advertising.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1988–89, £77,000 was spent on press advertising for the action for jobs campaign and £35,000 on radio advertising.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of the questionnaire sent to wages council establishments to check compliance with the Wages Act 1986.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are two questionnaires sent to wages council establishments to check compliance with the Wages Act 1986—one for catering establishments and the other for non-catering establishments. I have arranged for both to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the reasons for not pursuing arrears of wages councils' payments in all cases except those which are not pursued at the worker's request; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Specific information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In the small minority of cases where the wages inspectorate decides not to pursue arrears the decision is taken only after careful consideration of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of success bearing in mind such factors as the employers' ability to pay and the adequacy of evidence.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed on employers found to be committing wages council offences in 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The average fine imposed per employer was £305·50.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the numbers of workers covered by wages councils in each wages inspectorate division for 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he will take to reduce the 58
  underpayment of wages and other offences committed under wages council legislation which are attributed to ignorance or inadvertence.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Measures designed to inform employers about statutory obligations on minimum pay include the provision of information in employer and business guides, talks and advice given by the wages inspectorate to individuals and groups, and the maintenance of a register of employers in scope of wages councils and to whom wages orders are sent. Given the very high level of compliance with wages orders these measures are considered adequate.

  Wages Inspectorate
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide information on all employees of the wages inspectorate division of the Department of Employment broken down by grade, sex and race.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Following is the information:

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Ethnic minority origin

  7

  1

  —

  —

  Senior executive officer

  7

  1

  —

  Higher executive officer

  13

  1

  —

  Executive officer

  37

  25

  —

  Administrative officer

  14

  23

  3

  Administrative assistant

  —

  5

  —

  Typist

  —

  1

  —

  Disabled People (Employment Quotas)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of SI ate for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stretford of 21 February,Official Report, column 825, if he will list the criteria used to grant quota exemption permits under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

  Mr. Eggar
  Instructions to disablement resettlement officers require that they consider: (i) the availability of suitable registered disabled people; and (ii) the degree of commitment shown by employers towards meeting their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

TRANSPORT

  Road and Rail Investment
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much will be invested in road and rail schemes over the next three years.

  Mr. Parkinson
  We expect that over the next three years some £6·2 billion will be invested in rail and underground schemes. In the same period £5·7 billion will be invested in the national road network and a further £2 billion on local roads.

  Airline Competition
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to create a level playing field of competition on United Kingdom domestic aviation trunk routes out of Heathrow.
  59
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to create a level playing field of competition on United Kingdom domestic aviation trunk routes out of Heathrow.

  Mr. Parkinson
  It is very important that competition on our domestic routes—as on international ones—should be fair and in the interests of users. If there is any suggestion that competition is being distorted by unfair practices, there now exist expedited procedures for dealing with any complaint an airline puts forward, within a matter of weeks.

  Sir Marcus Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to meet the European Commissioner responsible for competition to discuss airline policy.

  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to meet the European Commissioner responsible for competition to discuss airline competition policy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend saw the Commissioner at the last EC Transport Council meeting in March when they discussed aviation competition issues. My right hon. Friend expects to see the Commissioner again at the next meeting later this month.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next hopes to meet the chairman of British Airways to discuss airline competition policy.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next hopes to meet the chairman of British Airways to discuss airline competition policy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I meet the Chairman from time to time, and our discussions cover a range of issues.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to create a level playing field of competition on United Kingdom domestic aviation trunk routes out of Heathrow.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is very important that competition on our domestic routes—as on international ones—should be fair and in the interests of users. If there is any suggestion that competition is being distorted by unfair practices, there now exist procedures for dealing with any complaint an airline puts forward, within a matter of weeks.

  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Midland Airways to discuss airline competition in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Midland Airways to discuss airline competition policy.

  Sir Giles Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Midland Airways to discuss airline competition policy.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Midland Airways to discuss airline competition policy in Great Britain.
  60
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I meet the chairman from time to time, and our discussions cover a range of issues.

  Freight
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of freight is carried by rail in(a) Great Britain, (b) the United States of America and (c) the European Community countries.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987, the latest year for which international comparisons are available, the proportion of freight tonnes lifted by rail in Great Britain was 8 per cent. The average for the European Community was 8 per cent. We do not have a comparable figure for the United States of America.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to ban dangerous dogs from public transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. Public transport operators already have powers to refuse dangerous dogs.

  Airshows (Regulations)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review regulations in force at air shows to which the public are admitted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The current regulations concerning safety at air shows at which more than 500 spectators are expected, article 56 of the air navigation order 1989, first came into force on 31 January 1989. The regulations are kept under constant review.

  SOLAS '90 Regulations
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement regarding the progress of negotiations on the retrospective implementation of the SOLAS '90 regulations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A proposal to implement the SOLAS '90 regulations to existing ro-ro passenger ships was put to the maritime safety committee at IMO on 21 May. The committee referred the proposal for evaluation to a specialist sub-committee on stability matters. It is our intention to invite European maritime administrations to an early meeting to discuss the application of the SOLAS '90 residual stability standards to all existing ro-ro passenger ships.

  Potholes
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received in respect of the recommendations in the Home report.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have received over 100 representations this year from Hon. Members and others seeking implementation of the Home report, recommendations. We intend to introduce legislation to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 at an early opportunity.

  Traffic Flow (Basingstoke)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on measures being taken to improve safety and the flow of traffic on roads in the Basingstoke area.

  Mr. Atkins
  Most roads in the Basingstoke area are the responsibility of Hampshire county council as local highway authority. Trunk roads, for which my Department is responsible, are confined to the A339 and the M3 motorway.

  Preparations for the A339 Basingstoke northern bypass stage 3 dualling scheme, to improve the 2·5 mile length between the Reading road and Roman road junctions, are now well advanced. We hope to start main works next spring for completion by late summer 1992.

  The national programme also includes major schemes on the A339 for providing a grade separated junction at the present Black Dam roundabout at Basingstoke, and for improving the length of about 7 miles between Basingstoke and the planned Headley bypass. For both these schemes, the roads report "Trunk Roads, England: Into the 1990s" gives a target date of 1993 for the next key preparation stage, announcement of preferred route.

  We have no current plans for improving the M3 in the Basingstoke area.

  London Transport
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chair of London Transport to discuss improvements in London transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly discuss such matters with the chairman of London Regional Transport.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the secretary of State for Transport how much London Regional Transport has proposed to him to be invested to modernise the network.

  Mr. Freeman
  In last year's Autumn Statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a 115 per cent. increase in Government grant to London Regional Transport for the three years to 1992–93, which is sufficient to allow them to invest £2·2 billion. I am of course unable to anticipate the contents of this year's Autumn Statement.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration is being given to the effects of the channel tunnel on future rail and road investment.

  Mr. Freeman
  The effect of the channel tunnel on road investment is fully taken into account in the national roads programme. Planning and operation of rail services are matters for British Rail.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what security checks will passengers and baggage using the channel tunnel go through and at what point in the journey.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government take very seriously the need to protect the Tunnel and those who will use it. A security check regime will be required. It would not be appropriate for me to disclose the details of the proposed security arrangements.
  62
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussion he has had with British Rail on the route of the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make a statement on the current position in relation to plans for a high-speed rail link through Kent.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and whether they discussed the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since November last year British Rail has been discussing the proposed channel tunnel high speed rail link with Eurorail Ltd. with a view to forming a joint venture. The parties have kept the Department in touch with progress and we are now considering their proposals.

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on bus deregulation in West Yorkshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following deregulation, bus mileage in West Yorkshire increased by 7 per cent., with improvements in frequencies, the introduction of minibuses, more operators and a reduction in tender prices.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the effects of bus deregulation on reliability and quality of service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The competition introduced by deregulation encourages operators to provide more reliable and better quality services. As a safeguard, traffic commissioners have powers to place restrictions on an operator's licence for various reasons including failure to operate services as registered and inadequate maintenance arrangements. These powers were exercised for these and other reasons on 150 occasions up to March 1989.

  East Coast Electrification
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated rate of return on British Rail's investment in electrifying the east coast route to Edinburgh.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated rate of return on British Rail's investment in electrifying the east coast route to Edinburgh.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated rate of return on British Rail's investment in electrifying the east coast route to Edinburgh.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated rate of return on British Rail's investment in electrifying the east coast route to Edinburgh.

  Mr. Freeman
  The electrification of the east coast main line for InterCity services was approved by Ministers on 27
  63
  July 1984, on the basis that the scheme met the then normal criteria of a 7 per cent. financial return for investment in BR's commercial sectors.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met British Rail to discuss its proposals for the completion of electrification of the east coast main line between Aberdeen and Edinburgh.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail at present has no proposals for the electrification of the line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen. I understand that ScotRail has appointed a project manager to review the possibilities for extending electrification in Scotland.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission an inquiry into British airport security, in the light of the United States report on PanAm Flight 103.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I do not consider any further inquiry to be necessary. The disaster is the subject of a major police investigation, which covers the aviation security aspects at Heathrow. The air accident investigation branch is investigating the immediate cause of the crash. The Lord Advocate has announced that it is his view that a fatal accident inquiry should be held. The Department has carried out a thorough review of its aviation security requirements and a number of far-reaching improvements have been introduced or are in train. And the Transport Select Committee has examined airport security in the light of the disaster. It has published its report and the Government's response.

  Diesel Emissions
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals his Department has to tighten the limits on diesel emissions.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 21 May 1990 at column 5.

  "How to Meet the Demand"
  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the issues raised in the document "How to Meet the Demand" at Heathrow, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend is reflecting on the proposals made by British Midland Airways, which raise environmental issues requiring careful consideration.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of Network SouthEast's investment is for schemes situated inside Greater London.

  Mr. Freeman
  Network SouthEast's investment cannot readily be disaggregated geographically. Network SouthEast operates a network of routes which radiate from London to various parts of the South East and the majority of their investment is by line of route. Because Network SouthEast's primary function is to move 64
  commuters into and out of central London each day, virtually all line of route investment, eg resignalling and new rolling stock, will benefit Greater London either directly (insofar as part of the route is inside Greater London) or indirectly (by providing a more reliable and efficient service generally to London). Some expenditure, for example on station modernisation and smaller infrastructure works, is specific to a particular location outside Greater London, but this forms only a small part of Network SouthEast's £.1·2 billion three-year investment programme. However, over the next five years, investment of some £700 million in new Networker trains and associated infrastructure work is planned for south east inner suburban services the benefits of this will fall almost wholly within Greater London.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of Network SouthEast's investment is funded from the public purse.

  Mr. Freeman
  Over the next three years, Network SouthEast plans to invest some £1·2 billion, out of a total BR investment programme of over £3·7 billion. BR's overall investment programme will be funded from both internal and external sources. Internal sources (including receipts from the sale of assets owned by the taxpayer through BR and funding through the revenue account and also linking capital improvements) will account for some 45 per cent. of the total programme of £3·7 billion. External sources of funding are classified as public expenditure and comprise revenue subsidy paid by the Government and borrowing, principally from the National Loans Fund. These external funding sources will account for the remaining 57 per cent. of the programme. British Rail's sectors, such as Network SouthEast, do not have audited accounts and the public expenditure figures are not broken down between them.

  Eastbourne
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make an official visit to Eastbourne by train.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend or I will be happy to do so when a suitable opportunity arises.

  Traffic Growth (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what forecast he is now using for projecting traffic growth in London.

  Mr. Atkins
  We do not forecast traffic growth in London as a whole. Specific forecasts are made for individual trunk road schemes. These tend to be lower than the 1989 national road traffic forecast, which covers the whole of Great Britain.

  Travelling Safety
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he proposes to improve public awareness of safety while travelling.

  Mr. Atkins
  We launched the "Safety on the Move" campaign on 1 May with the express purpose of improving public awareness of safety while travelling on all forms of transport. I want to concentrate the attention of every
  65
  individual on what he or she can do for their own safety and the safety of others. The campaign has the support of a wide range of transport organisations and operators.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in developing the transport infrastructure in London docklands.

  Mr. Freeman
  The docklands light railway is to be completly resignalled so as to improve reliability and to cope with the greatly increased service levels planned for the 1990s. Additional trains now entering service will double capacity to Tower Gateway from this summer, and a further fleet will be available in time for the inception of single-track running to Bank early next year. The second tunnel to Bank is on course for completion late in 1991, and following the normal commissioning period a full service should commence early in 1992. Construction of the Beckton extension is underway for completion by the end of 1992, and LRT are continuing their evaluation of the case for a possible further extension to Lewisham.

  A Bill is now before this House for the first major Underground line in a quarter of a century, for the Jubilee line to run from Green Park via Westminster, Waterloo and London Bridge to the Surrey Docks, Canary Wharf, the Greenwich Peninsula, Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford. Provided Royal Assent is received by mid-1991, I would expect the new line to be in service by the beginning of 1996.

  Network South East is now reconsidering its proposed renovation of Stratford Station so as to take full account of the Jubilee line extension. The main line platforms are to be refurbished so as to allow calls by most outer surburban and InterCity services, and there will also be new through services from May 1991 to Stansted airport and Cambridge. Network South East is discussing with the London Docklands Development Corporation implementation early next year of a scheme for waterproofing and renovation of the Connaught tunnel so as to improve reliability of the North London line.

  LRT is considering its evaluation of the case for possible extensions of the East London line northwards to Dalston and southwards to Peckham Rye and East Dulwich. Subject to confirmation of a satisfactory investment case and appropriate funding arrangements, including contributions from developers who will benefit from the scheme, LRT hope to be able to deposit a Bill in November.

  LRT is now out to tender for a new express bus service from Waterloo and London Bridge to the Isle of Dogs and Leamouth for which LDDC and a consortium of Docklands employers are contributing towards the first year's operational costs. London Buses and Docklands Minibus are continuing to tailor their services to improve reliability and links from Docklands, especially to the City.

  Riverbus continues to operate a frequent, fast service on the Thames between central London and the Docklands and Greenwich with separate services to Chelsea harbour and London City airport. Season tickets and a tourist rover ticket have recently been introduced.

  All of the LDDC's Docklands Highways in the Royal Docks are now in at least partial use, bringing high quality road access from the M25 to within sight of London City airport. The first direct road link between the Isle of Dogs and the Royal Docks—the Lower Lea crossing is under
  66
  construction for completion in the spring of 1992, bringing London City airport within a 15 minute drive from Canary Wharf as the Canary Wharf eastern access road will be completed this autumn. LDDC hope to let the main contracts by late summer for the East India dock link and the Poplar link, and construction of the Limehouse link is on course for completion to Westferry Circus in the summer of 1993.

  Consultations continue on the inclusion of the A 13 west of Butcher Row in the pilot red route. The first of my Department's improvements to the key junctions on the A13 trunk road should start on site at Leamouth road next month, and diversion of services is already in hand for an interim scheme due to start this autumn at the junction with West India dock road concurrent with its widening by LDDC as part of the Poplar link scheme. We hope to go to public consultation before the end of this year on improvement of the A13/A112 junction and to publish draft orders early next year for a new dual two-way flyover at the A13/A117 junction. Schemes to widen the A13 Ironbridge and make final improvements to the A13 junctions with the Blackwall tunnel/Cotton street, West India dock road and Butcher Row are programmed for completion by the mid-1990s. We have published draft orders for widening of the A 13 from Dagenham to the M25. The City of London's Bill for construction of the A12 Hackney to M11 link through Epping Forest is now in another place, and subject also to confirmation of a compulsory purchase order I would expect to see construction begin from the Redbridge end in the Spring of 1991. A new traffic control system for east London should be completed late next year.

  A two-year scheme has now started for renovation of the old Blackwall tunnel. We are conducting a study of the riverbed regime so as to help decide whether the proposed third tunnel at Blackwall should be a bore or a submerged tube. Consultations will be carried out later this year on terms of reference for the proposed study into the need for possible additional cross river capacity between Blackwall and Tower Bridge.

  Public inquiries begin on 3 July into the proposed changes to the east London river crossing and the planning applications to allow use of London City airport by more types of aircraft.

  My Department and LDDC are now collaborating on the publication in September of a joint update to their respective publications on Docklands transport.

  British Rail
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had any recent discussions with the chairman of British Rail concerning environmental matters.

  Mr. Freeman
  No.

  Central London Rail Study
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision on the central London rail study.

  Mr. Freeman
  The further work required before a decision can be made is being given a high priority. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Local Authority Airports
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any recent representations on the way local authority plc airports are run.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend has received no formal representations on this subject recently.

  Railway Gauges
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to upgrade mainline rail routes throughout Great Britain to continental gauge standard in order to obtain the maximum benefit from the opening of the channel tunnel and the completion of the single European market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for British Rail rather than the Government to plan rail infrastructure and rail services for the United Kingdom. All freight trains in use by British Rail at present are compatible with the continental (Berne) gauge. The cost of converting United Kingdom lines to the continental (Berne) gauge would be considerable. Passenger trains for services through the channel tunnel will be specially designed to suit different platform heights in different countries. For freight it would involve setting back station platforms so that these wider trains could pass through, and the replacement of all passenger rolling stock using the stations affected. British Rail plan to use new wagon technology—such as small wheel bogie wagons —that will enable larger loads, equivalent to those generally carried in mainland Europe, to be carried on the existing United Kingdom loading gauge, and will be more commercially viable than expensive infrastructure modifications.

  Heathrow-Central London Rail Service
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold discussions with British Rail management on the finalisation of a target opening date for the Heathrow-central London British Rail service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Neither British Rail nor the British Airports Authority, who are joint sponsors of this project, can finalise the opening date until the Heathrow Express Railway Bill completes its remaining parliamentary stages.

  Shipping
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for Government support to British shipping.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The most valuable assistance that we can give the British shipping industry is generally to encourage a free market in shipping and, where necessary, to persuade our competitor nations to reduce their restrictions on free and open competitive shipping markets. We have, however, taken some specific measures to give financial assistance to our shipping industry for training and crew relief costs. My right hon. Friend has also announced a joint working party to establish the present circumstances in which the British shipping industry operates.

  Rail Links (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the improvement of rail links in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Flags of Convenience
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to review the practice of registering ships under flags of convenience.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Under the Merchant Shipping Acts qualified owners are entitled but not obliged to place their ships on the British flag. The identification of the main obstacles to the use of the British flag is included in the terms of reference of the joint working party announced by my right hon. Friend in his answer of 24 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) at column 288.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trunk road schemes are currently under construction; and at what total cost.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are 59 trunk road schemes currently under construction in England, with a total works cost, at current prices, of £1·4 billion.

  Commuter Services (London)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received from London Underground Ltd. and British Rail to increase commuter services in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend has set London Underground Limited the objectives of increasing peak capacity by 5 per cent. over the next two years. Network SouthEast plan to operate 2 per cent. more train miles overall in the coming year than they did in 1989. The operators require our approval for proposals to increase the capacity of their services only if these involve major new capital expenditure.

  LRT Project (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has estimated the effects upon commerce and trade in the Greater Manchester area of the light rapid transit project linking Bury and Altrincham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  An assessment by the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive of the possible effects of the project on economic activity in the Greater Manchester area indicates that the improvement in accessability may provide some stimulation to commerce and trade in the Greater Manchester area. The precise effects are however difficult to forecast. In consultation with the Department, the Executive has made arrangements to monitor the actual effects of the project.

  M4 (Widening)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on schemes for widening the M4.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are planning four separate improvements to widen the 58 miles of M4 between M25 and Swindon, and the 10 mile stretch east of M5. For all these schemes the next key preparation stage is the announcement of a preferred scheme; that for the two sections between M25 and Theale (Junction 12) is expected next summer, between Theale and Swindon (Junction 15) in 1993, and for the Avon section (Junction 18 to 20) in 1992.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the proposals to integrate Europe's air traffic control offices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend has recently agreed with 22 other European Transport Ministers an action programme to increase capacity in Europe buy integrating air traffic control systems and optimising the air traffic route network. The integration programme commits European states to intensify work on measures to handle safely the forecast growth in traffic to the end of the century. The integration programme, which follows much hard work between ourselves and our European partners, is a major step forward. It builds on the substantial investment in air traffic control systems in Europe, not least by UK's Civil Aviation Authority.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been invested by the Civil Aviation Authority to improve air traffic control.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Civil Aviation Authority has invested more than £140 million over the five years to 31 March 1989 to improve air traffic control facilities.

  Urban Roads
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department is taking to make urban roads more environmentally acceptable.

  Mr. Atkins
  Local authorities are responsible for the vast majority of urban roads. My Department publishes advice on a wide range of urban traffic issues, including a variety of traffic calming measures which can be introduced in suitable circumstances and make the environment safer and more pleasant.

  On trunk roads, 37 bypasses completed in the last 3 years have removed through traffic from towns and villages. 150 bypasses and relief roads are in preparation. Already this year we have announced that we shall make more use of our discretionary powers to provide noise insulation, that we will appoint consultants to produce guidance on environmental treatment of urban roads, and that we will improve the environment of existing roads.

  Air Transport Agreements (USA)
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent progress has been made concerning bilateral air transport agreements between Britain and the United States of America.
  70
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what benefits for British carriers he is seeking in his discussions with the United States' authorities regarding the air services agreement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Negotiations are continuing.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contributions he expects London Regional Transport to receive in the year 1990–91 from London borough councils, in lieu of the rate-related contributions of previous years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The London Regional Transport ratepayer levy was abolished with effect from 1 April this year. The grant paid to LRT now comes entirely from central Government.

  Road Priorities (Northampton)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on road priorities in the vicinity of Northampton.

  Mr. Atkins
  The trunk roads programme contains three schemes in the vicinity of Northampton. Construction of the A43 Blisworth and Milton Malsor bypass started in April this year and is expected to take two years to complete. A Public Consultation exercise into the A43 Moulton bypass and A43 Moulton to Broughton dualling schemes has recently been carried out. Subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures work could start in mid 1995 with completion in 1997. There are other trunk road proposals within Northamptonshire as a whole which are listed in the current Roads Report "Trunk Roads, England" which was published in February this year.

  Priority Routes (London)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made on the priority routes pilot project for London; and when it is now expected to be implemented.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has commissioned Ove Arup and Partners to plan the introduction of the pilot scheme. We have started a comprehensive consultation exercise with the local authorities and interest groups concerned. The scheme is expected to be implemented later this year.

  Level Crossings
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to review safety procedures pertaining to automatic unguarded rail level crossings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Professor P. F. Stott was appointed in 1987 to review the safety of automatic open level crossings, following the accident at Lockington. His report made a number of recommendations, which are being implemented.

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the measures he proposes to tighten up on the rules for the supervision of learner drivers.

  Mr. Atkins
  The consultation on the draft regulations ended on 18 May. I am now considering the responses, with a view to bringing forward regulations very soon.

  London-Newcastle Air Service
  Mr Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase competition on the London-Newcastle air service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The pattern of services on individual routes is a matter for the commercial judgment of airlines who may apply to the Civil Aviation Authority at any time for a licence in accordance with published procedures.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has as to the amount of revenue lost in 1989–90 as a result of evasion of vehicle excise duty.

  Mr. Atkins
  The amount of revenue lost through vehicle excise duty evasion in Great Britain during the financial year 1989–90, is estimated at £103 million.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will exclude from consideration in further road safety measures any proposal to link the level of alcohol in the blood at which it is deemed dangerous to drive and the age or experience of the driver.

  Mr. Atkins
  It would be wrong to exclude anything from consideration or public debate that might help reduce deaths and injuries among young and inexperienced drivers.

  Child Fare Permits, London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he was consulted concerning the decision of London Regional Transport to discontinue the child fare permit scheme with local authorities; and what are the savings to boroughs and London Regional Transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the scheme has been withdrawn because boroughs no longer make any significant use of it, preferring to subsidise travel for scholars aged 16 or over by reimbursing parents directly. Across the whole of London, London Regional Transport received requests to issue only 341 permits this year. There is no question of their having to consult Ministers about minor changes of this sort. I understand that the change will result in a small saving in administrative costs.

  Wheelchair-adapted Vehicles
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department is planning research into the design of the fittings used to adapt vehicles to carry wheelchair passengers; and if he will make a statement.
  72
  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has a continuing programme of research, in close co-operation with industry, looking at the design and operational effectiveness of wheelchair restraints and occupant harnesses and the means by which they are fitted to vehicles.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents involving vehicles specially adapted to carry wheelchair passengers have occurred for each of the past 10 years, by region; and how many wheelchair passengers were (i) injured and (ii) killed in these accidens.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is not available, as it is not recorded on STATS 19 accident report form.

  Railway Subsidies
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, column 328, whether any subsidies paid to the railways in other European Economic Community countries have fallen foul of Community legislation relating to Community directives and regulations concerning competition policy.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the Commission and individual EC member states.

  Rail Services (Customs Arrangements)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the £98·5 million recently authorised for the international passenger terminal at Waterloo is accounted for by the decision of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise service to construct green and red channels for the use of passengers prior to the boarding of trains.

  Mr. Freeman
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise checks at the Waterloo international terminals will be comparable to those at airports and seaports. The only facility being provided for departing passengers is a VAT office at an estimated cost of £70,000. The cost of constructing green and red channels and the necessary ancillary accommodation to handle arriving passengers is estimated at £3·44 million.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on decisions taken by the French, West German, Belgian and Luxembourg authorities in regard to their own rail services and customs requirements.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have no information on these countries' current domestic arrangements. I understand that these countries are proposing to sign a treaty which abolishes internal border checks but which strengthens external checks and internal measures.

  Oil Spillages
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what proposals he has for increasing the number of vessels capable of mechanically recovering oil;

  (2) how many vessels capable of the mechanical recovery of oil are available for hire in the United Kingdom; and where they are normally located.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The speed of ships—10 to 12 knots—makes them slow to deploy to the scene of an oil
  73
  pollution incident which could occur anywhere around the 3,000 miles or so of United Kingdom coastline. And mechanical oil recovery systems are unable to operate in the weather conditions that exist around United Kingdom coasts for much of the year. Because of those limitations the Marine Pollution Control Unit's contingency arrangements are for government owned and commercial sets of portable equipment held in shore stockpiles to be fitted into suitable vessels as and when the occasion demands. There are many such vessels which can be used for this purpose and the nearest suitable ship would be chartered together with a coastal tanker to receive recovered oil.

  There is one commercially owned purpose-built sea-going oil recovery vessel for hire in the United Kingdom; this is normally based in the Forth. I have no plans for increasing the number of such vessels. The Department's first-line response strategy is aerial dispersant spraying. MPCU has under contract seven dedicated Dakota DC3 spraying aircraft and two Cessna remote-sensing aircraft to direct and control operations.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to recommend the strengthening of oil tanker hulls.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The standards governing the strength of tanker hulls are reviewed periodically. The International Maritime Organisation is however investigating ways to reduce the quantity of oil released from a tanker in the aftermath of a collision or grounding and this may lead to changes in tanker design.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to ensure that there would be no delay in compensation payments following an oil spill from a vessel not registered in a state signatory to the civil liability convention for oil pollution damage.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In such circumstances compensation would come from the international oil pollution compensation fund based in London. It is the fund's policy to pay claims with the minimum of delay; in certain circumstances provisional payments may be made before final settlement of a claim if that is necessary in order to mitigate undue financial hardship to a claimant.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what incentives exist for oil-carrying vessels to register in a state which is a signatory to the international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The 1969 international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage allows a shipowner to limit his liability in respect of claims in member states following an oil spill. The shipowner has to have compulsory insurance cover to meet his maximum liability which is calculated on his ship's tonnage and this insurance can be obtained at reasonable cost. These advantages to the shipowner have to be balanced against advantages to claimants. Claimants do not have to prove fault, the shipowner is strictly liable. Further the requirement for compulsory insurance guarantees that funds will be available to meet claims. In the event that the total claims exceed the shipowner's limit of liability a 1971 convention provides that any excess can be claimed from an international fund financed by a levy on oil importers. The majority of European states are members of both the 74
  1969 and 1971 conventions. Improvements to both conventions were agreed in 1984 and we are actively encouraging their international entry into force.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to regulate the strength of oil tanker hulls and their impact resistance strengths through the fitting of removable bumpers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship Construction and Survey) Regulations require the structural strength of an oil tanker registered in the United Kingdom to be adequate for its intended services. Removable bumpers on tankers have severe practical limitations. In general, bumpers are suitable only for low-energy contact of the sort encountered in harbours and terminals.

  M40 Extension
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if ducting will be laid alongside the M40 extension through Oxfordshire to allow the installation of comprehensive lighting at a later date.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. When the design of the motorway was underway the Department did not consider the expenditure ncessary to make provision for lighting at a future date was justified.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has received from the Thames Valley police authority on the lighting proposed for the M40 extension through Oxfordshire.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have no record of this issue being raised by the Thames Valley police.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Transport what evaluation has been made of the need for(a) lighting and (b) fog hazard warning lights on the M40 through Oxfordshire.

  Mr. Atkins
  The need for lighting was assessed in accordance with my Department's policy and was not justified except at the more major grade separated interchanges. As with all unlit motorways, my Department will review regularly the need for lighting. Matrix warning signs are being installed and should be operational to coincide with the motorway opening. No specific fog warning system is proposed at present. We will review the situation following detailed evaluation of the fog warning system currently being installed on the M25.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the arrangements for lighting the M40 extension through Oxfordshire.

  Mr. Atkins
  Lighting will be confined to the major interchanges at the A418 (Waterstock) (J8), Windlebury (J9), Ardley (J10) and Banbury (J11).

  Collision and Avoidance Systems
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many tenders for collision and avoidance systems research have been received by his Department in the past five years;

  (2) how many research projects into collision and avoidance systems are currently funded by his Department.
  75
  Mr. McLoughlin
  During the last five years, the Department has received and accepted tenders for three research projects into collision and avoidance systems. These were marine collision risk—mathematical models; a behavioural study of the collision avoidance task in bridge watchkeeping; and collision avoidance behaviour: a simulator study. The simulator study has recently been completed; its recommendations are being considered and further research may be proposed.

  Bidston-Wrexham Railway
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any application from British Rail for investment in the Bidston-Wrexham line.

  Mr. Freeman
  No.

  Motor Cyclists
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to introduce compulsory training for motor cyclists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  As part of our measures to improve the safety of young motor cyclists on the road compulsory basic training for all new riders of motor cycles and mopeds will be introduced on 1 December 1990. This will apply throughout Great Britain, except for residents of the smaller off-shore islands. I am grateful for the hard work of all those concerned from the motor cycle industry, user groups and safety organisations who have made it possible for me to set this firm date.

  The part I motor cycle test will continue for six months after the introduction of compulsory training. This is to allow those learner riders who already have their licences the choice of taking either the part I test, or a compulsory training course, before applying for the accompanied motor cycle L test.

  I have also decided that the proposal to reduce the validity of provisional motor cycle licences from two years to one year will not be proceeded with at this stage. It will be reconsidered in the light of progress with compulsory training.

  I am very grateful to all those organisations and individuals who submitted comments on the Department's consultation paper on compulsory training. I will be issuing the Department's response shortly.

  I also welcome the initiative of the Motorcycle Industry Association to set up a joint action group, with full
  76
  participation from the Motorcycle Retailers Association, training organisations, road safety officers, and the Driving Standards Agency. Its aim will be to see that adequate facilities exist and ensure that the introduction of compulsory training takes place throughout Great Britain as smoothly as possible.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the reasons for the difference in traffic speeds and the level of enforcement of speed limits on the M4 and the M1.

  Mr. Atkins
  Traffic speed depends on the volume of traffic which can vary with time of day and day of week. Such variation is different for different motorways. The responsibility for the enforcement of road traffic laws on all roads, including motorways, is a matter for individual chief officers of police. Chief officers are committed to effective motorway enforcement.

  Traffic Information
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he proposes to give more traffic information to drivers.

  Mr. Atkins
  I attach great importance to drivers and transport managers having available to them more comprehensive and up to date information on traffic and road conditions to help them plan their journeys. I shall shortly be meeting the main organisations which collect and disseminate such information to discuss the way forward.

  Ro-ro Ferries
  Mr. Terry Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decision was taken at the maritime safety committee of the International Maritime Organisation in May on the proposal that the committee should consider the adoption of a standard of residual stability for existing roll-on roll-off ferries higher than that now required by the convention.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The proposal to implement a higher standard of residual stability to existing roll-on roll-off ferries was referred by the Maritime Safety Committee to a specialist sub-committee on stability matters.

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

Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Mrs. Patricia Lesley Hollis, having been created Baroness Hollis of Heigham, of Heigham in the City of Norwich, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Wallace of Coslany and the Lord Ennals.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
2.46 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that arrangements have been made for me to visit the courts at Reading on Friday, 15th June. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday, 15th June.

Manchester Prison: Riot Charges
2.47 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many prosecutions have been initiated so far in respect of criminal acts committed during the recent disturbance at HM Prison Manchester.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, three people have so far been charged under the Public Order Act 1986 with the serious offence of riot as a result of the disturbances at Her Majesty's Prison Manchester. The Greater
2
Manchester police are continuing to pursue a major criminal investigation into the events.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that public opinion expects that after the appalling events at Strangeways those responsible will be brought speedily to justice? Can he give any indication as to when any prosecutions other than the three which he has mentioned will be initiated, given the fact that some weeks have now elapsed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern. He will realise that there were 1,676 prisoners in Strangeways. All have to be interviewed, some of them two or three times. Over 500 prison staff also have to be interviewed. As I understand it, it is the intention of the prosecuting authorities to take decisions about individual cases only after collection of evidence is complete.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister say a little more about the matter? Have papers been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Is he being involved, or is the matter being dealt with locally?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the police are carrying out the investigations. When these are completed, they will submit the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the matter will be taken from there.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, have the three cases to which the Deputy Leader of the House referred been before the director?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as I understand it, that is so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister give the House some information about the person who escaped and who, we understand, was responsible for some of the worst rioting at Strangeways during the disturbances? Under what circumstances did he escape, and what is the news about his possible recapture?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the escape of Alan Lord is a matter of grave concern. It is not yet clear how he escaped from an electronically controlled secure cell at Astley Bridge police station near Bolton. An investigation is already under way and will report to the Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police.

Riverside Health Authority: Patient Care
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many beds have been closed in the orthopaedic and gynaecological specialties in the Riverside Health Authority since 1st January 1990, and what effect these closures have had on standards of patient care and on staff morale in those specialties at the Westminster and Charing Cross hospitals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, since 1st January there has been no reduction in orthopaedic beds. However, the 44 elective orthopaedic beds provided at the Royal Masonic Hospital were reduced to 34 in November 1989. These beds have now been moved to the Westminster Hospital. There has also been a net reduction of nine gynaecology beds provided at the Westminster and Charing Cross hospitals. There has been no deterioration in the standard of patient care at the Westminster and Charing Cross hospitals and I understand that the staff involved have accepted the changes made.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that I am a resident in the Riverside health district and that I have attended two of the clinics at the Westminster Hospital? Is she further aware that it is worrying for patients to see the stress and pressure on the services? Does she realise that the medical students need people coming from outside the Riverside health district if they are to gain medical achievement and training?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the reorganisation of the beds which relate to Westminster Hospital was announced in April. On the whole, the arrangement is in the best interests of patients.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I was surprised to hear the Minister say that there would be no effect on patient care. Is she aware that the district manager, Mr. David Knowles, at the time of the announcement of the bed closures, said that the total effect on patients would be very significant indeed. No one could deny that its impact on London was traumatic in the extreme. At a time when there are bed closures in many parts of the country, is it at all surprising that the Secretary of State yesterday used the occasion of a television programme to argue his case for more funds for the National Health Service?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State always does his best to argue for more funds for the National Health Service. He has been very effective in doing so. The arrangements made for the transfer and reorganisation of specialties and beds within the Riverside district have been made with a view to providing the best possible results for patients.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it true that as the Minister said on 25th April, these bed closures will be reviewed on 31st March but that it is unlikely that they will be reopened?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the regional health authority has recently referred the matter to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is now under consideration but a final decision has not been taken.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Westminster is a special case because of the many tourists and people who work in that district?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, Westminster is a special case for many reasons, including those mentioned by the noble Baroness. This factor is taken into account in making decisions.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I ask the Minister when a final decision will be made?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord may certainly ask that, but I am afraid that I am not able to give him an answer.

Inflation: OECD Rates
2.54 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the current rate of inflation compares with that in the other member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, on the basis of the headline RPI figure, United Kingdom inflation was 9·4 per cent. in April, compared with an average of 6·2 per cent. in other OECD countries in March.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the admission that we have the highest rate of inflation in the OECD. However, an even more dangerous opinion has been expressed by OECD economists that if Britain carries on with her current policy, there will be no likelihood of a reduction in inflation for quite a long time. Can the noble Lord comment on that assertion by OECD economists?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would be the first to admit that the rate of inflation is high—far too high. We believe that our policies will bring it down and

5
we expect to see it coming down towards the latter half of this year.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a clear difference between the RPI and the rate of inflation? Does he further agree that the best measure of the rate of inflation is the GDP deflator? Is he in a position to state the figure for the United Kingdom compared with the corresponding figure for the OECD countries?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend that figure immediately. Although the United Kingdom rate of inflation is higher than that of our competitors, all reputable commentators agree that our measure of inflation is seriously out of line with the consumer price indices of nearly all other countries because of the inclusion of mortgage interest payments. That obviously has a perverse effect in that measures intended to reduce inflation push it up in the short term. Despite those distortions, we are determined to get inflation down, but we must take a realistic view of how high inflation is in relation to other countries. We feel that our measure of inflation at the moment distorts that comparison.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord understand that mortgage interest rates, which he says distort the RPI figure, are the result of the Government's own policy of having a single weapon against inflation—that is, interest rates? If the mortgage interest rate is so important, why do not the Government bring down interest rates?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I and my colleagues have said before on various occasions, interest rates will remain as high as necessary for as long as necessary in order to bring down inflation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, for the less instructed among us, can my noble friend explain what the GDP deflator is?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it might be easier if my noble and learned friend asked his noble friend sitting beside him on the Benches.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is there any point in bandying statistics about unless they are all placed on a comparable basis? Is it not high time that the European Economic Community reached a common agreement as to what the published figures ought to be? Did the noble Lord notice the article in The Sunday Times yesterday stating that the current rate of increase in this country is 3 percentage points too high?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I saw the article in The Sunday Times yesterday. We welcome the IFS initiative of that newspaper which recognises the crucial weakness in the current definition of RPI. Regarding all the EC countries producing the same definition of RPI, I am sure that the Community will take up that point and note what the noble Earl said.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, when the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically calculates the average figure for European Community inflation, does the noble Lord not agree that the United Kingdom is included in that average figure? Therefore does not the situation appear to be a little awry?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not quite follow what the noble Lord suggests. Obviously if my right honourable friend calculates the average for the entire European Community it includes this country. As the noble Lord is well aware, we are a member of the European Community.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the United Kingdom were excluded, does the noble Lord agree that the European Community figure would average about 4 per cent. as against the 6·2 per cent. that the Chancellor alleges it is?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not bandy statistics with the noble Lord. I said that the average for other OECD countries was 6·2 per cent. That obviously includes this country.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the deflator included in the Community figures and, if so, does it make the position better or worse?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I refer my noble friend back to my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who first raised the matter of the GDP deflator.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the sudden appearance in government answers to questions on inflation of the word "headline"? That is rather discouraging and makes one think that the Government do not know what they are talking about. Is it not the case that as regards the IMF the minimum figure that can be envisaged by G7 is 8·2 per cent. for 1990? Is the noble Lord further aware that as regards the Sunday Times article that has been referred to, although the country at large would welcome any decline in the rate of inflation, it would resent the Government resorting to the kind of statistical manipulation that has been adopted by the Department of Employment over the past four years?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well that the Department of Employment, or for that matter the entire Government, do not indulge in statistical manipulation. I said that the headline figure for RPI was 9·4 per cent. but that that had serious weaknesses. I referred to the Sunday Times article and welcomed that initiative. However, I could add that the initiative is not perfect. We do not have a perfect measure, and the 9·4 per cent. figure does not necessarily represent inflation as compared with that in other OECD or EC countries.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that high interest rates have now been in operation for more than 12 months? As retail sales continue to increase, will the noble Lord say whether the Government are at least giving

7
consideration to any other method of bringing inflation down?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously the Government consider all possible ways of bringing inflation down, but I can only repeat what I said earlier, which is that interest rates will remain as high as is necessary for as long as is necessary to win the battle against inflation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that recently the Institute of Economic Affairs conducted a poll among 1,000 economists who published a report condemning the Government's present economic policy particularly as regards deliberately creating high interest rates, higher mortgage rates and higher rents? Does not the Minister agree that 1,000 economists cannot be wrong and that the Institute of Economic Affairs is a responsible body? I hope he will agree that the findings of that report are a serious matter for all of us, including the Government.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will remember well a full page advertisement which I believe appeared in all the major newspapers and which was signed by some 365 economists. I believe that that advertisement appeared before the previous election or perhaps even a little earlier than that. All those economists were wrong and they were proved to be wrong.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would it be expanding statistics to point out that we have now used over 75 per cent. of the time that is normally allocated to Questions yet we have debated only 50 per cent. of the Questions on the Order Paper?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe my noble friend is wrong because we are on the third Question.

Education: Grant Maintained Schools
3.4 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made on grant maintained schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the first 18 grant maintained schools started in September 1989. By September 1990 there will be at least 41 in existence. Therefore the grant maintained sector will have more than doubled in size within one year.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. When applications are made for grant maintained status is the general attitude of local education authorities encouraging or obstructive?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we regret that some LEAs have certainly chosen in the past to be obstructive. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is very much in the interests of all our children that
8
LEAs are co-operative in this matter. However, an increasing number of local education authorities are showing signs of being very much more co-operative. Indeed, the Secretary of State had a meeting only the other day with chairmen of education committees in the South East who declared wholehearted support for the principle of grant maintained status.
Baroness David: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that, if a local education authority's plans for reorganisation are totally put out if grant maintained status for a school is approved, that rather naturally means that it is not pleased? Does she realise that in the case of the Beechen Cliff School in Avon, to which the Secretary of State has just given permission for grant maintained status, 453 individuals and 17 school governing bodies, including many primary schools, objected? Is that not rather a lot of parents who want a different outcome? Does the Minister agree that after the Beechen Cliff decision, decisions for grant maintained status depend entirely on the caprice of the Secretary of State and nothing else?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that all factors are taken into account. They would include the views of people in the local community, of the schools, of the governors and of the parents. After those factors are taken into account, decisions are then made. Only this morning, for example, Highwood School had its application for grant maintained status rejected on the grounds that the application was believed to be damaging to provision in that area.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say what the average per capita expenditure is in the existing 18 grant maintained schools that have been established and how it compares with the average per capita expenditure in LEA county schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot be specific for each of those schools because the spending per pupil in each LEA differs between LEAs and between schools. However, I can promise that average and specific spending figures will be sent to the noble Baroness. Funding of grant maintained schools is carried out on precisely the same basis as for other schools within an LEA's control. The only difference is that grant maintained schools are allowed to spend a percentage of the moneys that would normally have been spent centrally, which is an average of 15 per cent. That additional money is often put to much better use when it is spent by a grant maintained school as an individual institution.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for offering to send me the figures that she is unable to give today. Although I accept that she cannot give precise figures today, does she accept that the average per capita expenditure in grant maintained schools is higher than in county schools and that that builds in inequities in the funding of the education of our secondary school pupils?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the figure is higher, that can only be due to the fact that the grant maintained schools spend an additional 15 per cent. of money that would normally be spent centrally. Therefore that says something about what is being spent centrally rather than on schools themselves. There is a criticism that too much money is being spent by local education authorities centrally and not w here it really matters, which is at the chalk face to benefit children.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that there is a great discrepancy here? It is false to attribute costs per pupil because in some areas more money is spent on administration than on teaching. There have been cases recently where teachers have been asked to leave while administrators have been recruited. That cannot be good for education.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is precisely the point I have just made. The grant maintained schools are putting that 15 per cent. of money which was previously spent on bureaucratic matters to better use. The money that is being held centrally is perhaps not reaching the areas that it should reach which is the schools.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all the money that is held centrally by LEAs has been approved by the Department of Education? Every local authority has to submit its plans for funding schools and the amount that is held back is approved by the Department of Education.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that there is an understanding between the government department and schools. However, many local education authorities are still withholding too much money centrally.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a place for grant maintained schools and they need encouragement and support? Does she further agree that they need not operate to the detriment of other schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. It is possible for grant maintained schools to work happily and constructively alongside other schools within local education authorities. The Government are enthusiastic about this policy and hope that local education authorities and grant maintained schools will work together in the interests of the children.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that grant-maintained schools do not contribute in the same way as many state schools to community activities such as school orchestras, regional and county orchestras and other cultural activities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I simply cannot agree. The evidence so far shows that grant-maintained schools are playing their full part within the community.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, if it is acceptable for the school to take from the local education authority the sum of money that would normally be spent centrally, would it not also be right for a local education authority to have the proportion of money that is spent nationally by the DES to spend on its local schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the money received by education authorities from national and local sources is considerable. If the noble Lord means that there is a case for reducing bureaucracy at both national and local level I have to agree with him.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Social Security Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Second Reading of the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill will be taken.
South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit (No. 2) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Statutory Instruments: Joint Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Viscount Bridgeman be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in place of the Baroness Blatch.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
3.11 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Uprating of child benefit
.—(1) In section 63(3) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be added the following paragraph—
"(c) mentioned in subsection (1)(f) above.".
(2) There shall be paid out of the National Insurance Fund into the Consolidated Fund, at such times and in such manner as the Treasury may direct, such sums as the Secretary of State may estimate to be the amount by which the amount of child benefit payable in the tax year 1991–92 and in each subsequent tax year exceeds the amount which would have been payable if the sums specified by virtue of section 5(1) of the Child Benefit Act 1975 had not been increased after 31st March 1991.
(3) The funds required for the making of payments under subsection (2) above shall be provided by means of child benefit contributions, payable to the Secretary of State by

11
employed and self-employed earners, of a prescribed percentage of—
(a) the earnings of employed earners in excess of the upper earnings limit specified under section 1 of the Pensions Act, and
(b) for any tax year, so much of the annual profits or gains referred to in subsection (1) of section 9 of the principal Act (as computed in accordance with Schedule 2 to that Act) as exceeds the upper limit specified in subsection (2) of that section.
(4) In this section, "employed earner", "self-employed earner" and "earnings" have the meanings given by section 2(1) and section 3(1) of the principal Act.
(5) Regulations may make provisions with respect to the computation, collection and recovery of child benefit contributions payable under subsection (3) above, including provision for the application or modification of provisions of the Income Tax Acts, and may make such other provisions as the Secretary of State may consider necessary with respect to those contributions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not apologise for returning with this amendment to the centrally important question of the uprating of child benefit. The matter was discussed at Committee stage when a simple uprating measure introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, met with the usual Government response on the subject, which makes the average brick wall look like yielding jelly.
Before dealing with the amendment, which proposes a completely new way of dealing with the uprating of child benefit, perhaps I should remind the House of the main features of child benefit. It is a tax-free, non-means tested cash benefit of £7·25 per week which is paid for each child. It is universal, with a take-up rate of 98 per cent. It is paid to 6·7 million families in respect of some 12 million children at an annual cost of £4·5 billion. The level of the benefit has been frozen at £7·25 per week since 1987. If it had been fully uprated for inflation the benefit would now be of the order of £9 per week,
For the benefit of the House, I should point out in passing that the next Labour Government are committed to restoring the loss since 1987. Since I know that these things are looked at with some care in come quarters, I shall quote from the recent policy review document:
"In the first year of the Labour Government there will be a substantial increase, at least enough to make up the loss in value since the last election".
There has been a long tradition of all-party support, both in and out of government, for the principle of a universal child benefit from its introduction in 1975 unitl 1987, when the Government signalled a change of heart. They did so on the grounds, first, that most of the money will go to the better-off and, secondly, the poorest—those on family credit, for example, gain nothing because child benefit is deducted from their family credit.
To deal with the second objection first, that the increase in child benefit does not benefit the poorest families, the answer was given at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who spoke with all the authority of a former Secretary of State for Social Services. He said (at col. 606 of Hansard for 21st May) in reply to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter:
12
"Perhaps I may take issue with my noble friend on one point. He stated that child benefit confers no advantage on the really poor. That would be true if the take-up of the means-tested benefits was anything approaching 100 per cent. It is certainly better than the old family income supplement, but nobody seeks to pretend that the family credit, or the one-parent family benefit, reaches anything like 100 per cent. of the families who are eligible. The advantage of child benefit, however, is that at least it goes automatically to all families".
The best estimate that we have at the moment is that at least 400,000 families who are eligible for family credit do not claim it. That represents some 800,000 or more children. Those families would benefit immediately from an increase in child benefit.
The new clause has two aims. The first is to require the Government to uprate child benefit from 1991 onwards in line with prices. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, at Committee stage, that does not create any additional burden on public funds; it simply prevents the Government from reducing the value and therefore the cost of child benefit by allowing it to be eroded by inflation year after year. The clause does not even require the Government to make good the losses that families have already suffered from the freezing of child benefit since 1987 and the failure of previous upratings to compensate for price increases.
The second aim of the clause is to overcome one of the objections that are invariably raised to any proposal to maintain or increase the value of child benefit; namely, that it involves the payment of money to people at the top of the income scale who do not need it. That objection is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of child benefit, which is to provide a degree of horizontal equity between those with and without dependent children. That fact has led some people to suggest that child benefit should in some way be clawed back from the better-off families, either through a special tax or a means test.
This clause adopts a different approach, which is both simpler and fairer. It proposes that increases in child benefit should be paid for by the National Insurance Fund and for this purpose a special national insurance contribution should be levied on incomes above the present upper earnings limit of £350 a week. There would be no increase in employers' contributions; the additional contributions would come entirely from employees and the self-employed. The precise amount of the addition would depend on the rate of inflation, but it is estimated that the uprating in 1991 would require a contribution of 1 per cent. of earnings over £350 per week. For a two-child family the increase in child benefit would outweigh the additional contribution at all income levels up to and well over £350 a week. Over £500 a week the additional contributions would outweigh the benefit.
Raising the money in that way has two great advantages. First, it is extremely simple administratively, involving no special machinery and therefore no additional collection costs. Secondly, it spreads the cost over all earners rather than simply redistributing income from the better off to the worse-off families with children. That is how child benefit has been financed in the past. That

13
point was borne out by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, in his pamplet Rewards of Parenthood in which he wrote:
"The extra family credit for poor families with dependent children and the extra for single parents is being provided not by the population at large but by other parents through the savings on child benefit".
The difference here is that the money would come from national insurance contributions instead of from taxation. Because national insurance contributions are not a tax the question of financial privilege does not arise.
Before I conclude perhaps I may deal with the question of financial privilege because I know that that consideration may have persuaded some of your Lordships not to support the amendment regarding the uprating of child benefit moved at Committee stage. We are advised that the amendment does not raise questions of financial privilege. Even if it did, perhaps I may remind the House of what our own Standing Orders say on this matter. The Companion to the Standing Orders says:
"Each House of Parliament is the guardian of its own privileges. It alone may invoke them. Until it does so, the other House is free to act as it thinks fit. It follows that, with regard to Commons financial privilege, the Lords may properly make amendments to Commons Bills which, when they come to be considered by the Commons, are deemed by them to infringe their financial privileges. It also follows that the Lords need not anticipate what view the Commons may take of any noble Lords amendments with respect to Commons' financial privilege".
I quote that because, when we debated the matter in Committee, the noble Lord the Leader of the House intervened to deal with the point. To be fair, I shall quote him exactly. He said:
"I make it absolutely clear that I do not—I repeat—I do not deny the right of the Committee to make this amendment if that is its wish. It would be up to another place to assert its financial privilege if it wished to do so. I suppose that, in that event, in about a month's time, I should he at the Dispatch Box arguing again that we should recognise the financial privilege of another place. At this moment I simply ask the Committee to consider whether it is sensible or necessary to risk going round that course again".—[Official Report, 12/5/90; col. 609.]
When I re-read that statement, I felt that it was a curious approach. The Leader of the House told the Committee, before the movers of the amendment had decided what to do with it and before the Committee and another place had expressed an opinion that he would come back on the assumption that the other place would plead financial privilege. I repeat that our Standing Orders say:
"It also follows that the Lords need not anticipate what view the Commons may take of any Lords amendments with respect to Commons' financial privilege".
I repeat it because I anticipate that the Government may well wish to use the argument. However, we are advised that, because there is no charge on the Consolidated Fund as a result of the amendment, it does not involve financial privilege.
The new clause meets all the objections which have been raised in the past to the uprating of child benefit. It is administratively simple; it adds nothing to public expenditure and it finances the proposed increase in child benefit in a way that is both efficient and equitable. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, recalled, we had a full debate in
14
Committee on the general question of the uprating of child benefit. In view of that and of the fact that at the end of the debate the noble Lord opposite withdrew his amendment, I believe that noble Lords will not particularly wish to discuss the merits of the uprating of child benefit at any great length this afternoon.
I wish simply to comment on one matter. The noble Lord referred to the argument which I used on the previous occasion that, whatever the merits of child benefit—and they are many—it has the disadvantage of not being a targeted benefit and that, as a result, a certain amount of the money concerned goes to people who are in no conceivable need of it—I think that the figure generally accepted was about one-fifth of the recipients—whereas, at the other end of the scale, it does no good at all.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding queried the completeness of that latter statement by pointing out very properly that some people did not take up the family benefit which was offset against child benefit. That is perfectly true. But, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and to my noble friend, I do not think that that concludes the matter.
If Parliament enacts certain social benefits and, for whatever reason, some people do not take advantage of them, I do not think that that is a conclusive argument for altering the structure of our benefit system. If, for whatever reason, people do not draw what they are entitled to, that is their decision. But the idea that we should alter the whole system and confer additional benefits on people who do not need them because some who do need them take steps to deprive themselves of them seems a reductive and absurd view of the matter.
I therefore remain of the view that although child benefit is an excellent benefit—it is the inheritor of the old family allowance for the administration of which I was at one time responsible—a much more difficult question arises over its entitlement to priority at this moment for an increase when set against all the other claims of which noble Lords are only too well aware.
It was noticeable that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, did not mention the total cost. I understand that it is between £250 million and £300 million a year. No doubt my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will be able to give the exact figure: it is a substantial amount. That is the first point that we should have in mind. Is it a good thing to give priority to that substantial extent to a benefit which is not targeted and which has the disadvantages to which I referred over all the other claims with which noble Lords are extremely familiar?
We now come to the extremely ingenious device which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, used—I see him smiling in appreciation of his own cleverness, and he is fully entitled to do so—of putting the cost of the scheme on to the national insurance contribution. He is technically right in that contributions to national insurance are not taxation. It is not necessary, for example, in another place to adopt a money resolution, which is necessary in the case of taxation, in the case of increases in national insurance benefits.

15
That is all perfectly true. But the noble Lord attributes a certain degree of naivety to another place if he believes that a decision by this House to authorise additional public expenditure of the order of magnitude which I have already mentioned and to finance it from the national insurance contribution would be other than an intrusion upon the responsibilities and rights of another place.
It is a sad thing, particularly to me, that national insurance contributions have now become closely equated with taxation in some people's minds. In the older days of the scheme when people had a pension book and the contributions were paid separately, it was generally realised by all the beneficiaries and all the people in the scheme that they were getting good value for money. They contributed to a subsidised scheme which gave them pensions and other benefits. In recent years, with the collection by the Inland Revenue of the Class 1 and Class 4 contributions, that clarity of vision has been blurred. To the ordinary citizen who comes across it simply by way of the combined deduction from his pay of income tax and national insurance contribution, there is no clear distinction. I regret that. It has done the national insurance scheme no good. But it has happened, and we must deal with the situation as it stands.
However, my objection goes further. To use national insurance contributions to finance a benefit of this kind is an abuse of the national insurance scheme. As its name indicates, the essence of national insurance is that you pay a contribution for a benefit and that, if you do not pay the contribution, you do not receive the benefit. That is true of the retirement pension, which is the major national insurance benefit, and of the other benefits, whereas the social provision we are discussing here—the provision for child benefit—is nothing to do with contributions. It is a thing given as of right by the Government at the expense of the taxpayer.
I suggest that to use an increase in national insurance contributions for a purpose which has absolutely nothing to do with national insurance and for a benefit which does not depend upon the payment of contributions is an abuse of the scheme and in principle highly reprehensible. Therefore, in attempting very ingeniously to deal with the objections raised at Committee stage to the financing of this scheme out of taxation, the noble Lord has made his case worse. He has added a device which it seems to me the Commons would clearly find unacceptable. Even if it found it acceptable, it would seem to many of those who have been concerned with social security and national insurance benefits for many years to be a deliberate violation of the principles of the scheme.
To ask people to contribute in the guise of a national insurance contribution to financing a social benefit with has nothing to do with national insurance is to make a nonsense of our social security system. Even if the case for an increase in child benefit were stronger than I believe it to be, I should be against this amendment for that reason. Those who are concerned with our social security system and with our national insurance system will find it
16
an extremely sad and damaging proposal. I hope very much indeed that the House will not accept the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I intend to follow the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that we should not rehearse all the arguments which were put forward previously, even if I do not follow his practice, because he seems to have rehearsed a great many of them. I should merely like to say that I strongly support the new amendment for the old reasons. Child benefit is an extremely valuable benefit. It was put in when the tax concession to people with children was removed, and therefore to fail to implement this measure is to go back on what was then decided: that people with higher incomes but with family responsibilities should get some relief. It is support for the idea of a horizontal distribution in favour of those who have the responsibility of bringing up children compared with those who do not. That is a principle which it is extremely important to maintain.
I should also like to pick up the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it does not do anything for the people who are most badly off. He made the point that many people do not receive their income support or family payment. If the noble Lord's concern is that the most badly off should receive benefit, surely he ought to favour a payment which ensures that they will get it rather than stand for a payment which, as he himself admits, a great many of them do not take. We do not know why they do not understand what it is all about. Many members of the general public, in particular the least well off, are confused about the complicated system of benefits and simply do not claim them.
We know that child benefit is very well taken up. If there is concern about the take up, the noble Lord should favour child benefit rather than oppose it on the ground that there is already income benefit available. Those are reasons that we went into in considerable detail on the last occasion. I not only confirm support for the measure but I favour the way in which it is to be financed, or rather a way in which more money can be raised which reduces the additional cost that improving child benefit along the lines proposed would involve.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. How does she argue that it reduces the total cost? It merely transfers the finding of part of the money from one form of public revenue to another. It does not reduce the cost by a penny.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it reduces the cost through taxation. The noble Lord made what was to me an extraordinary argument. I understand his devotion to a scheme for which he was responsible for a long time. But he cannot maintain that the national insurance scheme has been in any actuarial sense an insurance scheme. Almost from the time when it was introduced, as Lord Beveridge pointed out years ago, it was broken down by the introduction of pensions at the level at which they

17
were introduced long before anybody through the national insurance scheme had built up an actuarial claim to pensions on the level at which they were paid. That being so, to maintain that this proposal destroys the purity of the insurance principle behind the national insurance scheme seems quite extraordinary.
As the noble Lord must know, what we have in reality is in effect a combined tax of national insurance and income tax. That is what it is. But it is a most extraordinary form of income tax because there is a blip in the payment in which there is a marginal reduction in the amount that is paid by combined national insurance and income tax at the level above £350 a week. That is a most extraordinary principle on which to introduce any kind of tax which at a certain level is reduced as the income goes up. If one puts the national insurance contribution and income tax together, that is the result.
This proposal seems to me to be not only a useful way of raising a little money but also a timely way of correcting what is an extraordinary anomaly in our present system. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I very much regret that I was not able to be present at the Committee stage of the Bill when this matter was debated on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. However, I read the Official Report with grew interest.
As I understand the purpose of this highly technical amendment, it is the same in principle as that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm; namely, to uprate child benefit each year in line with the movement of the retail prices index except that the cost to be met in this case of a new child benefit contribution would be paid for through national insurance contributions by certain people. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter properly said, this is not the time to repeat a long debate about the principle of child benefit.
I should like to mention two matters. First, I have no difficulty in accepting the principle that it is right that the benefit should not be paid to everyone regardless of income, and I can see why the Government have made that point. Nor indeed, for that very reason, do I support the policy that has been put forward briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on behalf of the Labour Party of simply uprating child benefit in line with the retail prices index from 1987. I should like to say to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal that, that having been said, there are many people in the country as a whole who are quite seriously concerned about the present position and its effects.
I make two points. The first, which came out during our debate at Committee stage, is that whether we like it or not the combined effect of the tax and benefit system is to help those couples without children rather more than to help those with children. It seems to me that the tax and benefit system ought to be neutral vis-à-vis couples with children or couples without children. Therefore I believe that it is having an undesirable effect.
18
My second very important point is that I believe that we tend to forget the pattern of women's lives today. They all work. Shortly before the birth of their first child they give up their job. They lose income at the very moment when family expenditure rises considerably. Therefore there is a need to look at these costs.
I hope that my noble friend and his colleagues will take a long, hard look at this situation and consider whether to look again at child allowances, family allowances, some alteration of child benefit or a mix of all three. This is a complex matter and I cannot possibly offer a suggestion. However, it is one that we need to look at in relation to its effect on the family. Although I do not support the amendment, I believe that it is a matter that we need to consider constructively.
I cannot accept the amendment because, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has properly pointed out, it seems to me to go entirely against the contributory system principle of a national insurance scheme: that is, one pays for a benefit that one will receive. In this case the people who will receive the benefit do not make the direct contribution. I understand that no government can accept an amendment that contains what I regard as a quite incorrect principle.
However, one matter did not emerge fully at Committee stage. I say this as a former Leader of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, was being somewhat disingenuous when he described how the amendment, were it to be passed, would be received by another place. Its effect is to commit the Government to between £250 million and £300 million of extra expenditure. Of course the noble Lord shakes his head; he refers to it as being a national insurance contribution. He is saying that we, the House of Lords, should propose an increase of national insurance contributions for certain people.
Your Lordships' House has a great many functions which it performs well. We have had such an example recently. As we all know, a great many amendments which are carried in your Lordships' House are accepted in another place. Some amendments carried in your Lordships' House against the Government are still accepted in another place. I know from my own experience as a Leader of this House that a great many amendments to legislation are made behind the scenes in order to meet points made in your Lordships' House. I regard all that as extremely valuable. But this amendment falls into another category.
Lord Carter: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may seek clarification of the noble Baroness. Does she agree with the sentence that I read from the Companion to the Standing Orders which states:
"It follow that … the Lords need not anticipate what view the Commons may take of any Lords amendments with respect to Commons financial privilege"?
However, as we have heard, this amendment does not involve financial privilege.
Baroness Young: My Lords, of course I accept what the noble Lord has read from the Companion to the Standing Orders. We all accept that. However, we have also to exercise judgment in public life about what it is wise to do. It is perfectly allowable for your Lordships to debate child benefit and quite proper to do so. Noble Lords should make quite clear what they believe about child benefit. But we are now on Report on the Social Security Bill. It seems to me that it would be very unwise for your Lordships' House to press the amendment this afternoon. Of course I cannot say what another place will decide. But if one tries to take an objective view it is unlikely that it would accept it. It would feel, as I do, that it is not the function of your Lordships' House to propose in legislation an increase of national insurance contributions. That is the effect of the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may complete my argument. The amendment would have a counter effect on those functions which your Lordships' House does well.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put forward a very interesting argument. But what about last week when this House rejected a very important Bill brought from another place? What we are now talking about surely pales before that.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, that situation was quite different. The issue was quite different. That Bill was not directly concerned with money. Before the noble Lord, Lord Carter, says that the amendment is not about tax, I recognise that we are arguing about an increase in national insurance contributions. I am quite clear on that point. Nonetheless it would be seen as concerning tax in another place. My firm advice would be for the Hosue of Lords to debate the matter. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not press the amendment. However, if they do, I hope, for those constitutional reasons, that the House will reject it.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I wish to advance two reasons why your Lordships' House should reject the amendment. The first has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and my noble friend Lady Young. It is the cost. If the noble Lord, Lord Carter, thinks that it will cost nothing he deceives himself. It has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that such provision would cost between £250 and £300 million. I do not know the figure. I have no means of calculating it. It would obviously cost a substantial sum.
Perhaps I may look forward to the amendments that we have to consider today. We have a series of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Almost all would cost money. I have no idea how much they would cost if they were all added together. However, I hazard a guess that it might not
20
be in hundreds of millions of pounds but in billions of pounds or more. It is very easy and great fun for us to discuss spending someone else's money. If it is our own money it is a different matter. It is very nice to advance compelling, persuasive and heart-touching reasons why it is right to do this, that or the other if we do not have to pay more than a penny piece for it ourselves.
In this amendment, are we proposing something that we ought not to undertake as responsible citizens? I ask your Lordships to consider that when deciding on the amendment. I believe that we should not commit the public to spending a further £250 million or £300 million, whatever the figure may be.
The second point has also been referred to by both my noble friends. How will the cost be paid for? It is a clever argument about whether it is a tax or a national insurance contribution. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to it as being ingenious. It is ingenious. But we can see through that. I should like to quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I wrote them down. He stated that a contribution will be levied on certain incomes. He said that it would be 1 per cent. How will he explain that 1 per cent. to anyone who has to pay it? I think he will find it very difficult to explain the difference between putting income tax up by 1 per cent. and his idea. He knows perfectly well that what he is proposing will increase taxes by 1 per cent., whatever it is called. It is not our business to do so. Whether or not another place takes exception to it or invokes financial privilege does not matter.
By this amendment the noble Lord seeks to increase taxes by 1 per cent. I do not believe that it is our business to do so. I hope that the House will reject the amendment.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I have only one very short point to make. As other speakers have said, we have heard the arguments time and again on child benefit. However, in my view one point has not been made sufficiently clear. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, start from the wrong position. Child benefit was not an offshoot of the family allowance; it was a tax benefit. It was a straightforward transfer from the married man's child tax allowance to be paid to the woman. That makes the matter far more complicated. We dodge that factor. It is very easy to say that it is a benefit and eventually we can erode it until we cut it out, as with maternity benefit and funeral allowance. But child benefit did not originate in that way, That is the problem which has to be discussed. It was in effect a tax allowance. It was taken away from a married man because there were great arguments about men who did not give enough to their wives for the children's upkeep, and so on. It was voted upon, and agreed generally, that it would be better to make the payment to the wife and the tax allowances were adjusted accordingly.
None of the people who now say that the benefit should be taken away from those who do not need it then argued that those who were receiving it did not need it and that it should be abolished. I did not hear arguments from the other side of the Chamber to the effect that the tax allowance for people with

21
children should be abolished. It was never put forward and never could be. We transferred the tax relief, which was a good idea.
The problem must be addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has done so on a number of occasions and is right in saying that an anomaly exists. However, we cannot now correct it by refusing to look at the background and by saying, "We can keep the benefit where it is, freeze it, reduce its value and eventually get rid of it. We shall then have killed two birds with one stone and saved money".
That is a dishonest way to deal with what was a tax allowance. We should be looking at a way of giving it back. No one has yet said that if we stop the payment to the mother we shall restore the married man's allowance. However, if the benefit is to be abolished and not paid to the mother it would be wise and fair to say that. It should be given back as a tax allowance. The Government are not saying that; they are saying, "Let us run it down and eventually get rid of it altogether".
A number of problems exist. My noble friend has made a good suggestion by saying that there is a way round the problem. It will give Parliament time to look further at the ramifications of the allowance and see whether it can produce anything more constructive. In the meantime, I shall support the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I live next door to a house in which the late Marquess of Crewe lived. In 1909 he led the Liberal Party in defence of Lloyd George's Budget which imposed a national insurance scheme upon the people of this country. The argument advanced by Lord Crewe was that we did not have the right to alter national insurance. Now I see in front of me the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, his lineal descendant, arguing that we should go against the principles of the 1909 Liberal Party policy on Lords' privilege—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that was 81 years ago. I cannot be held responsible for what Lord Crewe said before even I was born.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness is not 81 and I was not accusing her of being so. However, it is interesting to note that suddenly the Liberal Party is going back on the pre-1911 Act relating to the Lords mucking about with national insurance contributions.
By peradventure the Labour Party may win the next election. It has as one of the ideas the imposition of national health contributions above earnings of £350 per week. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Carter, shuddering with rage when a Conservative Party majority is whipped in to defeat that proposal. My noble friend Lord Belstead might argue that it has nothing to do with Commons privilege or tax but it is national insurance. I believe that the Government are wrong and that they are making a mistake in not uprating child benefit. However, we should be extremely stupid to muck about with it. We should restrict ourselves to matters we are good at and about which we argue well and are listened to, as opposed to small, technical arguments, important though they
22
may be, such as these financial matters. I shall unhesitatingly support my noble friend in the Lobby this evening.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, those of your Lordships with modestly long memories, although not going back quite as far as Mr. Lloyd George, will recall that during the lifetime of the late Labour Government an amendment was passed to the Finance Bill with strong support of the then Conservative Opposition, particularly in the form of Mr. Nigel Lawson. The amendment required the annual uprating of the income tax personal allowance, unless Parliament voted to the contrary, on the ground that not to do so was a fraud upon the taxpayer. Whether one looks at the child benefit as a replacement of the old income tax allowance or as a replacement of the old family allowance—in fact it was partly one and partly the other—the case for uprating it is a very strong case indeed.
Inflation is essentially a tax and one in a most vicious and objectionable form. We as a party have denounced inflation on many occasions, not only on economic grounds but also on moral grounds. It imposes a tax primarily upon those with fixed incomes and particularly upon the poorer members of society. If this or any government were to put forward a proposal to levy a special tax on mothers of young familes, I cannot think that many of your Lordships would support it, let alone the people of this country.
I must make my views on the issue absolutely clear because, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding said, I played a major part in the development of the ideas which finally took form in the child benefit. It was a case of the Labour Party stealing the Conservative Party's clothes. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he says that, however ingenious the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is, it is essentially a means of avoiding the mischief of the Commons financial privilege.
For the reasons explained in great detail by my noble friend the Leader of the House on the last occasion that we debated the issue, I do not believe that we should set out so to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, reminded the House, there will be occasions when we shall wish to express a different view from that held in another place and to maintain that view. In my opinion, this is not such an occasion. For those reasons, and despite what I said at the beginning of my speech, if the amendment is carried to a Division I shall support the Government. I wanted my reasons for so doing to be known and on the record.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Young, I was not able to be present when the matter was discussed in Committee. However, I read with particular interest the speech to which my noble friend Lord Cockfield referred—that made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. He explained to the Committee exactly how it was that we have reached the position of having the rather strange arrangement whereby child benefit is paid tax-free to every mother. It is paid to

23
the mother who is the wealthiest in the land and to many of the poorest. However, for reasons which have been explained, many of the poorest receive no benefit from it.
Of course child benefit is popular. Who would turn down a tax-free sum of cash in the hand every week? The question is: is it right? The second question is: if it is right, should it be uprated annually? Those questions concern only part of the amendment.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding expressed the view—and I have heard it expressed by noble Lords on the Social and Liberal Democrat Benches—that with modern technology it should be possible to arrive at a combination of measures for a more sensible system of family support. My noble friend Lady Young indicated her view that we could arrive at a better tailored system. I should have thought that any responsible government or any responsible party aspiring to government would wish to be considering that. It sounds as if the Labour Party in its review is not considering that but is thinking about continuing the present inequitable arrangement and uprating it each year.
The most important aspect of this amendment is the new part; namely, that the cost of uprating shall not be paid by the taxpayer but through national insurance by every person earning over £350 per week. I do not know how much that would cost each earner. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that he thought that it would add 1 per cent. to the tax bill.
4 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the contribution would be 1 per cent. of all incomes over £350 per week. There is no charge to public funds.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, that having been said, year by year it would increase as the uprating increased. At first it would be 1 per cent. but would then increase and could end up as a considerable sum.
We have been reminded that 10 months ago your Lordships passed an amendment uprating benefit which was rejected by another place on grounds of financial privilege. There has been some discussion about the difference between national insurance and taxation. How can that portion of the amount paid in national insurance, which is passed on to the Consolidated Fund, be treated as national insurance? The National Insurance Fund is merely being used as a means of collecting money for straight taxation. I do not believe that the House of Commons will accept that although I know much less about these matters than many of your Lordships. I do not understand how this can be treated as national insurance. It is merely an increase in taxation.
Noble Lords opposite are saying that it is not an increase in public expenditure because it is an increase in national insurance. Purely and simply, it is an increase in taxation. It is an apparent increase of 1 per cent. from the pay of those earning over £350 per week. That is a very large increase, and it will grow each year as I see it. My noble friend the
24
Lord Privy Seal may deny that and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, may explain why that is not so. However, I do not understand the matter if that is not the case.
It seems to me that we do not fix increases or levels of taxation. We have no business talking about that. At this moment in the history of the House of Lords, it seems to me not only inappropriate but highly unwise even to look at this amendment. I hope that your Lordships will reject it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in a debate on a Bill on which I have not previously spoken. However, there are occasions when I believe it to be necessary to put on record that what goes on in the Chamber is of interest to those Members of your Lordships' House who are not taking part in the debate but who share the responsibility for the decisions taken. It is not always sufficient to put that on record merely by giving one's name to the Teller in one or other of the Division Lobbies.
The noise which has come from the Chamber on this occasion and which has brought me into it as a departure from my normal behaviour is not the rather surprising departure from the Labour Party's usual motto and standard which is, "to each according to his needs". It is the fact that it has been substituted by—I think I have the phrase correct—"a degree of horizontal equity between those with and those without dependent children". When I was looking after dependent children the only degree of horizontal equity of which I was aware was when they were in bed and I had my feet up. However, I believe that something else is meant on this occasion.
The first thing that catches the eye is the extent of the expenditure involved. I am not referring to taxation but to expenditure. That is not clearly quantified by the alliance of the two Front Bench speakers who have put their names to this amendment, nor, indeed, in the chain of subsequent amendments on the Marshalled List. Like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I can only assume that the amendment which we are now discussing will cost about £300 million, and like my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, I can only assume that the total cost of the shopping list now on the Marshalled List before your Lordships will be over £1,000 million. That is not small money and is not something which relates only to the policy of one department. We are now discussing figures which affect government policy as a whole and the management of the economy. I do not wish to go further than that in the presence of my noble friend Lord Cockfield. In his presence I am always remarkably silent when money is being discussed.
However, if this money were to be funded from a departmental Vote, another part of that departmental Vote would suffer because the money must be taken from it or the Vote of another department must be affected, or there must be a drawing on the contingency reserve if this is a new demand. If that were the case, then the Report Stage of a Bill, which is the responsibility of one department and affecting the policy only of that department, would be the wrong forum in which to

25
discuss the matter and, in my view, we should be out of order in doing so.
That is not the case. The proposal now before us contains within it a means of funding. That funding is not to be by taxation but by contributions. My noble friends in the Chamber have already pointed out that this measure may not be called taxation, but it feels like taxation, it costs like taxation, it is collected like taxation and it is spent like taxation. If it is not taxation, then it is the next best thing to it. A rose by any other name will smell as sweet and a tax by any other name will be as obnoxious.
It may be that the standing orders read out by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, permit us to proceed down this road and to dispose of very large amounts of public money by taking them out of the pockets of private citizens and putting them not into the Chancellor's pocket but, according to the words of the amendment, into the pocket of the Secretary of State. That may be the case, but to the common man it will be remakably like taxation. The other place is within its rights, simply by a Speaker's Certificate, to say that if a matter is to do with taxation then it is not to do with your Lordships. It may not be proper for the other place to behave in that way on this occasion, but we should then be arrogating to ourselves a power of taxation without the responsibility to the elector.
It is the convention—and it is a sensible convention with which we should agree—that only those voted into Parliament should be entitled to decide what shall be the cost of that vote to those who voted for them. That makes very good sense. We should agree with that. If we do not, we are putting ourselves in the position of Charles I, which was insecure and unpopular. Regardless of what are the conventions, the man in the street would not take kindly to your Lordships saying what he should pay on the very large scale proposed by the noble Lord opposite.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that there are not many men in the street earning over £350 per week?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there are quite a lot, but it is the principle which counts. If this House is to start dipping into private pockets of one sort of person today, it will be another sort of person tomorrow. That is not something which this House should be doing. I believe that this argument applies to a whole string of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and other noble Lords. I hope that your Lordships will remember what has been said in debating this amendment so that it will not have to be repeated endlessly. If not, I for one shall be disposed to remind your Lordships.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, although my noble friend Lord Henley is in charge of this Bill from the Government side of the House, I am venturing to reply to the amendment for the same reasons as I replied to Amendment No. 1 at the Committee stage three weeks ago. That reason derives from the fact that, although given the lengthy and complex wording—and one might be forgiven
26
for not recognising it as such—the first paragraph of the amendment repeats exactly word for word Amendment No. 1 which was moved and withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in Committee exactly three weeks ago.
Its effect would be to oblige the Secretary of State to uprate child benefit each year in line with the retail prices index and would remove the discretion which the present law allows of requiring that the level of child benefit should be reviewed but having regard to all the circumstances prevailing at the time.
Whatever the merits of the case—and I realise the amendment generates deep feelings—I must say that this is a course that we are now being asked to go round for a fourth time in a period of 12 months. A year ago, during the Social Security Bill 1989, the House agreed to an amendment which provided for the annual uprating of child benefit and asked another place to think again. Another place did think again and subsequently I had to inform your Lordships that the amendment had been disagreed to for the reason of the Commons' financial privilege.
We had the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, three weeks ago, which the noble Lord moved and finally withdrew, and here we are yet again. I do not think your Lordships would thank me, at the start of a long day on this Bill, if I covered in detail ground which was covered only three weeks ago. But one point I must emphasise.
Once again the amendment would effectively be putting child benefit, a tax-free supplement to families whose major source of income is earnings, into the same category as national insurance benefits, which are the major means of support for people whose earning capacity is interrupted. The consequence of that would be to require the Secretary of State to give an absolutely automatic increase to child benefit, regardless of the fact that that would give no extra help to the least well-off families, those on income support or family credit, amounting to 1·5 million families with some 3 million children.
The Secretary of State would also be prevented from taking into account the fact that other families have seen substantial increases in their take-home pay. In other words, had the amendment been in operation this year, it would have committed the spending of some £250 million in a way which, as rightly stated by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, could hardly be described as effective.
By contrast the Government have tried—and I think met with success—to direct extra help to where it is most needed; that is, over and above normal upratings to families with children through their income related benefits; extra help which, since April 1988, now amounts to over £350 million a year in real terms. We have also found extra help through income support and housing benefit for over 2·5 million less well off elderly and disabled pensioners and we have made very real improvements to the incomes of half a million seriously ill or disabled people, including children.
Despite those few remarks which I felt I must make from this side of the House, although we have kept the debate short with regard to the merits of

27
the case, I take seriously what was said by my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Cockfield regarding the situation of family support. However, the Government have taken steps to try to ensure that the most vulnerable families with children have been protected; hence the reform of social security in April two years ago. That reform channelled an extra £200 million a year to families with children; that is despite the fact that, in relation to families with children where the head is in work, over the period since the Government came into office the real value of take-home pay has risen by 34 per cent. for a married man on average earnings with two children compared with a very small percentage during the period when the party opposite were in government in the 1970s.
However, that is not the end of the amendment. The second half of the amendment would introduce a special new child benefit contribution, payable by people with higher earnings on that part of their pay or if they were self-employed, on their profits, which are currently above the limit for national insurance contributions. When the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, were planning this amendment, it may have seemed a good idea at the time to pay for annual upratings by inventing a special new contribution, but with respect to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, it is an idea which does not survive closer inspection. It is a long-standing principle of national insurance that entitlement to benefits paid out of the National Insurance Fund depends upon contributions having been paid in. But child benefit is paid without any contribution conditions. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was absolutely right when he said that child benefit is not a national insurance benefit. Its cost is met from the Consolidated Fund, which means that the costs of child benefit are met by taxpayers in general: that is why subsection (2) of the amendment has to provide for the new special contributions to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
I believe that both my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lord Elton were correct in saying that they suspected that the new special provisions would amount to nothing more nor less than extra tax-raising; the one function which historically lies outside the powers of your Lordships' House. It must also be said that the mechanism for raising what would be extra tax, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asserted when he said that it would be extremely simple administratively, would be almost impossible to operate and account for.
If the amendment were allowed employers would have to calculate, deduct and account for these extra payments on a new and separate range of earnings and at a different percentage rate from the general run of national insurance contributions. That would be a nightmare, not only for employers, but also for the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security with their checking and accounting role.
Unless the new contributions could be accounted for and recorded separately, which would mean changing the documentation and computer software of every business in the land, it would be impossible to check whether the new contributions had actually
28
been paid. So not only would this special new contribution be almost impossible to operate but, quite apart from the fact that in recent years the aim has been to reduce employees' national insurance contributions rather than to increase them, it is wholly wrong in principle to expect a particular body of national insurance contributors to pay for a non-contributory benefit. If we were to accept the amendment, why stop here? Why not introduce a special national insurance contribution to pay for a bit of income support of perhaps family credit?
I said to your Lordships earlier that the amendment asks the House to go round the same course for a fourth time in a period of a year. Although it is entirely a matter for the privileges of another place, I agree with noble friends who raised the question of whether we should be considering what is in effect an extra tax-raising proposal. I believe that we should not be considering any such thing and I ask your Lordships not to agree to the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a good and, perhaps I may say, fairly predictable debate. It has shown how many noble Lords are prepared to ignore the Standing Orders of the House.
I deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about the money going to the better-off. I made clear that on income of over about £500 a week the contributions would be greater than the benefits and therefore, in that case, an adjustment against the better-off. To go to the other extreme and dealing with the poorest, the Benches opposite always seem to think that the only poor people in this country are those on income support or family credit. We must remember that a substantial number of people just above the poverty line do not qualify for income support or family credit and would certainly benefit from an uprating in child allowance. As I mentioned, there are about 800,000 children whose families are not eligible now and do not receive family credit.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who said that this is a transfer payment and that there is no direct cost to public funds. I made clear that the cost would be only 1 per cent. on incomes above £350 per week, amounting to £250 million to £300 million a year. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, perhaps rather grudgingly, that I was technically right. I think that just means that I am right.
We were supposed to be showing some naivety in not recognising what the other place would do. I do not propose again to read out the Companion to Standing Orders but I believe that all noble Lords have got the message and almost all have been in contravention of the Standing Orders.
Reference was made to national insurance contributions and tax being mixed up. I am self-employed. I pay the Class 4 NIC. It is a separate figure. It is clearly stated. It is not a combined figure on my annual tax bill. I know exactly what it is. In using the National Insurance Fund for purposes for which it is not designed, there is a very good precedent. What about the rebate of national

29
insurance, which some people have described as a bribe, to persuade people to go into personal pension plans and away from SERPS? That is a use of the National Insurance Fund for what the noble Lord called ingenious reasons.
We have had the argument over and over again about child benefit regardless of income. I repeat that we do not hear that argument when discussing mortgage interest relief, the business expansion scheme, personal pension plans, self-employed retirement annuities, and so on.
Of course, if we are to believe what we read in the press, Mr. Newton is pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an uprating in child benefit next year. It may be election year. Who knows? If there is an uprating it will be interesting to hear the arguments of noble Lords opposite who have said that an uprating in child benefit would be unfair. We will see what they say if the Government do decide to uprate the benefit next year.
The argument was put forward that this is not national insurance but a tax. There are those who sincerely believe that national insurance contributions are simply another form of taxation. I have to say that that view has been reinforced by the actions of the present Government who have raised the contribution rates substantially while cutting benefits. That is fundamentally wrong. People pay taxes to finance the whole range of public expenditure. They pay national insurance contributions for two purposes: to earn future entitlement to benefits and to enable the National Insurance Fund to provide benefits to those currently in need of them. The range of benefits financed by the National Insurance Fund varies over time and has become rather narrow under the present Government. The proposed new clause would widen the range by including the 1990–91 and the 1991–92 increases in child benefit as a charge on the fund.
The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, asked about the cost of the various amendments on the Marshalled List. Why do we consider social security Bills at all in this House? Every amendment to the Bill, from the Government and from the Opposition, involves some increase in public expenditure. What we have to do is to help the Government to choose their priorities by indicating the various changes and improvements that we would like to see. Some the Government accept and some they do not.
We then have this business about the awful increase in public expenditure that would result from this measure. That argument is a bit rich coming from the Government Benches when we are told on good authority that the Department of the Environment will need £3 billion to £4 billion next year just to hold the poll tax at present levels. I suggest that noble Lords opposite consider that fact before criticising the Opposition for proposing increases in public expenditure.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, appeared to introduce an interesting idea when he said that his party—he was obviously assuming defeat at the next election—would defeat a Labour manifesto commitment to increase child benefit. Whatever happened to the Salisbury doctrine?
30
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said it all. He advanced the argument for the uprating of child benefit. His phrase that inflation is a tax on fixed incomes and the poor and that a refusal to uprate child benefit is a special tax on mothers with young families certainly struck home.
I should like to make clear that we are committed to removing the upper earnings limit and to making up the loss in child benefit since the last general election. There is no absolute commitment by the Labour Party to uprate child benefit annually. It is only fair to point that out.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, only quoted half the socialist doctrine. It is,
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
That is exactly what the amendment does.
If the national insurance contributions are a tax, as noble Lords opposite keep telling us, and the party opposite believes in equity, as I am sure it does, why do its members support the cut-off for the upper earnings limit of £350 a week? That is an extremely unfair tax, if one thinks about it. The Leader of the House said that we were being asked to go round the course again. Yes, we are being asked to go round the course again but I suggest that this is a novel and, as described, an ingenious approach. The ingenuity of the approach has, with respect, led noble Lords into some fair old contortions.
The extra help to those on income support and family credit, as I said, has come from other families. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said in the paper published by the Centre for Policy Studies:
"The extra Family Credit for poor families with dependent children (and the extra for single parents) is being provided not by the population at large but by other parents through savings on Child Benefit".
We have also heard reference to the use of the National Insurance Fund to provide the incentive to opt out of SERPS. Yet the Government took away the earnings related unemployment benefits earned through contributions over time. Therefore, filching from the National Insurance Fund is not unheard of, even under this Government.
The cost of the new clause, which is around £250 million to £300 million as a transfer payment (not a tax) from one group to another—the noble Lord laughs but it is in fact a transfer payment from one group of national insurance contributors to another class of recipients—is the amount that families will lose next year if child benefit is not uprated. There is no cost unless the Government are prepared to freeze child benefit next year.
We have had an extremely interesting debate. There is only one way to deal with the amendment. I ask the opinion of the House.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 136.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hylton, L.

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Aylestone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Birk, B.

Kearton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kennet, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mayhew, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mulley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ogmore, L.

Ezra, L.

Peston, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Foot, L.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Grimond, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walston, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Craigavon, V.

Allerton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Annaly, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Annan, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Derwent, L.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Balfour, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Effingham, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elibank, L.

Beloff, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Belstead, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Bessborough, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blatch, B.

Elton, L.

Blyth, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Boardman, L.

Ferrers, E.

Borthwick, L.

Foley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gainford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Grantchester, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Camoys, L.

Greenway, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carnock, L.

Cavendish, L.

Halsbury, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cockfield, L.

Havers, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hayter, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Henley, L.

32

Hesketh, L.

Orkney, E.

Hives, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hood, V.

Pender, L.

Hooper, B.

Porritt, L.

Hylon-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ingrow, L.

Reay, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Renton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Renwick, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Romney, E.

Kimball, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Shannon, E.

Layton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V.

Somers, L.

Luke, L.

Stockton, E.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathspey, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Swinton, E.

Mancroft, L.

Terrington, L.

Manton, L.

Teviot, L.

Margadale, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mersey, V.

Trumpington, B.

Milverton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Morris, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Nelson, E.

Wolfson, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wynford, L.

Onslow, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.38 p.m.
Clause 1 [Attendance allowance for the terminally ill]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("a") to ("and") in line 5 and insert ("severe progressive and incurable disease and his life expectancy is short;").
The noble Lord said: There was an interesting debate on 21st May concerning the extremely delicate subject of the definition of the terminally ill. I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I fully support the general intention behind Clause 1, which is to remove the six-month waiting period for attendance allowance for those who are defined as terminally ill. That is a good intention which we support wholeheartedly.
The only point of discussion in relation to that subject was how the terminally ill should be defined. I should like to remind your Lordships of the Government's definition in the Bill:
"A person is 'terminally ill' at any time if at that time he suffers from a progressive disease and his death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months".
On the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I proposed very similar amendments which would have introduced a degree of greater flexibility into the definition. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, when replying for the Government, gave understandable reasons as to why he preferred the Government's formulation. However, on reflection I am not entirely happy with the wording. It is such an important and delicate matter that it is worth trying to get it right. For that reason the noble

33
Baroness, Lady Seear, and I have put down a slightly different version which reads as follows:
"A person is terminally ill if at that time he suffers from a severe progressive and incurable disease and his life expectancy is short".
I argued on the previous occasion that anyone who is terminally ill and who has to surmount the considerable hurdle of qualifying for the higher level of attendance allowance is, by definition, in a very poor state of health. According to Section 35(1) of the principal Act, in order to qualify for the attendance allowance the patient must be so severely disabled physically that by day and at night he requires from another person frequent, prolonged or repeated attention in connection with his bodily functions. Therefore, in order to qualify for the attendance allowance he must meet those quite stiff conditions. My argument on that occasion—and it remains the same today—was that anyone who qualifies for attendance allowance under Section 35(1) of the Act is likely to be so poorly that a six-month prognosis hardly comes into consideration.
I understand from Professor Eric Wilkes, one of the joint chairmen of Help the Hospices, that all survey work confirms that for the great majority of terminally ill patients the intense need is over a period of two months, or even less. Only a tiny minority of them will survive for six months or more, although a number of them will certainly do so.
There are other interesting and suggestive figures in existence. The Department of Social Security estimates, according to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, at col. 613 of Hansard of 21st May, when we debated the matter on the last occasion, that 58,000 people will benefit from these changes at a cost of £35 million for a full year. I wonder how those figures were arrived at. Each year approximately 140,000 people die of cancer and similar diseases. Therefore, I can only assume that 58,000 is the number of patients who are expected to die at home. Sharing £35 million among 58,000 patients amounts to £603 each, which would represent the higher rate of attendance allowance being paid for a period of 17 weeks or approximately four months. That is twice the normal survival time identified by Professor Willem Therefore, the Government's estimate may not be reached, let alone exceeded.
In the circumstances, it increasingly seems to me that writing in the six-month time-limit with its implicit sentence of death within that period is unnecessary as well as inhumane. If we take the many terminally ill patients who will survive for only two months, together with the few who survive for more than six months, the average will work out well below the Government's six-month limit. I submit that it is the average which will dictate the financial outlay, not the few atypical cases. Therefore, I suggest to the Government that the new wording I have proposed in the amendment embodies quite sufficient safeguards without incurring the rather dreadful overtones which are written into the Government's version.
Having said that—and I think those points were worth making—I must admit that I am a realist and that I understand perfectly well that the Government
34
rejected the previous amendment on the grounds that it took the matter too wide. I also accept that what I propose now takes it even wider. Therefore, I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to rise and say that he welcomes or accepts what I have proposed. However, what I should like to hear—and I think that this is a reasonable proposition—in this extremely difficult area is an undertaking from the Government that they will look closely and monitor the effect on take-up of the phraseology in the Bill as it is at present.
Moreover, if we have any grounds for believing after, let us say, a year that it it is not working as well as we had hoped, that many people are falling through the net and that take-up has not been as we expected it to be, I should like to know that the Government would then be disposed to look again at the matter in a subsequent social security Bill. In that way, we would have a year to look at the operation of the clause as proposed by the Government. In my view that is not an unreasonable proposition and if the noble Lord is able to say something along those lines I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment. However, in the meantime, I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has made all the relevant points most admirably. However, I have a small but very important point to make. The Bill as it stands refers to where death,
"can reasonably he expected within 6 months."
There is a note of doom about that phrase which one would wish to avoid if possible. We think that our amendment is less cruel to people facing the likelihood of dying very quickly. For the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, put forward I think it is unlikely that what is proposed would lead to any significant increase in expenditure. It would be more a humane way of expressing what we all feel.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am sure that I am not alone among practising doctors in very often being caught out when trying to estimate how long a patient with a terminal illness has to live. A minority of people seem able to keep the grim reaper at bay for far longer than expected, whereas others are not so lucky and are carried off by a sweep of the scythe unexpectedly quickly. There are often more of those than there are of the others. I sometimes find that if patients are told that they have only a very short time to live or, as in the words of the Bill, death is expected within six months, they will turn their faces to the wall and give up hope.
I do not think that it would be very good news to hear the words expressed in the amendment, but they are greatly preferable to those contained in the Bill at present. I have not consulted the professional organisations but I believe that most doctors would hesitate for some time before putting their names to a specified length of time a patient was expected to live. For this reason I support the amendment and also the request that the noble Lord should give the matter further thought.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too hope that my noble friend will arrange for the matter to be considered. There may be technical factors involved of which we are not immediately aware. But I was impressed by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I should have thought that the essence of the matter is that the disease should not only be progressive, as cancer generally is, but also incurable. It would be a mistake to limit the expression "terminally ill" to a case in which death,
"can reasonably be expected within 6 months".
I should have thought that a time limit of any kind was inappropriate in the circumstances which we are considering. However, any medical person can give a prognosis that life expectancy is short. Therefore, by accepting the amendment, we would be much more likely to be in the realm of certainty, which is where we ought always to try to find ourselves when legislating.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. We discussed the matter in Committee, as the Minister will remember. All noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment have put the case extremely well, and I am sure that the Minister will have listened with particular care to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Rea.
As we have agreed on each occasion when we discussed this both on Second Reading and in Committee, it is a difficult and sensitive matter and Members on all sides of the House wish to get it right. I am sure that the amendment has been tabled in that light. I hope that the Minister can give us an answer which will show, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, that at least the Government will consider this approach.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Renton has said. I ask my noble friend the Minister to think carefully about whether not necessarily this formula but some formula other than that in the Bill can be devised. I had in mind the possible effect on the patient who learns that he has been granted the allowance, and who if he is a person of some education and background can discover that he has received it only because the doctor has indicated that he is unlikely to last six months.
I agree that it would not be nice to know that one's doctor had indicated that one's expectation was short, but there is a certain imprecision about that phrase which I can well see from the administrative point of view is a nuisance but which from the patient's point of view may be relevant. There is something unhappy about granting an allowance which, if the patient concerned were to look at the statute or ask any legal adviser, he would learn was granted on the basis that he was under sentence within six months.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am pleased that everyone in the House welcomes the clause generally. All noble Lords recognise that there are problems of definition. I do not see the amendment as being the way forward. I hope that I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that that is the case. If he
36
feels that he can do better at a later stage it will be right to reconsider the matter because it is a difficult one.
As your Lordships will be aware, the effect of the amendment, as the noble Lord admitted, would be to widen the scope for payments to be made and to make it difficult for claims to be adjudicated. It relaxes the test of likelihood of death within six months by introducing an indeterminate prognosis that death from the illness can reasonably be expected within a short time. As we all know, the purpose of the clause is to enable those who die of a progressive disease within the six months after they claim attendance allowance to be able to qualify for and receive the allowance at least a few weeks before they die. If the amendment is accepted the qualifying period will be removed for people who may live considerably longer and who can in any case receive the allowance after six months under the existing rules.
Everyone who has spoken feels that it is desirable to remove the reference to an expectation of death within six months. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to there being a note of gloom contained in the provision. We fought long and, hard about the phrase, but we concluded that the definition must be specific.
I shall deal with the issue of doctors. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, who, as his noble friend Lord Carter stressed, has a great deal of experience in these matters, said that a doctor would not like to give such a stark warning that the patient was going to die. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter also referred to that point. Doctors are not being asked to give a prognosis. That will be decided by the attendance allowance board on the basis of information about the claimant's medical condition in the form of a factual report provided by the claimant's doctor; so it is not the claimant's doctor who says that in his view the claimant will die within six months. That is a matter of adjudication to be decided by the attendance allowance board.
The short life expectancy definition for which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asks can obviously mean anything from a few days to a few years. We believe that it would be impossible to adjudicate upon such an imprecise definition fairly. It would be confusing for the doctors making the decisions and for the claimants and their advisers.
I come now to the undertaking sought by the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Rea. We accept that the question is a difficult one. We have decided that the clause as it stands is the best way forward. Nevertheless, I give noble Lords an assurance that we shall study how the provision is working. As the provision is in primary legislation, I imagine that further primary legislation would be required if within a year or so it were found that the measure was not working well enough, but I would have to seek advice on that point. In the meantime, I give an assurance that we shall keep an eye on how the provision works.
I stress that we found the decision a difficult one to make. We must therefore monitor how the provision works. If, as the noble Lord suggests, it

37
does not work correctly, it will obviously be open to the Government at some later stage—not in the Bill because we are talking about monitoring for a year or so—to come back and seek a new definition. On that understanding, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is seeking some elucidation.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he tell us how the process will work? He says the doctor who knows and has examined the patient will not be the one to say that the limit is six months. He then went on to talk about some committee which does not see the patient but sees what the doctor says. It, in its infinite wisdom, says that there is a six-month limit. How will that be done? It seems an odd way to determine upon what date a person will die.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to follow what the noble Baroness has said. Do the Government not care that they appear to the country and to the voters to be an uncaring Government? This is another clear example of that attitude. They have a dispassionate idea that some committee will say that the person may or may not die within six months. If the Government are worrying about the money, the balance may be that some people will die before the six months. Therefore, surely the determination does not need to be in specific months.
I find it strange that the Government, who will have to go to the country eventually, discuss this matter in such an uncaring and dispassionate way. The Minister has just said that the Government will consider the matter and may change their point of view within a year or two; but we are dealing with legislation now. This seems a small point upon which they could give way. What is the consideration? Is it money? There cannot be any other reason. Do they not care how they appear?
This is the House of Lords at its worst. People do not come to listen to the debate, but they will flock in to support the Government without having heard the argument. Can we appeal to the Government to be compassionate for once on a simple and straightforward issue?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness's intervention has not been helpful. She will be aware that Clause 1 was brought forward as a result of representations on this matter made during the passage of last year's Bill. The Government have responded. There are, as all noble Lords have accepted, great difficulties over definition. We have tried to find a way around the difficulties, and we are finding a way around them.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I said that it may in the end be found that our definition is not the right one and that we may have to seek to make changes; that, in the meantime, this is the best that we can do; and that I did not think that the amendment, which widened the definition excessively, was the right way to proceed. At no point did I mention the subject of cost. I was careful
38
not to do so. I hope that noble Lords noted that point. There is a cost implication involved, but I did not bring that point into the discussions. I hope that the noble Baroness will take note of that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about the Attendance Allowance Board. I said that information on the claimant's medical condition was provided in the form of a factual report produced by the claimant's doctor. The Attendance Allowance Board is made up of eminent clinicians and specialists, with a wide range of knowledge and experience over the whole spectrum of medical life. The board will use its medical judgment to decide whether conditions are met from the information provided by the GP's factual report which will list the diagnosis, the present condition and treatment.
I hope that that will satisfy the noble Baroness. She will know that a great many applicants for benefit have to go before some board because there must be a process of adjudication. The noble Baroness would be the first to say, "Oi", if there were no form of adjudication; there must be one. I now refer the matter back to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. He has tried to come some way towards me. I do not believe that he has quite taken on board my argument that the average length of survival dictates the financial position. I gave figures to show that in many cases, if not the majority, it does not reach six months. It is an argument that ought to be borne in mind.
With regard to widening the definition too far, the word "short" should quite clearly exclude such long-term incurable diseases as the results of a stroke, multiple sclerosis or similar cases. Perhaps the noble Lord would tell me this before I decide what to do. Whatever is stated in the statute—and it seems to me that it will remain as it is—it is important that the definition should not appear on the form. Perhaps I may take it that the form which the doctor has to complete and which either the patient or the patient's representative might see would not contain the definition that it is proposed to put in the statute. Is that the position?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord about the details on the form that the doctor would have in front of him. I am not sure what the position is but I shall let him know.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, it is an important point. We should like to see the form in draft before it is agreed.
The noble Lord was kind enough to encourage me to try again to see whether by this process of approximation we could do better in the final stages of the Bill. In view of what he has said—he has given an undertaking that the Government will keep the matter under review—I am inclined not to pursue the matter at Third Reading.
I hope that the Government have taken fully on board that the short debate we have had this evening indicates the concern of noble Lords. The House will wish to keep a close eye on the matter. We shall

39
expect the Government to give us answers before the next social security Bill, or at the time of it, on the experience of the formula and the take-up. If necessary, we can come back to it on the next Bill. We are told that we shall have a social security Bill every year in the House and I imagine that that will be the case next year.
Given the undertaking by the noble Lord that the Government will take this seriously, keep it under review and monitor it, we shall no doubt probe with Questions before we come to the next round of social security legislation. On those grounds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert:
("(8) In the Social Security (Attendance Allowance) (No. 2) Regulations 1975, regulation 2(1)(c) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated this amendment and it was withdrawn at the Committee stage in order to give the Government a chance to consider the matter. We said that we would come back to it on Report to see how they had got on with their consideration.
The amendment concerns the requirement that those applying for the attendance allowance must have been resident in Great Britain for at least 26 weeks in the year immediately preceding the claim. As we said at Committee stage, it is not at all clear why the requirement is imposed. The first and most important qualifying requirement is that the claimant is,
"ordinarily resident in Great Britain".
When we discussed this in Committee, the Minister agreed that his right honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Nicholas Scott, had said in another place during the Committee stage that he would look at the provision. To be fair, although the Minister did not promise an amendment at this stage of the Bill, perhaps he could tell the House whether the Government have reached any conclusion on the matter.
At Committee stage we raised the problem of the terminally ill, which was discussed on the last amendment, involving those who come home literally to die. Surely they at least should be excluded from the requirement, which seems to be met in any case by the first qualifying requirement,
"ordinarily resident in Great Britain".
I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that I can take the noble Lord much further today. As he knows, at the previous stage I stated that my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security had said in another place during the Committee stage that he would examine this provision. He intends to consider the area of non-contributory benefits in general, as I said on the last occasion. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that it would be right to examine this entitlement as part of that consideration.
40
I cannot help the noble Lord about the timing, but as soon as possible I shall be the first to let him know. In the meantime, I hope that he can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I had hoped that the Minister would be able to tell us when the long promised review would be complete. After all, it is not that technical and I should have thought it was comparately straightforward. I have heard what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("The homeless: entitlement to benefits
. In Schedule 1A,. Part I, of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, after paragraph 4, there shall be inserted the following—
"5. A person who has experienced a period of homelessness lasting for 7 days or more, shall be automatically entitled, except that in these circumstances entitlement would be for 3 months following the last day of homelessness.
5A. For the purposes of the above paragraph homelessness is defined as having no accommodation in a night shelter, or other similar emergency short-stay hostel.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to deal with the problem of a small number of homeless young people by enabling them to have a breathing space in which to find accommodation and a job. It provides that income support should be paid to young people who have been homeless and that that income support is to be paid for three months. We know that young people aged between 16 and 17 are not automatically eligible for income support. They either have to prove estrangement or that they come into some other limited special category before they are considered for benefit.
We know that in 1989 the Government allowed a useful and welcome concession for young people in night shelters. These young people will be considered for income support and we understand that in practice it has meant that they receive it. However, when they move out to take up places in hostels, they lose this privilege and are not automatically entitled to benefit, needing to prove estrangement or to make a special case.
The amendment will assist young people who have been homeless for a week or more. Once young people find accommodation in a hostel or return home, as we all appreciate, they need a breathing space of a few weeks to sort out their lives, get their clothes together and decide what to do. An automatic entitlement to income support for three months would give them this valuable time and improve their chance of eventually finding a job or a suitable training scheme.
The second and equally important benefit of the amendment is that it will assist young people in finding accommodation or returning home. Many establishments at present will not house 16 and 17 year-olds because they know that if they are unemployed or not on YTS they will receive no income. Hostels, hotels and parents might be more willing to accept young people if they pay their way until they find a job or a training scheme. The

41
precedents for this amendment include the regulations applied to young people just out of school or detention who are entitled to income support during the child benefit extension period. We feel that to accept the amendment would not involve a great cost. It would help to solve a real problem. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I am glad to support the amendment. It makes the vital point of providing a breathing space. Anyone who has advised young people in a crisis, as any university teacher has, must realise that that can be absolutely vital. Disasters which seem quite overwhelming if people have to carry on the next day as if nothing has happened seem a great deal smaller if there is a week or two in which to get on their feet and absorb and digest what has happened.
The amendment also deals, I think satisfactorily, with a block in the progress of teenagers obtaining housing. Hostels are normally in business; the owners have to make a living. If they have to rely on teenagers who they know are unlikely to receive income support, who may have to wait a long time for a YTS place and therefore may be unable to pay the rent, naturally they have misgivings.
There are reports of a good deal of trouble in this area. Haberdasher's House at Centrepoint reports that it has to rely on charity to pay the bills. However, not every hostel or hotel that might take in teenagers can do so. If it could be made clear that those people had a three-month entitlement to income support, it would enable them to get a place to live for long enough to look for a job or for a YTS place and get themselves into sensible employment. That is, after all, normally what we want to see at the end of the day.
The Government's concession on income support for those in night shelters has been welcome. It has worked a great deal better than a number of other concessions in this area. However, what is difficult with the problem of accommodation is to get people beyond that stage. The estrangement premium, although we welcome it, works a lot less effectively than the night shelter measure.
I shall refer to a case history as I think it illustrates how the difficulties arise in this area. A 16 year-old from Nottingham quarrelled with her parents and left home on 15th January this year. She found herself living on the streets. She could not find a YTS place and she lost all her possessions. She got into a night shelter and obtained income support. She managed to get on her feet and left the night shelter at the end of the maximum period of stay. However, then she could not obtain a place to live because she had no income support. Some six weeks later she found herself back in the night shelter and obtained income support. Then she was referred to a hotel where she received no income support. She positively wanted a YTS place as she wanted to be a hairdresser. However, she could not get a place and the was finally evicted for rent arrears.
That is an example of a teenager who was trying to break out of the cycle of dependency but has not succeeded because the way was barred. That is an inefficient and inhumane procedure. The
42
amendment would provide a much better way of achieving the objective we all have of getting young people into decent employment than the situation as it is at present. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I was happy to add my name to this amendment when asked to do so. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has referred to an alarming and serious case. There must be many like that. We have to bear in mind that no young person normally makes himself or herself voluntarily totally devoid of any kind of shelter. Such people hope to find a place with a friend or relation, but if they fail to do so they end up on the streets. However, we want to keep them off the streets.
The Minister may be aware that for some considerable time now—something like a year and a half—I have been in correspondence with his right honourable friend Mr. Nicholas Scott about the particular difficulties that have been posed to individuals and organisations who operate hostels by the changeover from the former system of benefit and support for individuals and hostel finances to the current system. I know that the Government have tried to be helpful. They have introduced interim arrangements and modified arrangements and have carried out a lot of consultations and discussions. However, the fact remains that some hostels still fear that they may have to close down. I suggest that the amendment would help them to remain in business.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to give his support to this amendment. I believe it contains something real and worthwhile. I also have received correspondence about cases, such as the case mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am sure that there are many young people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, do not wish to be out on the streets but who desperately want to find employment. The thing which has struck me in recent years and which endlessly makes me ask why it occurs is the sight of young people begging.
When I inherited my title and first started to come to this House I cannot remember seeing at Paddington Station young people sitting down at the tube entrance and begging. I have started to see that happen in perhaps the past two or three years. I have been asking myself ever since why that happens. I still ask myself that question and I would still like an answer to it.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government have tried and are trying to solve this problem. Possibly the Government could be helped by responding sometimes to some of the methods suggested by noble Lords on the opposite side of the House. If Her Majesty's Government feel that they cannot accept the amendment, it would be nice if they gave a concrete reply stating why they cannot accept it. I ask the Government to do that thoroughly.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I wish to add my support to the movers of the amendment. I

43
follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said. Since the Government changed the methods of payment for hostel provision and for the young people we are discussing, the problem has got worse. One could go as far as to say "thank you" for the meagre amount which is given. However, any of us who are working with young homeless people know of the problems that exist. I have knowledge of the work of St. Basil's in Birmingham which is the largest organisation in that city that helps homeless young people. Its books show that every year the organisation helps about 1,500 young people.
While the interim payment is helpful to start with, St. Basil's finds that if young people are not willing to go through the programme of rehabilitation to encourage them to remake their lives and to encourage them to leave the night shelters and enter hostels, the initial payment is completely wasted. The rehabilitation of these young people is important. Many of them have gone through severe traumas in their own homes. As others have said, no young person leaves home and walks the streets voluntarily because he thinks it is exciting. Most of these young people are in quite a state. One needs to carry out concentrated work with them in order to help them.
The initial payment gives these young people a little breathing space but it does not help the organisations such as St. Basil's which are in the position of helping these young people. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to Centrepoint in this connection. St. Basil's is constantly asking for charitable funds despite the fact that it is a charity itself. It approaches all kinds of organisations for funds to keep the whole thing running. It receives inner city partnership money but, like all local authorities, Birmingham has many calls upon its finances. Therefore many charities find themselves being given a lesser amount by the city. At present St. Basil's is undertaking a major fund-raising campaign. It needs to raise £1·5 million within the next 18 months in order to keep its work going.
The initial funding which has been agreed, about which the Government have changed their minds, is wasted money unless it is continued for at least three months. Obviously one would like it to continue for longer, but it is a wasted investment if it is provided only for the short time envisaged at present. Therefore, I urge the Minister to tell the House this afternoon that the Government realise the seriousness of the situation. All of us are very concerned about young people sleeping out. It is something that we cannot accept and ought not to accept. When people see young people sleeping out they say, "Why doesn't the Government do something about it?". In supporting the amendment this afternoon I am asking what more the Government can do to help the young homeless.
Baroness David: My Lords, the amendment has great similarities with Amendment No. 41 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and myself. The Minister will know what I feel about Amendment No. 41, for all the reasons already given. I too, support Amendment No. 4.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall respond later to Amendment No. 41. I have already discussed the amendment with the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may also say that I am happy to investigate any individual cases of difficulty such as the one mentioned by my noble kinsman Lord Russell, as is the Training Agency.
This amendment seeks to extend eligibility to income support for homeless and 16 and 17 year-olds for a period of three months.
As noble Lords know, income support was withdrawn from the majority of 16 and 17 year-olds in September 1988. Instead of relying on state benefits young people are being encouraged to invest in their own future by continuing in their studies, getting a job or taking up the Government guarantee of an offer of a suitable YT place. That guarantee is being met. It applies to all young people who want and are able to undertake youth training, including the homeless.
Income support is still payable to the most vulnerable groups of young people. I must stress that homelessness is no bar to entitlement to income support, which is paid without time restriction to, for example, disabled people and lone parents. Other young people who either have no parental home or have good reason why they cannot live at home are entitled to income support during the same period as the child benefit extension period.
In addition to the normal rules, income support can be paid where the young person would otherwise suffer unavoidable severe hardship. This safety net enables young people at serious risk to receive benefit while looking for a job or youth training place. Since November 1989 every young person claiming benefit is automatically considered under the severe hardship provision if not otherwise entitled to income support.
These rules are delicately balanced to offer financial help to vulnerable youngsters, without providing an incentive to leave home. The amendment, if accepted, could encourage some young people to sleep rough rather than look for accommodation.
We recognise that some youngsters, especially the homeless, need special consideration in the provision of a YT place. We have not ignored that need. In March of this year the Secretary of State for Employment announced a package of measures to ease access to YT. Those measures especially help the homeless.
First, homeless young people who are willing to enter YTS but are not ready for a mainstream place, for example, because they are not presentable to employers, will automatically be referred for initial training. Secondly, direct links between hostels and individual training providers are being developed, building on the success of a pilot scheme in Birmingham where all those dealing with homeless young people, including initial training providers, social workers, careers officers and hostel staff, were brought together. It resulted in effective procedures and contacts between those groups, improving the help initial trainees receive. As a result, any homeless young person who has been offered a hostel place is

45
found an initial training place on the same day. That secures the hostel place and, if it subsequently emerges that the young person is on an inappropriate initial training scheme, a transfer to another provider will be arranged. This provides a model of how to develop resource networks to help training providers and other professionals to take appropriate roles in supporting trainees with their problems.
In addition, improvements are being made to the way applications for YT places are dealt with. These include the establishing of guarantee liaison officers in each Training Agency area office to act as a focal point for investigating those rare cases where there is difficulty in YT placement. Guidance to careers officers is being revised so that it adequately covers the importance of taking account of the special needs of difficult and vulnerable groups.
I cannot accept the amendment because it does not seem to me to be in the best interests of the disadvantaged young people involved. The existing benefit provision and the improvements to the YT operation which I have described ensure that help is available for those who are vulnerable, especially the homeless. Consequently, no young person need be without an income. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before my noble kinsman sits down, would he agree that the use of the perverse incentive in the context of going out to sleep rough credits teenagers with a degree of perversity worthy of the Marquis de Sade?
Lord Carter: My Lords, obviously that was a very disappointing answer. I said when I moved the amendment that very little cost is involved. Every time we try to deal with the situation the argument seems to founder on the assumption—which is almost an obsession with the Government—that young people belong at home with a stable job, on a training place, are never estranged or subject to abuse or violence, and live in a loving environment. Life For many young people is not like that.
The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, put the point extremely well. He said that he has seen changes in the past few years. I am sorry to say that it is the changes in the social security regulations which have brought about the problems for young people that the noble Lord described.
It is very difficult to understand why the Government cannot accept the very modest change that we propose. We hear about the guarantee of a YTS place, but we are advised that that is not the case in many areas. When the Government say that our proposal would encourage young people to sleep rough in order to obtain income support, I wonder whether the members of the Government live in the real world. There was no attempt to understand the problem that we described. I am tempted to divide the House, but I shall withdraw the amendment and have one last attempt at changing the Government's mind at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Severe disablement allowance.
In Part III of Schedule 4 to the principal Act, for paragraph 2 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"Severe Disablement allowance (section 36)

The weekly rate specified in section 6(1)(a) of the Pensions Act"").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was discussed at Committee stage but withdrawn in the hope that the Government would reconsider their objection to the amendment, which seemed to be entirely on the grounds of cost.
The severe disablement allowance is a basic, non-contributory, income-replacement benefit payable to people of working age who are incapable of work and who have not paid national insurance contributions which would entitle them to the equivalent of the contributory incapacity benefit; namely, invalidity benefit. Severe disablement allowance is paid only at 60 per cent. of the basic rate of invalidity benefit because the Government consider that people who have not made any or the correct number and type of national insurance contributions should receive less than those who have paid at the full rate.
The purpose of the amendment is to increase severe disablement allowance to the rate of the basic invalidity benefit and to end the discrimination which exists between those who have been able to work and thus make national insurance contributions and the severely disabled who have never been able to work and therefore receive only 60 per cent. of the basic invalidity benefit. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, accepted the need for additional help and accepted a recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee that SDA should be raised progressively until it reaches the same rate as invalidity benefit, but she turned down the amendment on the grounds that it would cost an additional £110 million a year.
The amendment which is now before the House gives the Government the opportunity to say that they will at least make a start in reducing the differential between SDA and IVB, although we understand that they may not be able to go all the way at the beginning. I should like to ask the Government three specific questions: first, is there a firm commitment to uprate severe disablement allowance; secondly, is there a timetable for the uprating of SDA; and, thirdly, are the age-related additions to the SDA, about which I am sure we shall hear when the Minister replies, the planned first stage in such an uprating and, if so, when can we expect the second and subsequent stages? I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. This is another of a crop of amendments to which we come from time to time which deal with the difference between contributory and non-contributory. The severe disablement allowance is lower because it is non-contributory.
Although I understand the force of the contributory principle and the arguments put for it,

47
if one applies a contributory principle to benefits for disability, one discriminates according to the age at which people become disabled and particularly therefore against congenital disability and disability which happens in youth. That infringes the principle of equal benefits for equal disability which is a principle of some importance.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the noble Lord explained, the purpose of the amendment is to increase the basic weekly rate of severe disablement allowance to the basic weekly rate of invalidity benefit.
There is, of course, a link between the two benefits in that they are both available to people who are long-term sick. Invalidity benefit is the contributory benefit; severe disablement allowance is non-contributory and thus available to people who have not paid the required national insurance contributions.
Both severe disablement allowance and its predecessor, non-contributory invalidity pension, have always been at a lower rate than invalidity benefit on the basis that it would not be fair to people who are paying national insurance contributions to pay non-contributory benefit at the same rate for the same contingency.
We know of the representations which have been made to pay the two benefits at the same rate. There was a recommendation to that effect by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its report, Benefits for Disabled People: a Strategy for Change. In framing its recommendation, however, it acknowledged that it would be necessary to move by stages towards the alignment of the rates. The reason for that is the considerable additional expenditure, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred, which the change would bring about. We estimate that the gross cost would be around £250 million a year and the net cost around £110 million a year.
Our policy for the future of benefits for people who are disabled was set out in The Way Ahead which was published on 10th January this year. That set out our conclusions based on our review of the current benefit system in the light of the findings of the surveys of disability undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. One of those conclusions was that priority for additional help should be given to people disabled earlier in life.
The action which we are taking currently is to introduce age-related additions to severe disablement allowance in Clause 2 of the Bill. For people who become incapable of work before they reach age 40, that will mean that they will receive an additional £10 a week, making a total of £38·20, by way of severe disablement allowance. The cost of bringing in those additions will be £50 million a year.
In principle, there is nothing between the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the Government on this issue. It is a question of what is achievable. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that this is a positive step based on the report's, recommendations. The noble Lord and the noble
48
Earl, Lord Russell, tempt me to go further, but this is a positive step and I hope that, in that positive spirit, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I did not realise that I was tempting the noble Baroness to go further or too far.
Again, that was a disappointing answer. The argument is that it is unfair to those who have paid national insurance contributions. The disabled have not chosen not to pay national insurance contributions; they have not paid them because they are disabled. That is the point of the amendment. The Minister mentioned a net cost of £110 million. It was pointed out earlier with regard to the first amendment that we on this side of the House propose amendments which cost money, but that cost shows just how much the refusal to uprate severe disablement allowance costs the disabled. The age-related element is a start, but it does not go nearly far enough. We must therefore ask the opinion of the House on this matter.
5.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 117.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hughes, L.

Airedale, L.

Hunt, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jay, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Barnett, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milverton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walston, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wigoder, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Auckland, L.

Aldington, L.

Balfour, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Beloff, L.

Allerton, L.

Belstead, L.

49

Bessborough, E.

Layton, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Boardman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Manton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Margadale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountevans, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Munster, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nelson, E.

Cross, V.

Norrie, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Onslow, E.

Davidson. V. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Deedes, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.

Pender, L.

Derwent, L.

Perth, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Porritt, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Romney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Foley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Somers, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stockton, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strange, B.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Halsbury, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sudeley, L.

Havers, L.

Swinton, E.

Henley, L.

Terrington, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Ingrow, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wise, L.

Killearn, L.

Wolfson, L.

Kimball, L.

Wynford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.43 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Income support: equal treatment of over and under 25's
(1) In paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, after the words "(applicable amount and polygamous marriages)" there shall be inserted the words "except that, for this purpose, any person aged less than 25 to whom any paragraph in Part II of Schedule 1A applies or would apply if he were aged 16 and had not reached the relevant date determined under regulation 13A(3)(b) shall be treated as if he were aged 25".
(2) In paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, after the words "17(a) and (b)", and in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989, after the words "8(a) and (b)", there shall be inserted the words "except that, for this purpose, any person aged less than 25 to whom any paragraph in Part II of Schedule 1A to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 applies, or would apply if he were aged 16, claiming income support and had not reached
50
the relevant date determined under regulation 13A(3)(b) of those regulations, shall he treated as if he were aged 25".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an ambitious amendment. For some time and for a good deal of last year we have heard about various detailed problems arising from the treatment of young people under social security. The argument of this amendment is that the problems keep coming back because the whole policy of treating differently over-25s and under-25s is a mistake and ought to be abandoned lock, stock and barrel. I also remind the Government that there will be only one more social security Bill in which they can put right this matter before a general election and that footage of young teenagers on the run is good box office.
I should rather have the situation put right now. However, I think we have to address the whole issue of whether there is any sensible justification for treating people under 25 differently from people over 25 in our social security system. Their costs are exactly the same: their housing costs the same, their transport costs the same and their food costs the same. The only possible justification for treating them differently is the one that was given by the Minister's right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place when she said that they:
have a home to live in belonging to their parents".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/6/88; col. 704.]
That is not true by any means of all the teenagers who end up sleeping rough. Forty per cent. of them have been in care and have no home to go to; some 40 per cent. of them have been thrown out by their parents. We are reminded of just how often that happens. Human parents, just like parents of fledgling birds, appear to reach a point at which their patience snaps. Sometimes they reach it too soon and at an inappropriate moment. We cannot continue with the policy of supposing that teenagers ought to live at home unless we are prepared to grasp the nettle of enforcement and place an obligation on parents to house the teenager. If we do not do that, we put very severe economic pressure on the teenager to do what the teenager is often absolutely unable to do. That seems to me to be misguided, not to say extremely inefficient, and capable of giving rise to very considerable hardship, which I shall not retail again because it has already been brought to your Lordships' attention.
There is also the question of whether it is wise for family relations and for mental and physical health to insist that in all circumstances, however difficult, parents and children beyond the age of 18 should always continue to live in the same place. There are some cases in which parents and children develop what I can only describe as an allergy to each other. In such cases I cannot see that it does any good to insist on yoking them together. In fact many of us are used to meeting situations—not very many but they exist—in which one can only help the persons concerned by advising that they live on their own.
This policy also attempts to achieve something which in the whole history of mankind has never been accomplished. Never has there been a time when all people under the age of 25 who could not otherwise support themselves have been induced to live at home. The idea that one can run away and

51
seek one's fortune is as old as the hills and it is beyond the power of this Government to eradicate it.
We are told that if we change the law in this point we shall create a "perverse incentive" to leave home. I have done my level best to get my mind round that doctrine. I cannot do it. To me it does not make any kind of sense whatever. In the first place the sums are wrong. No social security benefits that people are likely to receive will equal the whole cost of independent living. Nor indeed will they match the comforts and the physical provisions of a well appointed home. If the Government think that there is an economic incentive to leave home, they have simply done their sums wrong.
In fact, I believe that that is the result of a very internalist departmental view. It is the effect of comparing benefit when living at home with benefit when living away from home and not taking any other factors in the equation into account. It is only from that internalist perspective that the doctrine of the perverse incentive could possibly have been arrived at.
It also implies a very curious conception of human nature. Most teenagers with whom I deal are a great deal more concerned with bringing their emotional lives under control than with making themselves a few extra shillings. They are concerned about long-term emotional satisfaction, not immediate financial profit. I do not say that they are indifferent. It is just not their highest priority.
I simply cannot imagine any of the people whom I teach leaving home, throwing up all the comforts of a well appointed house and breaking emotional ties—which matter considerably to most of them and which it is at present in fashion to take seriously—to endure the very dubious pleasure of being a teenager on the run and sleeping on the streets in the weather that we had in January, which was not particularly inviting.
It is a very strange notion that people will adopt those priorities. To those who advance such arguments I can only say that the words of John Stuart Mill seem to be appropriate:
"We will not do such persons the injury of supposing that their conception of human nature is drawn from their own consciousness".
I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I fully support the amendment, which stands in my name also. The noble Earl has moved it so admirably that there is little left for me to say. Those who have brought up people of this age group know that they cost as much as those over 25 in the amount they eat, what they wear, the space that they take up and so on. I endorse the noble Earl's other point. Although there are moments when parents and children long to be apart, the perverse incentive is not there. I warmly support the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, apart from the merits of the amendments, I hope that your Lordships will reject it because it creates a great deal of confusion.
52
We deal with primary and subordinate legislation in quite different ways. Primary legislation is intended to state matters which are of lasting effect and which should, although they do not always do so, state the principles on which we legislate. Subordinate legislation is intended to deal with more detailed matters, sometimes filling in the details that the primary legislation does not fill in for good reasons. Subordinate legislation can also be more easily amended and is therefore suitable for matters that need to be amended from time to time.
However, this provision amends the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 and the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, which would create more confusion than noble Lords opposite have fully realised. We have the statute book and the separate volumes of collective subordinate regulations. We do not normally have cross-references on the statute book to the subordinate regulations. I do not recollect there being insertions in the book of regulations saying that the regulation has been amended by statute. We do not proceed in that manner. I therefore hope that on reflection the method used by the amendment will be considered to be not only unusual but unsuitable.
On the merits, rightly or wrongly, we have been able to justify various examples of age discrimination on our statute book. There is reference to the age of 16 for some purposes and the age of 25 for others. Without going into the precise merits of using those ages in relation to those regulations, I do not think a case has so far been made out for changing the law as proposed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton has spelt out the rather odd nature of the amendment. It seeks to amend two sets of regulation by statute. Apart from being odd and inconvenient, it is a perfectly futile method of proceeding. In the event of the amendment being carried against the Government, there is nothing whatever to prevent the Government using their regulation-making power to withdraw the amended regulations and replace them in their present form. The operation is therefore legislatively futile.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl or the noble Baroness in whose names the amendment stands, whether they have any idea what the provision would cost. It seems unfair for them to ask your Lordships to consider on its merits a proposal which they have so far shown themselves unwilling to cost.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the last two speakers have given technical reasons for not achieving the alteration put forward by my noble friend. That may be right. But we should obtain their help to make the alteration unless they profoundly disagree with it. If they do, I cannot think why.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend Lord Renton explained why he disagreed with the amendment on other than technical grounds, but so be it. The amendment seeks to give the over-25 rate of personal allowance to certain income support claimants under that age who have to live away from home. It also introduces similar provisions for young

53
people claiming housing benefit and community charge benefit. The young people involved are mainly those who have no parents or who cannot or do not live with their parents for certain prescribed reasons.
There are a number of reasons why the Government are unable to support the amendment. First, a straightforward distinction in benefit levels on the basis of age and family circumstances was one of the main elements in the simplification of the new income-related benefit system introduced in April 1988. The House will recall that under the old supplementary benefit scheme distinctions were based on householder or non-householder status.
That scheme proved to be extremely complicated both for claimants to understand and for our staff to administer, involving detailed and often personal questioning to establish entitlement. The effect of the proposed amendment would simply be to reintroduce many of those complexities into the new arrangements, together with a new level of questioning necessary to determine whether someone had good reason for living away from home.
The House will be aware that arrangements along those lines were introduced in July last year to enable certain 16 to 17 year-olds to qualify for income support at the higher 18 to 24 year-old rate. However, those changes were made in recognition of the particular problems facing a relatively small group of the most vulnerable youngsters. It would be a very different matter to extend similar provisions to all young people under the age of 25, as the noble Lord who moved the amendment has proposed.
That would involve a considerable increase in operational costs, not only for local social security offices but also for individual local authorities, which are of course responsible for administering the housing benefit and community charge benefit schemes. I remind the House that under the changes introduced last July, the higher 18 to 24 year-old rate of personal allowance was extended to all 16 to 17 year-olds claiming housing benefit only, not just those in the special circumstances prescribed for income support. There were therefore no operational implications for local authorities.
But I would not wish the House to think that the Government are opposing the amendment purely on operational grounds. The levels of income support for young people under the age of 25 not only take account of the fact that the majority are likely to live in someone else's household but also reflect the lower earnings expectations of this age group generally. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be wrong for benefit levels to provide an attractive alternative to seeking work or training or an encouragement for young people to leave home unnecessarily. That was the position under the old supplementary benefit scheme and I have no wish to reintroduce these perverse incentives into the reformed structure.
As I mentioned earlier, last year the Government recognised that the level of benefit was causing difficulties for some 16 to 17 year-olds and we took steps to improve the position. But I do not accept
54
that the same problems apply to the level of benefit paid to 18 to 24 year-olds. I believe that this is adequate, without being over-generous. I would, of couse, remind the House that those entitled to income support will also qualify for the maximum housing benefit and community charge benefit covering 100 per cent. of their eligible rent and 80 per cent. of their community charge. I would also point out that lone parents and couples over 18 already qualify for the over-25 rates in recognition of their extra responsibilities and that anyone who is entitled to a premium will receive it at the full rate irrespective of their age.
My noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter rightly said that changes in this area would be more appropriately dealt with through secondary rather than primary legislation. They said that we should not go down the road of amending regulations in primary legislation. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked about the cost of the amendments and I am advised that it would be some £47 million.
We remain committed to the age-related structure of personal allowances and income support in its present form. It provides the most straightforward and effective approach and I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on any matter concerned with parliamentary drafting one must listen with care to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I sympathise profoundly with his arguments against putting general principles into regulations. He and I have often spoken together about the matter. But it was not I who put the general principle into regulations.
We in this House cannot amend regulations unless we invoke a procedure by passing an Act authorising ourselves to do so. Once a provision is put into regulations we can use legislation only to remove it. I share the noble Lord's regret that that is so but I feel entitled to say, "Please, it wasn't me; I didn't put it there".
That is now the only way in which the problem can be addressed. We cannot refrain from addressing it simply because the Government put more general principles into a past regulation than we should like to see. Perhaps in future the Government will be careful not to repeat the same mistake because it is liable to lead to legislative confusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, rightly and properly raised the question of cost. My noble kinsman, whom I thank for his reply, gave a figure of £47 million. With an injustice of this magnitude I should not regard the cost as an obstacle if I were entirely convinced by it. But I am sure that my noble kinsman will concede that in the costing there is an element of the hypothetical. Under a different benefit regime we do not know how many teenagers living away from home would succeed in obtaining a place to live and in obtaining employment. Therefore, instead of being a charge on the Exchequer they would become net contributors. That is the whole basis of my approach to the Bill.
We are blocking off opportunities which will allow people to escape from dependence on benefit and

55
obtain employment. This is an extreme example of that. Increasing the number of taxpayers is a far more painless method of paying for a programme than is raising the rates of taxation. It is my contention that accepting the amendment will have the effect of putting more teenagers in employment and, therefore, increasing revenues. I shall not be surprised if, in the end, there is no net cost. If there is it will be small. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not convinced. His position is conjectural; so, I admit, is mine. But when we have what is a crying injustice I do not see that we can do anything else.
My noble kinsman the Minister dealt with the lower rate and justified that by claiming that there is a lower earnings expectation. But his argument does too much; it commits him to things he may not have intended. I shall take one obvious example; the average earnings expectation of women is lower than that of men. I hope that my noble kinsman is not about to introduce the same argument for saying that we should give women lower social security benefits than men. If he does so I shall oppose it because it would be discriminatory. I believe that the present policy is discriminatory in the same way. As for the doctrine of perverse incentive, I can say no more—words fail me. I commend the amendment to the House.
6.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 113.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hughes, L.

Airedale, L.

Hunt, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hylton, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lockwood, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L,

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Richard, L.

Foot, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Russell. E. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Allerton, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Ampthill, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Auckland, L.

56

Balfour, E.

Layton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Beloff, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch, B.

Manton, L.

Boardman, L.

Margadale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mills, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nelson, E.

Cockfield, L.

Norrie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Pender, L.

Cross, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Deedes, L.

Romney, E.

Denham, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elles, B.

Seebohm, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stockton, E.

Elton, L.

Strange, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Foley, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinfen, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Swinton, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Terrington, L.

Gridley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ullswater, V.

Havers, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hives, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Hylon-Foster, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Ingrow, L.

Wise, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wynford, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

Lauderdale, E.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 54 names, the Tellers for the Not-Contents 113 names. The Clerks recorded 54 and 114 names respectively.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause:
("Uprating of income support for 16 and 17 year olds.
In paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, delete the table and insert the following—

"Column (1) Person or Couple

Column (2) Amount

(1) Single person who lives with his parents, or any person acting in the place of his parents, and aged

(a) less than 25;

£28·80

(b) not less than 25.

£36·70

(2) Single person who does not live with his parents, nor any person acting in the place of his parents.

£36·70

(3) Couples.

£57·60".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. I admit immediately that these amendments have the same technical problem as that raised on the last amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, it is open to the Government to agree to amend the regulations to achieve what we wish to achieve on this matter. If the Minister agrees to that, we shall withdraw the amendment.
We now return to the problem of providing income support for 16 or 17 year-olds. Amendments were proposed in Committee to deal with that problem but the Government were unable to accept them despite the fact that considerable unease was expressed on all sides of the Committee regarding the effects of the changes in benefit regulations in 1988. They removed benefit from 16 and 17 year-olds. However, the Government have been forced to concede some changes in the regulations since then.
The effects of that removal are well documented: the difficulty of finding and paying for accommodation which results in the vicious Catch-22 situation of no home, no job; no job, no home; the increase in youthful crime and begging; the creation of cardboard cities for the young homeless, and many other undesirable social effects which we have discussed on a number of amendments.
Young people are said to be guaranteed a YTS place to compensate for that removal of benefit. Youth Aid estimates that at least 45,000 16 to 17 year-olds are without a job, a YTS place or any benefit. The cost of applying these amendments to those young people would be £70 million or £80 million. However, we should ask ourselves about the social cost of not helping them. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out the cost of the police, the courts, the prisons and the health service. I believe it is a social obscenity that a rich country allows substantial numbers of its young people to live it such appalling conditions.
All that seems to stem from a curious obsession by the Government that young people belong at home in employment or on training schemes, living in a stable family background. That is a perfectly laudable objective but is a long way from the home lives of many young people.
In the recent recess I visited Prague and I had many interesting discussions regarding the new freedoms there. More than once I was asked: how is it that a rich country like yours has on its streets young people who are begging and living in cardboard boxes? I was told that that would not have been possible under their previous regime, oppressive though it was. I had no answer to that question. To accept this amendment would mean that that question would never need to be asked. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I intend to contribute only one point on this amendment. I wish to answer a question asked of me by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on 24th May. She asked me to give detailed evidence of cases of people who had applied for YTS places and were unable to obtain them. I have a
58
file of some 130 hardship cases of which, on my calculations, 70 are of people who had applied for YTS places and were unable to obtain them. Those come from one organisation and I am told that a much larger file is on the way. I should be grateful for my noble kinsman's advice on how, in what form and to whom he wishes those cases to be presented.
They seem to me to come under a number of fairly regular headings. By far the commonest heading is pregnancy, the employer saying very reasonably that a girl who could not complete the training was not suitable for the YTS. The second category is illness. For example, a girl was not accepted for the YTS because she was epileptic. Again, one can understand the employer's point of view, but that girl must live. We have here the problem of the dual nature of the YTS; namely, that it is both a government scheme to support teenagers who could not otherwise live and an employer-led scheme to provide worthwhile work for employers. There is a potential contradiction there.
The third very common category is that of those who did not obtain a YTS place because of the short time for which they were available. For example, several cases in that category were of people intending to join the army. They were to join up at a date two or three months ahead but were not given a place because they could not do anything useful in the time available.
There were cases of behaviour problems where of course one can see the employer's point of view. However, starvation is not usually thought to be the appropriate punishment for behaviour problems. There are problems regarding geographical area. Last year it was Glasgow; this year it seems to be Manchester and Chesterfield where the supply of places simply is not sufficient for the need. There are problems of geographical availability. I was not surprised that one case came from the Western Isles.
There are problems with poor English. Again I can see the employer's point. Poor English limits a teenager's usefulness to an employer, but I hope that it does not deprive him or her of the right to live. That is not all. Since we discussed YTS in Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, again repeated the government guarantee of a place for every teenager, we have had some striking press publicity regarding the difficulties of YTS.
In the Independent on 31st May the chairman of the East London Managing Agents Network, Mr. Ernest Large, said that it was not able to offer a guarantee to the next batch of school-leavers. He said that the consensus is that East London can no longer offer the guarantee.
In the Independent on 4th June the National Council for Voluntary Organisations said that the cuts in YTS funding from the Government mean that the voluntary sector's contribution is at risk. Voluntary and community groups provide 7 per cent. of YTS places. In the Daily Telegraph on 8th June, which is not normally thought of as part of our Left-wing press, Sir Clifford Chetwood, chairman of the Construction Industry Training Board, was quoted as saying that he was undertaking a fundamental review of youth training programmes

59
because of government cuts. They provide 10 per cent. of the total YTS places. In today's Independent we have a headline,
"Charities set to lose 5,000 training places as funding is cut".
In those circumstances I wonder whether when my noble kinsman replies he will repeat the doctrine of a government guarantee, and whether if he does so, he will risk finding, as junior Ministers do from time to time, that he is occupying a position whence all but he have fled.
There are other cases of people who genuinely cannot be expected to apply for YTS places. For example, someone who has been thrown out of her parent's home, and when found has not eaten for three days, clearly needs a little while before she is fit to undertake training.
A surprisingly large number even among 16 and 17 year-olds are carers. For example, one young person was engaged in caring for a blind father. I know that my noble friend Lady Seear will say more about that later. There are cases of considerable distress on which I shall not elaborate. Forcing people in those situations to rely for subsistence on applying for a YTS place, which probably is not there anyway, is appropriately described as social cruelty.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I feel sympathetic to the amendment. I received some material on the matter and, taking into account what has been said today and at different times on the subject, I am happy to support it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I reinforce my noble friend's comments regarding the effects of cuts in government spending for schemes of this kind—schemes for special needs groups with which I am associated. I specifically refer to young offenders, who are difficult to train and place. The cuts in government funding have led to drastic reductions in the training offered and because of that the people concerned will find it extraordinarily difficult to earn any money.
When the Bill was drafted I have no doubt that the Government believed that they were funding all people who wanted a YTS place. That is no longer so. If the noble Lord cannot comment on it this evening perhaps between now and Third Reading he will look at the implications of the changes which the Government have made regarding the cuts in funding because they drastically alter the situation.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this amendment is much narrower than the previous one. I support it on the grounds of the cost not only of clothing but also of shoes, as any parent who has children in this age group will readily understand. Many of these young people are still growing and therefore need not fewer but more clothes and shoes in the course of one year than older people.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble kinsman spoke of the position of junior Ministers at the Dispatch Box. I thought he intended to quote,
"The boy stood on the burning deck".
60
I cannot remember how it continues, but I seem to remember he was all alone.
Perhaps I may first say that I shall be very pleased to see any of the cases collected by my noble kinsman. He asks where they can be sent. He can send them to me at the Department of Social Security, Richmond House, Whitehall. I will certainly look at them.
I shall deal with the amendments in opposite order, starting first with Amendment No. 8, which seeks to change the provisions for 16 and 17 year-olds by extending eligibility to income support to any 16 or 17 year-old who is unable to secure employment or a suitable place on a youth training scheme.
Income support is not payable to most young people under 18 years of age. It was withdrawn from the majority of 16 and 17 year-olds in September 1988. The Government did that to prevent young people going straight into the benefit culture on leaving school. Dependence on state benefits so early on in a person's career is clearly not in the interests of the young person, their families or society as a whole. The withdrawal of benefit was accompanied by the introduction of a guarantee of the offer of a suitable youth training place for anyone who wants one. That guarantee is being met.
There is no reason why a young person who wants and is able to undertake youth training should be without a place. As my noble friend Lady Blatch said in Committee in March of this year, there were approximately 160,000 unfilled youth training places. On that occasion she went on to quote the number of unfilled places throughout the kingdom in every area, again in answer to the claim by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that there were geographical black spots, which I do not accept.
Perhaps I could touch on the newspaper articles quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—the Independent articles of 31st May and 4th June and the Daily Telegraph article of 8th June. The top priority for training and enterprise councils is to meet the youth training guarantee. That is properly a matter for the training agency. It will investigate any cases where it is alleged that the guarantee is not or will not be met and will take remedial action.
Income support is still payable to the most vulnerable groups of young people. It is paid without time restriction to, for example, disabled people and lone parents. Other young people who either have no parental home or have good reason why they cannot live at home are entitled to income support during the same period as the child benefit extension period. Whether or not a young person is offered a place in his or her chosen field depends on the circumstances. If he or she does not apply until the child benefit or bridging allowance is about to run out, it may not be possible to provide what is wanted right away, but every effort will be made to find a suitable place as quickly as possible.
In addition to the normal rules, income support can be paid where the young person would otherwise suffer unavoidable severe hardship. That safety net enables young people at serious risk to receive benefit while looking for a job or YT place. Since

61
November 1989 every young person claiming benefit is automatically considered under the severe hardship provision if not otherwise entitled to income support.
Apart from extending entitlement to young people estranged from their families, we have not been persuaded of the desirability of any major change. We remain convinced that our policy on young people is the right one. The income support rules provide help for those youngsters who may be incapable of work or training while also offering temporary help to those who may not be able to take up training or job opportunities immediately.
We have always recognised that some youngsters need special consideration in the provision of a YT place. That does not mean that we should give up on them. Indeed, we cannot afford to give up on them. Their problems can be accommodated in a number of ways: first, through YT itself, which aims to provide quality training tailored to the needs of the individual. This includes those youngsters with special training needs such as those who lack motivation or who have disabilities. Secondly, initial training offers in-depth assessment and remedial help for young people who would otherwise have difficulty in being accepted or coping with YT. This is intended to bring youngsters with particular problems—for example, the homeless and those with severe emotional or behavioural problems—to a point where they are ready for mainstream YT.
In addition, in March this year the Secretary of State for Employment announced a package of operational improvements in dealing with applications for YT places. These included the establishing of guarantee liaison officers in each Training Agency area office to act as a focal point for investigating those rare cases where there is difficulty in YT placement and the revision of guidance to careers officers so that it adequately covers the need to take account of the special needs of difficult and vulnerable groups. The existing provision and the improvements to the YT operation which I have described ensure that help is available for those who are vulnerable and that no young person need be without an income.
Turning to Amendment No. 7, this seeks to introduce a scale of benefit rates for the under-25s which would be determined on whether or not they live with their parents or guardian. Those people under the age of 25 living with parents would receive the equivalent of the present 18 to 24 year-old rate, while those who live away from home would receive the over-25 rate.
We have discussed the rationale behind the present age-related allowances in some depth in regard to Amendment No. 6, which the House recently rejected. Therefore, I shall not go over those arguments again. I simply say that it would not be acceptable, or indeed right, to introduce into the system something that would clearly act as a perverse incentive to the under-25s to leave home unnecessarily.
On a practical level, this amendment may look deceptively simple to operate but we must look at the principle involved. The amendment would mean
62
that any young person who chose to move to a nearby relative's or a friend's house could increase benefit by almost £8 per week while to all intents and purposes the household circumstances would be the same.
I have already said that the Government consider that the present arrangements for under-25s provide adequate income in different circumstances. There is no justification that I can see for increasing the benefit presently paid to 16 and 17 year-olds who are living at home with parents. The present 18 to 24 year-old rate payable to those youngsters who have no option but to live independently is adequate without being over-generous.
Finally, I should touch on the question of cost, as I always ought to do. I am advised that these two amendments would cost around £74 million. The present arrangements enable the Government to be flexible in responding to the special needs of certain groups while retaining a structure which is straightforward and effective. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may point out that he has not referred to the fact—and there is no argument about this—that the Government have cut the amount of money available for all these schemes, including the money going to the TECs. Large numbers of people concerned with these schemes have been making representations to the Government in that respect. The noble Lord may say that it has been found that previously the schemes have been grossly over-funded. I do not think many people would agree with that. If that is not the case, the Government must at least admit that such cuts are making it more difficult to fulfil the undertaking. Perhaps the noble Lord will agree to review the position now that these cuts are taking place to see whether the Government can say, as they have said previously, that there are places available. What was true in the past is not going to be true in the future with less money coming forward.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said that there were about 160,000 vacancies throughout the country in March of this year. I also repeated the Government's guarantee that all young people will he able to take up a YT place.
Lord Carter: My Lords, when we were discussing last year's social security legislation and the subject of disability benefits I said to the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that it would save the time of the House if he stood up, said "OPCS survey" and then sat down. In discussing this subject today if the noble Lord were to stand up, say "a perverse incentive" and sit down it would be equally time-saving.
Again, his answer was very disappointing. The Government seem to be completely stone-faced on this issue. They refuse to accept the problem, as they did when they first introduced the changes in the regulations which led to the problem and were then forced to make concessions—concessions which had

63
been pressed on them from the outset. There seems to be a gulf in the understanding between the Government and those people who have to deal with the problem.
The Minister referred to 160,000 unfilled places. As I said in moving the amendment, we are told by Youth Aid that there are 45,000 young people without a job, a YTS place or benefit. I ask the Minister: what are those 45,000 young people supposed to do? It is clear that the Government cannot understand or recognise the problem, but to divide the House would achieve nothing. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elliott of Morpeth): My Lords, before calling the next amendment I have to inform the House that the figure for those voting "Not-Content" in the last Division was wrongly given as 113. The figure should have been 114.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Housing benefit for under-25s
. In section 22 of the 1986 Act, after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) In relation to housing benefit the applicable amount for a person aged under 25 shall be the same as if he were aged 25".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Russell I briefly move this amendment. This is very much in line with the case that we have been making on previous amendments. The removal of housing benefit for the under-25s can be a serious handicap to people in that age group who have to be away from home. In particular, it affects the position of students—a point that we have made on a number of occasions—and specifically graduate students, who are not now able to receive housing benefit. We wish to see that restored and that is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this amendment would abolish the lower applicable amount for young people aged under 25 in housing benefit only. It would have the effect of basing the calculation of housing benefit on the full adult rate of personal allowance in all cases, irrespective of age or personal circumstances.
The House will of course be aware that as a prudent Administration we are concerned that public funds should be disbursed both sensibly and sensitively. Every change to the existing scheme of income related benefits carries a cost. The estimated cost of this amendment at current benefit rates would be about £11 million. We are realists and as such we recognise that in reality the overwhelming majority of single people live at home with their families. This position is reflected in the structure of housing benefit, community charge benefit and income
64
support, which all have a reduced personal allowance for younger claimants. A lower benefit rate acknowledges the reality that most of those aged under 25 are non-householders, with no liability for housing costs. Equally important, these young people have lower income expectations than older people, as I said on earlier amendments. It is therefore right that the benefit system should also reflect that.
Common rules which apply to income support and housing benefit, together with the latter's rent taper, apply to extra income. This means that all young people in employment or on YT who successfully claim housing benefit, and who must be living independently in order to be eligible, will be left with at least their income support applicable amount to live on after paying their housing costs.
As I have already said, we consider it right that this applicable amount should be lower for single people under the age of 25 than for those aged 25 and over. We have discussed this on all previous amendments. Those who are lone parents or who are disabled will benefit from the special premiums and higher earnings disregard which apply to those groups, irrespective of age. For couples and lone parents there is no age divide above 18 in recognition of their special status.
There is a scheme to help with housing costs. It should not offer young people the incentive to leave home by increasing the applicable amount in income support.
The Government undertook to monitor the effects of the 1988 social security reforms and they are continuing to do so. We have responded to representations of 16 and 17 year-olds who are living independently and finding it difficult to manage on the lower rate of benefit. We do not accept that the same situation applies to the rate for 18 to 24 year-olds. We consider that that rate is sufficient without being overgenerous.
I am sure the House will agree that it would be wrong if benefit levels provided an attractive alternative to seeking work or training or encouraged young people to leave home unnecessarily. That was the position under the old supplementary benefit scheme. We are concerned not to reintroduce those anomalies into the reform structure. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not find that to be a satisfactory answer. The noble Lord has repeated the points that he made in the previous debate. He has again produced the argument that because expectations of earnings are lower the benefits rates should be lower. He did not answer the point made by my noble friend that one does not apply that argument because women's expectations of earnings are lower than those of men, and the logic of that situation would require them to do so. However, the noble Lord is obviously quite implacable in regard to that matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Severe disablement allowance: age related addition]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 11, at beginning insert:
("( ) In section 36(4) of the principal Act, for paragraph— (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(c) he does not satisfy the prescribed conditions as to presence in Great Britain; or".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment returns to a problem that was raised at Committee stage when the response of the Government was not wholly satisfactory. The requirements for applicants for severe disablement allowances are that Great Britain must be their normal place of residence, that they must have been resident in Great Britain for 10 our of 20 years prior to the claim, and that they must have been physically present for each of 196 qualifying days of incapacity.
The residence requirements do not coincide with those for invalid care allowance, attendance allowance, mobility allowance, housing benefit and income support. The Minister of State, Mr. Nicholas Scott, undertook in another place to examine the problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, confirmed at Committee stage in this Chamber that the Gavernment were reviewing the situation with a view to rationalising the various anomalies.
The Minister wrote to me and pointed out that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in reply to an amendment that I moved in Committee had quoted a cost of £14 million a year. It appears that that figure was incorrect and that the amount should have been £1·4 million. Perhaps those who advise the noble Baroness will remind her whether it was Gladstone or Disraeli who had trouble with "those damn dots". The answer was wrong by the power of 10, but I do not propose to say any more about that matter. I think that is extremely decent of me!
The amendment gives the Government an opportunity to reveal the outcome of their review and to convince the House that the expenditure of £1·4 million is so great a burden on the social security budget of £54 million that the amendment cannot be accepted. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not comforted by the fact that I did not spot that mistake in my previous presentation. I am only comforted by the fact that so many other people did not spot it.
Severe disablement has, in common with the other non-contributory benefits for people who are disabled, qualifying conditions relating to residence and presence in Great Britain. The presence conditions are that a person claiming the allowance must be present here and have been present here for 24 weeks out of the continuous period of 28 weeks for which a person must have been incapable of work before qualifying for severe disablement allowance. The presence conditions are therefore fairly easy to meet.
The residence conditions are that the person must have been resident in Great Britain for 10 of the last 20 years (or 10 years since birth in the case of a
66
person aged 20). The effect of the amendment would be to remove the power to make regulations relating to residence and thus the current so-called 10 in 20 test.
That test is different from the tests which apply to the other benefits for people who are disabled; namely, attendance allowance and mobility allowance. The test for severe disablement is the same as applied to its predecessor, non-contributory invalidity pension. When the latter was introduced in 1975 the residence test which was adopted was the same as for non-contributory retirement pension. There is an affinity between the two benefits in that they are available to people who have not paid the required national insurance contributions to qualify for the contributory benefits provided for the same purpose. On the other hand, attendance and mobility allowances are benefits which are provided specifically to help with the extra costs of disability and they have no contributory counterparts. The residence and presence conditions are much easier to fulfil for those two benefits.
We are already looking at the question of whether or not changes should be made which will bring the tests for those benefits more into line. The tests for attendance and mobility allowance are being considered in preparation for the new disability allowance, which will bring those two benefits together. We are looking at the tests for severe disablement allowance at the same time. I am not able to tell your Lordships when we shall be able to reach a conclusion, as there are a number of other questions which have to be considered in modifying current arrangements to fit into the disability allowance. It would be premature at this stage to accept that the residence test for severe disablement allowance should be removed altogether.
There are points of principle to be taken into consideration, such as the relationship between the eligibility criteria for contributory and non-contributory benefits that are provided for the same purpose. There is also the question of cost. At this point, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for an error which was made in quoting the cost when the amendment was debated at Committee stage. The gross cost of providing severe disablement allowance to our estimate of 1,000 people who would be expected to gain from the amendment is £1.4 million. That is still a substantial sum.
The point has been made that the test affects the mobility of labour, but the point to bear in mind is that some people who are working abroad can qualify for contributory benefits by paying national insurance contributions while abroad or through reciprocal arrangements with other countries. We are aware, however, that members of their families may not be able to gain entitlement in that way.
We are aware of the representation made on behalf of service families who have spent a number of tours abroad in the 20-year test period. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, expressed concern in relation to that point at Committee stage.
We believe that the number involved is very small. A social security commissioner has held that, in

67
certain circumstances, it may be possible for a person to be regarded as resident here even though abroad on consecutive tours of duty. We already have special arrangements to help members of service families with the presence criteria and we are looking sympathetically at finding a way of making arrangements to help with the residence criteria. The extent to which we need to act on that matter will to a great extent depend upon what conclusion we reach about the appropriate residence conditions for claimants generally.
In conclusion, I hope that the points I have made show that it would not be advisable to make a change to the residence rules for severe disablement allowance without carefully considering the effect it would have on its relationship to other benefits. We have the matter in hand, but, because of the need to consider these possible implications for other benefits, I do not think that I can give a date by which we can reach our conclusions.
I hope nevertheless that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment so that residence and presence conditions for benefits for disabled people can be considered in the round.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this is a highly complicated matter. One is tempted to observe that the Minister's reply would perhaps be easier to understand in the original Sanskrit!
We understand that a review is being carried out. I thought that the noble Baroness should have spared us the description of a substantial sum of £1·4 million among 1,000 people. She sounded almost as convincing about that matter as about the figure of £14 million that she quoted at Committee stage. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption for summer vacation employment
. In section 20(12)(d) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be inserted the words "provided that no person shall be treated as not available for employment solely on the grounds that he is a student during the summer vacation appropriate to his course." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords we were successful with two or three amendments at Committee stage in relation to students and housing benefit. However, the present amendment proposes to retain the student entitlement to income support during the summer vacation.
The Government published draft amendment regulations on 19th February. They will have the effect of taking students out of entitlement to housing benefit all year round and income support and unemployment benefit during the summer vacation. To date, those regulations have still to be laid before Parliament. The intention is to redefine the student's period of study so as to include the summer vacation. That is stated in the draft amendment regulations. It will have the effect of deeming the student during the long vacation as being not available for employment, and therefore not entitled to income support: availablility for work being one of the main conditions for entitlement to income support.
It is our contention, and that of the NUS, that by every definition other than that of the Government's proposal, during the summer vacation a student is available for employment, and therefore should be entitled to income support, subject to meeting the normal conditions of eligibility.
Indeed, considering that it is impossible for a student to finance himself or herself during the summer vacation on the amounts of money available under the Government's new system for financial support, students will need to find employment. While virtually all students endeavour to find work, it is not always possible to do so. What provision do the Government plan to make for that?
The amendment seeks to ensure that students who actively seek work, but who do not succeed in securing a job, will not be left destitute, hence the change in status from availability for employment to non-availability for employment created by the extension of the period of study to include the long vacation. That, in our opinion, is ill-considered and will cause many students and their parents a great deal of financial hardship. It will of course make them more dependent upon their parents, which is what we thought the Government were trying to avoid.
During the numerous debates on students and social security throughout the passage of the Education (Student Loans) Bill, it became clear that the Government did not know how much money in total is presently expended on social security benefits for students. The total figure of £68 million which was offered was sometimes confused with the total for housing benefit. During the 15th Sitting of Standing Committee B, Mr. Robert Jackson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said:
"We should compare that with savings to the Exchequer from the withdrawal of students' access to benefits calculated on the basis of the Research Services Limited surveys of £68 million only"
However, during debate in your Lordships' House on Monday, 19th March, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, used that figure in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, to refer specifically to the removal of housing benefit:
"As I understand it, the value of the benefit withdrawn is £68 million". [Official Report, 19/3/90; col. 47.]
Further Parliamentary Questions answered on 5th June by Mrs. Shepherd confirmed that confusion. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, repeated in the debate on 26th March that students obtaining housing benefit at the moment would claim about £68 million. So there is no agreement.
The point being made here is that the Government are not in possession of the figure for the expenditure on social security benefits for students. Until that information is known, they should refrain from taking students out of social security. The amount of money in the hardship or access funds to be set up by the Government is totally inadequate to begin to meet the needs generated by loss of benefits. Grants are to be frozen at current levels from this year, and the loan facility does not compensate for loss of benefits.
During other debates on the Bill the House was informed of the great hardship experienced by 16 to

69
18 year-olds as a result of their income support being withdrawn. Similarly, the Government's current problems regarding the poll tax are an example of what can happen if major changes are pushed through without sufficient forethought and without adequate information.
The Government should think carefully and act extremely cautiously before withdrawing the income support safety net from students. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the case in favour of the amendment is that students cannot live on the amount of money available to them at present unless they are available for employment during the long vacation. That is pretty well common ground among all the people who teach them. In theory, though, I can understand the Government's case here. I understand the argument which says that they ought not to be available for employment during the long vacation.
I have this afternoon been trying to explain to my special subject class that they need to read 1,200 pages of original sources during the long vacation to be able to cope with the work next year. Clearly they cannot do that unless, for a substantial part of the vacation at least, they are not available for employment; but if that were to be realistic, there would have to be a realistic level of support for 52 weeks of the year. While there is not, availability for employment during the vacation is a necessity.
I should like to ask my noble kinsman one other question. We are told that there are in prospect regulations designed to disentitle students from social security benefits. If those regulations were to come forward while the present Social Security Bill is still under consideration, we could have a rather confused situation. I should be grateful to receive the Government's assurance that any decision on that issue will wait until a decision has been taken about our amendments which will shortly be sub judice in another place.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendment, if carried, would prevent the Government from carrying out their policy of withdrawing income support, and housing benefit from most students. By doing so it would lead to a substantial increase in public expenditure and maintain the inappropriate administrative burden that student claims place on local authorities and Department of Social Security local offices. The amendment goes even wider. It would maintain, against our intent, the current position whereby students can claim income support during the summer vacation. Top-up loans are intended to provide financial support over the whole academic year. To allow able-bodied students to have recourse to an income maintenance benefit such as income support would result in an element of double provision.
The benefit entitlement of students was debated at length during the passage of the Education (Student Loans) Act and we have heard the arguments many times but, in view of the obvious concerns that the amendment displays, I feel that a re-statement of the Government's position is needed.
70
It is a fundamental plank of the Government's student support policies that financial assistance provided to students out of public funds should be directed through the education system according to educational criteria. We do not believe that the social security system is an appropriate mechanism for channelling support to students for the following reasons. First, the decision to undertake full-time study is a decision to opt out of the labour market: it is not the function of the benefit system to subsidise able-bodied people without family responsibilities in that way. Nevertheless, we recognise the need to protect those in vulnerable groups, such as students with families and disabled students, and have undertaken that those in such groups will retain eligibility for benefits.
Secondly, the benefit system was never intended for the support of students. For a variety of reasons the scale of student claims has increased significantly over the past two decades, putting an unintended and inappropriate burden on the welfare system; and, thirdly, the short-term, cyclical nature of students' benefit claims generates administrative problems and costs which are out of of all proportion with the amounts actually claimed.
For all those reasons, the Government believe that it is now appropriate to remove students' entitlement to benefits and place the responsibility for student support where it properly belongs—with the education system. Not only is support through the benefit system inappropriate for students, it is also unnecessary. The Government's policies are generous to students, giving the great majority more in loans than they might otherwise have claimed in benefits.
From the independent survey carried out on students' income and expenditure we estimate that in 1990–91 those students who claimed benefits would have received an average of £315 over a full year. Instead of that level of benefit, students will have available a loan of, in most cases, £420.
The total amount available to students in loan and access funds will far outweigh what would have been available in benefits. We estimate that in the first year of the scheme expenditure on loans will be £178 million compared with savings on social security expenditure of only £68 million for those within the scope of loans. Additionally we are making £25 million available in the access funds. The Government will be spending well over £100 million more on students next year as a result of the new student support system.
We acknowledge that there is concern in some quarters about the effect on individuals of the loss of benefit entitlement and we accept, of course, that a few students might have been able to claim more in benefits than they will have available in loan. I can reassure your Lordships that the Government have not neglected the position of such students: if a small number of students are in financial difficulty as a result of the withdrawal of benefit entitlement, they will be able to apply for assistance from the access funds.
However, I am sure the House recognises that we must be fair to the taxpayer. The amendments would

71
deprive the taxpayer of a substantial part of the savings made by removing students from the benefit system. To compensate, we are already making more resources available to students. It would be an unnecessary and inappropriate burden on public expenditure if they were to retain access to the benefit system as well. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, would she be good enough to answer the question already put to her? It was when the regulations under the student loans Act withdrawing social benefits from students will be laid. Can she also remind me whether they are subject to the affirmative or negative procedure?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give assurances on both points. The regulations will not be laid until this Bill has received Royal Assent. It is my pretty firm understanding that they are subject to the affirmative resolution.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down could she answer one question? Do the Government expect students to work in the long vacation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, whether a student works in the vacation is very much a matter for the student.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do not consider that an answer. I wonder whether the Minister can try again. I do not believe that that is at all a satisfactory answer. We heard the old arguments over and over again while we were going through the student loans Bill, and now we hear them on the Social Security Bill. We clearly do not agree about the expenditure and what the student will have to live on, whether or not it will be adequate. We believe that it will be inadequate. Some students will not have enough to live on if they cannot get work in the summer vacation, without becoming dependent on their parents. Some parents may not be able to support them.
I should like to have better figures. I hoped that the noble Baroness would write to me and say how the Government work out their figures. I read out figures that were contrary. Some were based on housing benefit, which the amendment has nothing to do with. What are the Government's figures? What do they believe has been paid in social security, and do they expect students to manage on the amount available for them to live on, considering the amount that they have to pay out?
If the noble Baroness cannot give me any of those answers now, I hope that she will try to write to me. In the meantime, I shall withdraw the amendment and reserve my right to come back at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Determination of days for which benefit is payable
. In section 17(2)(a) of the principal Act, at the end there shall be added the words "provided that, in the case of a student, nothing in any such regulation shall prevent any day on which he is attending his course of education from being treated as a day of unemployment." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, again this amendment concerns support for students but deals with a rather different matter: to preserve students' entitlement to unemployment benefit during vacation.
The draft amendment regulations which were published on 19th February included the intention to take students out of entitlement to unemployment benefit during vacations. This is particularly harsh. Unemployment benefit is a contributory benefit so only those people who have made enough of the appropriate class of national insurance contributions will actually receive it.
The rationale forming the Government's arguments regarding students and social security has been that students have voluntarily withdrawn from the labour market and therefore should not be entitled to social security. This, however, does not deal with the issue that many students will have worked before going to college and will therefore have paid national insurance contributions. They would be entitled normally to receive unemployment benefit, certainly in their first summer vacation, on the basis of those contributions.
In the case of such students, their contributions will count for nothing save entitlement to their pensions. Furthermore, such students will face double jeopardy in that, on completion of their courses, they will be ineligible to claim unemployment benefit as it will be more than a year since they last paid national insurance contributions.
The unemployment benefit situation will be particularly detrimental to mature students who may have worked for a number of years before taking the decision to pursue a course of higher education. Those are students who are deemed to be independent by the DES mandatory award regulations.
There is a particularly strong moral argument here: that a group of people who have totally satisfied the contribution conditions to receive a benefit are being denied entitlement solely on the grounds that they are students. This is an unprecedented move and we contend that it is totally unacceptable.
The Social Security Advisory Committee, in the report on the proposals to the Secretary of State—which was extensively leaked to the press in mid-May—showed itself to be very concerned about the matter. It described the intention to withdraw unemployment benefit from those students who had paid the required national insurance contributions as,
"a breach of natural justice".
The Government are also unsure as to the amounts of money that will be saved as a result. I shall give two examples. First, in a reply to a question from

73
Andrew Smith, MP, on 5th June 1990 to the Secretary of State for Social Security as to the savings to public expenditure expected in respect of the proposed withdrawal on entitlement to unemployment benefit, Gillian Shephard replied:
"In the next financial year reductions in public expenditure are estimated to be £51 million from housing benefit and £28 million from income support and unemployment benefit. It is not possible to provide a disaggregated figure for unemployment benefit as separate details of claims are not kept".—[Official Report, 5/6/90; Col. 568.]
Secondly, in reply to another Question from Andrew Smith to the Secretary of State for Social Security, again on 5th June 1990 (at Col. 569 of Hansard), regarding the numbers of students currently in receipt of unemployment benefit during the long vacation, the answer from Gillian Shephard was:
"I regret that information on the numbers of students receiving unemployment benefit is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost".
Those replies not only reinforce the uncertainty on the potential savings for the Government via benefit withdrawal to students—the figures have changed yet again from those I gave on the last amendment—but confirm that the Government do not know the consequences of their actions.
In the light of the doubts surrounding the effects of taking students out of social security entitlement, I had intended to ask the Minister to reassure us about the amendment regulations. I believe that she has already done so, and I am satisfied that these will not be laid before the Bill receives Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, when we discussed the first amendment today dealing with child benefit, noble Lords opposite waxed long and eloquent about the sacrosanct nature of the national insurance fund and the relationship of contributions to benefits. Those noble Lords will be able to deal with the points that my noble friend has made about the obvious lack of relationship between contributions and unemployment benefits to students.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am a little puzzled by the drafting of the amendment. I understand its intention, which the noble Baroness explained perfectly clearly. However, apparently it provides that the regulations could not treat any day on a course as being a day of unemployment. Does that cover term time when a student is supposed to be working? It seems a little odd that the student should be able to establish that he was unemployed, when he was working during term. He was quite plainly not available for any other employment. Although I have a great deal of sympathy, as the noble Baroness knows, with the general objection to the withdrawal of social security benefits from students, I wonder whether the amendment goes too far.
If I am right in the way in which I read it, it provides that the term during which the student is working in college or university should be treated as a time of unemployment. If so, it seems to be going too far, although recalling my own undergraduate days, it might have been applicable to one or two of my contemporaries.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment particularly as it applies to mature students. Any government ought to encourage this group, if only because of its much higher degree of motivation as compared with the general run of students in the country. We must remember that grants for mature students are, in most cases, discretionary. Many local authorities refuse to take up that discretion and make use of it. Therefore those who have contributed over quite a number of years in some cases to national insurance and social security should be entitled to benefit in the way suggested.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment, if carried, would prevent the Government from carrying out their policy of withdrawing unemployment benefit from most students. That would lead to a substantial increase in public expenditure, which, alone, would be unfortunate but the effect of this amendment goes even wider. It would recreate an entitlement that was withdrawn in 1986. It would enable students to receive unemployment benefit not just in the summer vacation but also at Christmas and at Easter. That would result in an inappropriate financial double provision by the state.
The aim of unemployment benefit is to provide a short-term measure of compensation for people who are normally working but who have to face an unforeseen contingency of unemployment. The Government do not believe that students fall into such a category. Indeed the position of a student during vacation might be likened to that of an employee on recognised or customary vacation from normal employment, and who is unable to claim unemployment benefit. Students have chosen to follow a course of study and will now have all their financial needs dealt with under the education maintenance arrangements.
Top-up loans are intended to provide financial support over the whole academic year. To allow able bodied students to have recourse to an income maintenance benefit such as unemployment benefit would result in an element of double provision. Furthermore, I should point out to noble Lords that in practice very few students meet the contribution conditions for unemployment benefit. For those who have paid contributions, their value will carry forward for the purposes of other benefit entitlement and for retirement pension eligibility.
The benefit entitlement of students has been debated at length—I have said that once before and I must repeat it—during the passage of the Education (Student Loans) Act. We have heard the arguments many times, but in view of the obvious concerns that these amendments display I feel that we must continue to restate the Government's position. It is a fundamental plank of the Government's student support policies that financial assistance provided to students out of public funds should be directed through the education system according to educational criteria.
At the risk of repeating myself I should say that we do not believe that the social security system is an appropriate mechanism for channelling support

75
to students. The benefit system was never intended for the support of students. Further, the short term, cyclical nature of students' benefit claims generates administrative problems and costs which are out of all proportion with the amounts actually claimed.
For all these reasons the Government believe that it is now appropriate to remove students' entitlement to benefits and place the responsibility for student support where it properly belongs—with the education system.
In response to a point raised by the noble Baroness about the efficacy of the figures that we use, I should say that an independent survey was carried out on students' income and expenditure. We estimate, as a result of that survey, that in 1990–91 students who claimed benefits would have received an average of £315 over a full year. Instead of this level of benefit, students will have available to them, in most cases, loans of £420. The total amount available to students in loans and access funds is £178 million. Based on actual data, the loss of income support will be £68 million and £25 million will be available in the access funds.
We acknowledge that there is concern in some quarters. On the previous amendment I said that we would make provision for the most vulnerable. I apologise for the repetition but there was an insistence on these two very similar amendments being taken together. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, these two amendments deal with two different matters. One deals with contributions from national insurance funds whereas the other deals with the matter of being available for work. I should say to the noble Lord. Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I understood that Amendment No. 12 represents the technical way of dealing with the matter and that the wording is directly related to that of DSS draft regulations and the way the Government wish to withdraw the unemployment benefit. I am not an expert on drafting amendments but I was assured that what I had stated in the amendment would achieve what I had intended. I hope I am correct on that point.
As the noble Baroness said, she has repeated the figures. We do not agree with those figures. The figure of £315 may represent an average but there may be many students who cannot manage on that and who will lose out. We are sure of that. We simply do not agree on the figures. However, I do not think the noble Baroness answered the moral question concerning a person who has paid a contribution. I refer particularly to the mature students whom the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned. Is it fair that such people should not be able to draw the benefit which is due to them if they cannot find work? I hope I shall receive a reply to that point.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am looking for some confirmatory nodding heads but my understanding is that a mature student would receive benefit until his contribution element ran out. However, it
76
appears that I am wrong on that. I must write to the noble Baroness on that point.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am not satisfied. There is a moral problem here and a breach of natural justice. I shall divide the House.
7.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 97.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Airedale, L.

Lytton, E.

Birk, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Seebohm, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton, L.

Walpole, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Walston, L.

Lawrence, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Henley, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Auckland, L.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Ingrow, L.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Boardman, L.

Kimball, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Layton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Liverpool, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Long, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnock, L.

Manton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Margadale, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mersey, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Mills, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Milverton, L.

Cross, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Denham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Elles, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norrie, L.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Reay, L.

Greenway, L.

Rees, L.

Gridley, L.

Rennell, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Renton, L.

77

Romney, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wynford, L.

Swinton, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Report stage should not be resumed before 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
From a personal point of view, I thank the honourable Member for Ealing, North, Mr. Harry Greenway, for asking me to take the Bill through your Lordships' House. Over 30 years ago I broke my back riding in a point-to-point race. When racing, even 30 years ago, we all had to wear skull caps. Mine was specially made because I have a rather large head. Not only did I break my back; I had numerous other injuries. I was concussed and had a suspected head injury. I have always given thanks for the protection of my skull cap.
On many occasions I have visited hospital accident departments and neuro-surgical units. It is a tragedy to see so many young people there. Only last week I received a letter from a young woman who had had a riding accident some years ago in which she sustained a head injury. I quote a few words from her letter:
"I was found to have left hemiplegia after being unconscious for 6/8 weeks. I am just about going out of my mind with trauma and frustration".
This is 10 years after the accident.
I have had many telephone calls from people who are worried that this Bill might be delayed.
The Bill makes it an offence for a variety of categories of adults to cause or permit a child to ride a horse on the road without wearing protective headgear. I have already been lobbied by a number of people with specific experience which demonstrates how a hard hat could have prevented serious injury or death. I am sure that many of us know of such accidents. Without doubt children wearing proper head protection are safer than those who do not. Indeed, in the debate on compulsory rear seatbelts for children in cars the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said specifically that to compel people riding horses to wear crash helmets would also save lives.
It is estimated that in Britain 3½ million people regularly ride horses. It is difficult to know how
78
many of them suffer accidents on roads which result in injuries that require medical attention because information is not collected comprehensively. However, a study in the West Midlands in 1988 concluded that there are about 1,460 horse rider casualties a year on the highway requiring medical attention. Up to half of those are children. Approximately a third of all rider injuries are to the head.
Wearing a safety helmet is one of the simplest ways of ensuring one's safety when riding. It is particularly important that they are worn when riding on the road because accidents to riders in those circumstances are more likely to be severe than accidents in the field. Studies by the British Horse Society suggest that helmet wearing rates among children are possible up to 80 per cent. However, there remain the 20 per cent. who do not wear helmets and the possibility that some of the helmets in use are not to an appropriate standard or are inappropriately fitted, severely limiting protection.
Wearing an appropriate helmet may not prevent death—a rider may suffer multiple injuries—but helmets reduce the severity of head injuries and prevent minor injuries. Even a seemingly small bump to the head may cause complications. Recovery from serious head injury may be a long and difficult process for both the patient and his or her family and friends. Indeed, recovery may never be complete. For example, a head injury can lead to a fundamental change in personality.
The Bill makes it an offence for adults who are capable of stopping a child from doing so causing or permitting a child to ride a horse without wearing protective headgear. The most obvious category of adult is the parent or guardian. The Bill also covers owners of horses, people in possession of a horse and employers. It is illegal to employ a child under the age of 13, but many 13 year-olds, in particular girls, will work in stables at weekends for the opportunity of a free ride.
The Bill sets the penalty for the offence at level 1 on the standard scale—£50. This is not a large amount but it is to be hoped that prosecutions will in any case be extremely rare. Experience from similar legislation, such as that concerning seat belts or motor cycle helmets, shows that when a law is made which is so obviously sensible, road users will obey it without enforcement.
Clause 2 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing exemptions. Those exemptions may include certain classes of children on, for example, religious grounds or exclude the riding of horses in any particular circumstances. At this stage it is difficult to see what exemptions might be made, but the clause as drafted will allow them to be included if suitable cases are made in consultation.
The regulations will define protective headgear and will also require that the headgear is properly worn on the head and properly fastened.
Clause 3 defines "horse", "regulations" and "road". During the Report stage in another place, the definition of "road" was amended. It was accepted at the time that the definition as amended may be inadequately drafted and that is unfortunately the

79
case. I shall therefore move an amendment at Committee stage to ensure that the definitions have the same intent as at present but are legally workable. Clause 4 allows the legislation to be extended to Northern Ireland by an Order in Council, subject to the negative resolution procedure. Clause 5 states that the Act shall come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
The Bill is limited to riding on roads. That does not mean that helmets are not necessary when riding off the road. They are vital pieces of equipment whenever riding a horse. However, we must be realistic when making legislation. Enforcement of a law requiring helmets to be worn at all times would also mean that the police would have to be given a power of entry—something which I am sure we would regard as unacceptable. That does not mean that the Bill will have an impact only on horse riding on the road. Children who are required to wear helmets when young are more likely to continue to wear them as they grow older. Again, if they wear helmets on the road, they will be more likely to wear them off the road.
Legislation such as this is sometimes attacked as trying to create a nanny state. I understand the reasoning behind the argument that people have a right to make a choice about protecting themselves. However, such an argument does not apply to children. Adults are able to make a reasoned decison whether to wear protective headgear. Children may not. They need to be protected so that they reach adulthood and are able to make up their own minds. Responsible parents already ensure that their children wear protective headgear. The Bill addresses the irresponsible minority who do not. Responsible parents also have a right to expect that other adults exercise the same duty of care.
At present, action can be taken only after an accident. Compensation is a poor substitute for protection. This is such an easy wrong to put right. Even though the numbers are not great, there should be no deaths or serious injuries due to the lack of appropriate protective headgear. If only one child is protected to live a healthy adult life, the Bill is worth while. A vote against it is a vote against the protection of children. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)
7.35 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out all the words after ("that") and to insert ("this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because the Bill would override parental judgment and authority; would unnecessarily create yet another criminal offence; and would pave the way for further erosions of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it goes without saying that everyone who takes part in a debate on any controversial subject in this House, whatever side he or she happens to be on, means well. There are few people more well-meaning than my noble
80
friend Lady Masham, who introduced the Bill with exceptional clarity, which is an enormous help to us all.
In addition, my noble friend is also notably kind hearted. I am sure that it is this, in conjunction with her very unhappy experience of 30 years ago, that has prompted her to take up this Private Member's Bill which originated in another place where surprisingly—this may astonish noble Lords—it went through virtually on the nod at Second Reading with no debate whatever. Given the adverse future implications for personal freedom inherent in the Bill and given that, if it succeeds, we shall be the only country in the world with such a measure on the statute book, that lack of involvement and interest in another place—a few intrepid souls apart—is somewhat alarming. However, it looks as though we may make up for it this evening, and it appears that my noble friend Lady Masham has mobilised a formidable array of talent to support her case.
We all greatly mourn the untimely death of our late noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne. I have an additional, possibly selfish, reason for regretting that he is no longer with us as this was just the kind of legislation which infuriated him. He would have been able to lay into it far more effectively than I am capable of doing.
It so happens that I have just finished rereading the marvellous account by the distinguished travel writer, Mr. Eric Newby, of his voyage around the world in 1938 and 1939 at the age of 18 in a cargo-carrying sailing clipper as the lowest of the low—an apprentice seaman. The spartan living conditions, the extremely primitive sanitation, the disgusting food, the almost total absence of safety equipment or medical facilities, the bullying—both physical and verbal—and the extremely strict discipline would, if applied today to a terrorist murderer serving life imprisonment, a seaman or an army recruit, cause 100 apoplectic MPs to rise to their feet in indignation. Yet that rough, tough treatment does not seem to have done any permanent harm to Mr. Newby, who went on to achieve a magnificent war record and successful series of careers. It could be argued that, if he had not been knocked about so much just before the outbreak of World War II, he might not have come through that war so successfully, if at all.
It is also worth pointing out that, if the old newspapers of the 1930s are an accurate guide, people took things like road accidents much more in their stride, notwithstanding that they were more frequent than they are nowadays, both absolutely and in proportion to the number of cars on the road. The general attitude seemed to be that "accidents will happen". I fully accept that we may regard our grandparents' generation as excessively callous. There may be some truth in that; but they in return would regard our generation as excessively "windy", to use the jargon of that time. Surely there can be some happy medium in which the voluntary use of reasonable safety measures can be vigorously encouraged, reinforced perhaps by differential insurance premiums and measures of that nature, without bringing in the heavy hand of the law to

81
make common sense compulsory, to extirpate error. It is only through trial and error—particularly error—that people learn to become responsible. I should say, in parenthesis, that I am fully in favour of strict employers' liability legislation, because an employee is not a free agent and is not master of his or her own destiny. That is a totally different matter.
This Administration have constantly spoken of diminishing the power of the state and of restoring more power over their lives to individuals and families. The Bill goes in the opposite direction, by overriding, as my amendment states, parental authority and judgment. The gentleman or lady in Whitehall or Westminster does not always know best and, even when he or she is largely right, he or she can only lay down blanket rules which are not capable of taking account of special circumstances. For example, intelligent parents—not stupid ones—may be perfectly well aware that what is technically classified as a highway is in their case a little-used road ending in a cul-de-sac or an unmade farm road over which no more than half a dozen tractors or four-wheel drive vehicles travel in any 24-hour period. I know several roads like that near me. Such a road is obviously perfectly safe for riders despite being a highway in the purely technical sense. In contrast, the parents may be equally aware that another stretch of road is so narrow and so busy that no rider should go anywhere near it unless dismounted and leading the horse—and perhaps not even then.
But if this Bill becomes law, the child will now be able to protest, "The Government say that it is perfectly all right for me to ride along there provided that I wear a hard hat". Incidentally, I should say that the parent or guardian is also in a better position than the Government to know whether the horse or pony in question is docile and used to traffic or high spirited and likely to shy at every single noise or object.
I said that this Bill will override parental authority. Because the Bill catches people up to the age of 14, it will also undermine it, in so far as teenagers—who are chronically rebellious and normally will be riding out alone (teenagers do not normally ride with their parents)—will in practice do whatever they want knowing that it will be their parents and not they who will end up in court, always assuming that the police officer who spotted the offence has some magical means of ascertaining the age of the teenager and gas the technical expertise to know whether or not a helmet is properly fitted.
More importantly, this Bill will also create yet another criminal offence. Why do I use the qualification "yet another"? It is because, as I pointed out in our debate last month on civil liberties, since 3rd May 1979 between 800 and 900 new offences have been created by this Government, of which about 200 provide for the possibility of imprisonment as well as the possibility of a fine. In contrast, only about half a dozen activities have been decriminalised. Surely it is time to put a brake on the creation of new offences except when they are vitally necessary. The police have their hands quite full enough with terrorists, rapists, muggers, burglars, and so on.
Why not first of all try persuasion by means of a propaganda campaign? It will not cost any more, as, even if the Bill becomes law in whatever form, there will have to be a publicity campaign anyway to make riders aware of the new restrictions imposed by the Bill. It cannot be repeated often enough that we would be the only country in the world with a law of this kind. Even Sweden, that paragon of compulsory social democratic virtue, has no such law. Indeed, as noble Lords will know, in most Continental countries even moped riders—riders of motor cycles of 50 cc or less—are exempted from having to wear crash helmets. In most Continental countries that includes riders in their early teens.
Finally, there exists the danger—indeed, the strong probability—that the passage of this Bill would pave the way for further erosions of freedom and choice in the name of safety. At the moment parents are perfectly at liberty to thumb their nose, as it were, at the medical profession. They can refuse to have their children vaccinated against, for example, whooping cough. In other words, in that particular sphere of health and safety the parents' judgment is paramount, however mistaken the experts may consider that judgment to be.
How much longer will parents be able to retain that right after this Bill becomes law, given that so many more children are affected by failure to vaccinate than are affected by riding accidents? Will school boxing be banned, as opposed to merely being discouraged? Will school rugby be banned, given that injuries in that sport are at least as numerous as equestrian injuries? How much longer will children be able to continue to ride pedal cycles without helmets, given that accidents on bicycles are vastly more frequent than riding accidents?
I cannot believe that the zealous guardians of our well-being will confine themselves to regulating children. As an occasional cyclist I do not want to be forced into a helmet any more than I do as an occasional horseman. I have exercised polo ponies on occasion but have never played polo. I have not ridden competitively nor have I ever wanted to do so: I fully accept that if one is competing it is a very different matter. There are certain rules and regulations which have to be obeyed, as in any club. But like tens of thousands of people who are non-competitors I ride for fun, and to relax. In my view, in order to relax one needs to be unencumbered and not helmeted like an American footballer. In the immortal words of Cole Porter: I like the free, fresh wind in my hair; life without care.
While I am on that tack, perhaps I may say how good it was to see the splendid lady who successfully appealed against the officious motor cycle policeman in Richmond Park who had accused her of galloping at 30 miles an hour uphill, cantering away for the benefit of the press photographers with her hair streaming out behind her and not a hat in sight. As is well known—there is no secret about it—the more senior members of the Royal Family do not wear hard hats; nor do many mounted policemen, although by definition mounted police officers spend most of their time riding on tarmac; nor do most cavalry officers on ceremonial duties, where the same thing applies.
But, it will be argued, this Bill applies only to those under 14. Indeed, but it will surely feed the appetite of those who aspire to extend it to adults. I do not deny for one moment that it is a good thing for children to wear hard hats when riding on roads, though it certainly will not automatically save them from the consequences arising from irresponsible drivers of cars, lorries or motor cycles. It will merely reduce the accident rate slightly.
Let us first try persuasion, by making the statistics known to parents who have no particular reason to be aware of the statistics at the moment, except those who are deeply involved in the riding world, and by treating parents as the adults that they are. Let us try that first before introducing yet another restrictive albeit almost unenforceable criminal offence, one which is without precedent in the history of Europe. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out all the words after ("that") and to insert ("this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because the Bill would override parental judgment and authority; would unnecessarily create yet another criminal offence; and would pave the way for further erosions of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety"). —(Lord Monson.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Masham on her lucid explanation of the Bill that is before us this evening. I, as well as RoSPA, which has helped me with some figures for my speech, warmly welcome the Bill. The same cannot be said about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, which to my mind is, with respect, fundamentally irrelevant.
Leisure accident surveillance system data recently made available from the DTI estimate that 30,000 people a year receive medical treatment in accident and emergency units for injuries received from horses, ponies and donkeys. There are on average five fatalities per year from horse riding accidents. The majority of the victims in both fatal and non-fatal accidents are girls in the age bracket of 10 to 14 years.
In a paper on riding accidents presented as far back as 1985 by the Child Accident Prevention Trust it was said that 20 per cent. of accidents occurred on roads and only 5 per cent. on bridle paths. It was interesting to note that the types of injuries sustained were similar in nature to motor cycle injuries. A neuro-surgeon at Nottingham showed that the incidence of falls from riding is one per 350 hours of riding whereas from motor cycling it is one per 7,000 hours of riding. Surely that is a reflection on the improved steering and braking system of a motor cycle compared with that of a horse. Motor cyclists have to wear a hat, so it stands to reason that a horse rider who is younger than a motor cyclist should also wear one.
It is vitally important to protect the vulnerable and vital parts of the body from injury. Besides
84
damaging the brain, head injuries can cause an increase in the occurrence of epilepsy. I shall return to that matter later. However, noble Lords may be interested to know that if one has suffered from epilepsy one is banned from driving until one has had a period of three years in which one has not had a fit.
Just over a year ago there was a report in the Daily Telegraph headed: "Hard hat law urged to cut riding injuries". The Medical Commission on Riding Accident Prevention said that it was so concerned by the rising level of injuries that it wanted legislation to make it compulsory for children to wear well fitting and securely fastened riding hats. At last that is about to happen.
As the noble Baroness said, a young person between 14 and 17 years of age is more able to make a balanced judgment on the need to wear protective headgear when riding a horse than a child of 14 who therefore needs to be protected by those adults responsible for him or her. There is no doubt that falling off a horse and landing on one's head on a road or hard surface can cause the most horrendous results, sometimes resulting in the death of a young child. The amendment of the noble Lord states that the Bill would
"override parental judgment and authority."
I suggest that such judgment to protect one's child out riding is far more preferable than what might happen if the child were not wearing a hat.
The amendment continues that it would,
"unnecessarily create yet another criminal offence."
I suggest that it is a criminal offence if a parent lets a child ride without a hat and have an accident which results in permanent brain damage and subsequent loss of life.
Lastly, the amendment refers to,
"further erosions of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety".
Let me tell your Lordships what I went through when my daughter came off her horse 12 years ago. Because the hat she was wearing was ill-fitting and substandard, it came off before she hit the ground, head first. For many days and nights with a cracked skull she lay in a hospital bed with her mother or me beside her for 24 hours a day while she was in a concussed state not knowing who or where she was or what had happened. Thank God after many weeks she recovered, only later to have epilepsy as the doctors had said she would.
Is that a further erosion of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety? No, my Lords. Freedom of choice in the name of safety is to let your child live as long as possible, to enjoy life and to do what all young people wish to do safely without going through the agonising time that she and we did, day in day out, for what seemed a lifetime. That is why I believe that the amendment is fundamentally irrelevant.
Wearing a hard hat will reduce pain, suffering and disability. It will save NHS spending on accidents and release money and beds for other medical services. It will create a safer situation for all riders.
Unlike Noel Coward, who advised Mrs. Worthington not to put her daughter on the stage, I

85
should be happy to advise any Mrs. Worthington to put her daughter on a horse so long as the basic ground rules for safety were observed: in other words, that one wears a BSI hat. I wish the Bill well and hope that the House will reject the amendment out of hand.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I speak in support of the Bill only because I was under the impression that it was already compulsory for children to wear safety helmets when riding on a public highway.
It astonishes me that, while it is against the law to ride a moped or motor bike without a crash helmet and while we accept the need for seat belts in motor cars, we allow young children to ride their ponies on a public road without requiring them to wear any form of safety hat or helmet. We should not be deterred by being the only country in the world to pass this law. After all, we are the only country in the world with a House of Lords.
As my noble friend Lord Brougham has said, statistically riding is up to 20 times more dangerous than motor cycling. That has been recognised by those concerned with the administration of racing, polo and eventing. That makes it all the more extraordinary that no one had addressed the dangers to those most at risk; namely, young children on roads.
Let me briefly set the scene. A young boy or girl, by definition inexperienced, possibly on a temperamental pony given by parents who may well have had no experience of the dangers involved and are thus not aware of what could happen to their child, is currently allowed to operate like any other road user save that he or she is untaxed, unlicensed, unrestricted, untested and untrammeled by the safety regulations which apply to other road users. Add the hazards of juggernauts, fast buses, speeding traffic, thoughtless drivers and the natural animal fear of the mechanical and we have a recipe for disaster simply waiting to happen.
I recently had the opportunity to talk to one of the country's leading consultant neurosurgeons, Mr. John Firth, from University Hospital, Nottingham. He has been closely associated with the design of suitable safety helmets for riders. His opinion, to which I believe the House should give due weight, is that the current performance of helmets constructed to BS4472 means that the vast majority of head injuries are now unnecessary and unacceptable.
When one adds up the costs of these avoidable accidents, the literally vital importance of the Bill is brought home. There is the physical and emotional cost of brain damage in terms of blighted lives and blighted hopes, the strain on parents who have to bring up a brain damaged child and the financial cost to the National Health Service of these accidents which are unnecessary. There is also the knock-on effect of postponing other neurosurgery to deal with emergencies caused by the lack of a simple safety helmet. To prevent that, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is not wimpish.
86
Passing the Bill into law will also correct the anomalous position that arises when children sent to a riding school see their instructors wearing suitable safety headgear as required by the Health and Safety at Work Act, yet they, the pupils, are not similarly protected by the law as it now stands.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there is generally too much legislation. I hope to be able to support him on occasions in repelling the advance of the nanny state on other fronts. However, in this case I believe that the amendment is misconceived. I do not believe that parents should have the freedom of sending their son or daughter onto a public highway with no protection for the reasons that I have outlined. The so-called freedom to do so is not freedom but ignorance and irresponsibility. Far from undermining parental authority I feel that most parents would welcome the Bill as reinforcing it.
An Arab proverb states that,
"The grave yawns for the horseman".
The Bill will go a long way towards closing the mouth of that grave. I support the Bill and will vote against the amendment.
7.58 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I should like to join others in congratulating Mr. Greenway on bringing the Bill forward in another place and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, on introducing it in this Chamber.
I must admit that until five years ago a cloth cap on my head was good enough for me. Some might say that if I fell on my head it would improve it, but I have not done so yet and I now wear proper protective headgear. Anyone who has witnessed a young person riding a runaway pony along a road will agree that it is a terrifying sight. When it comes to the crunch one realises how important a riding hat or helmet is to the safety of the child.
The 1973 Bill related to wearing helmets on motor bicycles. Ten years later, in 1983, legislation made it compulsory to wear seat belts in the front seats of cars. Both laws are now generally complied with. Why? It is because everyone sees the need for prudence and sensible protection. People generally conform through habit. Publicity and general awareness have mounted rapidly. Few children now ride hatless but, sadly, as noble Lords may have noticed, a minority are still content to ride along a main arterial road with nothing on their heads. How unwise those children are. Some noble Lords may have seen the press cutting of the young lady who was posing for the press in Hyde Park. She galloped past the cameras with nothing on her head. What a stupid lady she was.
The Jockey Club, the British Horse Society and many other riding organisations have been extremely active in promoting the use of protective headgear and now generally insist on it within their own rules. The Jockey Club has figures to show that by wearing a British Standard Kite-marked helmet the head injury rate from falling off a horse can be cut from 62 per cent. to 15·2 per cent. It insists that all riders, stable staff and, indeed, its trainers wear protective

87
head gear. It calculates that over the past 10 years there have been over 600,000 occasions when the rider has been wearing a helmet and only three head injury fatalities.
We have heard a great number of statistics, but one wonders how many people actually ride. The noble Baroness said that the number is 3½ million; the British Horse Society says that it is 1½ million. It may be more; it could be less.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in its memorandum TA57/87 dated January 1989 the Department of Transport recognises that there are no reliable statistics concerning accidents on the roads. The memorandum goes on to state that there is some evidence to indicate that the number of accidents involving horses is increasing and that the potential number of accidents may further increase. I believe that the majority of accidents of all kinds occur in stable yards, stables, maneges and often out in the fields as well as on the roads. The majority of road accidents involve motorised vehicles travelling at speed. On occasions they involve animals such as dogs which run out under the horse's feet. Sometimes they are due to the road surfaces, which are becoming less suitable for riding.
While I appreciate the feeling expressed in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I, like other noble Lords, cannot agree with it and find it totally irrelevant. I do not see how the amendment will help to make riding safer in the future; and that must be the welcome aim of the Bill. We hope that the Bill will reduce the number of accidents to those under the age of 14 years. It will also act as a general reminder in the future. We hope too that those under the age of 14 and affected by the Bill will have grown into the habit of wearing proper headgear when they become adults and cease to be covered by it. I hope that in due course the age limit will be raised to 18 years or removed completely. However, I appreciate the reason why the Bill is so framed at the present time.
Clause 1 deals with protective headgear and the way in which it should be worn. Headgear has been produced to a specification commercially convenient to the trade. In general previously written specifications have been ignored. At present the accepted helmets are the jockey skull cap, British Standard 4472, which it is accepted is probably as good as you can get. But even that skull cap when loosely worn on the back of the head is a neck-breaker.
Most riding clubs use British Standard 6473 and many variations which go under the wording "tested to British Standard 4472 standard" but they are of mixed merit and design. The helmets come in four sizes—0, 1, 2 and 3—but some manufacturers do not produce size 0, which, with size 1, covers the age group affected by the Bill. It is important to obtain the proper size so that the hat fits securely; otherwise the result will be positively dangerous.
We hope that the Bill will have a deterrent effect and will not prove difficult to enforce. However, I can foresee circumstances in which an unqualified and unpaid guide or instructor may get children to
88
change ponies at a rally, trek or cross-country ride and a child may fall wearing an ill-fitting hat. That is not an uncommon occurrence. I am anxious to know where the responsibility will lie in such cases. Will it lie with the parent or with the willing helper?
Sadly the Bill falls short in that it applies only to those under the age of 14 years. The level of fines may be a little too low and the Bill will be difficult to enforce because it is limited to roads. However, I support the Bill because if children under 14 years old must wear protective headgear when riding on the roads they will continue to do so after that age. I sincerely believe that the Bill is a little too late and too narrow. However, I hope that it will create a greater general awareness and that all those who ride horses will wear the proper headgear at all times.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has addressed your Lordships on many occasions. However, I submit that she has seldom raised a more important matter. I am an honorary vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, although I have not consulted it about the Bill. I rode during the war years, but not successfully, and have not ridden since. My eldest daughter rode for a number of years before having a family. She has not ridden since but was then a good rider and always wore headgear.
Of course we have too much legislation and too many restrictions. However, it is important to remember that we are discussing children under the age of 14 years. Parents are not always vigilant, particularly when such children go riding. My wife and I live two miles from Epsom race course where a number of riders, some quite young, go out on busy roads. There have been some horrendous road accidents, mostly involving people over the age of 14. However, a child under that age could be riding a horse which bolted because of a car coming the other way or for some other reason. I cannot believe that the Bill is an infringement on the liberty of the subject.
Sweden has been mentioned. I have been to Sweden and it has a population of four million. This country has a population of 60 million. Probably there are as many people riding in this country—not all of them youngsters—as there are in the population of Sweden. I believe that the argument put forward in that regard is vacuous.
Most important are our hospitals. I am president of the friends of our local hospital in Surrey. It has a casualty department although I do not know how many casualties result from horse riding. The city of Nottingham has been mentioned, and is where our eldest daughter lives. The university hospital has a first-class casualty department and no doubt those involved in horse riding accidents go there. Your Lordships are currently discussing the health service Bill. In doing so we have discussed ways of preventing more people from attending casualty departments because they are so over-worked. I believe that the Bill will contribute a great deal towards fewer people, although perhaps only fractionally, attending casualty departments.

89
There is nothing sadder than a young child being seriously injured or worse as the result of an accident which could have been prevented. The helmets worn should be of a certain British standard and I hope that the Bill will provide for that. Considering the number of accidents involving young people in this country, some of them avoidable, I believe that the Bill will go a long way towards preventing more tragedies.
8.9 p.m.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I wish to add some brief comments which emphasise and support many of those already made this evening. It has been proposed that the Bill should be declined a Second Reading because it would pave the way for further erosions of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety.
However, I must disagree with that point of view. What greater loss of freedom is there than that of loss of life or severe disablement? As we have heard, horse riding is one of the most dangerous sports but, nevertheless, it continues to grow in popularity.
When a rider is thrown or falls forward from a horse, the part of the body most likely to hit the ground first is the head. The head is the most vulnerable part of the body and without proper protection the skull is more likely to be fractured which could result in death, paralysis or brain damage.
I support this Bill. If anything, I would support legislation which extended not only to children but to riders of all ages who take their horses onto roads. I too find it illogical that we should require adults who ride motorcycles to wear safety helmets and not have the same requirement for horse riders. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, I believe that that issue needs to be addressed.
It is accepted by all the major societies responsible for the administration of equestrian sports that safety is of paramount importance. For all competitive events and examinations run by the British Showjumping Association and the British Horse Society, which includes the Pony Club, it is mandatory that protective headgear is worn. The protection afforded to the rider is well recognised by those organisations and the requirement to do so is strictly enforced.
I have talked to a number of young riders including my 13 year-old niece who spends every moment of her time riding. She is one of the typical 13 year-olds mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. All those young riders strongly supported the proposed legislation. However, there will be other young riders whose inexperience, or in some cases foolhardiness, may result in a failure to appreciate the benefits of wearing protective headgear. It is not just children who are foolhardy. An irresponsible adult may fail to safeguard not only himself but also the inexperienced child from the sort of accidents which I have already described and whose consequences this legislation seeks to prevent.
Lastly, I raise the point that it is all very well to consider personal freedom, but what about responsibility? In the case of a riding accident, failure
90
to wear protective headgear could result in a death or injury which might have been avoided. The responsibility must lie with the adult in charge at the time, and the consequences would impinge not only on the freedom of the injured person but on their relatives and on society. It has not been overlooked that those responsible for treating the victims of accidents which might have been avoided deeply regret the deployment of hard-pressed staff and scarce facilites which are much needed by other patients.
I believe that this legislation is rooted in common sense, and that it will help to ensure that a responsible attitude is taken by adults on behalf of children involved in equestrian activities. I am very happy to support the Bill.
8.13 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that his argument about the freedom of the individual perhaps goes too far on this occasion. He will remember very well how we joined forces over the legislation requiring the wearing of seatbelts. We used that same argument. I must say that while I entirely support the idea of the freedom of the individual, I have become a total convert to legislation which requires a sensible provision. That is without doubt of the greatest benefit. The result of the seatbelts Bill is that more and more people voluntarily wear them. The Wildlife and Countryside Act requires people to keep their dogs under control by putting them on leads. I have found from my own experience that more and more people who walk across my estate at home keep their dogs on a lead where before the passing of that legislation, they did not do so.
A Bill like this, which makes it mandatory for young people to wear protective headgear, should not be reacted against because it is not possible to enforce, which is the argument of some. The point is that it demonstrates to many people the sense of that provision and they will think twice before allowing young children to go out and about without protective headgear.
The knock-on effect of this legislation will not be policemen hiding under hedgerows trying to find people riding without protective headgear. However, if an accident occurs, then the adult responsible could find himself liable as regards insurance. I believe that that point would be taken on board. People think far more carefully when a law exists which requires that something must be done. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will bear that in mind.
No noble Lord has yet referred to anything particular in the Bill. Clause 1 refers to the wearing of protective headgear on the highway. I understand the reasons for that. However, surely there is just as much if not more danger through the failure to wear protective headgear in the countryside. A runaway pony trying to take a jump or which has been frightened by something which causes the child to fall off and hit his head on a stone is just as likely, if not more so, to happen in the countryside than on the highway. If we are to pass legislation of this

91
nature, I do not see why it should not be desirable to extend it to apply every time the child rides a pony. That would not be very difficult and I do not believe that that is very objectionable.
I have a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Mills, who asked why this legislation applies only to children under the age of 14 because it is common sense legislation. I am possessed of remarkably little common sense and have spent all my riding time wearing a top hat which is a useless piece of equipment to defend one's head. I should have worn a proper hard hat considering the number of times I came off. It is unfortunate for your Lordships' House that I am still here! I believe it is desirable for everybody to wear proper protective headgear. I support my noble friend, if that is not unparliamentary language as I have had the privilege of being her friend for a great number of years, in this Bill.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Manton: My Lords, I suspect that I have fallen from a horse onto my head more often than any other noble Lord with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Oaksey, who does not appear to be here this evening.
I strongly oppose the amendment. Several friends of mine in the past have been either killed or very seriously injured because they were not wearing protective headgear. All the major British horse societies now insist on a BSI-approved helmet. That headgear became compulsory over 10 years ago in the world of racing. How much more dangerous is it for young people on public roads? Not only they and their ponies can make a mistake, but so can a third party; for example, a speeding motorist.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, seems to be more concerned with parental judgment and authority than with child safety. How can he be so confident of parental judgment? Some parents are good and some are bad. Parental judgment cannot always be right. Finally, I add that being right in this case is for the child to wear a BSI-approved helmet. I oppose the amendment and support the Bill.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to add the support of these Benches for this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, brought forward a sensible suggestion. My only criticism is that it does not extend to enough people; it does not relate to the full range of people who ride nor to those who ride the whole time. One is in a potentially dangerous situation if one is on a large animal capable of travelling at considerable speed. One could easily fall off and thus it would seem sensible to have protection.
I am against the amendment because these dangers exist and some form of protection should be available. Those at greatest risk are those identified in the Bill. I should like to feel that it is only a first step towards a more comprehensive protection for all those engaged in this activity.
92
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, made certain other points regarding toughening people up and mentioned school rugby, a sport with which I am familiar. I should point out that when the pitch is frozen or baked hard one does not play rugby on it. One does not risk having one's neck driven into that ground by someone else. If the danger of two people slamming another into a hard surface is a situation which can cause injury, I suggest that a horse falling on top of someone, with that person's skull underneath that weight, with that great force would cause considerably worse injury.
8.21p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the Bill deserves the support that it has received throughout the evening. I shall refer to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, shortly.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said in her very clear introduction, around 1 million children ride regularly and only 80 per cent. of them wear safety headgear. Of that 80 per cent. many wear badly fitting headgear or headgear of poor quality, as we heard from almost all noble Lords who are familiar with this situation. A badly fitting hat is useless. It can fall off before the rider reaches the ground. A poor quality hat is just as bad; even if it stays on it may not give the necessary protection.
As we heard, the dangers are increased when riders take to public roads, and it is at that that the Bill is primarily aimed. Most riders these days, especially in suburban situations where much riding takes place, have to use public roads in order to reach their favoured path. They face the added hazard of motor cars. Many drivers are not familiar with the need to take extra care when horses are present; they drive too close and hoot their horns. Horse riders should have priority. It is surprising how few motor vehicle drivers are aware of that. In my experience very few of them give way as they should. The danger to young riders is especially severe when they are still learning to control their mounts.
The Bill has the backing of the British Horse Society and will help to reduce the risk of serious head injury. The British Horse Society also draws attention to the cost to the community of these accidents—as did the noble Lords, Lord Auckland, Lord Willoughby and others—as well as to the family caring for the victims of serious head injuries. Those victims may be confined to institutions for several years.
I received a moving letter from a Mrs. Teacher, copies of which I believe other noble Lords have received, who owes her life to the skill of a Nottingham neuro-surgeon, probably the same neuro-surgeon to whom several noble Lords referred earlier. Mrs. Teacher draws attention to the pressure such accidents place on the National Health Service to the disadvantage of others awaiting treatment for unavoidable medical problems. As others have said, it makes sense that the Bill should be passed thus ensuring that avoidable accidents are prevented.
I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He feels that the proposal will pave the way for further erosions of personal freedom. As the

93
noble Baroness said in her introduction, we are speaking of children who need to be protected and who could hardly be expected to make such decisions for themselves. Of course their parents have a responsibility and many of them do ensure that their children are properly equipped. However, the figures given at the beginning of the debate speak for themselves.
Perhaps I could quote from the letter received from the British Horse Society. Of the 3½ million horse riders, most of whom have to ride on roads,
"Most of these people are not very experienced in the sense that they do not have a family back-up in knowledge of horses".
It is an increasing trend. There are a growing number of what might be called first generation horse riders. Their parents, with the best will in the world, are unaware of the dangers.
I should like to give one illustration similar to that given by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, in his moving speech at the beginning of the debate. It is the kind of accident which can happen despite parental care and which meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, regarding parents choosing a docile mount.
A family of four with whom I am closely acquainted set out for a day's pony trekking. They were riding docile ponies and were wearing protective hats. One of the ponies was stung by a bee and bolted, frightening the other three. In the confusion a boy (aged around 12) fell from his pony losing his hat as he fell. Injuries to his head kept him in hospital for many anxious months and his sight is impaired, probably permanently.
That is a case where parental judgment and authority had been exercised but still the injuries were inflicted. If the provisions of the Bill had been in place the type of headgear worn would have been different and serious injury probably prevented. Given the choice I doubt whether those parents would have been too worried about an infringement of their individual freedom.
I not only support the measure, but I should like to see similar protection for young cyclists. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that we should be wary of infringement of civil liberties and I would stand with him on that issue through many pieces of legislation. However, where children are concerned there is a difference. I hope that the House will reject the amendment. I support the Bill.
8.27 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the Bill and to have the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on her speech introducing the Bill to your Lordships' House this evening. Although it is not a Government measure, it is one which the Government support as it will contribute to a reduction in the number of children killed and injured on our roads.
I agree with all the noble Peers who have pointed out just how important it is for horse riders to wear protective headgear. While of itself it will not reduce the number of accidents on roads involving horse riders, it will considerably reduce casualty severity.
94
While it is not possible to say quite how many children will benefit from the Bill, it is apparent that it will address at least some of the problems of child road safety. The provisional figures for 1989 show that 378 children were killed and 7,928 seriously injured on British roads. Deaths were down some 8 per cent. on 1998. It is particularly pleasing that child pedestrian deaths were down 14 per cent.
It is very difficult to identify particular causes of accidents to children. However, it is quite apparent that a lack of training is often a contributory factor. It is vitally important that parents ensure that their children are trained in road safety however they travel. In that context I particularly commend the British Horse Society for running its valuable riding and road safety test. Any parent of a child who is likely to ride a horse on the road should ensure that the child passes the test. I also commend to the House the training package Horse sense produced by the British Institute of Traffic Education Research on behalf of the British Horse Society. Parents who ensure that their child is properly trained greatly reduce the risk of them being involved in an accident. However, road safety cannot rely entirely upon the actions of the vulnerable road users. It is also important that drivers change their behaviour.
In 1989 road deaths were up 4 per cent. at 5,203, although serious injuries were down 3 per cent. at 61,803. Almost all of the increase in deaths was on rural minor roads; exactly the sort of road where horse riding takes place. Again it is difficult to identify causes. However, one major cause must be inappropriate speed. Sixty miles an hour is often quite inappropriate on such roads. All too often accidents are caused by local people who know the roads well, travel ridiculously fast and assume that there is nothing round the corner. If there is a horse rider, a walker or a cyclist an accident can be the inevitable result. The Department of Transport is investigating ways of altering the road environment to encourage drivers to drive at an appropriate speed.
A particularly interesting experiment is being carried out by Hampshire County Council. It has introduced a 40 miles an hour speed limit zone in the New Forest perambulation. The limit was introduced to help reduce the number of horses and cattle being killed. Before the limit was made vehicles had been measured travelling at over 90 miles an hour on narrow single carriageway roads. That sort of conduct is disgraceful. The council is looking at ways of introducing speed reducing engineering devices to make the limit self-enforcing. I commend those efforts.
Although the Bill creates a new offence, the penalty is to be set at the lowest level and it should not produce an extra enforcement load for the police. With over 80 per cent. of children voluntarily wearing riding helmets it is likely that the law will be self-enforcing. It is paradoxical that only when people are obeying a sensible rule is it appropriate to enshrine that rule in law. Experience has shown from, for example, the laws on seat belts and motorcycle helmets, that very high compliance can be achieved with little police effort. I fully expect the same to happen with this law. Statistics are not yet available for the improved safety record resulting

95
from the rear seat belts for children legislation passed in 1988, but it is estimated that about 200 fewer deaths or serious injuries a year have occurred.
I said that over 80 per cent. of children voluntarily wear riding helmets. It is probably more accurate to say that their parents or riding instructors insist on them using hard hats. I applaud their responsible behaviour and in no way does this Bill affect their liberty. What we are concerned about is the other 20 per cent. It is likely that some of their parents hand over the welfare of their children to a riding school in good faith expecting them to take the same care as they would themselves. They have the right to expect the law to protect them and this Bill will do so if it is passed, as I hope it is.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that Britain would be the only country in the world to have such legislation. I believe that Britain often does take the lead over such matters, and other countries then follow. We should be proud of that leadership in seeking to prevent tragic accidents. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I beg to differ over protective headgear for young riders.
We have heard tonight some very interesting, moving and sensible speeches. It is a particular pleasure to deal with legislation involving horses with the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. As young people, many years ago, we rode together in Ireland
The noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, queried the age limit and wanted to raise it. The Bill originally made it an offence for an adult to permit a minor to ride a horse without wearing protective headgear. The word "minor" includes anyone under the age of 18. Previous legislation such as that on child restraints in the rear seats of cars which puts a vicarious responsibility on adults, has been restricted to children under 14. The Government are strongly of the view that this legislation should be similarly limited. The law assumes that young persons aged 14 to 17 are able to distinguish between right and wrong. The Bill was thus amended to apply to children under 14.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and others, referred to the need for standards of protective headgear. That matter will go out to consultation and will be in regulations. I hope this evening's debate has helped in that respect. The proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, would be very difficult to enforce because police power of entry would be required if the legislation covered everywhere. However, it is to be hoped that the 20 per cent. who do not now wear protective headgear will, if it is worn on the roads, also wear protective headgear in all circumstances.
I again thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will withdraw his amendment.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, at the beginning of my speech, I suggested that the noble Baroness, Lady
96
Masham, would probably have mustered strong support for her Bill. Indeed, how very well she has managed to do so! A number of harrowing individual cases have been described to us. The difficulty with such arguments is that if a Back-Bencher were to introduce a Bill making helmets compulsory for cyclists—we have already had one noble Baroness suggest such a course—or if another Back-Bencher were to introduce a Bill outlawing rugby in schools, an equal number of harrowing examples of severe injury would almost certainly be cited by noble Lords.
One could undoubtedly reduce injuries still further by outlawing every dangerous sport or activity; but how far does one travel down that road? One always hears about casualty departments when this sort of legislation is discussed. One can only lighten the load on casualty departments by outlawing every activity which is considered to be remotely dangerous.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Manton, thought that parental judgment should be subordinated to that of the experts in this matter. Presumably therefore he believes that parental judgment should also be subordinated in regard to helmets for cyclists and in regard to vaccinations, where at present parents have the right to disagree with the experts and get away with it.
We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about irresponsible drivers of motor vehicles. Indeed, I entirely agree, not so much about cars but about motor cycles and, above all, sand and gravel lorries and similar vehicles. But hard hats will only help in a minor proportion of such resultant accidents: I am sure the noble Baroness will accept that. Surely it is better for the police to devote their energies to cracking down hard on dangerous drivers in preference to pursuing individual riders themselves.
If I thought that there would be a moratorium on further legislation of this nature I might relent in my opposition to this Bill; but the noble Viscounts, Lord Allenby, Lord Mills and Lord Mountgarret, have confirmed my worst fears. All three want the Bill to be extended right up the age scale. I am certain that the passage of this Bill will give the green light to those who are determined to restrict adults as well as children.
However, as luck would have it, six out of seven of my strongest supporters cannot be here tonight because of prior social or business commitments. Additionally, many noble Lords, as will be obvious, are having a well-earned dinner and will not have had the opportunity to hear the arguments deployed. Therefore, I will not ask your Lordships to march physically through the Division Lobbies; I will reserve that procedure for the Committee stage. Nevertheless, I should like to test the purely verbal and sendentary opinion of the House. I cannot therefore withdraw my amendment.
8.38 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, the original Question was, That this Bill be now read a Second Time, since when an

97
amendment has been moved to leave out all the words after "that" and insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The Question I now therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
On Question, amendment negatived.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Social Security Bill
8.39 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Homeless people in bed and breakfast accommodation: payments to cover meals
In section 22(3) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be added the words "and the applicable amounts for homeless people placed as homeless under the Housing Act 1985 by local authorities in bed and breakfast accommodation without self-contained cooking facilities shall include an amount for each family member in respect of the additional cost of meals they are required to purchase prepared outside the accommodation."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after we have all had an excellent meal, this amendment deals with the loss of benefit to families living in bed and break fast hotels resulting from the change in benefit arrangements regarding the eating-out allowance. That loss can be as much as £70 per week in some cases. The eating-out allowance of £1·55 per person per meal was paid where there were either limited or no cooking facilities. I should like to ask the Minister what the rationale was behind the decision to treat homeless people living in bed and breakfast accommodation as though they were living at home. Are the Government satisfied that the decision has produced the desired result, whatever that was?
A report produced by the Department of the Environment in 1989 stated that 90 per cent. of units in bed and breakfast hotels had no cooker or inadequate cooking facilities.
Apart from the abolition of the eating-out allowance in April 1989 everyone now has to pay something towards hotel costs. Those charges are known as amenity charges and include a charge for breakfast, hot water, cooking, heating, lighting, water rates and 20 per cent. of rates. They are not covered by housing benefit. They are standard amenity charges which are laid down by the Department of Social Security and which have to be paid to the local authority. The charges are made regardless of whether the family eats the breakfast, whether the heating and hot water are working properly or whether there are adequate cooking facilities.
It is estimated that there are approximately 8,000 children living in bed and breakfast hotels in London alone. It is those children and their families who have suffered most from the April 1989 benefit changes.
The effects of irregular eating and poor diet on hotel families have been well documented. A report made in 1989 found that both adults and children
98
in bed and breakfast accommodation were malnourished and drew attention to a high incidence of weight loss in adults and low birth weight in babies. The abolition of the eating-out allowance, coupled with liability for amenity charges, has substantially exacerbated the problems. When one hears of problems of weight loss in adults and low birth weight in babies, one wonders whether we are talking about this country or a third world country.
The problem is not confined to the cities. I should like to quote some figures given by the district council in Wiltshire, where I live. It is a rural area consisting of small market towns and villages with a population of 67,000. Three years ago the budget for bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless familes was approximately £3,000 per year. Expenditure in 1989 and 1990 was £90,000. That figure is in relation to a small rural area. Fifty three per cent. of homeless people live outside metropolitan areas.
Organisations that work with homeless families in London report that families are experiencing severe difficulties in managing at the present levels of income. The 1988 report found that nearly a quarter of women were going without food from time to time because they could not afford it and one in 10 said that sometimes their children went without food.
The whole business is demonstrably cruel to some of the most vulnerable people in our society and it should be ended. The amendment seeks to do that. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, because I have missed most of his speech. However, I have very carefully read his amendment. Business was resumed rather quickly and I was not in the Chamber when he began.
I should like to say that I very much sympathise with the motive of the noble Lord and the purpose of the amendment. However, I find some difficulty of definition in its terms. For example, the word "breakfast" is a very flexible term. We are accustomed to two definitions of breakfast: one is the Continental breakfast and the other is the English breakfast. I hope that the amendment means the latter. However, we do not know.
There is a reference in the amendment to the additional cost of meals that those people are required to purchase. The question arises: what kind of meals? Does it mean a light snack for lunch or does it mean what many people call dinner and more elevated people describe as luncheon? So far as tea is concerned, is it high tea or low tea? In the evening, does it mean supper or something more?
I sympathise with the motive behind the amendment but we are leaving a lot of uncertainty for later definition in the new clause. Therefore, I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say about the matter.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not think that the difficulties of definition are quite as grave as the

99
noble Lord, Lord Renton, has suggested. There is a precisely delimited category of accommodation that is used by local authorities for the placing of people who are homeless under the 1985 Act in which meals are not provided. That is an identifiable category.
What meals those people choose to eat and what names they choose to call them by is their own affair. The purpose of the amendment is that they should be fed. They would be allowed a sum of money which was deemed suitable by the Secretary of State to allow that to take place. Beyond that point, what names they choose to give to the meals concerned is something which the Secretary of State and this House would not need to come to a decision about.
The amendment is more tightly targeted than the one which we debated on this subject in Committee. It applies specifically to those who are homeless under the 1985 Act. That is a precisely definable category and one that we can use. It applies to those without self-contained cooking facilities—again a term which can be fairly well defined. It avoids the use of the word "adequate", to which my noble kinsman in Committee took exception.
According to the classification by the Department of the Environment, 90 per cent. of those places have been found to have inadequate facilities for preparing food. I should like to give a few examples. One kitchen was shared by 15 families; one cooker was shared by 12 families, and one cooker was shared by 35 families. The shift system must present problems.
There is also a severe problem of money. Your Lordships can imagine that it is not very practical to eat out in London on the amount of money which is provided for people in that kind of accommodation. One example among many is that a family of two adults and four children receive a total sum, including child benefit, of £102·65 a week. That amounts to £17·10 per week each, which will not buy very many chips in McDonald's. One may see families in that category sitting over one plate of chips in McDonald's for a very long time. It is not an adequate nourishment. It is not surprising that the BMA has been reporting cases of malnutrition.
In that respect we must consider the question of costs. As always, I should like to ask the House to consider the costs of not accepting the amendment as well as considering the cost of accepting the amendment. The cost of ill health, as we have recently been reminded, is something about which the country and this House are very much concerned. If we spread ill health even wider, we may find that we are spending more money than we would save by passing the amendment.
The object of the exercise is to float people off benefit and get them back into employment. If one is suffering from malnutrition, one is not normally in a very good state to undertake a job interview. One comes in appearing listless, pale, vague and unable to pick up the point of the question. Overall you give your potential employer the impression that you are not alert—for the good reason that you are not. The effect of the present policy is to make it far harder for people to return to employment than it
100
would otherwise be. It is therefore far harder to escape from such accommodation and return to the ordinary world of work, which is the objective that we should all like to achieve. For those reasons, I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I owe the noble Lord. Lord Carter, an apology for not having been in my place when he began to move his amendment. He moved it in a matter of fact way, whereas he would have been justified in moving it with a good deal of passion and even emotion. Perhaps on this occasion the Government will admit that we are in a totally non-ideal situation, with families with children being forced by circumstances, by shortage, by the kind of housing crisis which we are in, into bed and breakfast accommodation. Nothing could be less suitable.
I would go so far as to say that to push a family with children into bed and breakfast accommodation is about the worst disaster that can befall them. Let us look at the position from the mother's point of view. She is accustomed and intends to cook, cater and provide for her children. During the period of enforced inactivity she is in effect being deskilled. She is losing those attributes of which she may justifiably be most proud.
We risk breaking up those families by a degree of imposed poverty. I hope that the Government have had sufficient time to reflect on the matter since the last stage of the Bill and that they will be able to come up with a more convincing and hopeful answer than last time around.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the House will recall that this matter was raised in Committee and that similar amendments were also discussed during the passage of last year's Social Security Bill. Quite frankly, there is little that I can add to what last year my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said and I have already said on those matters. I do not propose therefore to rake over all the old ground as to why the Government introduced the benefit changes for people living in bed and breakfast accommodation. Having said that, I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, that bed and breakfast accommodation is not ideal.
However, I must stress that the Government firmly believe that the solutions to the problems facing those families lie fairly and squarely in the hands of local authorities and not in changes to the benefit system. The Government's prime objective is to get people out of manifestly unsuitable and expensive bed and breakfast hotels by increasing the supply of permanent accommodation. Following the Government's review of homelessness legislation, as the House will be aware, the Department of the Environment has recently announced the distribution of £112 million to local authorities for schemes to go forward in 1990–91. Of that, some £88.5 million was allocated to London boroughs in recognition of the severe homelessness pressures that they face. That is specifically to increase the availability of permanent accommodation for those living in bed and breakfast accommodation and will provide about 15,000 extra lettings over two years.

101
I should point out that using bed and breakfast accommodation for those families should be the last resort when other, more suitable accommodation is not available. The Government fully support the Audit Commission study which shows that three-quarters of local authorities using bed and breakfast could end its use altogether by using better alternatives available locally.
I should also touch on the concerns expressed about the effect of making deductions from housing benefit for breakfasts which the family does not eat. I should say on that point, first, that it is for local authorities to ensure that the meals provided are of an acceptable quality when they place the family in the accommodation. Secondly, local authorities should establish whether families wish to eat the breakfasts provided. If they do not, it would be sensible for the placement to be arranged on an accommodation only basis, in which case no deductions from benefit would need to be made.
I return to the amendment. I must say that even if I were prepared to accept it in principle, which I am not, I certainly could not accept it in practice.
Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I have problems over the definition. The amendment as drafted refers to,
"people … in bed and breakfast accommodation without self-contained cooking facilities".
How many commercial hotels are there that have a cooker in every room? If such a situation existed, the establishment would not be bed and breakfast accommodation but would in fact be a block of flats or bedsits. I find it totally unrealistic to expect any hotel or bed and breakfast establishment to have the scope to provide such facilities. This in turn leads us to the heart of the problem.
The whole point is that bed and breakfast accommodation is unsuitable for those families. That is why local authorities are encouraged not to place them in such accommodation; and that is why the Government are committed to getting people out of bed and breakfast accommodation and into more suitable permanent housing. Furthermore, the amendment as drafted would create inequalities between those families who for one reason or another have not been placed by a local authority. As a final point, the income support rates are intended to cover all living expenses. People in board and lodging do not have the same household expenses as other claimants in normal accommodation; for example, on such items as furniture, general household equipment and household repairs and insurance. Consequently, any adjustments in benefit levels to take account of food would have to be countered by a similar adjustment to take account of reduced expenditure on other items. The House will appreciate that that would clearly be an impossible task.
For those reasons and the reasons I outlined earlier, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I do not intend to withdraw the amendment. The Government's answer was disgraceful. To deal with the terminology
102
of bed and breakfast, it is a well-recognised phrase in this context. There was no problem with the eating-out allowance before the change in the regulations. The amendment is intended in effect to introduce a boarder's premium. Why are the Government behaving in that way? When I moved the amendment I said that one could almost think that we were talking about a third world country. It is unbelievable. We are discussing the amendment in a thin House because most Members are having a good dinner.
The phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was an excellent one. He said that it was a totally non-ideal situation. That means that it is dreadful. Of course we should like to get these people out bed of and breakfast accommodation, but why do the Government not allow local authorities to build many more houses?
The Minister proudly said that £88.5 million is to be given to London. I pointed out that 53 per cent. of the homeless are not only outside London; they are outside the metropolitan countries. So we pass the buck to the local authorities. If the families are not satisfied with the breakfast, they can apply for accommodation only. Where do they buy breakfast in a market town in rural Wiltshire, which is where I live and where I explained that the bed and breakfast budget has increased from £3,000 to £90,000 in three years?
I admit that the drafting of the amendment may not be perfect, but this is no time for nitpicking, semantic games. That is no answer to the problem.
I do not apologise for taking up the time of the House for a moment to illustrate what is happening. A family comprising a single parent and four children aged under 11 living in a hotel in Shepherds Bush before April of last year received £104.80, in income support. The mother has no amenity charges to pay for the hotel. She also received £29 in child benefit. The hotel has only one kitchen in the basement, shared by 15 households. The family live on the ground floor and the mother has always found it difficult to cook in the kitchen because her youngest child is not away at school. He cannot go with her into the kitchen and she does not like leaving him in the room on his own while she cooks. It is also difficult for her to find time to use the cooker when it is free because of the demand of other families. The family has always been heavily dependent on take-away and café food.
In April last year her income support went down to £63.30 from £104.80. That was a cut of £41.50 per week. Added to that, she also has to pay £17.12 in amenity charges to Kensington and Chelsea. The woman pays these charges for the use of one room only. Although she pays for breakfast, the family never eats it as the quality is disgusting. The eggs are inedible and the toast is old and dry. Although she pays nearly £7 a week for heating, she has no control over it; it is either unbearably hot or too cold. For example, throughout July the heating was on full but every Sunday, even through the winter, it is switched off.
After payment of these amenity charges and the reduction of her income support, she has £46.18 per week for all meals and living expenses. That is for a

103
mother with four children aged under 11. I suggest that two or three of us could have spent that amount of money tonight on one meal. She has it for a whole week for all the family's meals and living expenses. I am not at all satisfied with the answer that the Minister has given and the only thing to do is to ask the opinion of the House.
9.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 68.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milverton, L.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Seebohm, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lawrence, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winstanley, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hooper, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Killearn, L.

Auckland, L.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Blatch, B.

Layton, L.

Boardman, L.

Liverpool, E.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mills, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Reay, L.

Cox, B.

Rennell, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Renton, L.

Cross, V.

Romney, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Elton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trumpington, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Ullswater, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Wynford, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Hesketh, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.8 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Entitlement to adequate level of benefits
.—(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other Act, order or regulations, every person residing in any part of Great Britain, of whatever age, sex, parentage, nationality, or occupation, shall have a right to an adequate level of social security benefits.
(2) Any Provision of Part II or Part III of the 1986 Act or of any regulation made or direction issued under either of those Parts which, in conferring or restricting entitlement to or availability of any social security benefit or payment, discriminates or results in discrimination between categories of persons other than on grounds of differences in needs, shall have effect as if it applied to all such categories in the same way as to the most favourably treated category.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is in effect an equal rights amendment. It is designed to prevent discrimination in the social security system. The form of words is taken from Clause 10 of the European Social Charter which is the social protection clause. That document, including this clause, has, as far as we can see, been accepted without demur or any anxiety at all by 11 out of 12 of the member states. Nevertheless, although the principle is so clearly workable in other places it seems to cause great dismay to this Government.
When my noble kinsman spoke to this amendment in Committee he was kind enough to say:
"I shall not say that I feel the amendments are unnecessary; I feel that they are worse than that".—[Official Report, 21/5/90, col. 652.]
I am grateful for that remark. I hate having my amendments called unnecessary. When my noble kinsman says that, he is telling me that he finds the amendment necessary but unwelcome. I am not particularly surprised to hear that. No government like being accused of discriminating, particularly if they are.
There are three recent cases of discrimination against a category of people introduced in the social security system. Two of those cases constitute 16 and 17 year-olds and students. We have debated those cases today and I shall not take the House any further on that. Those are people who are discriminated against because of their age in one case and because of their occupation in another when other people of equal need are eligible for benefit.
The other case is the regional application of cash limits in the social fund which means that a particular misfortune which is eligible for benefit in Salcombe would not be eligible in Salford. I shall illustrate that point by one question which I am afraid is probably pertinent. If the Ravenscraig plant should be closed, would that be accompanied by an increase in the cash limit for the social fund budget for Motherwell? If that is the case, how soon would that occur and, if not, why would it not occur? If that were not the case, clearly there would be a discrimination involved here.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, provided us with a certain amount of exercise when the question was before us previously. He was much dismayed by the use of a broad general principle in litigation. As always the noble Lord gave me something to think about. He and I both come from

105
an English empirical tradition in which legislation has normally been specific. I like that tradition and I am at home in it. However, the strength of that tradition has always depended on the belief that the task of checking an Executive was one which fell to Parliament. This is a task which Parliament is now no longer as well fitted to discharge as perhaps it has been in times past. I need only mention the passage of Part I of the football membership Bill. It was Lord Justice Taylor and not Parliament who pointed out that that was impossible. That necessarily drives us back on the courts for providing checks on the Executive. They have to use wide general principles. I do not think that anything in this amendment is quite as wide or as vague a general principle as the doctrine used under Wednesbury in judicial review that the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable Minister could have taken it. Nevertheless that is a doctrine which appears to be workable.
However—I believe the noble Lord knows this perfectly well—that is not where the main operative force of this amendment would come if it were incorporated in legislation. Parliament being sovereign may do whatever it likes. It might repeal this amendment. If a successor Parliament whom we cannot bind should wish to discriminate it may do so, but it would have to repeal this clause in express words. Therefore the effect of the amendment would be that if a future Parliament wishes to discriminate against any category of people in social security legislation it must flag the point for the attention of our successors by repealing this amendment. That is very useful. If our successors wish to discriminate we cannot stop them. We can ensure that they do so with their eyes open. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment, to which I have put my name. As your Lordships will remember, the amendment was tabled in Committee when the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had some fun with the wording of the amendment. In particular they were concerned about the word "adequate". I have looked at Hansard since then and I do not believe that the Minister dealt adequately—if I may use that word—with the main thrust of the amendment, which, as the noble Earl has pointed out, is all about equality of treatment.
The wording of the amendment makes it quite clear that there should be no discrimination except on grounds of difference in needs. That wording is crucial. We are talking about meeting basic needs. As was pointed out in Committee and as the noble Earl has said again this evening, the wording is in line with with the proposition contained in the Social Charter, a charter which has attracted the support of all members of the EC except the UK Government. I know that reference to the Social Charter does not make the amendment more commendable to the Government because the Government do not like the Social Charter, although I believe that they may very well have to come to terms with it sooner or later. In the meantime the amendment sets out what surely ought to be the objectives of any social
106
programme: that a safety net should be constructed so that citizens may at least have their basic needs provided for when they are unable to support themselves effectively for whatever reason, and that that safety net should be provided without discrimination.
In moving the amendment the noble Earl made reference to various cases of discrimination which seem to this side of the House to breach the whole idea of equality on which we believe social provision and social programmes should be based. I supported the amendment in Committee and I commend it to your Lordships this evening.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, relieved my mind when he explained that this particular amendment derived from the Social Charter. That explains its woolliness. Indeed, I have often thought of the Social Charter, as I think of this amendment, in terms of the well-known advertisement from the clothing industry that there is no substitute for wool. I do not believe that if the amendment were included in the Bill it would make the slightest practical difference because it is so vaguely and imprecisely drafted that it would have no effect at all. What is an adequate level of benefits? What is adequate in one person's view is inadequate in another's. What is inadequate for most of us may be more than adequate for somebody else. We are trying to legislate and not to issue declarations of policy, and it seems to me that the legal effect of the amendment would be negligible. I cannot see that any government proposal could possibly be made ineffective on the grounds that it was alleged to be contrary to this proposed clause and therefore inadequate.
The same applies to the second half of the amendment. What is the criterion? There can be differences of need, but the question is: what is your view of what is a difference of need? In practical terms that is something which it is impossible to lay down in legislation because it depends upon opinion. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I may have genuine and sincere differences of opinion as to what are realities of need in particular cases.
Having said that, and having said that I believe that the effect of putting this amendment into the Bill would be nil, I am against putting it into the Bill because I very much object to clogging up our legislation with meaningless, well-meaning, long-winded statements of view like this. I very much hope that your Lordships now throw it out.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when I first read subsection (1), I said to myself, as I have said on previous occasions, "Long live the expression of principle". But it is no good having expressions of principle which are too vague and too uncertain in their effect.
I find great difficulty over various things here. For example, the principle is to apply to:
"every person residing in any part of Great Britain";
but residing for how long? Surely there would have to be a qualification of residence, otherwise people would slip over from less fortunate countries and claim all our social security benefits, perhaps without having contributed much towards them.

107
I see that the amendment states that it is to apply,
"in any part of Great Britain".
However, if we look carefully at the Bill, we find that Clause 18 is to apply to Northern Ireland and that a power is given in Clause 27 to make regulations, obviously within the terms of the Bill, for Northern Ireland. So why should there be discrimination against Northern Ireland in a statement which purports as a whole to be non-discriminatory?
On the question of age, we discussed earlier—I do not wish to go over the ground again—an amendment in respect of which it was maintained by the Government and agreed by the House that there were necessary provisions to be made in discriminating in favour of or against people of certain ages. I leave aside questions of sex and parentage because obviously those are two matters which are not likely to give rise to much difficulty. If we accepted nationality, we would be in the same kind of difficulty as I mentioned in relation to residence. As to occupation, I should have thought that it would need to be qualified by the word "lawful" because, alas, we know that there are some people in regular occupations which are not lawful.
I hope that I have said enough to show that there must be a doubt as to the wisdom of accepting an amendment on those lines.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, a number of intricate and drafting points have just been raised on the government side. However, I should like to urge the Government to take sufficient time to reply in some detail to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, concerning regional cash limits on the social fund which I believe bear harshly on claimants in certain parts of the country.
Lord Henley: My Lords, when I responded to the amendment in Committee, I said that I was less than clear as to the intention underlying it. I think I can say that I am still less than clear as to the intention behind it.
My noble kinsman has said that it is an equal rights amendment and that it is based on Article 10 of the European charter. It may be of interest to the House to know that in that context the European Commission has formed an ad hoc group of officials, which includes a representative from this country, and has already highlighted a range of different approaches between member states in drawing up a set of common criteria relating to the question of what constitutes sufficient resources and social protection. Eight nations, including the United Kingdom, have been identified as satisfying those criteria.
The United Kingdom has a long history of social protection. We are pleased to work with other countries to enable them to benefit from our experience and to discuss with them the lessons that we have learnt from our experience to enable them to improve their position. However, we remain of the view that common legislation on topics such as minimum resources are inappropriate and unnecessary as member states are in the best position to recognise and meet the needs of the less well off.
108
I should also deal briefly with the question of the social fund and regional differences first highlighted by my noble kinsman Lord Russell and by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. My noble kinsman raised the question of what might happen, for example, in the the event of the closure of Ravenscraig.
I think that I can only refer to our record, which is one of flexibility and responsiveness. For instance, we held back money in 1989–90 and we shall do so again in 1990–91 to deal with unforeseen and heavy demands falling on offices after some disaster or unforeseen circumstances. For example, we allocated about £170,000 to five offices in north London to cover additional costs arising from the arrival of large numbers of Kurdish refugees in the summer of 1989. We also provided extra money for our Rhyl office to cover applications arising from the recent floods, which the noble Lords will remember, in North Wales at Towyn. I think that that gives more than ample evidence to demonstrate the flexibility offered by the social fund.
My reasons for being unable to recommend acceptance of this amendment are unchanged from when I spoke last. As I indicated the last time, the question of what is "adequate" for a particular individual inevitably involves the exercise of subjective judgment and is not a yardstick which can be given legislative force. Pinning the right to a level of benefit which can be regarded as "adequate" effectively nullifies the clause and renders it meaningless.
When we last debated the clause, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, intervened and asked why we considered that the word "adequate" was acceptable in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill but not in this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, again put that point and suggested that my response on that occasion was less than adequate. I hope that I can convince her otherwise on this occasion.
At Committee stage my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in a very helpful intervention, commented that there is all the difference in the world between the Secretary of State having to satisfy himself that certain provisions are adequate, for which he is answerable to Parliament, and laying down in a statute that a particular level of benefit should be "adequate". Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, himself pointed out on that occasion, every person will have different requirements.
The fact is that the use of the term "adequate" in that Bill was not of the Government's making. It was the desire of this House in an amendment that the word should be included, and the Government will, I am sure, be looking very carefully at that when it comes to be considered in the other place.
When I spoke on this clause in the previous debate, I explained why we have felt it right to devote such an unprecedented level of resources to the social security system. That is in itself a recognition of the obligation owed by the state to those of its citizens who have to live on limited incomes and depend on what the state provides. I commented on the wide range of needs which the social security system meets. I explained that our policies have been to protect the position of those most in need. I

109
explained how in many cases we have been able to go further and achieve improvements in the position of those dependent on benefits. I emphasised that one of the major objectives that we set ourselves in the major restructuring of the benefit system was to ensure that resources were most effectively targeted on those who need them most.
The reforms that we introduced in 1988 brought about a more flexible and responsive structure of income-related benefits which has enabled us to achieve that objective. The system of personal allowances and premiums has enabled us to target help effectively towards priority groups, reflecting the particular needs faced by those groups. I can only repeat the Government's view, that to attempt the assessment of individual needs in the way this clause would imply could have enormous administrative and financial implications.
I remain of the view that this clause would effectively undermine the very structure which has facilitated the achievement of those objectives. For once I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd Carpenter, who said that the amendment would make no difference. I am afraid that it would make a difference. What it requires is nothing less than that all categories should be treated the same—pensioners, lone parents, disabled people, families, single people, students, people in trade disputes, people who leave work voluntarily, people who care for the severely handicapped, people who do not satisfy residence and presence conditions laid down for particular benefits, war widows and so on. To treat them in the same way for all benefits (as this clause would seem to imply) would be counter to all logic. To bring their benefit up to one, most favourable, level would be inordinately expensive and would not help those most in need.

The noble Lord said that there was discrimination against certain groups. We would be the first to admit that there are occasions of favourable discrimination. We discriminate in favour of some groups. The amendment of the noble Lord would presumably prevent that. Perhaps I may give some examples.
The House will know of the favourable discrimination in the preferential rates of the war widows pension and other war pensions. War widows receive such discrimination in recognition of the special circumstances of their bereavement. There is special help in the benefit system for lone parents in recognition of the extra costs that they may face in particular when working. In income support there is a special premium when working. In income support there is a special premium for lone parent families or lone parents. The first £15 of any part-time earnings are disregarded. In family credit lone parent families receive the same adult credit as two parent families and one parent benefit is totally disregarded when calculating their income. From October the lone parent earnings disregarded in housing benefit and community charge benefit will rise from £15 to £25 a week. There are the age premiums in income support. The noble Lord's amendment would render all those impossible.
My noble kinsman on earlier occasions complained that he thought I might say that it was
110
an unnecessary amendment. He came back to that again today. I repeat that it is worse than unnecessary. It is wrong and damaging. It would tie the hands of Ministers in a wholly unrealistic manner. As I indicated before, it could spell the end of differential disregards for different groups or for any of the entirely justified special arrangements for groups which apply under the present system. I should be very surprised if my noble kinsman wished to do that.
I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he deal with one small point in reference to my observation? He referred to the position of war widows. But surely they are nothing whatever to do with the social security system. They are provided for under the Royal Warrant, which is quite distinct and separate. It would not be affected by this amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should certainly need to take advice on my noble friend's point. But certainly in relation to the other groups that I specified, we discriminate—we make no bones about it—in favour of certain groups. I have explained why we do so and which groups they are.
My noble friend may be right that war widows come outside the social security system because they come under the Royal Warrant. Whether my noble kinsman's amendment would affect them I do not know. I would have to take advice. I stand by the generality of what I said. We discriminate in favour of certain groups; and I see nothing wrong in that.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he look at the text of the amendment in the name of the noble Earl. Lord Russell, and myself? The second paragraph states,
"or results in discrimination between categories of persons other than on grounds of differences in needs".
In other words the amendment as phrased would meet the point that he has made.
Lord Henley: My Lords I am not sure that I accept that. I have received some advice. I refer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on war widows. War widows have special disregards under the income related benefits. They benefit therefore under the social security system. The noble Earl's amendment would not allow that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have been interested to see what a lively response the amendment has provoked. It encourages me to think that it may have been of some importance and was worth putting down. It appears to have ruffled so many feathers that it may have been rather useful.
I welcome what my noble kinsman said about European co-operation so far as it went. I also welcome what he said about the social fund contingency fund. So far as it goes—and I stress the qualification—that is good. It looks as though the

111
argument about the social fund is bound to continue. That may well be so. But it would have to go a good deal further in the direction indicated before it met the problems.
There was an amusing discrepancy between my noble kinsman and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the amendment would make no difference. My noble kinsman in effect said that it would wreck everything. They cannot both be right.
I also wonder why, if the amendment is either so insignificant or devastating as the noble Lords suppose, it has proved so remarkably acceptable on the other side of the Channel. Does social security legislation become so desperately more difficult as soon as one has sight of the white cliffs? I do not see why that should be the case.
Throughout the debates on the Bill my noble kinsman has also expressed a great deal of dismay whenever he has caught sight of the word "adequate". I understand that; the word is obviously a grave reproach and I can see why it is liable to cause dismay.
I understand and engage with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about legislation by general principle. However, if we are
112
not to have the reform of Parliament—and it does not appear that we shall have that within the next year—this is the way in which we must go. In any constitution there must be a means of saying to an Executive power, "No, you can't do that". It is now becoming very difficult to do that in Parliament with any powerful effect. If it is not done in Parliament, it must be done in the courts, and there it must be done by general principle.
The US constitution is not meaningless. Nor is it the best way to go about making the provision; I prefer this way if we can make it work. However, if noble Lords will not support the changes which will make it work, they must support the approach by the general principle. They must have one or the other.
At the end of the day I have not had what I wanted; namely, an explanation as to why the Government believe that they are entitled to discriminate. Instead I have a silence on which I shall forbear to make a Johnsonian comment which might cause unnecessary effect, if offence. However, I heard what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the effect of the amendment on Northern Ireland. I believe that he has a point and for that reason—and for that reason alone—I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 7 [Computation of additional pension for purposes of invalidity pension etc.]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert:
("(4) Before the foregoing provisions of this section come into force, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—

(a) the proportion of persons receiving an additional invalidity pension who are also receiving sick pay under an employer's scheme;

(b) the proportion of such persons who are not receiving such sick pay because of restrictions imposed by the employer's scheme and the nature of those restrictions;

(c) the extent to which such sick pay and invalidity pension together replace the earnings lost through sickness;

(d) the expected maximum duration of such sick pay;

(e) the extent to which such sick pay is expected to be adjusted to take account of increases in earnings or prices;

(f) the proportion of employees who, if they fell sick in the immediate future and remained unable to work for more thin 6 months, would become entitled to such sick pay.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I said that Clause 7 was probably the biggest cost-cutting provision in the Bill. It abolishes the earnings-related invalidity pension established with all-party support in the Social Security Act 1975. The reason given is that the Government believe that to continue will inhibit the growth of occupational cover and also, through constraints inevitably imposed on their ability to do more for those with no such entitlement, widen yet further the gap between those who have never been able to work and those who have.
When we raised the matters in Committee, pointing out that not everyone was covered by an occupational sick-pay scheme, the Minister said:
"Over the last 15 years the growth of occupational sick pay schemes has been impressive. Nine out of ten employees are now covered for short-term sickness. Just under 60 per cent. … [have] longer-term cover … I believe that a tighter employment situation in the 1990s will lead to employers continuing to develop sick pay packages to attract people into their employment."—[Official Report, 21/5/90: col. 682.]
Of course, that would be admirable if it happened but there is no guarantee of that.
Moreover, coverage of such schemes tends to be patchy. Many of them cover only staff employees; manual workers are excluded. Part-time employees, mostly women of course, also tend to be excluded. Almost all occupational sick pay schemes have time limits, unlike the national insurance invalidity benefit which continues while it is needed or is replaced by retirement benefit. Many schemes do not cover recently-appointed employees. There is often a service requirement. Coverage is particularly low in hazardous industries and small firms. The construction industry is a case in point. Those are the industries where accidents resulting in prolonged disability are most likely to occur.
In view of the Government's reliance on occupational schemes filling the gaps left by the withdrawal of that benefit, it seems fair and reasonable to ask, as the amendment asks, for steps
114
to be taken to assess the degree to which sick pay from an employer's scheme is actually doing that. That is why the amendment spells out five categories on which the Government shall report before putting the proposals in this clause into effect. It will be seen that they cover some of the problems to which I have referred such as duration, whether the sick pay is adjusted to take account of increases in earnings or prices, the proportion of employees covered, and so on.
Finally, during the debate in Committee I suggested to the Minister that it might conceivably be possible to introduce some form of contracting-out arrangement if the Government are determined to proceed and believe that occupational schemes are fully able to fill the gap. I have not drafted such an amendment at this stage because I understand and appreciate that it would be very complicated to draft and would probably require fairly extensive consultations if the Government decided to proceed with such a scheme. However, when I made the suggestion I received the impression that the Minister did not entirely turn it down. Therefore, I should be interested to hear whether he has had further thoughts on the matter since our Committee stage.
In the meantime, if that or something similar is not possible, my amendment provides some sort of brake and safeguard before the scheme proposed in Clause 7 proceeds. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I support this amendment. Here we have a saving of some £350 million and, as a Parliament, it is proper that we should want to know what is happening to that money.
I agree with and shall not elaborate on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, about occupational schemes. There is much to be said in favour of them but their disadvantage is that they are inherently patchy. If your Lordships look at Mr. Frank Field's book on the underclass, he stresses very strongly how much that is made up of people who do not benefit from such schemes. If they are relied on, there will be a group of people slipping through the net who are not properly provided for, as the noble Baroness outlined. They will be cases of quite considerable hardship.
My other reason for misgivings about relying on an occupational rather than a state scheme is that I am worried about the element of tax on industry in this sort of proposal. I quite appreciate that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody must pay if we are to provide pensions for any sort of disability. The question is whether the cost should fall primarily on the taxpayer or on the industrial firms. It is a very competitive world industrially and any welfare measures which fall specifically on a firm will put up the price of its goods. Mr. Iacocca recently pointed out that the cost of health insurance adds 700 dollars to the price of a Chrysler car. I wonder whether the best way to deal with our balance of payments deficit is to put up our industrial costs, and whether it would not be more equitable, efficient

115
and better for our national life to share the costs around in the widest possible way—that is, by letting them fall on the taxpayer.
It is true, as GATT rules remind us, that you may not subsidise your industry. However, just as accountants tell us that we need not arrange our financial affairs so as to attract tax, so we need not arrange our industrial affairs so as to attract costs. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Baroness explained, she tabled an identical amendment to this at Committee stage. This debate is therefore a re-run of the one we had on that occasion.
I appreciate that the reasoning behind the amendment is to try to establish with greater precision the extent of the growth of occupational sick pay for the long-term sick. But the very detailed information which the Government would need to collect to meet the requirements of the amendment would entail further extensive research and would not in our view be a sensible use of resources.
As the noble Baroness is aware, in 1988 the Department of Social Security commissioned a study into occupational sick pay cover by IFF Research Ltd. Its report filled a huge gap in our knowledge—the last similar study was in 1974—and showed that there had been a significant growth in occupational sick pay cover over the intervening 15 years. Over 90 per cent. of employees now have short-term cover and just short of 60 per cent. work for employers with long-term cover. That is three times as many as in 1974.
The noble Baroness, both today and during Committee, quoted figures from the report which showed that coverage is still patchy in some industries and that some employees who work for employers providing long-term sick pay cover may not always satisfy the qualifying conditions of the employer's scheme. I fully accept that there is still some way to go before we have reached the development of occupational sick pay that we should all like. But an increase in long-term cover from 20 per cent. to approaching 60 per cent. is no bad start.
The noble Baroness, in mentioning certain groups which she felt were not adequately covered, mentioned the case of women in the workforce. As I said at Committee stage, 61 per cent. of the female workforce are now covered, which compares favourably with only 54 per cent. of the male workforce. One should like both to improve, but the female workforce is at present covered better than the male workforce.
There is every reason to believe that the impressive growth in coverage over recent years has by no means peaked and will continue to improve. The Government will do all they can to encourage that, and I am sure that both employers and employees will play their full part. As I said during Committee stage, I believe that a tighter employment situation in the 1990s will in itself be conducive to the continued development of these schemes.
116
The noble Baroness asked me during Committee—she referred to it again this evening—if the Government would look into the possibility of introducing some form of contracting-out scheme so that employees not covered by occupational sick pay would continue to retain their title to additional pension under the present rules.
We have considered the noble Baroness's proposal, but I have to tell her that in our view there would be a real danger that that would merely inhibit the growth in occupational schemes which we are currently seeing. Some schemes might limit sick pay provisions to less than additional pension entitlement, while some employers might decide against the introduction of occupational sick pay altogether. That would be contrary to the objectives as set out in The Way Ahead. Moreover, the increased expenditure would seriously affect our proposals for improving provision for the more vulnerable among the disabled population.
In conclusion, I should like to re-state that although the growing coverage of occupational sick pay provides an important and vital backdrop to our proposals for additional pension it should not be viewed in isolation. This measure is a major element in our proposals for restructuring the benefits available to the disabled. The ever-increasing cost of additional pension paid with invalidity pension—if no changes are made it will increase from a current £450 million to £1·6 billion within 10 years—is only serving to widen the gap between those who have worked and those who have not. As your Lordships know, rather than continue on that path we propose instead to concentrate our resources on two new disability benefits—the disability allowance and disability employment credit—which will give major additional help to disabled people. The Government believe that that is the right approach.
The information requested in the noble Baroness's amendment could only be collected at additional time and cost, which would delay the Government's whole disability package. It is not in our view the sensible or right way to proceed. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord did nothing to reply to the very important point made by my noble friend as to who should bear the cost of these pensions—whether it is an appropriate burden to place on industry or whether it is something which is better carried by the taxpayer.
The Government's whole trend is to push every possible payment on to industry. I wonder whether they have worked out the implications of that. For example, many industries which are labour intensive will have to struggle to maintain their position. They are not highly profitable. If one places additional burdens on those labour-intensive industries it will be far more difficult for them to survive. The case for making it a taxpayers' burden rather than an employers' burden needs discussion and I am surprised that the noble Lord has not responded in any way.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Baroness. Of course we do not want to overburden industry with such expense. However, we have seen a growth over the past 15 years from some 20 per cent. to 60 per cent. in long-term coverage. In terms of short-term sick pay it is about 90 per cent. If over these past few years, when there has not been the tighter employment market, industry has been able to expand from 20 per cent. to 60 per cent. I see no reason why that progress cannot continue.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that I regard his response as extremely disappointing. He has not adequately dealt with the point made by myself and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that there still remains a large proportion of the working population—perhaps what is now known as an underclass—without any kind of occupational cover. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the point about the burdens being passed on to industry and commerce if everyone is now to be urged to introduce occupational pension schemes and that we would not noticeably be better served by making it a further requirement on the taxpayer or the community as a whole.
I have to say that, despite the reference to the improvement in the disability package, none of the organisations looking after the disabled that have been in touch with me—the Disability Alliance, RADAR, and so on—welcomes the abolition of the additional invalidity pension. Indeed, I have received extensive briefing from the disabled organisations, which are very concerned at what they see as a levelling down rather than a levelling up. There is great concern about what may happen, particularly to the poorer element of the working population, the less well paid and the people in transitory employment who become disabled and who then do not qualify for an occupational sick pay arrangement.
I do not intend to divide the House at this stage of our proceedings because it is late but I must record for the benefit of Hansard that I find the Minister's response extremely disappointing. Having said that, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7 line 8, at end insert:
("(4) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the expected long-term increase in the balance of the national insurance fund resulting from the provisions of this section and his proposals for applying that increase for the purpose of improving benefits for people with disabilities and those caring for them.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not intend to spend much time on this amendment because to some extent I have already made the case in speaking to Amendment No. 15. It is clear that the Government will save a substantial amount of money under the provisions of Clause 7. In fact, a figure of £350 million has been mentioned and
118
various estimates are floating around. Certainly a substantial amount of money will be saved once the clause is in operation.
The object of the amendment is to ensure that the money saved is to some extent devoted to the welfare of the disabled, and that seems to me to be the right approach considering that the money will have been saved on additional pensions for the disabled. The intention of the amendment is that the money should be applied,
"for the purpose of improving benefits for people with disabilities and those caring for them".
That seems to me the least that should be done in the light of the decision of the Government to do away with the benefit introduced, as I said in moving an earlier amendment, in 1975 on an all-party basis. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this is another amendment which we discussed in Committee and I can only repeat what I told the noble Baroness on that occasion.
The Government have not sought to hide the expenditure effects of their proposals. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Disabled provided a very detailed Written Answer in another place on 26th January which set out our estimates of the savings and costs of all the proposals in The Way Ahead up to the year 2025–26. I would, however, stress that when referring to the Answer your Lordships would do well to note the cautionary words at the end to the effect that considerable margins of uncertainty must inevitably attach to figures that go beyond the end of the century.
As I pointed out when we discussed the matter in Committee, our proposals will lead to increases in expenditure on social security for the sick and disabled in every year until the end of this century. Expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled is projected to go up from £8·3 billion to about £12 billion by the year 2000.
No government could look with absolute certainty to future decades and commit future governments to specific benefit initiatives so far in advance. It will be for the Secretary of State of the day to decide on the priorities at that time. The report proposed in the amendment would therefore be a pointless exercise and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that I am disappointed with that response. It is quite clear that money will be saved by implementation of the clause and the Government do not intend to devote the money saved to further benefits for the disabled and their carers, as is proposed in the amendment.
There is not much point in dividing the House on the amendment. It is fairly late at night and we have a thin House. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it, although I repeat my disappointment with the response.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Conditions of approval of occupational and personal pension schemes
The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall amend the general conditions of approval of occupational and personal pensions schemes by the Inland Revenue so as to permit provision of payments out of any such scheme of an amount related to a person's accrued or prospective retirement pension under the scheme, such payments to be made throughout any period in which that person is entitled to the payment of an invalidity pension from the National Insurance Fund and to cease at the end of that period.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to follow on from the discussions in relation to Clause 7. The Government have made it quite clear that they intend to go ahead with their proposition to do away with the additional pension because they believe that the gap can be covered by the provision of occupational sick pay arrangements. The object of the amendment is to cope with that situation.
I shall not make out the case that I have already made in regard to the entire issue of additional pensions. On this side of the House we do not believe that there is any guarantee that the gap will necessarily be filled by occupational provision. However, the idea of the amendment is to nudge occupational schemes in the direction of providing payments out of pension schemes in cases where an individual is entitled to an invalidity pension from the National Insurance Fund. The intention is to try to fill the gap that inevitably occurs when there is disability and no provision is made for it.
The wording of the amendment is careful. We do not say that occupational schemes have to do so. We are saying that general conditions of approval of occupational and personal pension schemes by the Inland Revenue should be amended so as to permit the provision of payments out of any such scheme of an amount related to a person's accrued or prospective retirement pension under the scheme. It is entirely permissive. Such payments would be made throughout any period in which that person is entitled to a payment of invalidity pension. This is a sensible provision in view of the Government's view that occupational provision will eventually replace the additional pension which is being removed under Clause 7. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, as I added my name to the amendment—by mistake it has been added to the next amendment—perhaps I may support the noble Baroness warmly but briefly as she is such an expert on the subject and has reviewed the case for the new clause so clearly and compellingly.
The proposed abolition of the earnings related invalidity pension has caused widespread concern to disability organisations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said. Replies to Parliamentary Questions in the other place showed clearly that the main purpose of occupational pension schemes is for permanent retirement, and they in no way meet
120
the needs of those who may become disabled in mid-career and who may be able to return to work after two or four years or whatever.
If the Government believe in occupational pension schemes, and they have shown clearly that they do, if they abolish the earnings related invalidity pension they have an obligation to ensure that occupational pension schemes are encouraged fully to meet the needs of those who become disabled during the course of their working life. The new clause, as the noble Baroness said, is a small step in the right direction. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something encouraging on the issue.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Baronesses have explained, the amendment would require the Government to amend the tax rules for occupational and personal pension schemes to allow them to pay a pension to persons in receipt of invalidity benefit.
I should first make it clear that it would not be appropriate to change the tax rules for personal and occupational pensions in that way. Those rules exist primarily to ensure that the generous tax privileges enjoyed by approved schemes are used to provide an income in retirement. The tax rules are therefore concerned only with the limits on the maximum tax privileges contributions or benefits that may be paid.
That does not, of course, mean that the tax rules prevent pension schemes from providing for early payment of pensions. If the scheme trustees or managers are satisfied that a person can no longer carry on working, they may pay an incapacity pension, and a number do so. It is for the trustees to set their own criteria for determining incapacity: there are no tax approval conditions covering that point. The trustees' requirements for granting incapacity pensions may not therefore coincide precisely with the conditions which qualify a person to receive invalidity benefit.
Imposing requirements on the type or amount of benefits that schemes must provide is not proper to the tax rules and would fall to a Social Security Bill, should it be decided that that was desirable; but it is not a course that the Government would wish to follow.
It is important to remember that occupational and personal pension schemes are voluntary arrangements. No employer is forced to establish a pension scheme for its workforce, nor to provide particular amounts or types of benefits. Those benefits offered by pension schemes, or for which a person contributes under a personal pension scheme, reflect what can be afforded.
The new clause would allow a person in receipt of invalidity benefit to draw upon his or her retirement fund. The inevitable result would be to diminish the money set aside to provide for security in old age. Some employers may be prepared to make good that loss to the retirement fund, but that will not always be the case; and in the case of personal pension schemes, the loss will inevitably be a permanent one. It would also be wrong for the Government to force an increase in the employer's costs in this way.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness may have been motivated to move the amendment by the

121
Government's proposals to curtail future entitlement to additional pension with invalidity benefit, but I cannot accept the new clause.
As I have already made clear on previous amendments this evening, the Government will continue to encourage employers to introduce and enhance occupational sick pay schemes, thus building on the significant growth in those schemes in recent years; but we do not believe that statutory requirements should be imposed in the way proposed in the noble Baroness's new clause. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the Government's position. Of course I understand that the main objective of pension schemes is to provide for an income in retirement. That point is not in dispute. However, a number of pension schemes already provide for an early pension where there is sickness or disability. All that my amendment sought to do was to nudge schemes in the direction of perhaps making this provision if they did not already do so. That why the wording is entirely permissive:
"so as to permit provision of payments out of any such scheme".
However, in view of the explanation and the lateness of the hour, I do not intend to press the amendment this evening. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Review of social security provision
The Secretary of State shall review social security provision for chronically sick and disabled people and shall lay a report on his review before Parliament by 31st March 1991.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State should lay before Parliament by March next year a report on the social security provision for chronically sick and disabled people. We feel that such a clause is important at this time because of the effects on disabled people of the 1986 Social Security Act, the shortcomings of the OPCS surveys which are now well known and the lack of meaningful consultation with the disability organisations on this Bill and on the White Paper, The Way Ahead. There is also the fact that this Bill makes straightforward cuts in disability benefits—notably the abolition of the additional pension and the abolition of the reduced earnings allowance.
We know that April 1988 saw the biggest changes in social security since the war. There was much concern during the passage of the Bill that disabled people would lose out. There has been no assessment of the effects of the Act on disabled people. There has been the scrapping of the domestic assistance payments; the move from flexible additional requirements payments to flat rate disability premiums and the move from one-off payments for essential items to the cash limited social fund, where payments are discretionary. Those are some of the main changes which adversely affect disabled people.
We feel that the major problems we face with the White Paper and the Bill on the OPCS findings are not only that the OPCS greatly under-estimated the costs that some severely disabled people face but fundamentally the survey was commissioned before the effects of the 1986 Act. This was pointed out at the time. The disability organisations estimate that at least 1 million disabled people have lost out because of the 1986 Social Security Act.
Your Lordships will be aware of the findings by DIG, the Disabled Income Group, which were published: Not the OPCS in 1988 and more recently Short Changed by Disability. At least the surveys document the extra expenditure resulting from disability. They show that this is much higher than the OPCS estimated. For example, the survey by DIG discovered that the most severely disabled people needed not far short of £90 per week compared with the OPCS estimate of about £12 per week as the extra cost of disability. The survey suggested that one in three disabled people in the sample admitted that they go without food from time to time because they cannot afford it. One in three of those questioned experienced continual debt and deep dissatisfaction with their financial lot.
When the OPCS surveys were first commissioned—and the Government should have credit for commissioning them—the Minister responsible for the disabled at the time. Mr. John Major, said that the results of the surveys were expected to be published in 1988 and would provide the evidence for a comprehensive review of benefits for long-term sick and disabled people. Of course we did not receive that comprehensive review but simply had the White Paper which was followed within a few days by this Bill.
The Minister must be aware of the deep sense of anger and frustration among disabled people and their organisations regarding the lack of consultation in producing the White Paper and the failure to implement the promise given by Mr. John Major of a comprehensive review of benefits. The amendment seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to conduct such a review and report to Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this amendment asks for two unnecessary provisions. The first is for the Secretary of State to do what he would do anyhow. Any Secretary of State for Social Security will review the various benefits which it is the duty of his department to administer the whole time. Imposing a statutory duty on him to do so has no practical effect whatever.
The second provision demands that he should lay a report before Parliament. That sounds plausible but it ignores the fact that any Secretary of State is responsible the whole time to Parliament and he or his colleagues have to answer questions put in either House of Parliament on any aspect of his administration. The Opposition in either House can always arrange a day to debate these matters. It is therefore wholly unnecessary to put into the Bill a provision providing for a statutory review, the two aspects of which will, as I have said, be operated in any case.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is of course correct as far as he goes. However, I do not think he has answered the underlying purpose of this amendment. It is perfectly true that review is always taking place. However, some reviews are a great deal more serious, comprehensive and substantial than others. The OPCS surveys are often mentioned by Ministers in this House as a reason for not doing anything yet. Those surveys have built up a large body of expectation. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, knows perfectly well that to build up a large body of political expectation that one is going to do something and then not do it may be rather unwise. That is the real point behind this amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his comments. It is now five years since the Government commissioned the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to carry out a major survey of the circumstances of disabled people. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, does not seem to think much of that survey. As has frequently been pointed out to us, that is a considerable length of time in the lives of many of these disabled people who may or may not be receiving some of the current range of disability benefits.
I quite understand that the noble Lord may argue that after five years of waiting for the comprehensive findings of those OPCS surveys he feels he can wait another year for the Government to conduct a review of existing benefits, and then produce a report. But I think that we must strike a balance between the desire for further consideration of our proposals and the need to see the Government act urgently on the findings of these reports. We would, I think, have been open to quite justifiable criticism if our sole response to the receipt of the six reports had been to say, "We shall come back to you in 18 months' time (or more) with our conclusions to see what all this means for the benefit system".
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the OPCS surveys were used as an excuse for doing nothing. However, he now suggests that we should use the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as an excuse for doing nothing for even longer. That seems quite extraordinary.
I recognise of course that noble Lords will differ in the interpretation they put on the findings of the OPCS reports. That is why we have looked and will continue to look with particular interest at the comments of Members of this House, and of those organisations with experience in this field, and at other smaller surveys which some of these bodies have commissioned.
But the prime lessons which we have drawn from the OPCS findings are, I think, not ones which we needed a full-scale formal review to establish. In particular, I think it shines through that much more attention needs to be given to promoting the independence of disabled people who wish to work and who, under the current arrangements, have no incentive to do so. Quite clearly we also need a
124
benefit structure which addresses itself to the needs and circumstances of disabled people, in particular those who have been disabled from early in life and have been deprived of the opportunity to benefit from the contributory system. Equally clearly there are people under pension age who need more help with the extra costs of their disability than they are currently getting and who are simply at the moment not qualifying for mobility allowance or attendance allowance.
We have set out the fundamental lines of our proposed response to the OPCS reports in The Way Ahead. The noble Lord should not fear that we are intent now on simply pressing ahead and ignoring his and others' comments on these proposals. But as it is we have set ourselves a deadline which is now less than two years off for the introduction of fully worked up new benefits precisely so that we have the time to make sure that these benefits will be smoothly delivered, will be widely known about and will have any rough edges knocked off them by the comments that the noble Lord and others will no doubt wish to make, as we work up the details in the light of those comments. To delay the essential, detailed work for another year and hence effectively to delay for at least a year the introduction of new benefits which will direct much-needed new assistance to new groups of disabled people would be unforgivable. In the light of the assurance that we shall continue in good faith to consider all the comments made by the noble Lord and others and all those groups with expertise in this field on our proposals as we work them out, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the amendment was unnecessary. Would that it were so. The Minister referred to the good faith of the Government. I have to disappoint him. The Government are not trusted by the disability organisations working in this field. We had the OPCS survey. The message was that we should wait for OPCS. We then had the White Paper, without any consultation with disability organisations working in the Field, and we had the Bill within days of the White Paper. There was the promise of an independent review, then an internal review, then no consultation at all, the White Paper and then the Bill.
The OPCS survey was fine so far as it went. It provided some very useful information. Those fully worked-out proposals helped 8,000 people out of a total 6 million. We all know the real answer—there has been a Treasury victory over the results of the OPCS survey.
At this stage in the proceedings I do not propose to divide the House, but I have to tell the Minister that the disability organisations and disabled people do not feel able to place their trust in the Government in this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 25 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 28, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) In Schedule 20 to the principal Act (glossary of expressions), the entry relating to "entitled" and cognate expressions—

(a) shall be taken at all times on or after 2nd Septembr 1985 but before the passing of this Act to have had effect with the substitution, in the second column, of the words "sections 165A and 165B" for the words "section 165A"; and

(b) shall have effect as from the passing of this Act with the substitution for those words of the words "sections 165A to 165D".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 39, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) Paragraph 48 of Schedule 10 to the 1986 Act shall have effect, and be taken always to have had effect, as if it had originally been enacted with the amendment made by subsection (4) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is again a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Late claims for widowhood benefits where death is difficult to establish]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("subsection (1) above").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment intended to clarify the wording of Clause 12. I invite the House to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 11, line 3, at end insert:
("(6) Regulations may provide that any of the provisions of this section shall apply subject to prescribed modifications where a man claims a benefit, entitlement to which depends on whether or when his wife has died.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with what appear to be two anomalies in the Bill. Clause 12 allows for late payment of benefits to widows where there is either delayed discovery of the husband's body or a claim arising from the presumption of death where the husband's body has not been discovered. The intention of the amendment is to discover, first, whether it is entirely clear that all the benefits to which the widow would otherwise have been entitled can be claimed as a result of the operation of Clause 12. In other words, is a widow who will receive the benefits as a result of Clause 12 in exactly the same position as a widow in the more normal situation where there is no delay in the discovery of the husband's body? Secondly, why is there an invidious distinction in the Bill between widows and widowers? In these days of equal opportunities and separate taxation, surely all surviving spouses should be treated equally. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Clause 12 is a provision which relates specifically to widows. The amendment seeks to extend the effect of the provision to widowers. In doing so it reflects, in part, an Opposition amendment which was put down in another place and was subsequently withdrawn after debate.
It may be helpful if I give a brief indication of the reasons behind this rather unusual but wholly beneficial provision. We have been concerned about the benefit position of a small number of widows who claim benefit late through no fault of their own. The type of case that we have in mind is where the widow's claim is delayed for more than 12 months because her husband has disappeared and there is a lengthy delay—possibly some years—in the discovering of his body, or indeed if his body is not found, where she has to rely instead on the presumption of death provisions. In such a case, Clause 12 will enable arrears of benefit to be paid all the way back to the date of widowhood—subject of course to the offset of any other benefit received during the period—instead of being limited to a maximum period of 12 months as at present.
This wholly beneficial provision, following as it does the improvements which we introduced in the 1989 Act for women widowed before April 1988, is further indication of our commitment to improving the benefit position of widows.
I turn now to the question raised by this amendment; namely, that of extending the provision to widowers also. On the general principle of whether provision should be made by way of a "widower's benefit", current EC law provides that survivor's benefit is exempt from equal treatment legislation. We have consistently argued that we see no merit in introducing a universal state insurance benefit for widowers on a par with those currently provided for widows. We repeated that view recently in the Government response (Command Paper 1038) to the report of the Select Committee of this House. To extend existing benefit provisions for widows to widowers would cost in the region of £300 million a year. The available evidence indicates that widowers are more likely to have higher earnings than widows and are less likely to have dependent children. As a consequence, we have made it clear to the Commission that the equalisation of survivor's benefit should be removed from the third draft directive entirely.
It follows in relation to this new provision, for the reasons I have already outlined, that there has never been any intention to extend it beyond the benefit payable to widows. We have sought to make a significant improvement in the benefit provision for a small number of women widowed in particularly unfortunate circumstances. We see no justification in extending the provision to widowers as well.
In response to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the right of widows to all other benefits, I am able to give him an absolute assurance that that is so. In the light of that explanation, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it seems to me that the Government's attitude is like the attitude towards the housemaid's baby: they do not mind dealing with the problem so long as it is a small one. I understand the point about the cost. We understand why that is the reason the Government will not extend the provision to widowers. I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 (Liability to maintain dependants]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 11, line 4, at beginning insert:
("( ) In section 22 of the 1986 Act, at the end of subsection (8A) there shall be inserted the words "and shall provide for £10 of any payments made to that person in any week by another person for the maintenance of that other person's child or children to be disregarded." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is offered in no unfriendly spirit. We have sympathy with the proposals that the Government offer in the clause. We put forward the amendment in the hope that it might perhaps make them work better.
The amendment is in effect about incentives. The Government frequently talk about incentives. They do not only apply above £30,000 a year; they are needed and useful at all economic levels. It is particularly important to get the new system up and running that there should be some incentive to both the caring parent and the absent parent to make use of the system.
Among caring parents, there will obviously be a certain amount of reluctance to go and get maintenance orders and set the system in operation. It may be a matter of pride; on occasion, it may be a matter of shame. In those cases where a relationship has broken up in acrimony, it may simply be a matter of a bad smell, and of the parent not wanting to go anywhere near the issues. There may be a weariness or an anxiety about the sheer amount of hassle involved in going through legal procedures which, in an emotive area such as this, are not always pleasant, and are certainly time consuming and burdensome. I regret to say that there are also cases in which single parents feel a genuine fear of using legal proceedings to recover maintenance. I regret that very much but since it is so we have to live with it and try to deal with it.
It is important, if the caring parent is to have an incentive to name the father and allow proceedings to be brought, that she or, as it might be, he (the caring parent may be male on occasion) should be somewhat better off as a result of doing it. The effect of this amendment would be to allow a £10 disregard for whatever is recovered as a maintenance order. So in effect if it is put through one is £10 better off. If one is no better off at all, why bother to do it? Why should one bother to name the father and go through it all?
There is also the question of making the system work so far as the absent parent is concerned. If he were co-operative, the absent parent would not have put us in this position in the first place. He would not in fact have started from here in the first place.
128
It is only when the absent parent is unco-operative that the machinery which the Government propose in the clause is in the least necessary. So we have to be able to convince the absent parent that his children will be better off if this machinery is used. Again, the amendment would make it possible to do that.
The absent parent may perhaps not be consumed with zeal for saving public money. If all that happens by his shelling out is that the Treasury is saved money, he may try to evade the system. There is a very considerable problem of enforcement of maintenance orders, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows very well. Too much recalcitrance can clog up the system of enforcement. So, again, it is important to assure the absent parent as well as the caring parent that the children will be better off if one goes through the complicated procedure of obtaining a maintenance order.
The procedure that we recommend in this amendment is used in Australia and the United States. In both those countries it is regarded as essential to the smooth working of the system. Because we hope that when it comes in the system will work, we want to have this put into effect. The issue of cost will come up but there is no saving to public funds in the clause if it does not work and people do not use it. With this amendment we suggest that a small expenditure may well result in a very much larger saving and that the objective of achieving a saving will not be accomplished at all unless a little bait is put into the task of catching it. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Earl has explained the background to the amendment so well that there is little to add. It is true that there needs to be an incentive: in this case that one is £10 better off having the maintenance order than not having it. We believe that a disregard will also be an incentive for the father to pay if he knows that his children will thereby be better off. There is also the longer term benefit of encouraging a lone parent to claim maintenance. There will come a time when the lone parent may be able to seek employment. Having a maintenance order with this disregard may make all the difference as to whether the lone parent can afford to take that job, or find that the family is poorer than if it stayed on benefit, having paid the child care costs.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment was raised and debated at the Committee stage of the Bill. It proposes that £10 of any maintenance payments made in any week in respect of one or more children should be disregarded when calculating income for benefit purposes. This will be a change from current practice whereby the full amount of maintenance paid is taken into account when assessing the amount of benefit payable.
I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I am pleased that they support our objective to increase the amount of maintenance recovered from liable parents.

129
The noble Earl put forward the view that a maintenance disregard would aid the Government in that objective. I welcome the intention behind the amendment. However, I am not persuaded that a £10 disregard would have only a marginal cost. A large number of absent parents would need to start paying maintenance to offset the significant extra benefit costs. In any event, the Government are of the firm belief that it is right that absent parents should meet their responsibilities for their families so far as they are able.
Mention is sometimes made of the Australian and American arrangements. The Government are aware that a maintenance disregard is part of those systems which we are examining as part of our wide-ranging view of the whole maintenance system. As yet no decisions have been made.
It is important to remember that absent parents have a clear duty to maintain their families. The fact that so many do not do so—three-quarters of lone parent: families are dependent on income support, the absent parent paying no maintenance—results in substantial benefit expenditure. Income support for lone parent families costs £1·9 billion a year. Absent parents should do more to meet their responsibilities. They should not leave it to the benefit system.
A maintenance disregard would clearly benefit some lone parent families receiving benefit. But it would mean, for instance, that one lone parent family on income support would be better off than another family whose circumstances were the same in every respect except that maintenance was being paid in one instance but not the other.
We must also look at the effect of the incentive on lone parents who wish to leave income support and support themselves and their families by working. Disregarding some of the maintenance while a lone parent family is on benefit would make it harder to be better off working and not receiving benefit. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I am grateful for the sympathy for the principle of what we are trying to do. I am glad that its helpful intent is recognised.
I am a little disappointed by what she said about costs. There is a possibility that the Government may be spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. That would be a pity. However, I hope that they will continue to think about the matter, as I believe they are doing. I do not consider that they would think any harder if I divided the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 34 to 36:
Page 11, line 8, after ("is") insert ("or was").
Page 11, line 29, at beginning insert ("there is in force").
Page 11, line 30, leave out ("is").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with permission I shall move all three amendments as they are part and parcel of the same matter.
Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 are minor technical amendments which do not affect the policy intentions behind Clause 13. They merely aim to put beyond doubt that the new arrangements introduced by Section 24A will apply to orders already in existence as well as to orders made after the new provision has come into effect.
I am advised that the position with regard to Section 24B is already beyond doubt. It was always the intention that the benefits of the new provision should be able to extend to lone parent families where there are DSS and private orders already in existence. The amendments remove any possibility of confusion. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 12, line 17, at end insert:
("(5A) If, in a case where the Secretary of State gives notice under subsection (3) above, a payment under the order is or has been made to him wholly or partly in respect of the whole or any part of the period beginning with the day on which the transfer takes effect and ending with the day on which the notice under subsection (3) above is given to the liable parent, the Secretary of State shall—

(a) repay to or for the liable parent so much of the payment as is referable to any personal allowance element in respect of that period or, as the case may be, the part of it in question; and

(b) pay to or for the dependent parent so much of any remaining balance of the payment as is referable to that period or part;

and a payment under paragraph (b) above shall be taken to discharge, to that extent, the liability of the liable parent to the dependent parent under the order in respect of that period or part.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical, tidying-up amendment which does not affect the policy intention. I am sorry to introduce what appears to be a further complication to what is already a very complex provision. But I am sure that noble Lords will not argue with the principle that the Secretary of State should pass on to the appropriate persons maintenance received by the DSS for the period after the lone parent leaves income support.
As your Lordships know, Section 24A will enable certain rights under a DSS order to be transferred to a lone parent who is leaving benefit. That avoids the need for the lone parent to go to court to get her own order. The transfer is made by the Secretary of State issuing a notice to the court and to both parents. Transfer takes effect from the date the lone parent leaves income support, so the transfer notice will usually be issued slightly after the date the transfer takes effect.
The Secretary of State ceases to be entitled to receive payment or exercise rights in relation to the personal allowance element when the notice is issued.
It has been suggested that there may be some uncertainty about what happens if there is a payment of maintenance including a personal allowance element for the short period between the two dates.

131
The amendment merely makes clear that the money will either be paid to the lone parent or repaid to the absent parent as appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, a minor point has been made to us and in answer perhaps the noble Baroness will write to me. It has been pointed out that the effect of the amendment could produce some slightly odd results if the liable parent, having received a refund from the DSS, is then required to pay the money to the dependent parent as a result of a variation of the court order. No doubt the noble Baroness will wish to read Hansard and then write to me.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that is an interesting, further complication. However, I shall of course write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved amendment No. 38:
Page 12, line 32, leave out ("The giving of notice") and insert ("A transfer").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this a minor, technical, tidying-up amendment which is similar in intent to Amendment No. 37. Subsection (7) ensures that the person who should have received maintenance payments which were not made retains the right to pursue them despite the transfer of other rights. The amendment merely removes any possibility of confusion as to the effective date of transfer in this situation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 15, line 14, after ("section") insert ("in England and Wales").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is merely a small drafting amendment. The arrangements in Scotland for enforcing maintenance orders are different from those in England and Wales. That means that the provision that the Secretary of State should notify the Legal Aid Board if a court awards arrears of maintenance by a lump sum, and he is aware that a debt exists to the board, has no effect in Scotland. The amendment makes it clear that that provision applies only in England and Wales, rather than leaving that to be deduced from the clause as it currently stands. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
("Deduction for providing family care.
In section 22(8) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be added the words ", provided that, in calculating a person's earnings from any employment, including self-employment, there shall be deducted the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred by him without reimbursement, to enable him to carry out his duties in connection with that employment, in respect of the making of reasonable provision for the care of another member of the family".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment relates to a proposed child care disregard on income support for single parents resuming work. It is an amendment which deals with incentives. Indeed, it does more than that; it does what I have been
132
concerned with all day: it helps to make it possible for people to return to employment.
Clearly, single parents with a child to care for cannot return to work unless they have some facilities to care for the child. Nowadays not everyone has a friendly, handy grandmother in the near vicinity. The mobility of labour, if nothing else, tends to make that a great deal more difficult. Therefore, a high proportion of single parents returning to work must pay for child care. If what they pay is only slightly less than what they are receiving from part-time work they do not have the incentive to do it. Of course, part-time work is often what those with children to care for are seeking. Therefore, the work must be made financially possible. The cost of child care is rising and we may be looking at as much as £40 per week. That is a considerable sum to meet out of part-time earnings which are not the most luxurious rates of pay in the world.
One may quantify what is involved in the amendment. Thirty-six per cent. of married women, who tend to rely mainly on their husbands for child care, work. Forty-two per cent. of widows, who do not lose benefit for the amount that they spend on child care, work part-time. However, only 24 per cent. of single parents, who lose benefit as soon as they return to work, work part-time. Therefore, if one compares the 42 per cent. of widows with the 24 per cent. of single parent families, one has what approaches a controlled experiment.
We have here a poverty trap—something which is making people worse off if they go back to work than if they stay in it. I understand that to be contrary to government policy as it is contrary to common sense. Therefore, one would think that the Government might be interested in doing something about it. So far, they have not shown themselves to be very willing and I hope that they may be more forthcoming this evening.
The Government always tend to come back with the word "complexity". I have been quite exercised by what the Government mean by the word "complexity" in the context of social security because they often come back, as they did this evening on the amendment to remove the differential age-related rates for income support, and say "complexity" when as far as I can see we are simplifying the rules.
I rather suspect that when they say "complexity" they mean anything which increases the number of heads of entitlement. If what we are dealing with does not correspond with life as it is experienced and you have to try to squeeze the two together like a jigsaw for which you do not have the right pieces, then the complexity increases rather than diminishes.
It seems to me that a disregard for the cost of child care is a simple notion. I cannot see any complexity about it. I cannot see how married women, or indeed single parents, can be expected to go to work if they cannot afford the child care. To discourage people from working is contrary to government policy, to the public interest and, I should have thought, to good sense. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment seeks to alter the way in which certain employment expenses are treated across the income related benefits. The proposal is to disregard the cost of caring for another member of the family if the costs are reasonably incurred in connection with employment.
The amendment as drafted is wide ranging. Not only would it apply to child care costs incurred by lone parents across all the income related benefits but it would apply also to all families on benefit where an adult or child needed care. That would be a major change to the benefit system which does not aim to cover specific work-related expenses at all. It would be very hard to draw the line at that expense when many people may incur work expenses such as travel to work costs. The cost of allowing all work-related expenses would be heavily significant.
As regards lone parents and child care costs, this amendment would create an imbalance between people in work and people out of work. People in work who are not receiving an income related benefit are not generally protected from employment expenses. To introduce such a provision could well mean people wanting to stay within the benefit system or even changing their arrangements to come within it. That would be a retrogressive step. As noble Lords know, the benefit system already provides special help for lone parents in recognition of their dual responsibilities as child rearer and breadwinner.
There is or should be another source of help for lone parents with child care costs. Regular payments of maintenance can make a significant difference when a lone parent must consider child care costs. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government are reviewing the maintenance system and we are taking action in the current Bill to improve the system in the meantime. Absent parents have a clear obligation towards their families and maintenance can be very helpful to lone parents wishing to work.
On child care, we do not see it as the taxpayers' role to be the provider of child care through the benefit system. Parents are best placed to make decisions as to the care of their children. The Government's role is to help them to have the greatest possible choice of child care provision and to ensure standards. The Government welcome the initiatives which employers and voluntary organisations are taking in this area. Employers are also recognising that help with child care can help them to recruit and retain staff. The Chancellor's Budget measure on workplace nurseries will also assist. It will help to increase the supply of workplace nurseries. That will make it easier for lone parents at all income levels, whether they are full- or part-time workers.
To sum up, the implications of the amendment are significant and would add substantially to benefit costs and to the complexity of the benefit system. It would distort the choices available to all families and make more people rather than fewer dependent on benefit.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made reference to some statistics but I am not clear how he arrived at those figures. For example, the general household
134
surveys in 1985 to 1987 show that 37 per cent. of married women work part-time, while the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave the figure of 36 per cent. For widows the figure was 35 per cent., while the noble Earl quoted 42 per cent. The annual statistical inquiry shows that for lone parents on income support around 70,000, or 10 per cent., worked part-time, while the figure given by the noble Earl is 24 per cent.
It will be difficult to argue specifically on those figures, but there is nevertheless a discrepancy between the figures used by the noble Earl and those I quoted on behalf of the Government. However, in the light of that reply I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I become very puzzled by the Government's resistance to the amendment. It is a matter of plain common sense and I cannot understand what the point is which causes them to resist it.
The talk of people wanting to stay within the benefit system seems to me to be in danger of becoming obsessive. After all, we are debating the question of people attempting to return to part-time work, which I would not normally interpret as being evidence of their wanting to stay within the benefit system.
The noble Baroness says that it is not the taxpayer's role to provide child care. As a general rule perhaps it is not, but it is the taxpayer's role to provide education; when one enters the realm of nursery education the boundaries may become blurred. It is the taxpayer's role to use his money as usefully as possible, and in some contexts it should be regarded as an investment. Spending taxpayers' money to keep people on benefit while depriving them of the opportunity to get off it by doing work does not seem to be particularly constructive.
The noble Baroness speaks of employment. I know that employers are doing more than they were. I welcome what her right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in the Budget, but it is still not very much. We are discussing part-time work. Of all categories, those are the people for whom employers are least likely to be doing anything significant. That is not the answer.
The Government seem to me, as they have seemed so many times today, to be forcing people back into benefit and depriving them of the way out. They talk of fear of a dependency culture. It seems to me that they are trying to create one. Perhaps some day I shall understand what they are driving at. I shall not find out by dividing the House, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 41:
Before Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Income Support: persons under 18
. In regulation 13A of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, for paragraphs (2)(b) and (3) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
"(b) for the period for which that paragraph applies or, if the date on which he attains the age of 18 falls within that period, for so much thereof as falls before that date".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, unfortunately was not present at Committee stage and cannot be here again tonight. She asked me to apologise to the House because she feels very strongly with regard to the amendment, and that is the reason her name heads the list of those supporting it.
The noble Baroness and I went to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, last Wednesday regarding the amendment. At the end of our discussion on the amendment at Committee stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that Mr. Nicholas Scott would have an ever-open door and that we could go and knock on it. We did knock, and saw not Mr. Scott but Mrs. Shephard. However, she was extremely kind and responsive.
For those noble Lords who were not present at Committee stage, the amendment seeks to abolish the time limits on income support entitlements for 16 and 17 year-olds living away from home, and instead to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to claim income support until they find a suitable youth training place or employment. It will give them a little more time to become adjusted to their situation and we hope get them started on a better way of life.
We have had much discussion on income support for young people so I do not need to go into all the details of what has been going on and what they need, but having had a satisfactory interview with Mrs. Shephard, I hope I can now sit down and hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Baroness saw my honourable friend Mrs. Shephard. I can assure her that she would have received equally pleasant treatment from my right honourable friend Mr. Scott.
The amendment seeks to change the provisions for 16 and 17 year-olds by extending eligibility to income support until 18 years of age to those who are presently entitled only during the child benefit extension period.
I think I should say in passing that the noble Baroness suggested that we group this amendment with earlier amendments. At the time I said that it was perhaps not appropriate but I think I rather regret that suggestion and the noble Baroness might have been right. However, I respond briefly as in speaking to earlier amendments I have already outlined the reasoning behind the Government's policy on 16 and 17 year-olds, in particular the provisions available to the vulnerable groups.
We have continuously monitored the effect of the changes. We have done this through the collection of information from local DSS offices and from the severe hardship unit. We have also set up regular meetings with representatives from voluntary groups involved with young people as a way of gaining feedback. There have also been a number of reports published by, for example, NACAB and Shelter which we have carefully considered. As a result, we have introduced a number of changes primarily to improve the way claims from young people are dealt
136
with, but significantly to pay the 18 to 24 year-old rate of benefit to those who have to live independently.
For example, since November 1989 all 16 and 17 year-olds are interviewed to ensure a full investigation of all claims from young people. In addition, recognised contact points have been set up in DSS local offices for local voluntary groups with difficult cases. In May 1990 a special leaflet was launched to give young people up-to-date and clear information about the benefits to which they may be entitled.
Apart from extending entitlement to young people estranged from their families, we have not been persuaded of the desirability of any major change. We remain convinced that our policy on young people is the right one. The income support rules provide help for those youngsters who may be incapable of work or training while also offering temporary help to those who may not be able to take up training or job opportunities immediately.
As I said, we continue to monitor the operation of the policy. In particular, we shall be looking at the impact of the administrative changes introduced in November and March on those young people who left school this Easter and those who will leave this summer. This will be the first real opportunity to assess the effects of these changes.
I cannot support this amendment because it does not seem to me to be in the best interests of the disadvantaged young people involved. These are young people who need the most help and I cannot accept that giving them unfettered entitlement to income support until they reach 18 years of age is good for them. The existing benefit provision and the improvements to the YT operation which I have described ensure that help is available for those who are vulnerable and that no young person need be without an income.
I apologise for bringing the noble Baroness back from her dinner because I earlier suggested that the amendment should not be grouped with others, but I hope she will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed with that answer, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will be too. Mrs. Shephard kindly gave me the letter which was written to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, about the many things which have been done as a result of the Government's misguided plan to remove benefit as from September 1988. They have had to make a number of changes because the policy was so misguided. I am sorry to say that they do not realise that it is still misguided. The amendment does not ask for undiluted help until the age of 18; it asks for help until those people concerned obtain a youth training place or employment. It does not go as far as the Minister suggested.
However, without the benefit of the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, I shall not divide the House. I know that the noble Baroness feels strongly about the matter. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but warn that it will be coming back at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Income support in respect of accommodation charges for certain persons in residential care and nursing homes]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 16, line 13, at end insert ("and shall ensure, as far as is practicable, that the amounts prescribed by him are sufficient to meet the cost of any such accommodation which would be met by a local authority in the case of persons other than qualifying persons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 42 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 43. This matter was discussed at length in Committee, and therefore I shall deal with it briefly. To deal with the matter briefly does not devalue its importance. We make no apology for returning to a matter which is causing great concern to many elderly people, their relatives and those who care for them.
The amendment seeks to address the problem that is being faced by many elderly and disabled people in homes where the charges are in excess of the income support limits. It seeks to provide a structure for ensuring that the department has the power to make additional payments to individuals and to top up the current income support limit where it is reasonable to do so. It seeks to refine the mechanism proposed in Clause 14 to allow for individual assessment to be made, if requested, of the sufficiency of the benefit to pay a reasonable charge.
We feel that the Government have still not addressed the problem of the existing residents in care who will continue to have to meet residential charges from income support. There is evidence from many quarters that, despite the April uprating and that which is promised for August, many residents will face a substantial shortfall.
Clause 14 gives the Secretary of State the power to collect information regarding fees. To repeat the question that has been asked before but which has not yet been answered, we should like to know when the information will be available and when it will be acted upon. What help is available for residents who face a shortfall now?
The amendment seeks to refine the mechanism proposed in Clause 14 to allow individual assessment to be made, if requested, of the relationship between the benefits and the charges.
We told the Minister at Committee stage of the many harrowing cases that have been brought to the attention of those of us who support the amendments. We hope that the Minister will be able to give us a more helpful and understanding reply than he did on that occasion. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the amendment The Secretary of State is aware of the problem. He has already taken some action, but it is not sufficient to close the gap between the cost of residential homes and the amount which is given under income support. We hope that the amendment will give more power to the Secretary of State's elbow.
It is not clear, where the gap exists, who ought to meet it. Most residential homes do not have
138
immense reserves of funds on which they can draw. They do not have great borrowing powers at the bank. At present levels of interest rates the expense of borrowing could be prohibitive. They are in the position of practically everybody else who is carrying out a public service on behalf of the Government. They are having to carry out the job at a loss. Whether they can go on doing so is doubtful.
I should like to quote some information that was supplied to me by Brent Age Concern. According to Department of Health guidelines there are supposed to be 25 local authority residential home places per 1,000 people. In 1987 Brent had 10 homes representing 431 places; that is 10·31 per 1,000, which is less than half the number stated in the guidelines. There is very little private or voluntary provision. Brent is not an area where one gets much of that kind of thing. We now have only six homes, some of which do not meet the new registration requirements. To bring them up to those standards will cost money. Here we have an absolutely typical illustration of the way in which local authority finance works. The council is to sell two of the homes in order to finance the refurbishment of the other four. That is asset stripping public finance. So we shall be left with 200 places only—under five per thousand. That is less than one-fifth of the guidelines. If we go too far down that road, it is an awfully long way back again. I hope that the Secretary of State will manage to do something before we have gone over the waterfall.
11 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, both speakers in support of the amendment stated in short and simple terms what they hope it will achieve; but in fact the matter is most complicated and has unusal implications. I only hope that at this late hour I can find sufficient lucidity to try to explain what will happen.
If we take the first of the two amendments, we find that it adds a few lines to the new subsection (2A) as set out in Clause 14, which is a subsection that deals with the way in which the Secretary of State is to take into account information provided by local authorities or other prescribed bodies or persons—they are not yet prescribed; that can be done under the Bill—for the purpose of deciding for income support the amounts to be provided in respect of accommodation, and can do so in respect of any area for people who qualify in cases where prescribed conditions are fulfilled.
Of course, the circumstances will vary enormously. Many homes properly charge different amounts for different individuals according to their needs and circumstances. There will be a problem in that the local authorities will be tailoring the amount of support that they give under the new scheme to the needs of individuals and to each home.
The Secretary of State will therefore not have an easy task under the first part of Clause 14 as it stands. If the words are added:
"and shall ensure, as far as is practicable, that the amounts prescribed by him are sufficient to meet the cost of any such accommodation which would be met by a local authority in the case of persons other than qualifying persons".

139
we shall be fettering the discretion that he would have to exercise in what, as I say, are complicated enough circumstances.
In those cases in which the qualifying person is not satisfied, or it seems that the proprietor or the manager of the residential care or nursing home is not satisfied, the matter can be referred by either of them to an adjudication officer for review. He will not carry out the review. He has to refer it to a tribunal unless—this is a strange and unusual situation—he decides (it is a quasi-judicial decision that he will have to take) that a tribunal has already made a case in relation to another qualifying person in the same home; in other words, unless he decides that there is already a precedent. That may not always be clear, bearing in mind that it is the circumstances not only of the home but of the individual that have to be borne in mind. We find the adjudicating officer, with his quasi-judicial function, having to decide whether or not it shall be referred to the tribunal for a judicial decision.
The complication does not end there, because he may also decide not to refer it to the tribunal. This appears at line 10 of page 10 of the Marshalled List. He may do this if he decides that the advice of the local authority—which has already been given to the Secretary of State, so we are going round in circles—
"or other prescribed body or person with knowledge of the home in question".
is such that he himself can determine the matter without reference to the tribunal. Frankly, I do not think we are doing justice or trying to achieve justice for the people whom we are trying to help if we impose such a complex system and procedure as that which these two amendments impose. I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will say that we should not do this. It is far better to leave it to the Bill and the new arrangement as it is.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it may well be that the amendment could have this effect which is not totally acceptable, and no doubt the proposals are complicated. But the problem is not complicated at all. It is the gap between people's income in these institutions and the charges. If the Government do not like the amendments put forward—and no doubt they can put many arguments against them—the burden is on them to explain how, in a simpler way, they will bridge the gap. That gap is a matter of great urgency at present both to the persons concerned and the institutions. If the institutions close down, we shall be in a difficult position. If the Government do not like the amendments, what are they going to do?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness agrees that if the owner of the residential home will be the person making the application for the increased charges, the owner will have a vested interest in the result of the reference to the adjudication officer or the tribunal. We want to see these people fairly treated, but I do not believe it is right that there should be a procedure which is double-edged and could be used merely to jack up charges.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me the question before I sat down, so I take it that I am in order if I reply, although it is Report stage. It is simple. I have already said that I understand that the Government regard these proposed amendments as too complicated or inadequate in some way or another. However, the burden is on them to do something about the extremely urgent problem.
If they tell us that they do not accept the amendment but will come back at Third Reading with something that will bridge the gap and is more acceptable administratively in terms of their own theories about what ought to be done, then all well and good. But the problem will not go away just because we withdraw the amendment. It is on the Government's plate to find some way of dealing with a problem which is not academic and will wait a long time for resolution. It is there and urgent. There will be disastrous consequences unless something is done about it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness is right in saying that it is the Government's job, once a general point has been made, to find a specific answer that will fit in with the Bill. If the noble Baroness and her friends are satisfied that this unfairness exists, and if they cannot find words which will straighten out what they consider to be unfairness, why should it automatically be the job of the Government? It may well be that this point, in the view of the Government, is well covered in the Bill already. It may well be that what is already there could be properly and sensibly applied. I do not accept the noble Baroness's point that because an attractive proposition is made in general terms a government who introduce a Bill have an obligation to provide the wording when noble Lords opposite had every opportunity to do so both in Committee and on Report.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must reply to that. I did not of course say that it is because the amendment may not be acceptable that there is an obligation on the Government. I said there was an obligation on the Government because the problem is real and urgent and the amendment is trying to deal with it. If the matter is not dealt with properly, that urgent problem will not go away. It is, I suggest, a problem for the Government to deal with.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I wish to support as strongly as I can what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has just been saying. I believe that what I want to say applies not only to this group of amendments but also to Amendment No. 45. Ever since about 1948 it has been thought right, proper and appropriate that a certain very small minority of the total elderly population should be accommodated in residential or nursing homes and that these people should be largely but not entirely funded from public sources whether that funding comes from local authorities or from central government. Can the Government explain why that is no longer thought to be right and why it is that

141
we are deemed no longer to be able to afford this type of accommodation for this category of people? If, as a result of the Government's recent changes in accepted policy, low income and often frail elderly people are going to be squeezed out of their present accommodation, where are they going to go? Are they going to be taken in, at far greater expense, by hospitals? If that is not the case, what will happen to them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has completely missed the point. Of course we shall continue to pay the costs of people in homes. I believe that expenditure in this field has gone up from some £10 million a year to something well over £1 billion in the past 10 years. What we are discussing here is the maximum amount which the Government will allow for income support for people in homes. Noble Lords opposite feel that the amount is inadequate and have pressed this point again and again. I hope I can assure them and the noble Baroness that we have done something. I shall try to respond to the various points that have been made.
As everyone knows, we debated these issues in some detail in Committee and we debated the same subject on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill when, if I remember rightly, the amendments were pressed to a Division and the Committee rejected them.
I hope again to persuade the movers of the amendments to withdraw them because I believe that the Government's strategy on this matter is right. I say this although I have listened with care to the arguments of noble Lords opposite. I repeat the fact that the Government recognise the importance of protecting the position of those who will not be covered by the new community care arrangements as from next April. However, I simply have not been convinced that the movers of the amendments have thought through the practical implications of their proposals.
The House will be familiar by now with the reasons why we are continuing the income support system for people who are already resident in homes by next April. Noble Lords will be familiar with the three separate themes in the Government's response to concerns expressed about the position of these people. We have addressed the level of the current income support limits in response to concerns expressed in another place via the additional uprating to take place this August. We are addressing the whole question of the level and structure of the limits as they will apply from April 1991 and are commissioning further research to that end. Moreover, we have this clause in the Bill which is designed to help us use the information that will become available as a result of practical decisions and negotiations by local authorities after 1991 to set new local limits for income support.
As I have explained previously, for real and sensible practical reasons we will not be able to use this new source of information from April 1991. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked when it will be available. It will come through after that date as local authorities gain practical experience of negotiating
142
their own fees. The noble Lord then asked when it will be acted upon. As the Bill suggests, we shall respond as soon as we have sufficient information to be able to set local limits. We are about to consult the local authorities about the important practical details of the precise data that we need and the timescales on which we need it.
The point that has been made most forcefully, by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, concerns the gap that exists at present. I have already said what the Government are doing about the present position. I have just mentioned that we have increased the limits through an extra, mid-year increase in those limits. We shall still consider increases for next summer in the usual way.
We have commissioned research. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that both health authorities and local authorities have always had a responsibility to help people needing health care or residential care.
I do not believe that it would serve any purpose for me to deal in detail with my objections to the amendments. I have spelt them out in detail on previous occasions and I believe that it would weary the House to go over all those points yet again. However, I should like to respond very briefly to one point made by my noble kinsman Lord Russell. He talked about provisions in Brent. That was irrelevant to the amendment because local authority homes are not funded through income support.
The noble Earl also talked of asset stripping. I should like to revert to an expression that I used on a previous occasion when I talked of my fears about these amendments when I referred to them as a blank cheque on the Exchequer. They are just that; they are attempts to allow residential homes to set any fee they like. That would not be in the best interests of the Exchequer. Nor would it be in the best interests of other residents in those homes who are not dependent on income support.
Having said that, and having explained what we are doing. I hope that at this hour the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. If he does not feel able to do so we shall most certainly resist the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate. We keep bringing this problem to the attention of the Government but still they refuse either to acknowledge it or to deal with it. The information that they want is available. Many of the voluntary bodies have the information now. If the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, were here she could certainly tell the Government about the shortfall experienced by residents of the Cheshire Homes.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the complication of the amendment. It is complicated. I thought that the noble Lord was answered extremely well by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who said that the complications would not arise if the Government would only provide a satisfactory answer to the problems that exist now. The shortfall after the increases to which the Minister referred will still be of the order of £30 to £60 per week for some residents.

143
Local authorites are already negotiating contracts and fees with voluntary and private providers of residential care, so there is no need to wait until the middle of next year to implement Clause 14. The local authorities are already in a position to supply the information. The Government are reluctant to do this because the local authority information would reflect the extent of the discrepancy between income support limits and the cost of providing residential care. We know that many homes are now accepting fees from income support claimants that are well below their costs.
The Government have three options. They can increase the national limits or introduce the new regional limits proposed in Clause 14 to a level that is near to average costs and charges. We admit at once that such a move would cost a great deal of money and would undoubtedly act as a stimulus to significant increases in prices. I recognise the Government's problem; it is not the fees but the costs with which they are concerned.
The second option would be to keep the limits at more or less their current levels and thus avoid increasing prices, and in addition adopt a mechanism—and this amendment is but one—which allows individuals who are suffering hardship because the fees are well above the limit to apply to their local department of social security. Clearly, the closer the income support limits are to the true costs of care, the fewer individual claimants would need to resort to the mechanism of the amendment.
Thirdly—this is what is happening—the Government can continue to sit on their hands and say, "There is nothing we can do to solve that short-term problem. It will not be too bad"—that is almost what the Minister said in Committee—"because if people are evicted, they can always turn to the local authority or the health authority, which both have the residual powers to help those who are destitute or in need of care".
The Government are sitting on their hands and choosing to pick holes in every mechanism that is offered to deal with the problem. They can afford to do that because after April next year the local authorities will be forced to pick up the pieces and accept the financial responsibility for distressed and evicted residents.
I do not propose to divide the House at this time of night. If I withdraw the amendment, the problem will not go away. However, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past eleven o'clock.

  NORTHERN IRELAND: HOSPITALS SEEKING SELF-GOVERNING STATUS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HOSPITALS SEEKING SELF-GOVERNING STATUS
  AIDS CONFERENCE, SAN FRANCISCO
  AIDS CONFERENCE, SAN FRANCISCO
  GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE
  GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE
  Correction
  Correction