Sitting of 14 June 1990

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

    ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL ( By Order)
    Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.
    To be considered on Thursday 21 June.

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL ( By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
    That the Bill be now considered.
    Debate, further adjourned till Thursday 21 June.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

      MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
      To be considered on Thursday 21 June.
      Mr. Speaker: As the remaining Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.

    CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
      SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)
        VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

          LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
          Orders for Second Reading read.
          To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 June.

    EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 21 June.

    GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

      HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Order for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 June.

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [10 May],
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 21 June

    SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

      PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Remand Prisoners
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has any further proposals to bring forward regarding the treatment of remand prisoners.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): On 3 May, in answer to a previous question from the hon. Lady, I referred to proposed changes in visiting arrangements and to pilot schemes to reduce censorship and to provide card phones for unconvicted prisoners.
    We are also seeking, through the prison building and refurbishment programmes, to reduce overcrowding and to improve the accommodation in which many such prisoners are at present held. In addition, guidance is shortly to be issued on the limited mixing of unconvicted and convicted prisoners, subject to close supervision, to allow participation by unconvicted prisoners in a wider range of activities.
    Ms. Quin: Although I am interested to hear some of the measures proposed, is not it the case that many remand prisoners are forced to share cells with three or more others, are forced to share with convicted criminals and are sometimes kept in their cells for up to 23 hours a day? As the principle of British justice is that someone is presumed innocent until proved guilty, is not this a disgrace?
    Mr. Mellor: I very much doubt whether many—if any—prisons run such impoverished regimes as the hon. Lady suggests. But it is clear that there is a problem which we steadily sought to address in the past decade and which we are within sight of resolving. Two thousand prison places have become available over the past two years, a further 1,600 will become available this year and there are 7,000 in the pipeline. Fourteen new prisons are being constructed, nine of which are local prisons or will take remand prisoners. Provided that there is no sudden surge in unconvicted prisoners, that puts us on course to resolve many of the problems. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that it was about time that a Government came to power who were willing to put resources into the prisons, and this Government are doing that.
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. and learned Friend's answers are most welcome. However, does he agree that, whatever the conditions under which remand prisoners are kept, the worst part of their existence is the length of time before their trial? Do he and his colleagues have any initiatives to reduce the time before trial for remand prisoners?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes, Sir. In various parts of the country, courts are now subjecting themselves to the discipline of fairly strict guidance about the time in which certain stages of a trial should proceed. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that there are twin problems. First, there is the number of people whom the courts—perfectly properly in most instances—decide to remand in custody and, secondly, there is the period for which those people are on
    452
    remand. We want to ensure that there are no unavoidable delays in the administration of the justice system, and we are doing that.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Minister is notorious for being able to slide off the point. He is aware that after the events at Risley in 1989 and after the prison disturbances in 1986 and 1988, strong recommendations were made for different treatment of remand prisoners. Why did not the Government react to those recommendations? Why did they do so little? Is the Minister conscious that Vivienne Stern, the director of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, said that if only the Government had acted, Strangeways might not have happened?
    Mr. Mellor: That is a superficial and unfair analysis. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the 14 prisons being constructed, nine of which will take remand prisoners, will make a massive contribution to solving the problem. If the hon. Gentleman wants to initiate a debate on these matters, we shall be only too happy to discuss them with him. If he promises me that he will spend the first 10 minutes explaining the dismal policies of the previous Labour Government, who cut prison building to the bone, I will listen to his second 10 minutes, when he will no doubt tell us how we should run the system now.

    Prisoners (Drugs)
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute a policy of screening all prisoners on a regular basis for the use of dangerous drugs.
    Mr. Mellor: All new receptions are seen and interviewed by a member of the health care staff and are asked whether they have ever taken drugs. Indications of the use of drugs by injection are looked for at that time. We are considering whether some form of subsequent screening, whether for clinical or control purposes, should be introduced.
    Mr. Butler: Has my hon. and learned Friend seen the study in the British Medical Journal of 26 May this year which showed that 66 per cent. of convicted drug addicts had found needles in prison and injected with them? Might not that contribute to riotous behaviour in prisons?
    Mr. Mellor: We certainly want to reduce the amount of drug taking in prisons, and I shall happily write to my hon. Friend explaining the large number of measures that we are taking to deal with the problem. I have not seen the survey to which he referred; I shall look at it. Of course, much depends upon accounts given by prisoners, whose reliability may be in question, and the thorough searches that we conduct in a number of establishments do not reveal anything like that picture. But we are by no means complacent.
    I should point out to my hon. Friend that we are under pressure to improve regimes and to have more civilised visiting arrangements. The consequence of allowing visitors and prisoners easier access can be an increase in the risk of drugs being passed on. So we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. Nevertheless, we want to solve the drugs problem and we are taking steps to deal with it.
    Mr. Hill: My hon. and learned Friend will be as aware as I am that it is common knowledge that drugs are freely available in most of our large prisons. There is a leakage. Whether it is through staff or visitors, or whether the prisoners bring drugs in, there is clearly a great security problem. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a thorough survey of the security of prisons in this respect would he advantageous?
    Mr. Mellor: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says, although I think that it is easy to overstate the problem. More than 90 per cent. of the finds involve cannabis and only 3 per cent. heroin and cocaine. I assure my hon. Friend that I hold meetings to try to ensure that we upgrade our activity and that questions such as the extent to which visitors should be searched are under active consideration. We must be careful not to exaggerate the problem, although I am aware that running a disciplined prison is made all the more difficult if there is ready access to drugs. We must do something to ensure that that does not happen.

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to have the results of the Devon and Cornwall police investigations into aspects of the Birmingham pub bombings case.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): It is not possible at this stage to say when the Devon and Cornwall constabulary will be able to report on the results of its inquiries. I am sure that the whole House would want the inquiries to be as thorough as possible.
    Ms. Short: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his reply, but, with the best will in the world, many of us are worried that we shall never see the report. The best that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can do, on the basis of a report that we shall not see, is to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal, whose record in this case we know: it dismissed serious new evidence when the case was last referred to it.
    In contrast, we have the inquiry into the Maguire case, which appears to be collapsing in front of our eyes. Do not we need a full open inquiry in public into the case of the Birmingham Six, so that all the evidence can be properly reviewed?
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Lady will know that I am always prepared to consider any new material that is offered to me which may relate to the safety of a conviction. That is why, when representations were made to me, I thought it right to put certain matters to the chief constable of the West Midlands, who in turn thought it right to call for the assistance of the Devon and Cornwall police. I do not think that the hon. Lady can say that I have been lax in any way in ensuring that there have been proper inquiries into these matters.
    Mr. David Nicholson: With regard to the Birmingham case, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that most Conservative Members—and, I suspect, a number of Opposition Members—are heartily fed up with unsubstantiated claims of innocence and guilt? Does he further agree that if certain Opposition Members, notably the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), have
    454
    evidence about those who carried out the Birmingham bombings, they should make that evidence known to the appropriate authorities?
    Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend will recognise that it is up to all of us to exercise responsibility in those matters. I have said what my responsibilities are and I believe that I am carrying them out.
    Mr. Hattersley: On a matter which I know the Home Secretary accepts is related both to the initial question and to his answer, will he tell us, in the light of this morning's statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the May committee that he regards the convictions of the Maguires unsafe, what steps he now proposes to take on that and related matters?
    Mr. Waddington: I should tell the House that this morning counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions told the May inquiry that, in his view, the convictions of the Maguires and the others convicted of possessing explosives are unsafe and unsatisfactory. In view of that, I should say straight away that I do not believe that the convictions can be allowed to stand. The correct course will probably be for me to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, but I do not think that it is right to do that until all the submissions on that issue have been presented to the inquiry and Sir John May has had an opportunity to respond to them. Once I have referred the case to the Court of Appeal it will become sub judice and it would then be very difficult for the May inquiry to go into those matters any further.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received following the decision of Croydon magistrates to dismiss Sunday trading summonses; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellor: One representation has been received. The Government recognise that the interpretation of the judgment of the European Court is causing some difficulty, but this is a matter for the courts in the first instance. Since the defeat of the Shops Bill, the Government have made it clear that, while maintaining our previous views on the matter, we are prepared to consider reform short of total deregulation if a solution can be found which is widely accepted, enforceable, practicable and likely to command a parliamentary majority. No such solution has yet emerged.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the law on Sunday trading is absolute nonsense? Is he aware that 13 national opinion polls on Sunday trading have been carried out over the past two years and that 63 per cent. of the people want Sunday trading? When will we listen to the people? When will we get rid of this ridiculous and rotten law?
    Mr. Mellor: One or two of us, including my right hon. and learned Friend and I, sought to do that very thing back in 1985. I cannot help feeling that we would have avoided quite a lot of the difficulties that have since emerged had that Bill been permitted to become law. However, it was not and we are therefore in a situation not of our choosing. I have always said from the Dispatch Box

    455
    that the criminal law has no place in the enforcement of who can buy what on a Sunday. We must accept that that is the law and live with the consequences. I hope that one of the consequences of the muddle that has emerged is that hon. Members will recognise that Parliament has repeatedly abdicated its responsibility to put the law into a sensible shape and I hope that an opportunity will be found to do that without too much further delay.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister accept that there is no muddle over this matter in south Wales? In my constituency this week the magistrate in Cwmbran successfully prosecuted B and Q for illegal Sunday trading. Does he accept now that there is no excuse whatsoever for do-it-yourself stores like B and Q openly to flout the law of the land? Will he urge the Attorney-General to take up this case on behalf of Torfaen borough council, as I understand that B and Q is going to appeal?
    Mr. Mellor: Happily, I am not the interpreter of the law of the land. But the hon. Gentleman's self-righteousness might extend to asking himself this question: why does he suppose that so many of his constituents thought it perfectly proper to shop on a Sunday? Does he really think that, whatever the law and its enforcement may be, which is not a matter for me, it is a sustainable basis on which to take British law into the last decade of the 20th century that we should have criminal penalties for people who simply want to sell legitimate household items to other members of the public?
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the determination to keep Sunday special is deeply rooted among the majority of people and that the Government's failure to appreciate that fact led to their difficulties with the Shops Bill? Will he now advise those who are seeking to subvert the law to wait until the Torfaen case, which was referred to the European Court of Justice and then referred back, reaches the stage of being subject to a judgment by a court of record?
    Mr. Mellor: The sadness of the present position is that, in all the debates on this issue during my time in the House —I have attended all of them—not one hon. Member has ever said that he or she accepts the Shops Acts as they presently are. Everyone has said that they want a change, but no one has been able to agree what that change should be. I inform my hon. Friend, who is an experienced lawyer, that of course the law of the land is the law of the land, but he knows that court judgments simply reveal the inconsistency in the law. That means that, sooner or later, Parliament will need to address the issue.
    Mr. Randall: Notwithstanding that very flimsy answer, is the Minister aware that there is deep concern in the country about the Government's failure since 1986 to introduce modern Sunday trading legislation? Is the Minister further aware that the Government are now perceived by informed and responsible opinion, through their procrastination, to be encouraging an organised campaign of law-breaking? When will the Government face up to their responsibilities and urgently introduce new legislation? The country wants to know now.
    Mr. Mellor: We brought forward a solution that was not acceptable to the House—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman listen to my answer as I listened to his question? He knows that we made it clear that we would
    456
    be prepared to consider solutions that fall short of total deregulation if those solutions were coherent and workable. Before the hon. Gentleman again speaks in the terms that he did, he might send to me, on however many sides of a piece of paper he chooses, what he thinks the answer is. The Labour party, which is in the pocket of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers Union, has always known what it is against, but it has never known what it is in favour of.
    Mr. Janman: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that Conservative Members—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We often have to listen to things with which we are unhappy. We must listen to each other.
    Mr. Janman: My hon. and learned Friend will need no reassurance from me that Conservative Members will not defend people who break the law. Given the comments of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) about the events in his constituency, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the current law is not only totally outdated but is losing the respect of many retailers who wish to open on Sunday and millions of people who shop on Sundays and expect to have the right to do so in a free and civilised country? Will my hon. and learned Friend assure the House——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One question, please.
    Mr. Mellor: The sad fact is that the schedule to the Act contains a list of prohibited items that do not reflect the stock held by any shop. Therefore, it is almost impossible to think of any shop that is open on a Sunday and is trading lawfully. That is why I repeat that it is difficult not to sympathise with those who are trying to struggle with the question whether to enforce the law and what the law is when the law has not been modernised for 50 years.
    Mr. Speaker: Question 5. Mr. Martyn Jones.
    Mr. Ray Powell rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. will the hon. Gentleman please sit down?
    Mr. Powell: We are not in the pockets of the shop workers.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Order Paper, he will realise that there is another question on this matter. He must not seek to be selfish and try to get in every time.

    British Summer Time
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received in respect of proposed changes to British summer time.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Representations covering all shades of opinion continue to be received in response to the Green Paper on summer time. The results of the consultation exercise—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us settle down. This question is about British summer time, and it is Mr. Martyn Jones's question. Did the hon. Gentleman hear the answer?
    Mr. Jones indicated dissent.
    Mr. Speaker: Will the Minister please read it again?
    Mr. Lloyd: The results of the consultation exercise will be announced very shortly.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for repeating his answer. When the results of the consultation exercise are made known, I hope that the Government will continue to resist any changes to British summer time. Does he accept that such changes would badly affect rural workers in my constituency and in many other constituencies further north?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Government are well aware of opinion in Scotland and the north because of the responses to the Green Paper and our regular contacts with the relevant Department at the Scottish Office. We shall, of course, bear all shades of opinion in mind. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be publishing the results of the consultation exercise and the Government's decision will depend on the general debate that follows.
    Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that if that change were to take place and we had summer time in the months of December, January and February, it would be absolutely disastrous for the construction industry? Is he further aware that I wrote the building industry's brief on this matter before the debate in 1971? I have not changed my views. The proposal should be strongly resisted.
    Mr. Lloyd: We are very much aware of the views of the construction industry. What it urges is quite different from what other respondents have urged. The benefits and disadvantages of each aspect must be weighed carefully and then a judgment made.
    Mr. Darling: Will the Minister explain the Government's difficulty over this matter? The Home Office has been considering this for more than two years now and the consultation period ended several months ago. Is the Minister aware that the dubious benefits of double summer time are outweighed by the undoubted inconvenience and possible danger to many people who live in different parts of the country?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman gives one view, but, as the results of the discussion paper will show, there are many different views depending on which element the respondent thinks is important. Difficult and detailed issues are involved, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has given them careful thought over a considerable period. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to publish those results before the longest day in the year.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister take into account the fact that people involved in business and agriculture in Northern Ireland believe that he should resist any pressure to change the present practice? Will he also take on board the fact that not only is that belief shared by people in Scotland, the north of England and Northern Ireland, but that the original question was tabled by an hon. Member from Wales?
    Mr. Lloyd: We shall take all those points into account. The right hon. Gentleman has underlined yet again the fact that there is a great variety of views on this issue, each of which has some validity.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that a significant number of people believe that if we are to take the single European market seriously and compete in Europe, we should have the same time frame as Europe?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I am aware of that view, which some people hold strongly while others believe that it is less important.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had on international co-operation to combat terrorism.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: In the past three months my right hon. and learned Friend has discussed international cooperation against terrorism with ministerial colleagues from Germany, France, Czechoslovakia, Portugal and Bahrain, and will be discussing it with colleagues in the Trevi group at meetings in Dublin later today and tomorrow.
    Mr. Brown: Why has no one been prosecuted for the Lockerbie outrage, bearing in mind that the Minister's Scottish colleague, the Lord Advocate, promised some time ago that a prosecution would take place? What has gone wrong? People around the world want to know. What is happening? It seems as though the Government are turning a blind eye to an issue which is clearly important to us all.
    Mr. Lloyd: What the hon. Gentleman says is a load of nonsense. Investigations are proceeding with great urgency. We are receiving a great deal of co-operation around the world and I have no doubt that in due time arrests will be made.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend consider that the fight against international terrorism is compatible with the removal of all border controls between nation states? Is he receiving support from his Common Market partners in resisting the dismantling of all border controls for that purpose?
    Mr. Lloyd: We have made it clear that we intend to keep our border checks and we find that there is increasing sympathy and understanding for our view among our EC partners.
    Mr. Cryer: Are not open borders in 1992 and the continued assertion that the Government intend to dismantle all border controls incompatible with adequate controls against terrorism and the illegal movement of arms and drugs? So far, the Government have not told us of even one measure that they intend to take against the removal of barriers in 1992. All that they have done is to make platitudinous assertions.
    Mr. Lloyd: We have made it clear that we intend to keep border controls and checks. We can do that in a way that is consistent with easy movement of EC nationals, who merely need to indicate who they are at the border checks.

    Active Citizens
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent steps he has taken to help promote the concept of the active citizen.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): My right hon. and learned Friend and I take every opportunity to encourage responsible and active citizens and businesses to make a positive contribution to their communities and to charitable causes, particularly through volunteering and charitable giving.
    Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend note the enthusiasm among Conservative Members for the concept of the active citizen, in particular the role that the active citizen can play in exercising his own responsibilities within the family and the community? The community neighbourhood watch scheme and the family can help the Government to reduce the appalling crime figures for juveniles of 15. Does he find that other Government Departments are playing their part in ensuring that the active citizen forms a central part of the Conservative party's next manifesto?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend. Never before in British history have so many of our fellow citizens been involved in voluntary activity. The figure is now about one in four of all our citizens aged over 16. My hon. Friend referred to the neighbourhood watch scheme. Those who run such schemes in this country are the largest group of volunteers anywhere in the western world and they should be commended. Certainly, my right hon. Friends in other Government Departments are keen to promote the concept of the active citizen. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is doing exactly that with local management of schools. I pay tribute to all parent governors who are helping with the local management of schools.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the greater accountability brought about by the community charge will give a significant boost to the concept of the active citizen? In cases such as the recent arson attack on a school in my constituency the cost of repairs will fall on community charge payers throughout the borough. We therefore all have a major incentive to do what we can to prevent crimes of that nature.
    Mr. Patten: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I hope that he agrees that we must also diffuse to ordinary people in their communities as much power and control as possible over their lives. We are doing that through local management of schools and by giving tenants more rights to control their own lives, and we intend to continue the process in future years.

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to recover the 2,000 or so non-material statements which were not made available to solicitors acting for the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.
    Mr. Waddington: It has not been established that any relevant evidence concerning the case of the Birmingham Six is missing. Representations about this possibility are among the issues which have been raised by the solicitor acting for the convicted men. I have passed these to the chief constable of the west midlands police, and they will be investigated by the Devon and Cornwall constabulary.
    Mr. Banks: May I put it to the Home Secretary that although we all lose things from time to time—the Labour party just lost three elections, but our losing streak is now finished—losing 2,000 statements really seems a bit much? A pack of playing cards on which Dr. Scuse carried out his tests and pages clearly torn out of a notebook have also been lost. It seems either that the police are terminally careless or that a cover up is going on. The Secretary of State recently had to eat some words in relation to the Maguire case, and he will have to eat some words in the case of the Birmingham Six before long.
    Mr. Waddington: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said, which was that it had not been established that any relevant evidence in the case of the Birmingham Six was missing. In fact, the alleged failure of the prosecution to tell the defence about the existence of none-material statements was considered by the Court of Appeal in 1987. The allegations are now being considered by the Devon and Cornwall police.
    Mr. Shersby: In respect of the Maguire case, which was raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us on what basis the conviction is thought to be unsound? Can he confirm that there is no question of any improper activity by the police?
    Mr. Waddington: That is my understanding, but I only learnt about the matter this morning. I must read with care the submission made by counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions. My understanding is that he submitted that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory on the basis of the possibility of the accused having become innocently contaminated with traces of explosives.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the collapse of the Maguire case this morning makes it two out of three in the cases that I and many others have, for the past seven years, attempted to draw to his attention as examples of miscarriages of justice? Would not it be best to learn some lessons and hold a public inquiry into the Birmingham Six case, and one which commands public confidence? Should not that scandal be brought to an end once and for all? Does the Home Secretary accept my fear that some of the Birmingham Six may die in gaol, as did Paul Giuseppe Conlan, one of those arrested in the Maguire case? We want to avoid that happening.
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman should be pleased that when submissions were made to me that there was new evidence which should be investigated because it might cast doubt on the safety of the convictions, I asked the chief constable of the west midlands whether he would help, and he called in the Devon and Cornwall police. I cannot imagine what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about. Indeed, we might have progressed more quickly with the inquiries if he had revealed many months ago the names of those whom he said were responsible for the bombing.
    Mr. Kilfedder: If public inquiries are to be held, can there be one into every atrocity committed as a result of the IRA's shoot-to-kill policy?
    Mr. Waddington: I am bound to say that, like the hon. Gentleman, I have often thought that it would be nice to see on television every now and again a documentary

    461
    highlighting the appalling atrocities committed by the IRA and the terrible damage that has been done to life in Ulster, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and mainland Britain.
    Mr. Hattersley: May I bring the Home Secretary back to the crucial question, which is the status and reputation of justice in this country? Does he not understand that the submission by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the May committee inquiry this morning, and his own wholly proper reaction to it, further increase pressure for a new, thorough and objective inquiry into the convictions of the Birmingham Six? Sooner or later, that new inquiry will have to be held and it would do the Home Secretary's reputation a great deal of good if he set it up here and now.
    Mr. Waddington: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks about the matter for a moment or two, I think that he will agree that I am right to say that I shall consider carefully what the May inquiry says about the forensic science evidence in the Maguire case and I shall take fully into account any implications that it might have for the safety of other convictions. The reliability of the forensic science evidence in the Birmingham Six case was fully examined in 1987.

    Remand Prisoners
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of remand prisoners held in police cells; and what the figure was one year ago.
    Mr. Mellor: On Wednesday 13 June there were 887 prisoners held in police cells in England and Wales, compared with 218 people on 13 June 1989; 825 of them are being held in the north-west of England and are in police cells as a result of industrial action by the Prison Officers Association at some establishments in the north. I am most grateful to the police for their assistance in this matter.
    Dr. Twinn: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. I am sure that we are all grateful to the police, although hon. Members who have fewer policing hours available for policing their constituencies must be concerned about the situation. Will the Minister get together with the POA as soon as possible to find a solution to the problem?
    Mr. Mellor: A meeting took place between Home Office officials and representatives of the POA in the north-west today. I have yet to receive a full report of the outcome. Obviously, at a time when the prison service is striving to cope with the aftermath of Strangeways and when we have announced a major refurbishment of that prison, as well as seeking to honour our commitments to upgrade other prisons, it is dreadful that as a result of industrial action we are having to pay the police service £180 per night to accommodate prisoners when there is plenty of room in the prisons in the north to accommodate prisoners there, where they should be.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I thank the Minister for his contratulations to the police and I join him in congratulating the Greater Manchester police on the tremendous job that they have been doing in looking after remand prisoners since Strangeways. Is he aware that it is
    462
    totally unacceptable for the police at police stations such as those in Stockport to have to go on looking after remand prisoners? It is also totally unacceptable to the prisoners and to their families. Will the Minister make it clear that this state of affairs cannot continue and that we must achieve a situation in which those remand prisoners can go back to prison and the police stations can get back to their normal functions?
    Mr. Mellor: I am in the happy position of agreeing with absolutely every word that the hon. Gentleman said. That is why we have sought to persuade the POA to accept a common-sense solution. For example, Preston prison—one of the major prisons in the north—has a certified normal accommodation of 428, but there are barely more than 300 prisoners there at present. Industrial action is preventing the spaces being filled. The public and the House will not understand if it takes much longer to resolve these problems.

    Sunday Trading
    Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation in the light of inconsistent judgments on Sunday trading cases now coming from the courts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellor: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans).
    Mrs. Roe: In the search for a compromise, will my hon. and learned Friend pay particular attention to the needs of garden centres, the purpose of which is widely recognised as being recreational? Will he bear in mind that some garden centres do as much as 70 per cent. of their business on Sundays and that without Sunday opening they would be forced to close? Does he appreciate that there is great concern in that industry about the continuing uncertainty?
    Mr. Mellor: I well appreciate all the points that my hon. Friend makes, and she is absolutely right.
    Mrs. Wise: Will the Minister accept that many shop workers are saying loud and clear, "You already take our Saturdays for work—you are not going to get our Sundays"? Will he further accept that shop workers will not believe any offers of protection which may be held out to them by the Government, who have a shocking record of stripping protection from shop workers in relation to wages, hours of work and other matters?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Lady should, in all conscience, recognise that the world has moved on since the clays of Mr. Polly and that in reality several million of our fellow citizens—including, I suspect, a good many of us—regularly have to work Sundays but that we manage to do so while having perfectly normal, decent and sensible family lives and being able to follow our religions. All retailers who advocate a change in the law say that it has never been difficult to find people willing to work on Sundays, particularly when supplements are paid.

    Crime Statistics
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the level of crime in (a) England and Wales, (b) each member country of the European Community and (c) the United States of America.
    Mr. John Patten: According to the recently published 1989 international survey of crime, the overall risk in England and Wales of being a victim of crime is a little below the average for western Europe and much lower for violent crime than in the rest of Europe. The risk is lower than in the United States, Canada and Australia. What matters to our citizens is, quite rightly, crime here.
    Mr. Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show that high crime levels are a worldwide problem, and that we in Britain are tackling them more effectively than other countries? Does he acknowledge, however, that there is no cause for complacency here, particularly in the light of the disturbing and countrywide crime rate figures for the first three months of this year?
    Mr. Patten: Those figures will probably not be published for another two weeks. No other part of Government expenditure has had more money devoted to it than the police, where there has been almost a 60 per cent. rise in expenditure in real terms in the past 10 years. There are 15,000 more men and women working in the police service, and with better equipment than ever before. Happily, the recent international survey to which I referred shows that confidence in the police is higher in this country than in any other western European country.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be hosting a dinner in honour of Sir Sonny Ramphal, secretary-general of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of the Government establishing a Select Committee charged with the responsibility of examining the cost to the nation of the pledges and commitments made by Ministers and other hon. Members?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, Ministers have to lay their estimates before the House and overall Government expenditure is given in the Autumn Statement, as is the detailed public expenditure survey ahead. It would be a good idea if other people making proposals for extra expenditure also had to lay their costings before the House—including Opposition Members, who recently made 80 new spending pledges in their new document.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning's decision by the Cabinet on the rail link to the channel tunnel means all the misery of prolonged planning
    464
    blight for the people of Kent, and is a betrayal of the economic and environmental interests of the whole country? When the Prime Minister looks at the problem, as she will have to do again, will she recognise that mixing public and private investment works well for the other countries of Europe, so why does she wish to prevent it from working for our country?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that clause 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 precludes subsidy for international travel, and the Labour party agreed to that clause at the time. Subsidy is therefore precluded. The joint venture was seeking nearly £2 billion of additional finance for Eurorail—£500 million in Government grant, extra British Rail investment of nearly £400 million, mainly in commuter services, and a £1 billion soft loan, on which repayment of interest or capital would not even start until the year 2010. As I have said, such subsidy was precluded by clause 42.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister so inflexible and myopic as not to understand what every community and every industrialist in Britain understands—that when circumstances change, a realistic Government should change their policy? When the French are already building their fast rail link, why is the Prime Minister not even planning ours?
    The Prime Minister: That is another quick £2 billion, just like that. Yet the right hon. Gentleman claims to be responsible. It is absolute nonsense. In fact, nearly £2 billion of public investment has already been committed to tunnel-related transport services in our estimates and in expenditure. I will give the House the breakdown. We plan to spend £600 million on road schemes to allow access to the tunnel, and British Rail will invest more than £1·3 billion on passenger and freight services to and from the tunnel. That is legitimate expenditure and it is being made.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is seeking to mislead everyone again. Will she not admit that of the sum that she says is committed to railways, £1 billion will be paid for entirely by higher fares being charged to users of Network SouthEast, who already suffer grossly inadequate services at very high cost? Will she not also admit that none of that maintenance work—for that is what it is—begins to provide an alternative to the fast rail link that is necessary? I ask the right hon. Lady again: when other countries mix public and private investment to provide a proper modern international rail link, why is she preventing our people from having the same advantage?
    The Prime Minister: The Government are making a greater investment in railways than there has been for 25 years. We have committed and are spending £2 billion of public investment on roads and railways to the channel tunnel. It is not maintenance—it is much more than that, if the right hon. Gentleman will care to look. Out of the blue and in the right hon. Gentleman's usual casual way, he has committed another £2 billion without costings—justifying the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed).
    Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend give some thought this afternoon to the plight of British hostages in the Lebanon? Would it not be helpful to their cause and to the peace process in the middle east if Britain and Syria were to patch up their quarrel and agree to resume diplomatic relations? Is it right that we should continue without proper representation in that very important country?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend will recall the very serious circumstances in which we broke off diplomatic relations with Syria, when we could have lost a whole aircraft full of people over London had the bomb that it was meant to carry gone off. There was complicity with the Syrian embassy in the attempted placing of a bomb on that aircraft, and we cannot ignore that. Any country that can exercise influence in achieving the release of hostages should exercise it. The taking and holding of hostages is totally uncivilised. We have publicly thanked Iran and Syria for the part that they played in achieving the release of American hostages. The central issue is the release of hostages that should not be held by any nation.
    Mr. Ashdown: While the Prime Minister is on the subject of expenditure, does she realise that there cannot be any greater indictment of her Government's priorities than that they are prepared to contemplate spending £3,000 million saving their skins over the poll tax but cannot find one tenth of that sum to invest in a decent high-speed rail link for Britain's future?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman listens to any previous reply. We are precluded by legislation from spending on an international rail link. As to expenditure, we have already committed £2 billion to roads and railways to and from the channel tunnel. A statement will be made on the community charge, but I assume from the right hon. Gentleman's comment that he feels no sense of guilt about very high-spending local councils who put up their community charges to an enormous amount—most of them Labour or Liberal.
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Twinn: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the easing of tension between the Soviet Union, Lithuania and the other Baltic states? Does she agree that that welcome development has much to do with the steady pressure applied by the British Government—and other western Governments—to both sides? Will she continue to work hard to bring both sides together for a peaceful settlement in the Soviet Union and the Baltic states?
    The Prime Minister: I discussed that problem with President Gorbachev and the Lithuanian Prime Minister, Mrs. Prunskiene, and we have frequently had questions about it in the House. Britain, the United States and other European countries have steadily made known our view that those states are entitled to independence and self-determination, and President Gorbachev has agreed to that.
    It looked as though a real blockage was developing in relation to some of the semantics. That was a great tragedy, as obviously it is important to get practical talks and negotiations started. I believe that that is about to
    466
    happen, and it is a welcome development. Both sides are to be congratulated on removing the blockages, and I hope that the process comes to fruition.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Prime Minister tell us what replies she has given to those who petitioned her yesterday on behalf of people living in the Ravenscraig area?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, the position on Ravenscraig was governed by a statement made by British Steel. It undertook to keep the strip mill open until 1989, and that date has now been extended to 1991. As for the main mill, British Steel said in its prospectus that if it no longer had any use for the mill it would be offered to a private buyer; I do not think that the position has changed.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree with United States Secretary of State James Baker that the tension in the middle east is as high today as it was in 1967? Does she share his view that the conditions for talks with the Palestinians laid down by the new and extreme Israeli Government need to be changed? Can she assure the House that the British Government will do all that they can to support the American Government's efforts to start some form of talks without delay?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that my hon. Friend is correct. We are doing all that we can to persuade the new Israeli Government to start talks with representative Palestinian people. We are also joining others in pointing out that Soviet Jews who leave the Soviet Union—and we have urged for years that they should be allowed to leave—should not be settled in the occupied territories or in east Jerusalem. It undermines our position when those people are settled in land that really belongs to others.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What is the average rate of inflation in the European Community, excluding Britain? When does the Prime Minister expect British inflation to achieve the European average? Will she tell the House that it will not happen in October, and that Britain will therefore not join the exchange rate mechanism then, as it will not have met the conditions that she has laid down?
    The Prime Minister: The average rate of inflation in the European Community is about 5 per cent. If Britain's figure were calculated on the same basis, it would be 6.5 per cent. The conditions for Britain's joining the ERM were laid down at Madrid, and they are precisely the same now.
    Mr. Churchill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Churchill: Is it not clear that the socialist policies being foisted on Britain by Commissioner Papandreou, under the terms of the social charter, which requires employers to give a part-time employee all the perks and benefits available to full-time workers, will have a

    467
    devastating effect on employment and on Britain's 6 million part-time workers? Will my right hon. Friend continue to resist those job-destroying proposals?
    The Prime Minister rose—[Interruption.]——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions are to be answered by the Prime Minister and not by hon. Members on Benches below the Gangway.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend—the Commission talks in one breath about subsidiarity, and by
    468
    its actions puts on a whole new load of bureaucratic rules and regulations which are not needed, which would be highly damaging to those who work part-time and would put increasing costs on employers. What the Commission is proposing would be a barrier to jobs, a barrier to business, would cost a lot of women who want to work part-time their jobs, would mean increased national insurance contributions for those who work only a few hours a week, and generally would be damaging to business and people alike.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 JUNE and TUESDAY 19 JUNE—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1990 (Cm 1022).
At the end of Tuesday remaining stages of the Greenwich Hospital Bill [Lords].
Ways and Means resolution relating to the Caldey Island Bill.
WEDNESDAY 20 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill.
Resolutions relating to the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 21 JUNE—Completion of remaining stages of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 22 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.
Dr. Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the Government's proposals for the further consideration of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which is scheduled to go into Committee on 19 June, as that will leave perhaps only 10 sitting days for consideration of a Bill of 60 clauses and seven schedules? It contains a controversial series of proposals, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, as it covers such issues as conveyancing, legal structures, licensing law, divorce law and the law on charities. Is not it clear that the Committee is unlikely to have sufficient time to give full and adequate consideration to all those important matters? Will the Leader of the House withdraw the Bill and reintroduce it in the next Session of Parliament, when the House will be more adequately able to consider all those important measures which affect so many aspects of life in Scotland?
Does it concern the Leader of the House that it is apparently becoming increasingly profitable for Ministers to fall out with the Prime Minister? Is not it time that the House had the opportunity to debate the increasing flow of former Cabinet Ministers into highly paid posts in recently privatised industries? That phenomenon is unlike anything that has ever happened before—[Interruption.]—for one thing, no other Government have privatised industry in the way that the Government have done. Secondly, no Ministers in previous Governments have been so closely involved with such a process as the Ministers in this Government have been. As there are rules governing the behaviour of civil servants, why should we not, in the public interest, have an opportunity to debate the matter in Governmen time? In the interests of the reputation of good government, I ask the Leader of the House to provide such an opportunity.
Has the Leader of the House seen the recently published study on urban prosperity in the European Community? It shows that the Government's policies for Britain's towns and cities are failing. Is he aware that only four British
470
towns and cities are included among the top 50 positions in the study: Brighton—Labour—Norwich—Labour—London—mainly Labour—and Edinburgh—Labour? Does not that show that it is nonsense for the Government to claim that Labour is not managing efficiently the affairs of our towns and cities?
Does not it also put a big question mark over the Government's proposals—that we shall soon have to find time to debate—to rate-cap authorities that are trying to administer many important policies that affect those who live in the towns and cities of this country? Will the Leader of the House therefore ensure that when we come to consider the budgets of authorities that may be poll tax-capped we shall have ample opportunity to do so?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to be in the House next week. That may explain the length of his interrogation this afternoon. As for the first matter that he raised, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill is an important measure which is currently under consideration by the Standing Committee. I am advised that the Committee will so organise itself as to ensure that the Bill is properly scrutinised. However, I note the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall reflect on what he said
As for the appointment of former Ministers to the chairmanship of privatised companies, it ought to be clearly within the hon. Gentleman's recollection that it has never been the practice, under successive Governments of either party, to prevent former Ministers from accepting appointments in areas where they have expertise. It is difficult to see the distinction in principle between the appointments of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken and the appointments of, for example, Lord Robens as chairman of the National Coal Board, Lord Marsh as chairman of British Rail, Lord Beswick as chairman of the British Aerospace Corporation and Lord Glenamara as chairman of Cable and Wireless. The only distinction is that they were appointed to the chairmanship of industries in the public sector that were a great deal less efficient than the privatised industries that are now available to the country.
As for the hon. Gentleman's last point, it is notable that a number of the cities to which he referred—for example, Edinburgh and Brighton—have had long periods of Conservative rule, which no doubt contributed to their present good condition. It is also notable that a number of cities in this country—I note, for example, London docklands at one end and Glasgow, the European city of culture, at the other—have undergone a positive revitalisation during the last 10 years, of which this country can be proud.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is an Estimates Day, the second of the rare occasions when we have an opportunity to debate Select Committee reports. Moreover, after business questions the Secretary of State for Transport is to make an important statement. Therefore I shall allow business questions to run until 4.15. Hon. Members who are anxious to question the Secretary of State for Transport about his statement will, I hope, impose upon themselves a self-denying ordinance during business questions.
Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that on 29 March he said that such were the issues raised by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that the House should have the opportunity to arrive at its conclusions on a free vote. Can he now categorically tell us that that promise obtains for the rest of the Bill?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Bill was introduced as a measure dealing with embryology and not with abortion issues. When it was introduced it was made clear that the key clause on research or no research, on which we offered alternatives, would be the subject of a free vote. When the possibility of the Bill's being widened to include abortion arose in the House, it was made clear, and still remains the position, that matters relating to embryo research or abortion that are matters of conscience will be subject to a free vote.
One matter on which it makes sense to invite the House, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, to conclude the debate, is whether we give the Bill a Third Reading. It was introduced as a Government Bill and will be the result of intense deliberation by the House on the questions urged upon it by my right hon. Friend and others, so it would be foolish for us to neglect passing the Bill on to the statute book when we have completed our considerations.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Regarding the proposed establishment of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consult the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, following his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) last Thursday?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not yet taken that opportunity, but I shall bear in mind the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the House is pleased that he has responded to the Procedure Committee's report on European legislation with a White Paper? I congratulate him on that, but it is not enough; we need a debate. We have been promised a debate. Can he tell the House when that will be, and will he consider whether the debate should be on an affirmative motion and not simply a take-note motion?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend is aware, I have had a number of discussions with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and I hope to announce a debate on the matter in the very near future. Of course, without commitment, I shall pay respect to his observations about the form of the debate.
Mr. James Wallace: Like the rest of us who observed the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time, did the Leader of the House notice the Prime Minister's frustration that section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 was tying her hands and undoubtedly preventing her from providing much-needed funds to the high-speed rail link? Given the fact that the Government have a large majority in the House and that such a measure would get a fair wind from the Opposition, will he set a day aside next week for a simple, one-clause Bill to repeal section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I did not get the impression that that was the ambition of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If hon. Members wish to explore the matter in more detail, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will answer their questions.
Mr. Timothy Raison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend expect the embryo research and abortion clauses of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill to be taken on the Wednesday or Thursday? Does he agree that, if there is any timetable problem about the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, the divorce provision could well be dropped?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The precise allocation of business will be for the Business Committee, but the hope is to divide the two topics between the two days.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House think again about his answer to the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)? He is putting a three-line Whip on a Government Bill which deals with life issues. That has far wider implications than he has realised in terms of the Labour party's position on these matters. Will he please reconsider that decision and not proceed on that basis?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Once again, I am glad to have the opportunity of disabusing the hon. Gentleman and the House of an entirely false impression about the way in which the Bill is being handled. First, it is not the function of the Leader of the House to prescribe whipping arrangements for either side of the House. Secondly, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary made it clear that matters relating to embryo research or abortion, that are matters of conscience, will be subject to an entirely free vote, as indeed they were. The only question on which there can sensibly be whipping is whether the House of Commons, having spent a great deal of time in orderly debate on the matter, should carry through to the statute book the result of that work. The first part of the Bill, which deals with embryology, is a Government Bill; the second part of the Bill is, in effect, a House of Commons Bill and it is not unreasonable to expect that Bill to be carried through to the statute book.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have an early debate on the important subject of religious education in schools, bearing in mind the serious shortage of religious education teachers and the importance of teaching children the difference between right and wrong? That would also enable the apparently illegal syllabus in religious education of the former Ealing Labour council to be discussed and ordered to be changed. It does not mention God, the Bible or Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, which are required to be at the centre of this crucial subject.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend always has the skill to make his business question almost a mini-debate in itself. He has ventilated the subject with some skill.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate before 29 June on crowd safety at pop concerts? On that date, there is to be the biggest concert of the year, with more than 100,000 young people expected to hear such

473
aging figures as Paul McCartney and Elton John. We should at least be concerned to see that people are safe when they get there.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman will be among the audience there. He would be a man of comparable vintage to the stars he has named. I cannot promise a debate on that topic in the near future.
Mr. John Bowis: I do not wish to overburden our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, will my right hon. and learned Friend fill the cup of London's happiness by bringing our right hon. Friend back shortly to make an announcement on the central London rail study, including the Hackney-Chelsea line, which we hope will come south of the river through Wandsworth, and on the public transport elements of the London assessment studies?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has answered questions on both topics in the fairly recent past. He may or may not be in a position to answer such questions this afternoon. If not, I am sure that my hon. Friend will find another opportunity of pressing him on both points.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the cash crisis facing the education service? Is he aware that many schools, including those in my constituency, are facing a cash crisis as a result of inadequate budgets under the local management scheme? Budgets are being returned, teachers are being threatened with the sack and there is a real danger of many schools literally running out of money before the end of the financial year. What are the Government doing to ensure that our children's education is not put in jeopardy in that way? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange an early debate so that the Secretary of State for Education and Science can be told of the reality facing many constituencies?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, recall that the amount of money per head being spent on children's education is now higher than at any time in the past. He will also remember that the change in school management was intended to secure—and will secure—increasingly efficient use of those resources to achieve the exact objectives he has in mind. He will find the point more elaborately explained in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the National Association of Head Teachers a couple of weeks ago.
Mr. Allan Stewart: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on agreeing to reflect on what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said about the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill? I speak as a member of the Committee on that Bill and as a supporter of the great majority of its provisions. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in light of the excellent speeches on Second Reading by my hon. Friends, the timetable for the Bill is unreasonable and that it would be far better if this important measure were considered next Session by reasonable people over a reasonable time and at reasonable hours?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am still hopeful that my hon. Friend—some of whose remarks I appreciate—will play his part in helping the Committee so to organise itself that it can complete its business in the present Session.
Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Leader of the House consider my question last week on separating the poll tax orders that must be laid? I notice that they are not down for debate next week, so they could be put down for the week after. My understanding is that the orders may be brought together in two groups. That would be a negation of democracy, both centrally and locally. It would be a kick in the teeth for people such as those in my constituency, where the music centre has closed, 24 teachers have been sacked, two old people's homes have been closed and all the services have been cut. Is not it right for each order to be debated for an hour and a half in the House and for the House to make a decision on each?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not today announced any arrangements for debating charge capping. Any proposals on that matter are best left for discussions through the usual channels.
Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we have not had a debate for some time on the workings of the Foreign Office? Does he agree that the cost of the Foreign Office is very low, given the service that it performs? It has one: of the lowest votes of any Government Department. Its activities at home and abroad are vital to the country and I hope that they will not be curtailed in any way.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to endorse the tribute paid by my hon. Friend to the efficiency and importance of the Foreign Office. I am sure that, in due course, we shall have a debate on foreign affairs and that my hon. Friend will be able to repeat in more detail the glowing observations that he has made.
Mr. Dave Nellist: What are the chances of a statement next week on the stalled Cabinet review of the poll tax? I am happy to leave it entirely up to the Leader of the House to sort out whether such a statement should come from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment or from the Chancellor, but it would at least give 1·25 million people in Scotland and 10 million people in England and Wales the opportunity to discover precisely the sort of poll tax that we are not paying.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no question of any stalling of any review. My right hon. Friends' consideration of the operation of the community charge is proceeding in the ordinary fashion and the outcome will be disclosed in clue course.
Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any news to give us about when we may have the reform of the private Bill procedure and when the excellent recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure may be implemented?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope to be able to tell the House something more substantial about that next week.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House consider further the need for a statement on the

475
position of former Cabinet Ministers who have taken posts in private companies? One former Minister had dealings with a company—recently, while he was a Minister—and has now become its chairman. Is the Leader of the House aware that many people regard that as scandalous? We need guidelines for former Cabinet Ministers along the same lines as those for senior civil servants who leave the service, which have not been the subject of any controversy.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I repeat that it has never been the practice, under Governments of either party, to prevent former Ministers from accepting appointments. I repeat that there is a list of distinguished ex-Labour Ministers who have moved on to preside over nationalised companies, while others have taken jobs in the private sector.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Montreal protocol meetings, to be held in London and hosted by Her Majesty's Government, are likely to prove a crucial test of the true environmental policies of most major nations? Please may we have a debate on the subject before the meetings take place, so that the Government are aware of Back-Bench feelings?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a debate on that important subject at a particular time, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's question in mind.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Leader of the House accept that his twice-repeated assertion that the Standing Committee appointed to deal with the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill should "so organise itself" represents a dereliction of duty by the Government? The Government are demanding one of two things of the members of the Standing Committee: either we shall be faced with all-night sittings during June and July or we shall have severely to curtail discussions not only of the provisions of the Bill but of other aspects of law reform in Scotland that we may wish to raise under the long title.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake not only to have discussions through the usual channels but to meet representatives of the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats to discuss the implications of the Bill and the possibility of taking it away and introducing separate legislation in the next Session so that we can deal with these issues as they deserve to be dealt with?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would not be normal for me to engage myself in managing the procedures of this, that or any other Standing Committee, however important its work may be. I have already undertaken to reflect on the point that has been raised, but I maintain my belief, on the basis of the advice that I have received, that it should be possible for the Committee so to organise itself as to ensure that the Bill is properly scrutinised.
Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. and learned Friend able to tell the House how long it would take to describe those qualifications which Lord Glenamara possessed before his appointment as chairman of Cable and Wireless? Is it really the case that he was not
476
able to distinguish one end of a cable from the other, either at the start or at the end of his term of office as chairman? Is not it a source of great satisfaction to my right hon. and learned Friend that the new chairman of Cable and Wireless has been appointed from the private sector and not by one of his right hon. Friends?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's observations are always entirely apt. It is a source of pleasure to Conservative Members, and more importantly it is a source of encouragement and benefit to the nation, that a competent chairman should be appointed to a privatised company of that kind. However, as we consider the proximity of experience, it is interesting to reflect that Lord Glenamara had been Postmaster-General before becoming chairman of Cable and Wireless.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 982 about the poll tax and the franchise which shows that there is a shortfall on the electoral register of 600,000 people as a result of the operation of the poll tax?
[That this House notes that under a universal franchise there has correctly been a close correlation between the numbers of people on electoral registers within Great Britain and the estimated equivalent population of those who are 18 years of age and over; is therefore shocked to discover that since the introduction of the poll tax and the interconnections that subsequently exist between electoral and poll tax registration, on the above basis there are over 600,000 people missing from the current and recently used local government electoral registers in Great Britain; further notes that under-registration, is unevenly distributed and that there are certain alarming pockets of non-registration including the parliamentary constituency of Finchley where the electorate fell by 4·6 per cent. between 1988 and 1989 and has fallen by a further 3·9 per cent. in the past year; also notes that the overall decline in electoral registration has not occurred in Northern Ireland where the poll tax has not been introduced; and therefore concludes that the poll tax is incompatible with the operation of a universal franchise and should be abolished forthwith because any attempts to amend its operation cannot overcome its fundamental characteristic which is one of undermining a universal franchise by placing a de facto tax on electoral registration.]
May we have a debate about the state of the franchise, and can that debate include concerns about expatriate votes so that a fraud squad can be set up to stop electoral fraud in this country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to take this opportunity to remind the hon. Gentleman that the arrangements for the registration of expatriate votes were introduced and carried through the House with the express approval of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) wants to amplify further upon the virtues of that provision, it has been arranged for him to have an Adjournment debate on the subject next Friday.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reflect on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)? This plea comes from the hon. Member of this House with more hours in Standing Committee than any other hon.

477
Member. My right hon. and learned Friend will realise that the distances that we travel and the size of our constituencies place enormous demands on Scottish Members. Consequently, those of us who wish to debate that important measure properly, fully and adequately, believe that there is not enough time left to do so.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the House will be able to judge how far to acknowledge and hail my hon. Friend as the Stakhanovite of the Scottish Standing Committee. I will continue to reflect, with his encouragement, as I have already undertaken to reflect after the encouragement of other hon. Members.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the fact that we are to have a debate on defence on Monday and Tuesday? As things are moving very fast, particularly in Europe, and as the estimates White Paper is now really dated, and as we understand that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has been devilling away in the Ministry of Defence and has produced his own defence review, would it not be in the interests of the House for that to be published and available to all hon. Members so that we can debate the subject adequately and anticipate the cuts to be made by the Government before the Opposition make their own cuts?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is a little impatient and is trying to make now the speech that he wants to make in next Monday's or Tuesday's debate. He will have an opportunity to hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement as well as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in next week's debate.
Mr. Michael Shersby: In the business statement last week, my right hon. and learned Friend said that he hoped shortly to be able to announce a date for a debate on the Police (Amendment No. 2) Regulations. As he has not announced a date today, when does he expect to do so?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can confirm that in my next business statement I will announce specific proposals for a debate on those regulations.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement regarding matters at Coulport and Faslane? More than 40 men have been denied security passes, and one of my constituents, who is completely innocent of any security breach, has been denied a job and been made unemployed for more than six weeks. That man is desperate to resume working not only for this country but for his family. Will the Secretary of State come to the House and make a statement on that appalling state of affairs?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly cannot promise a statement on the matter. The Defence Secretary will be top for questions on Tuesday of next week as well as taking part in the defence debate on two days of next week.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). He will be aware that the Government earned great respect for the arrangements that they made for the Human
478
Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware also that the Government earned great gratitude not only in the House but in the country. Whichever side wins, if there is not a free vote on a Bill that will contain provisions that may be deeply repugnant to the wishes of hon. Members, the respect that the Government have so justly won will be needlessly jeopardised.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her tribute to the way in which we have been able to organise that debate. That fortifies me in the conviction that, having been able to organise it with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, it is important that the conclusions of such a wide-ranging debate, which were clearly the outcome of very careful deliberation by a large number of hon. Members, should be placed on the statute book if possible.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is the Leader of the House aware that I share the deep concern that was expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about the Commitee proceedings on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill? I ask that question because, if the Bill were passed with sensible amendments, we could provide for major developments in child care law in Scotland, especially the provision of treatment of victims of physical and sexual abuse. Although I want no delay in the enactment of such legislation, it requires deliberate and careful concern and scrutiny. I again ask the Leader of the House to take on board the concern that was expressed today.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have nothing further to add to what I have already said on that topic.
Mr. Richard Alexander: With further reference to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, has my right hon. and learned Friend had time to read clause 46? If he has, as a lawyer he will have seen that it proposes to give the police greater powers of entry to registered clubs than they already have for public houses. May I advise my right hon. and learned Friend that there is no evidence that that clause should have been introduced and that there is great concern that such a provision might subsequently be introduce in England?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure whether business questions is the best time to offer me advice on the contents of a Scottish Bill. In so far as my hon. Friend's observation was valid, I shall try to take note of it.
Mr. John P. Smith: Will the Leader of the House find time to review the legislation relating to the protection of historic monuments and our country's heritage? I am deeply concerned that the 12th-century St. Quentin castle at Llanblethian near Cowbridge, which is an area that is familiar to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Leader of the House, is in danger of being lost for ever because the landowner is using current legislation to run rings around the Welsh Office. The latest proposals to protect that monument are the eighth since 1974. If we do not take action, we shall lose that monument and, I am sure, other historic monuments throughout the country.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sufficiently conscious of the value and importance of Llanblethian castle. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: Many hon. Members use St. Stephen's entrance to gain access to the Houses of Parliament. St. Stephen's Hall and Central Lobby are often crowded with visitors and, welcome though those visitors are, they none the less sometimes get in the way. In the past few months when coming in to attend Divisions I have collided twice with members of the public. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at whatever arrangements there are to ensure that hon. Members have unhindered and unencumbered access to this place?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I find it difficult to judge imediately the relative importance of my hon. Friend's access to the House and his continued contact with the electorate.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: With reference to the question of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on the procedures to be adopted when debating the Government's response to Procedure Committee's report on EEC legislation, does the Leader of the House agree that a vote to approve such a response would not give him the opportunity to choose those aspects on which he will table amendments and would decide holus bolus on all its proposals? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many hon. Members will be grateful for the fact that no fewer than 10 motions on the Orders of the Day relate to EEC documents, some of which are due to be considered in Committee? Will the Leader of the House tell us which orders will be considered in Committee next week.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of the advice offered by the hon. Gentleman and, in so far as it differs from the advice offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I shall reflect all the more enthusiastically on both pieces of advice. I shall try to meet the hon. Gentleman's request in relation to his second point in one way or another, but I cannot undertake to do so precisely in the way that he asked.
Mr. Michael Latham: As the whole of tomorrow may be taken up with the second debate this week on the dreary subject of the Common Market, rather on the much more interesting subject of Church and state, will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for a debate next week on the subject of the Church and its relations with the state?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of the somewhat frustrated way in which my hon. Friend expresses himself, having drawn the debate that is likely to take second place tomorrow. He may find that his expectations are not entirely unrewarded, but I cannot give him any promise in that respect.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate next week on Lord Justice Salmon's report on the standard of conduct in public life, which was made to the House in 1978 and is still waiting for a debate? We could link that to the standard of conduct of Cabinet Ministers who take part in and vote on legislation but then line their pockets with lucrative jobs, leading companies that have been privatised. Many people regard that as outrageous
480
and scandalous. The Government could then invoke any criticism that they might have and Opposition Members could invoke their criticisms of the way in which former members of the Tory Government have continuously abused their positions by gaining jobs for the boys which are lucrative beyond the dreams of most people in this country.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I come back precisely to the point that former Labour Ministers, of whom the hon. Gentleman was once one—[Interruption.]—incidentally, it is astonishing to look back on that—have all taken such jobs and there is no significant difference in principle.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend help the House by stating whether he is contemplating guillotining any part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. and learned Friend has omitted to recollect that the two days' proceedings next week are taking place under the terms of the timetable motion that was commended on most sides of the House some months ago.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Well, then, let us have a debate on outside earnings generally. Let us talk about pensioners, disabled people and others who are on means-tested benefits and who, if they earn any money from outside employment, lose those means-tested benefits in line with the extra money that they have made. If those pensioners and others have to lose money because they are making money through another form of employment, that rule should apply to those ex-Cabinet Ministers, of any Government, who are lining their pockets as a result of the job that they held. If ex-Cabinet Ministers cannot make ends meet on £26,000 per year, that is a poor lookout for the pensioners and others who have to struggle every week.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: In the hon. Gentleman's phraseology, let us have a debate, but not in the form of a speech at business questions. He might have the opportunity of raising the topic during the next Opposition Supply day.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Great anger has been generated by the school transfer procedure chaos in my constituency and, indeed, elsewhere in Northern Ireland. Therefore, will my right hon. and learned Friend the deputy Prime Minister provide time next week to debate that vital issue so that justice can be done for many boys and girls who have been denied a grammar school place as a result of the new system?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Justice in this matter is as important in North Down as in every other part of the kingdom. I cannot promise to offer an opportunity for a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. Alistair Darling: The Leader of the House will be aware that the English law reform proposals were contained in a separate Bill whereas the Scottish proposals were lumped along with licensing, divorce and other matters. With his Back-Bench Members in revolt, does it not strike the right hon. and learned Gentleman as odd that in order to get the Bill through he might have to use Tory Members who sit for English seats to crush Labour Members who sit for Scottish seats?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There will be no question of anyone crushing any hon. Members in any way on the matter. I hope that a reasoned and well-ordered debate will take the matter to its conclusion.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. and learned Friend refer back to the exchanges that took place during Prime Minister's Question Time about the creation of a new Select Committee? Given that the number of spending commitments made by the Labour party appears to have declined from 140 before the last general election to 81, will my right hon. and learned Friend speculate on how many spending commitments there would be in the next Labour manifesto if they won the coming election and whether they would include a commitment not to staff the boards of nationalised industries with former Labour Ministers?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I could speculate usefully on that question.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House give consideration to finding time for a debate next week on the implementation of the Shops Act 1950? Perhaps he would be good enough to read the extracts from Home Office Question Time to find out what the Home Secretary said about implementation and the difficulties that we face? I gathered—I have checked to find out whether it is true—that he was giving licence to B and Q and others who have threatened to continue to open on Sundays, despite a case that was resolved in Cwmbran magistrates court only on Monday of this week. It is necessary to ensure that Ministers, who are here to uphold the law, as we are here to make it, should not encourage B and Q to break the law. We are continually told by the Prime Minister that we should not blatantly break the law by striking or deciding not to pay the poll tax. Why is protection given to B and Q and others who blatantly break the Shops Act 1950?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman referred to the case in Cwmbran magistrates court. He will be aware that there has been another case in the High Court. Taken together, those cases illustrate the problems associated with the present unsatisfactory state of the law on Sunday trading. He will also be aware that the Government invited the House to accept legislation that would have removed many of the difficulties. That was not acceptable to the House. The Government's position remains clear. We are prepared to consider alternative methods of reform which are likely to be acceptable to all who are interested and concerned The difficulty so far has been finding exactly that balance.

Channel Tunnel (Rail Services)
4.14 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the proposals for a new high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel.
The opening of the tunnel in 1993 will provide a major new business opportunity for Britain and for British Rail. Let me first dispel any doubts that we intend to invest in the infrastructure required to service the tunnel fully from the day that it opens. For British Rail, investment in tunnel services will be the largest that it has undertaken this century—more than £1 billion on passenger and freight services. Orders have already been placed for a common fleet of high-speed passenger trains, owned jointly by the British, French and Belgium railway companies, that will link London to Paris in three hours and to Brussels in two and three quarter hours. In addition to the half-hourly services between those three capitals, BR plans through trains from the regions offering 3 million seats a year.
Work has started on improving the track between London and Folkestone and on the new passenger terminal at Waterloo. Last month I announced approval for new electric freight locomotives that will haul channel tunnel freight at speeds just as high as those on the continent. More than two thirds of rail freight to the tunnel will come from outside the south-east and BR is planning through services and freight depots throughout the country. We plan to spend more than £600 million on tunnel-related road schemes, which is about the same amount as the French Government. When the channel tunnel treaty was signed, we undertook that BR would meet the demand for passenger and freight services when the tunnel opened, and those commitments are being fulfilled.
The railway investments will cater for demand in 1993 and for several years thereafter. In the case of freight, there is ample capacity in the south-east outside the commuter peaks. However, all the traffic forecasts show that growth in demand for international rail passenger services and domestic commuter services will eventually outgrow the capacity of the present system. That is why we asked British Rail to examine how best to increase that capacity when the time came. We made it clear that the investment in international services would have to be commercially justified, just as it would be in ferry, in air or in other competing services.
Last November, British Rail selected Eurorail from a field of eight private consortia, and announced its intention to pursue the possibility of forming a joint venture to operate the international services and to construct a new line. Since then, it has identified measures that substantially improve the commercial prospects of the international passenger business. Despite those improvements, the forecasts submitted by the joint venture showed that its costs were likely to exceed its income by a wide margin. To meet that gap, the joint venture first required a capital grant of £500 million towards the use of the line by commuter services. Secondly, British Rail would need to invest up to £400 million, mainly in commuter terminals. Thirdly, it proposed a low-interest deferred loan of £1 billion, which in the case of default would rank below all other creditors.

483
I have given careful consideration to the case for a capital grant. We have never ruled out capital grants for improvements in commuter services where they are justified on cost-benefit grounds. I made that clear in the new objectives that I published for British Rail last year. The new line would indeed bring significant benefits to commuter services, but unfortunately the benefits to commuters were not sufficient to justify both the investment by Network SouthEast of £400 million in its own facilities and grant of £500 million towards the use of the new line.
The loan of £1 billion represents public investment already made in international rail services up to 1993, and taken over by the joint venture. The joint venture would get the benefit of that expenditure, but would not make any repayments or pay any interest until 2010. The House will now recognise that the total sums of public expenditure involved are far greater than the £350 million that has been widely but erroneously reported. In the event of cost overruns, the political reality would be that there would be great pressure on the Government to increase their already substantial contributions. I have therefore informed the parties that the proposals that they have made are unacceptable.
In the light of that, British Rail and Eurorail have agreed that there is not a basis for carrying forward the project in the private sector at this stage. The Government remain very grateful to Eurorail for the considerable effort it has put into the development of the proposals, and for the expertise it has shown. BR has informed me that it will continue to work with Eurorail in the development of international services.
The financial case for a new line will improve as demand for travel grows. I have discussed this with BR's new chairman, and British Rail remains eager to proceed as soon as the project is viable. How soon this will be depends, among other things, on the benefits the new line can bring to commuters.
I have already approved investment of more than £400 million on new rolling stock and improved infrastructure for services on the north Kent lines. British Rail has plans for further rolling stock investments of £300 million to £400 million for the rest of the Kent commuter services. That will radically improve the services from Kent.
If demand continues to grow, even more capacity may eventually be needed and British Rail and Eurorail have shown that a new line could transform the slow commuter services from north and mid-Kent by halving journey times. I am not yet satisfied, however, that they have found the best solution and I am therefore asking British Rail to complete its studies with the aim of maximising the benefits to international passengers and commuters alike.
This further work will concentrate on the options for the route from the North Downs to Waterloo and King's Cross, with its efficient connections to the rest of the country. I have considered carefully the views expressed in the House and elsewhere about alternative routes. On the face of it, they are unlikely to be better financially than the Eurorail proposal or to offer a better deal for commuters.
But the new chairman of British Rail is determined to satisfy himself on that and has commissioned a report by consultants on the proposals for routes to King's Cross via Stratford. There seems to be general agreement that any
484
service will need to terminate at King's Cross. In our view, nothing in this statement invalidates the benefits to British Rail of the House proceeding with the King's Cross Bill.
A major civil engineering project of this kind, through this densely populated part of England, is bound to cause great concern to the people who live there. We owe it to them to minimise the uncertainty and to see that, where they suffer financial loss, there is proper compensation. Between the North Downs and the channel tunnel there is now broad agreement on the right corridor for the new line and considerable effort has been put into designing an environmentally acceptable route.
There will need to be further consultations on the engineering details and a full environmental report will be published. But I am satisfied that it would now be right to safeguard that section of the route by planning directions. I therefore propose to consult British Rail and the local authorities about that. British Rail's compensation scheme will continue to apply to the whole of the route published in September 1989.
I began by confirming our commitment to invest in the infrastructure needed to make sure that we reap the benefits of the channel tunnel when it opens in 1993. I have also explained how we propose to carry forward the work needed to plan for increases in capacity. Some argue for vast and premature expenditure that would not be economically justified. International rail services are certainly of growing importance, but there are many other needs for improvements in transport infrastructure, including better public transport services within Britain, improved motorways, better access to airports and ports and better air traffic control.
The Government's aim is a balanced transport policy which allocates investment where it will bring the greatest benefit. Within that framework, we have approved the largest railway investment programme for over 25 years, the largest underground programme for over 20 years, an increase in the road programme and approaching £2 billion worth of investment in the infrastructure to serve the channel tunnel. I commend these policies to the House.
Mr. John Prescott: Today is a sad and bad day for Britain, for it is the culmination of months of indecision caused by the Government's lack of strategic planning, which means that Britain will enter the 21st century with an inadequate 19th-century railway link. We are to spend about £1 billion of British Rail money over four years, compared with the French, who will spend £1 billion every year for the next 20 years to extend their far superior high-speed rail network. That is the result of the Government's anti-rail, anti-passenger attitude. It will condemn Britain to the economic periphery of Europe and ensure that Britain suffers serious disadvantages in the single market after 1992.
Britain's prestige has been damaged. It will not join Europe's fast developing high-speed rail system this century. The decision represents the worst of all worlds. It perpetuates the continuing worries of planning problems, environmental blight and wasteful congestion in the south-east, while denying the economic advantages for Scotland, Wales and the northern and midland industrial regions. That emphasises the Government's isolation in failing to grasp the strategic importance of high-speed, 200 mph plus, railway systems.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite his and the Prime Minister's fancy fiddling with figures on the

485
public cost, contested by Eurorail, the Government are expected to provide approximately £400 million out of the total project cost of £3 billion? Is that not in line with the Government's policy of using small amounts of public money to generate far larger private finance and provide transport infrastructure, which is precisely the way the European high-speed rail networks in Europe have been financed?
Does the Secretary of State accept that there has been unnecessary and intolerable delay in the decision to construct the channel tunnel rail link due to the Government's interference—forcing British Rail to seek a private partner, without insisting that the matter be open to tender? Why was it not put to competitive tender, which is exactly what British Rail must now do three years later?
Is it not true that the Prime Minister, because of her fears of the residents of Kent before the 1989 Kent county council elections, rightly promised extensive tunnelling to limit the environmental damage? However, she did not say where the money would come from, thus turning a profitable project into an unprofitable one. By putting her party's electoral concerns before the long-term interests of Britain, the Prime Minister has condemned the people of Kent to another decade of uncertainty and blight.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the extra £1 billion will not increase the line capacity in the south-east network, where some trains will be restricted to 50 mph in some places, and be paid for by the passengers? Does he believe that an extra 16 million channel tunnel passengers can travel on the existing, most congested, Network SouthEast, and not effect commuter lines?
Will the Secretary of State establish—he should seriously consider this—a committee of experts to examine all the available route options, as I suggested eight months ago? He rejected that then because it would cause delay. Such a committee could review all the technical details and report in about six months, allowing the Government to make a political decision about the route of a future high-speed line.
While such a review was under way, would the Secretary of State reconsider his objection to my proposal to abolish section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, and take into account the aviation and shipping concerns that were considered at that time—especially as the Government have given nearly £50 million in section 8 grants since 1980 to the rail freight industry, including to its international services, and a subsidy, on the ground of environmental protection. That is exactly the same reason that now demands that public money be provided for the channel tunnel rail link.
Is the Secretary of State aware of the European Commissioner's statement on Monday 4 June that, once there was a demand from the British authorities, the Commission would look "favourably and positively" at a request for financial assistance, such as that given to other countries to help construct channel tunnel rail links? I hope that the Secretary of State will not continue to block the European infrastructure fund, which could assist us in that development.
Does not the Secretary of State accept that the failure to break the ideological logjam preventing the use of public money will mean that the Tory Government will go down in history as the Luddites of Europe for failing to join the technological revolution in high-speed rail travel and for failing to be aware of the need for a transport policy that actively requires Government involvement?
486
Labour is committed to a high-speed dedicated rail route from the channel tunnel to London, and beyond to Scotland, to relieve congestion on our overburdened roads and in our overcrowded skies, guarantee environmental protection, and give maximum economic advantage and support to British industry to enable it to compete successfully in the European markets of the 21st century.
Mr. Parkinson: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's points in the order in which he raised them. He spoke with amazement about the fact that the French Government are planning to invest £1 billion a year in their rail system.
Mr. Prescott: In each of the next 20 years.
Mr. Parkinson: We are planning to spend more than that—£3·7 billion in the next three years, with a continuing programme to follow.
Mr. Prescott: Of what size?
Mr. Parkinson: We are spending more than the French.
The hon. Gentleman keeps repeating the ridiculous canard that the regions will be denied access to freight. If he had listened to the statement instead of repeating, parrot fashion, his prejudices, he would have heard me answer that point. I said that the freight trains are ordered, the depots are being decided, and that there will be through freight services from the regions to meet 70 per cent. of the demand—70 per cent. of the freight capacity of the tunnel. The regions will have the most modern electric freight trains, running at the same speeds as continental trains. Will the hon. Gentleman please stop repeating the nonsense about the regions in some way being at a disadvantage?
The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening when I spoke about the costs involved. I have seen the directors of Eurorail, and these figures are entirely agreed by them. There is a demand not for £400 million overall, but for a grant of £500 million, a deferred loan that would rank below any other creditors of more than £1 billion, and investment by British Rail of another £400 million. To support the project, Eurorail is asking for £1,900 million. Will the hon. Gentleman please take an arithmetic lesson and start revealing the facts?
The hon. Gentleman's second point was that the Government are delaying the channel tunnel. As he knows, we are getting on with the job of being able to service the tunnel from the day on which is is opened, and huge sums are being invested. There is no shortatge of capacity for freight. The blockage is not due to problems in getting freight to the tunnel; the capacity of the tunnel itself is limited.
I expect the tunnel to be fully used. If it were a port now, its capacity would make it our 12th biggest port. Clearly we cannot direct all our plans towards servicing the tunnel; most freight will not go anywhere near it, but will leave the country by the traditional routes.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East talked about £1 billion of capacity. In his own muddled fashion—I observed that he confused the Leader of the Opposition as well; that is a more difficult job, by which I intend no compliment to the Leader of the Opposition—again mixed up fares with investment. The £1 billion that is being invested in capacity in the south-east comes from British Rail, not the customers.
I have no interest in the hon. Gentleman's committee of available experts——
Mr. Prescott: Twit.
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman should stop talking about himself: it is a very bad habit.
I have no interest in the hon. Gentleman's committee of available experts, and nor has the House. These decisions are for Government, who are answerable to Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman referred to section 42. I hope that he has told his friend Sam McCluskie that subsidies will be given to the competitors—to the union that sponsors him. The hon. Gentleman used to argue forcefully for section 42; now he denies it.
The other night we saw the hon. Gentleman's piece de resistance on television. He was explaining to a bemused world that if only Britain sanctioned the European infrastructure fund the freight could be paid for—[Interruption.] I have read the transcript. It is there—all £15 billion of it. The infrastructure fund is likely to be £80 million for all the 12 members of the Community. The hon. Gentleman's plans would involve pre-empting that for 175 years, assuming that our Community colleagues were happy to see us subsidising our rail. Like the rest of his ideas, this is half baked, ill thought out and economically illiterate.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. So that I can call as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible, I ask for single questions today. If by chance a double question is asked, it would help me greatly if the Secretary of State would answer only one part of it.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that participation in any joint venture must depend on the terms? To those who listened carefully to what he said this afternoon, it is clear that those terms are far less favourable than has been suggested in the press, and would be unfavourable to the Government in relation to private investors. That being so, does he agree that it is right to examine alternatives—as this plan is obviously not a starter—and, meanwhile, to protect the interests of those affected by possible blight along the route?
Mr. Parkinson: That is precisely what the Government are seeking to do.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East dismisses the £2 billion of taxpayers' investment—which would not get any return until the year 2010, if then—as if it is something that is easily dished out. I happened to talk to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—the shadow Chancellor—who told me that he has only two commitments: on pensions, and on child benefit. We can only assume that the hon. Gentleman's plans are pie in the sky.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in the north-west are under the impression that the channel tunnel is something for the south-east, and that the south-east will benefit? Is he further aware that, if freight is to use the channel tunnel, we must ensure that there are proper facilities in the Greater Manchester area, part of which I have the privilege to represent? We have been waiting for a decision for nearly a year about the depot in Guide Bridge, in my constituency.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Yes, I recognise the importance of through
488
services to the regions. As I said in my statement, we plan to have 3 million seats a year from the regions going through the tunnel. In addition, we plan that 70 per cent. of the freight which goes through the tunnel will come from the regions. The trains are ordered, and the equipment is ordered. They will be fast electric trains—one of the most modern type of freight train in the world. I recognise the need for British Rail to make a decision about the location of its cargo depots, and I shall press it again on that matter.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Given that my right hon. Friend has warmly welcomed concern for the densely populated parts of Kent, which will be affected by the British Rail route, will he accept how grateful we are to learn that alternatives, such as that which would affect six houses only between Ashford and the Kent boundary, are to be properly and fully assessed? Can he set our minds at rest by stating that, when he says that the existing route in Kent is to be safeguarded, that is not pre-empting the chairman's study of the alternatives?
Mr. Parkinson: I can confirm that it is not pre-empting that study, but is a means of ensuring that compensation is available to help the people who are directly threatened, or who feel threatened. It does not rule out consideration of the alternatives.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State now tell us the Government's policy on when there will be a high-speed rail link to reach all over the country from the entrance to the channel tunnel, and when people in London and the south-east will be relieved of the congestion, which will increasingly choke roads and railways, as a result of the announcement that he has made this afternoon?
Mr. Parkinson: Peak periods are the problem for Network SouthEast. There is plenty of capacity off-peak, which is why freight does not represent a problem, and why the search is for extra passenger capacity. Another misunderstanding is that people feel that, because we are not going ahead immediately with the link, they will have to change trains and come to London to get to the tunnel. Services from the regions will go direct, bypassing London. If one wants to go to France and go through Paris to somewhere else, one will have to change trains there. There will be direct links from the tunnel to all the regions of Britain, and that will not be the case in France, which disappoints people.
I saw the amusing cartoon by Jak yesterday, showing the TGV pulling up and a tram waiting for it. The trains are in an identical pool, which will be owned jointly by all the railway companies. The trains which leave Paris will be the trains which arrive in Edinburgh, and vice versa.
Sir John Stanley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement today has profound implications for those people with homes close to existing routes to London from the channel tunnel? Is he also aware that those people face totally inadequate provisions in the noise insulation and compensation arrangements? Will he carry out a fresh examination of their position, because as a result of this announcement, for the foreseeable future, they will have the full weight of freight and passenger rail traffic going past their homes?
Mr. Parkinson: I recognise that that is a problem, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend recognises that what he is suggesting has huge implications, because it is a long-established principle that if traffic increases on existing roads and railways there is no entitlement to compensation. If a road is widened—as we are proposing to do to many motorways—it is effectively a new road and it is treated as such. I realise that what my hon. Friend says poses a real problem, and, without making promises, I will consider it carefully.
Mr. Graham Allen: Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement today will be greeted with great dismay in the east midlands and many other regions of England, Wales and Scotland? In Nottingham, Leicester, Derby, Loughborough and all the other towns and cities along the east midlands main line, people are waiting desperately for electrification of the line. Does it not show the Government's lack of ambition, when the Spanish are tearing up their lines and replacing the whole gauge, the Germans are putting in two more north-south lines and the French are electrifying every last chicken shack in France? However, we are not prepared to invest in a high-speed rail link through London which would benefit the regions. Is not the reason that he is doing that to save money for the general election kitty rather than ensuring that we are all in a position to contribute to ending our trade problems with our continental competitors?
Mr. Parkinson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was asking a serious question, and I am tempted not to give him an answer. There is no reason for dismay. The regions will be well served to the tunnel from the day that it opens. We are talking about creating capacity that will be needed at the turn of the century and later, so the announcement today should do nothing to dismay those people who take a real interest, unless they are like the hon. Gentleman, who is professionally dismayed.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, for two reasons. First, it closes the door on British Rail's ill-conceived and extravagant proposals; and, secondly, it opens the door for consideration of alternatives which offer an economically viable, operationally effective and environmentally acceptable route. Will my right hon. Friend therefore urge all concerned to proceed with all speed to consider the alternatives, because until a firm route is defined blight and anxiety will hang over many communities?
Mr. Parkinson: As far as we have been able to do so, we have attempted to minimise those problems, and that is why I announced that the compensation scheme will remain in existence for the 1989 declared line. I have little to add to what I said in my statement. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. Alternative routes are being seriously considered.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Secretary of State accept that this is a very important matter, not only for the south-east but for the north of England as a whole? Does he appreciate that a high-speed passenger line across Kent will improve journey times to the north and provide increased capacity for fast through international trains, thus reducing congestion on passenger and freight trains alike? Will he now urgently
490
meet the North of England Regional Consortium to discuss the question of the channel tunnel and the needs of the north?
Mr. Parkinson: I am a northerner myself, and I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I repeat what I said earlier in my statement. There will be scope for 3 million passengers to travel from the regions to the tunnel, which is the capacity which will be created when the tunnel is opened. The freight service will be second to none. Freight trains are ordered. I think that I broke some news to the hon. Gentleman the other day when I told him that the TGV was not a freight train, as he has visions of 10,000 tonnes of steel hurtling round France at 300 mph, which would be not a train but a missile at that speed. There is a speed limit on freight train speeds, but in this country they move faster and the limit is higher than in most other countries. We will have modern equipment travelling at comparable speeds, and there is plenty of capacity.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the mercy killing of British Rail's white elephant, and for rejecting the bull-at-a-gate approach of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). As my right hon. Friend has assured me that services for passengers and freight by rail from the channel tunnel will cope with demand for many years ahead, I commend the consultants' study, which considers the alternatives in detail. Can he assure us in Kent that protection of our environment will be given the highest priority? Will he ensure that the access across the north downs to the west will not be fixed so that there will be flexibility about the point where any route, if it were necessary, should pass across the downs?
Mr. Parkinson: The Eurorail proposal suggested that there should be some modifications at that point. That, together with the other alternatives, will be considered. Our determination to protect the environment has led to an enormous increase in the cost of the line. I discussed the relative costs a couple of weeks ago with my French colleague. The French drive their railway lines through open country. There is not a single tunnel or cutting on the whole of the line from Lyons to Paris. We, however, have to take the vast proportion of the line in tunnel from Folkestone to London. We have difficult problems to overcome. We recognise that there are special problems in Kent, and we must protect the environment.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State said that there is general agreement that the line should terminate at King's Cross. That is not the case. Those of us who live in the north-west expect to be able to move our freight around London at speed, but there is no evidence that that will happen. We also expect the Secretary of State to encourage British Rail to establish a minimum of two freight depots in the north-west; otherwise, the region will find it difficult to compete with European firms.
Mr. Parkinson: I recognise that the hon. Lady's concern is genuine, but it is ill founded. The proposals are not pipedreams of the kind we heard about from her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Orders have been placed and trains and rolling stock have been designed to allow for the fact that our tunnels are smaller than theirs, which means that we need lower bogies. All that work is in hand to ensure that the

491
regions, from which we expect 70 per cent. of the freight to come, have a good service with modern trains running at comparable speeds to those on the continent.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Bearing in mind that Bristol is nearer to Dover than it is to Penzance, does my right hon. Friend's welcome assurance that there will be electrified through services from the regions mean that they will operate to the centre of the south-west region, which is between Exeter and Plymouth? By not going to Bristol, which is only spuriously considered to be in the south-west, I hope that my right hon. Friend does not imagine that that will satisfy people?
Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend knows that there are special problems in the south-west. Arrangements, however, are being made for both passengers and freight, from the south-west and also from Wales, which I hope will prove satisfactory.
Mr. Ron Leighton: The Secretary of State is hardly covering himself with glory in the way that he is arranging for a high-speed link. We are not surprised that the first set of proposals has fallen down. It provides the Secretary of State with a wonderful opportunity to look at the other better and cheaper proposals that are available which go through Stratford. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he will give careful consideration to those proposals? Instead of getting complaints from his Back Benchers, if he comes to Stratford the local authority will welcome him with open arms.
Mr. Parkinson: I made it clear in my statement that those alternatives are being considered. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that even the Ove Arup proposal is being modified to go through from Stratford to King's Cross, since most people recognise that King's Cross is a vital hub.
Mr. David Shaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who seems to have got it absolutely right from the point of view of the Dover constituency. Will he confirm my understanding that the improvements to the A2 and A20 that have been announced will take place, that the commuter services to Dover and other parts of Kent will be improved as a result of the announcement, and that the money will continue to be spent on them? Will he also confirm my understanding that section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 will be preserved and that the jobs of ferry workers in Dover will therefore be safe and secure? Can my right hon. Friend explain why the Opposition want to do away with——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already asked three questions.
Mr. Parkinson: Yes, we are going ahead with the improvements to the roads to which he referred and which we have announced. We shall be investing substantial sums in roads. Half the capacity of the tunnel is designed to carry vehicles. The shuttles that will carry vehicles will take half the capacity; the other half will be shared between passengers and freight. That is why there is a limit on the amount of freight that can go through the tunnel.
492
I certainly hope and expect that the tunnel will be fully used, but the limitation is the size of the tunnel—not the problem of getting freight to the tunnel.
Mr. Tony Banks: Bluster and abuse will not cover the Secretary of State's acute embarrassment this afternoon. I warned the then Secretary of State for Transport at a meeting in his room on 19 December 1988 that, unless the Government took political action and a hand in the way the whole matter was being considered, they would eventually be put in an embarrassing position. Will the Secretary of State give an absolute assurance that, when British Rail looks at the options, it will consider not only the Ove Arup route but also the Bechtel route? I hope that it will not do what it did on the last occasion and just take a cursory glance at the options. I hope that it will carry out a proper examination of the options and that it will not carry out any developments at Stratford that would shut out any of the other options.
Mr. Parkinson: During the course of his remarks the hon. Gentleman was rather more agitated than I am. I made it clear in my statement that we think that the other routes are likely to be even less viable, but the new chairman wants to be totally satisfied. That is why he has commissioned independent consultants to look at all the proposals, so on this occasion I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
Mr. Keith Speed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement poses more questions than it provides answers? I refer to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) that there will be a massive intensification of passenger and freight traffic Folkestone-Ashford-Maidstone-London and Folkestone-Ashford-Tonbridge-London. Unless we change the primary legislation, the Land Compensation Act 1973, there will be no compensation and no environmental protection for the millions of people who live alongside those two routes. If there were to be such a change, massive public expenditure would be involved to protect them. My right hon. Friend is condemning many of my constituents, and others, on the routes between Kent and London to great disturbance over the next 10 or more years.
Mr. Parkinson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) and my hon. Friend know that the proposal that we are discussing today is about passengers; the Eurorail proposal was about passengers. The freight arrangements are unchanged as a result of my announcement. I know that the Network SouthEast lines will be more busy. Freight capacity is there, but there will be a shortage of passenger capacity. I note what my hon. Friend said about blight. We have done our best to minimise blight. I shall take note of the need to consider compensation, but I make no promise.
Miss Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State has created even more concern and confusion about what was already a muddled situation. Where does he propose the railway line should go around London? Just where exactly are these tracks around London? If there are alternatives, why is there any need for the huge monstrosity of a

493
terminal that is being built at Waterloo which the people of Waterloo do not want and which is unnecessary if the new route is to serve all regions?
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Lady is adopting a very blinkered view. The channel tunnel is to open in 1993. A fast link would not be available before 1998 at the earliest—probably not before the turn of the century. Waterloo will therefore be the main London terminal for the foreseeable future. That is why the redevelopment of Waterloo is under way.
Sir David Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend undertake regularly to re-evaluate the position as more concrete evidence becomes available as to the potential revenue to be earned by British Rail from the operation of the high-speed link?
Mr. Parkinson: Yes, we shall. British Rail expects the case for the line to become stronger as demand develops. It will be kept under constant review.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Secretary of State accept that there will be widespread anger in Newcastle tonight because our hopes for King's Cross will have been smashed for the foreseeable future? Have the special passenger trains that will be necessary to take trains from the channel tunnel round London and up the east coast main line been ordered? When will they have something better to use than a chain of Victorian branch lines round London not fit for Thomas the Tank Engine?
Mr. Parkinson: I shall leave on the board for the hon. Gentleman this book about the trains which have been developed—and are ordered—by Belgium, France and Britain. There will be a pool of jointly owned rolling stock, and identical trains will run between Brussels, Paris and the regions of Britain—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) sits there wittering away with her ill-informed colleagues, but it is a fact that there will be a pool of commonly owned trains that will be used for the through services.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his confirmation that the Kings Cross Railways Bill, of which I am the sponsor, is still needed and is unaffected by his statement. Does he understand that some Conservative Members are disappointed by his statement this afternoon because an opportunity to get the full benefit of our membership of the EC may not be lost? My right hon. Friend said in his statement that the railway investments that are going ahead will cater for demand in 1993 and for several years thereafter. Just how long will the existing capacity be able to cope?
Mr. Parkinson: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is disappointed. The existing freight capacity can cope indefinitely, but the passenger capacity will run out at about the turn of the century and additional capacity will be needed. I do not see that anything that I have said today will deny anybody the full benefit of anything. Channel tunnel rail services will be available for freight and will be fully utilised. All the regions will have access to the tunnel, with the most modern freight trains moving at comparable speeds. I do not see where the loss of benefit will occur.
Mr. John P. Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Welsh CBI has expressed total dismay at his decision? It is participating in a
494
European business initiative this very week in Cardiff. In light of the disastrous consequences of his statement for the British transport network, does the Secretary of State intend to resign?
Mr. Parkinson: No; but I would not mind spending five minutes with the hon. Gentleman explaining why he is wrong.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that evaluation of the options leading to Stratford will be carried out in a way that is both realistic and proper and not in a way that suggests tokenism? Will he further confirm that those who live in north-west Kent near the route announced in September 1989 will continue to qualify for support under the compensation arrangements announced at that time?
Mr. Parkinson: Yes, I am happy to confirm that my hon. Friend's constituents will remain fully entitled to compensation. The new chairman of British Rail is extremely anxious to settle the right route. He is taking seriously the report of his independent consultants.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Secretary of State has made numerous references to the regions. Presumably he was referring to the regions of England. Why is he so contemptuously indifferent to the needs and interests of Scotland? When will he show some concern and commitment to an electrified high-speed link between Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and points south of the border?
Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the electrification will continue to Edinburgh, and after that there is a discussion as to whether is would be justified to electrify as far as Aberdeen. That consultation is continuing. Many people consider that it would not be economically justified, but, as I have made clear on a number of occasions, if British Rail came to me with proposals, I would consider them very carefully.
Mr. Roger Moate: My right hon. Friend has taken a decision that was incredibly difficult but courageous and correct. Does he accept that one of the principal arguments in favour of the high-speed link was the need to get freight off the roads, but the high-speed link did nothing of the sort, even at the proposed cost of £2 billion in public funds? Does he also accept that some Conservative Members would gladly accept more public financial support for rail investment so long as it formed part of a proper national rail freight and passenger strategy? That is why we welcome the commitment to study the alternatives available to British Rail.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his support.
Mr. David Blunkett: If I heard the Secretary of State aright, he said that he was born in the north. I assure him that after this afternoon his credentials have been withdrawn. It seems to me that there is no other city in Europe of equivalent size to Sheffield which has so little rail investment, so little planning for the single European market and so few prospects for getting a decent integrated service with Europe. Will the Secretary of State comment on that?
Mr. Parkinson: I never had any credentials as a Yorkshireman. I am a Lancastrian and proud of it, so it does not worry me at all that the hon. Gentleman has

495
withdrawn my northern credentials. A number of us think that Sheffield has suffered for quite a long time for reasons which have nothing to do with the national Government and everything to do with its appalling local government.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to convey directly to the chairman of British Rail the very strong views expressed in the House this afternoon welcoming the commitment to investigate the alternatives to the Stratford-King's Cross entry? Despite his rather unenthusiastic view of those alternatives, does he agree that they could offer a positive approach to taking freight round London rather than through it?
Mr. Parkinson: It could be the launch pad for the development of a hugely expensive national freight network, but I consider that the pressure is on passenger capacity. That is British Rail's overriding consideration. As I have said already, British Rail is examining carefully all the proposals. The new chairman wants to be satisfied that what has been put to him is the best route, but he is totally open-minded and is considering the alternatives.
Mr. Roger Sims: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that in his statement today he has extended even further the feeling of uncertainty among people in my constituency and throughout south-east London as to whether, when and where extra lines are likely to be placed? Meanwhile, if he assures us that the existing lines have the capacity to deal with freight and passenger traffic, does that not mean that those existing lines will be very much more heavily used and our constituents will suffer greatly from that heavy use? The fact that there may be no legal obligation for them to be compensated or for environmental protection to be provided does not mean that there is no moral duty on British Rail. Will he emphasise that point as strongly as possible?
Mr. Parkinson: Although the lines will be more heavily used, we have, in Network SouthEast, a network that is designed to deal with massive flows of people for relatively short periods each day. Between those peaks, there is quite substantial capacity available. The real problem for passengers is in the rush hours and freight does not need to use the rails at that time, as I explained. The lines will be more heavily used, but there is a great deal of scope for them to be more heavily used without them becoming overloaded.
In the meantime, I note what my hon. Friend has said. He knows the difficulties. Every road in this country is now carrying more traffic than it was 10 years ago because we have 5 million more cars. My hon. Friend is asking me to breach an enormous principle, which would affect not only railways, but all our roads—all of which are busier. It is not an easy subject on which to come to a quick decision. However, I note what my hon. Friend says.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Will the Secretary of State clarify one of his earlier—and confusing—answers? When does he expect through trains from Paris to Newcastle to be operating and at what speeds? How can he tell us that he is looking forward to an examination of all the options when the Bill was passed by his Government in their previous term of office, before I was
496
a Member of Parliament? Are the Government trying to tell us today that not all the options were considered before the Secretary of State talked to Eurorail?
Mr. Parkinson: Section 42 was included in the Channel Tunnel Act to ensure that no subsidised line would be built. What is more, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), the then Secretary of State for Transport, did not work and Eurotunnel did not issue its prospectus on the basis that there would be a fast link. The fast link began to be discussed after the Channel Tunnel Bill was passed. I have already mentioned in my statement that eight consortia came forward with different proposals last year.
After careful consideration, British Rail settled on Eurorail and investigated the route about which I have talked today. As that route needs far greater Government support than originally expected—and the consortium originally said that it expected to come forward with a viable proposition—we have been forced to turn down that proposal. There is no question of incompetence and the House has been kept informed at all stages. Perhaps the hon. Lady should read some of the past debates.
Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham): As my right hon. Friend has already recognised that most freight from the channel tunnel will be going to the midlands, to the north and to Scotland, will he also recognise that it is daft to try to move all that freight over already congested rail lines running through south and west London? Will he require British Rail to produce plans for improving the Ashford-Redhill link to move that freight round London?
Mr. Parkinson: Yes, British Rail will look at the question of improving that link.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: How much has this embarrassing muddle cost British Rail so far? What is my right hon. Friend doing to tap European financial resources that have been offered? Is not the reality that, when the dust settles, the problem will go on stewing and that the United Kingdom European region will be at a disadvantage for even longer?
Mr. Parkinson: I hope that my hon. Friend will read my statement. We shall be offering a through service from the regions to Paris when the French will not be able to offer a through service from their regions to London. All passengers to the French regions will need to change in Paris initially. We shall have through services from the time that the tunnel opens. There will be 3 million seats a year—a substantial number.
I did not answer one of the questions of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). There will be a through service on the east coast main line from 1993.
Mr. James Couchman: May I reiterate the views of hon. Members who have stressed that what will disappoint Kent people most about my right hon. Friend's announcement this afternoon is the fact that it prolongs the uncertainty? If the chairman of British Rail is to do a thorough job of looking at the alternative routes, he must also do a speedy job so that, once and for all, we can have a protected route which is the only route and so that there will be no further uncertainty. Will the chairman of British Rail be looking only at the options that have come up so

497
far—that is, the Ove Arup route and the Thames alternative link international system or TALIS route—or are there further routes at which the consultants will look?
Mr. Parkinson: To avoid uncertainty, I have confirmed today that the compensation arrangements on the September 1989 proposals will be maintained. That means that the only people who are threatened by any decision have the right to compensation. That applies from Folkestone to Kings Cross. The chairman of British Rail wants, of course, to end the uncertainty as quickly as possible. Equally, he wants to take a good look at the options before he comes to a decision.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the speed of freight travelling from the midlands, from the north and from Scotland to the tunnel mouth will be comparable to that on the continent? Does he agree that it is at best bizarre for the Opposition to suggest that today's announcement is to the disadvantage of the rest of the country? Does he agree that the Opposition's attitude is more likely to be downright dishonest?
Mr. Parkinson: I do not know what the Opposition's motives are, although I have my own opinions. I can confirm, as I have done already, that British freight will be drawn by the most modern rolling stock, from modern depots and at comparable speeds to those on the continent to the mouth of the tunnel.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend has made several comments, which sounded slightly worrying to me, about the passenger capacity of the services. Will he give an absolute guarantee that my constituents and other commuters will be able to find a seat on the services that are running and will not be travelling on overcrowded trains?
Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend has underlined an important point—that too much of our discussion about transport is centred around the channel tunnel and the channel tunnel link—[Interruption.] Many people who will never use either want a decent service in their own areas and that is why, unlike the Opposition, we are not obsessed with the tunnel. We recognise its significance and the need to improve other parts of the network. That is why Network SouthEast alone will invest £1,200 million over the next three years in improving the lot of the commuter.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: My right hon. Friend has said that he is aware of the vital importance of the channel tunnel to the regions, especially the north-west, and of the necessity for further rail investment not only for passenger travel, but for freight to enable the fast, efficient export of manufactured goods from the north of England to their continental destinations. Does he agree that such investment would be economically and environmentally justified?
Mr. Parkinson: Yes, I do. It is important that the north-west, including the area that my hon. Friend represents, has fair access to the tunnel. It is also important that it has a good road network, good access to the ports, good access to the airports and better airports. In other words, we need to improve our whole infrastructure, and that is what is happening under this Government, with record programmes in every area—in rail, in the
498
underground, in roads and in air traffic control. I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to confirm that that the Government are determined that the north-west will have access to a full range of good transport facilities.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Notwithstanding the high-speed ranting of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), can my right hon. Friend confirm that we are talking about the postponement, rather than the cancellation, of the fast rail link and that it is now for British Rail to go away, do a great deal more thinking, and come up with a more acceptable scheme?
Mr. Parkinson: That is absolutely right. Unlike the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who studies nothing and knows everything, British. Rail recognises that this is a complicated problem and deserves careful consideration, which is precisely what British Rail is giving it.
Mr. Tim Janman: My right hon. Friend is, of course, aware that two of the alternatives, which will no doubt be looked at in the report to be commissioned by the chairman of British Rail, would involve routes through my constituency. May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions?
Mr. Speaker: No—one question, please.
Mr. Janman: Does my right hon. Friend feel that either the Ove Arup or the TALIS alternative would provide better through links to the north than the Eurorail proposal? Can he assure the House——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked for one question, and the time is getting on.
Mr. Parkinson: The Ove Arup scheme is completely different in concept. As my hon. Friend knows, it deals with both freight and passengers. If we were to benefit from it, it would need to act as a launching pad for a very expensive nationwide scheme costing about £10 billion to £15 billion—hardly the sort of money that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East would get from that £80 million a year European infrastructure fund.
Mr. Edward Leigh: So far, our questions have been dominated by hon. Members representing constituencies in London and Kent, who are rightly concerned about the local environment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that taxpayers in general would conclude that it would be at best most unwise to favour one part of the transport infrastructure by throwing £2 billion into what could prove, literally, to be a bottomless pit, by tunnelling through some of the most difficult geological conditions in the world, just to cut half an hour off the journey time between London and Paris?
Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing a note of common sense and realism into the discussion and pointing out that we cannot lay all Britain's future transport needs at the door of the tunnel. We need to improve the whole of our infrastructure, and the Government are getting on with doing just that.
Mr. Peter Snape: Does the Secretary of State accept that Opposition Members believe that what is needed is a new rail link that will benefit the whole of the United Kingdom, and that, to that end, we

499
shall continue to consult the civil engineering industry and other railway technical experts? [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may snigger, but I am being serious. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's earlier cavalier dismissal of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), will he undertake to consider any proposals that we relay to him about the feasibility of such a rail link?
What, in his opinion, will be the impact of today's decision on road traffic in Kent and particularly in constituencies such as Dover, Dulwich and Dartford? Will he take it from me that the bluster that typified his statement this afternoon will not alter the fact that the announcement is a grievous blow to Britain's economy and that it will condemn British Rail, and particularly commuters in the south of England, to a crowded and uncertain future?
Will he accept that we will give him every assistance in repealing section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 if that is what he thinks is holding up proper investment in rail links to and from the Channel ports?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement today has united the CBI, the Institute of Directors, chambers of commerce throughout the United Kingdom, local and regional authorities of all political persuasions, the technical and rail press, The Guardian, The Independent, The Times and The Daily Telegraph, all of which have condemned his latest defeat as a dream that has come off the rails Will he take it from me that the decision today is not only a blow for Britain but could prove to be the end of his already faltering career?
Mr. Parkinson: It is better to be a has-been than a never-was.
The hon. Gentleman talked about road traffic. I am sure that he is aware that the tunnel is designed so that half the capacity can be used by the shuttle to move road traffic. That is why this Government and the French Government are spending approximately the same amount—£600
500
million—in providing road access. My announcement today will make no difference at all to congestion. Freight will travel as I have explained and by the routes that I have outlined, and it will travel in the quantities in which it would have travelled had I not made my announcement today. The limitation on the movement of freight will be the capacity not of railway lines but of the tunnel. There will be road traffic. That is why we are spending a lot of money, and that is why Eurotunnel is to allocate half the capacity of the tunnel to road. It is a surprise only to the hon. Gentleman—it is not a surprise to anyone else—that there will be an increase in traffic and that roads will be improved.
I do not accept that what I have announced today is a grievous blow to anybody. When the CBI reads my statement, instead of listening——
Mr. Prescott: Listening to me?
Mr. Parkinson: No. The CBI was probably listening to those who were pushing out stuff saying that, for only £400 million, we could have an amazing all-singing, all-dancing all-purpose link. The sum was never going to be £400 million. When the CBI reads my statement and sees the facts, it may want to modify its views.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned commuters. I have pointed out to him that, in addition to the fast link, in Kent alone we shall be investing nearly £800 million in improving commuter services. To give an example, the north Kent line will have its entire rolling stock replaced and 63 stations lengthened to take 12-coach trains, and new signalling and maintenance systems will be installed. The south Kent lines will get a further £300 million to £400 million to be invested in new rolling stock. While the hon. Gentleman squeals about his concern for commuters, the Government are as usual getting on with making arrangements to make their lives better.
I am answerable to the bodies that the hon. Gentleman mentioned; I am answerable to the House. The Government's transport policies are sensible and balanced and will give Britain a modern infrastructure in the 1990s.

Optical Factory (Kidwelly)
5.27 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The shock closure yesterday of a factory owned by United Kingdom Optical Ltd. in the town of Kidwelly in my constituency with the loss of 200 jobs."
The factory is probably the largest manufacturer of lenses for spectacles in the United Kingdom.
The matter is important because the economic and social consequences will be devastating for the small town of Kidwelly and the surrounding villages. The lost production will almost certainly be taken up by imports, thus making the United Kingdom's horrendous balance of payments deficit even worse. It is also important because the company has publicly stated that one of the reasons for the closure is that sales of lenses for spectacles have fallen by 30 per cent. as a result of the Government's imposition of charges for eye testing. That is directly contrary to the recent assertion by the Secretary of State for Health that there has been no reduction in demand. Clearly, the market knows more than the Minister.
For those reasons, I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider that the closure of the factory is a matter for urgent debate.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The closure of United Kingdom Optical Ltd. with a loss of approximately 20 jobs."
I listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, the difficult decision that I have to make in these matters is whether his application should have precedence over the business set down for today or for Monday.
I regret that the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised does not meet the criteria laid down in the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Estimates Day
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
Estimates Day
  ESTIMATES, 1990–91
    Class VI, Vote 1
      DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT

        TRAINING
        [Relevant documents: Third Report from the Employment Committee of Session 1989–90 on Employment Training (House of Commons Paper No. 427) and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on 2nd May 1990 (House of Commons Paper No. 394-i), so far as they relate to training]
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        That a further sum, not exceeding £1,286,770,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Employment on improving, promoting and disseminating training among individuals, small firms and employers, encouraging enterprise, running services for small firms and the Enterprise Allowance Scheme, providing training programmes for young people and adults, providing employment rehabilitation services, technical and vocational education, work-related further education and the costs of the Skills Training Agency until privatisation, on the administration of training and enterprise, and central and miscellaneous services.—[Mr. Eggar.]
        Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). A large number of hon. Members want to take part in this debate which lasts for three houses. I ask hon. Members who want to speak to make brief contributions because if we can start the second debate within the three hours, that would benefit the House.
        5.29 pm
        Mr. Ron Leighton: I am pleased to introduce this debate on the Department of Employment's estimates. It will enable the House to debate training and the Government's policy and record in that regard. I am also pleased to see the previous Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) in the Chamber today.
        If we follow where Government money goes—or does not go—we can follow where policy is going. I must emphasise that I am giving a personal view and no doubt other members of the Employment Select Committee, if they are fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, will do the same. The hallmark of our times is the rapid and constant advance of new technology and product innovation. If our industries cannot innovate and deliver the new products, the orders will be lost to suppliers abroad. Not only overseas customers but our own domestic market will be supplied from abroad.
        We live in an ever more competitive world market. Any country, any industry or any company that does not keep abreast of the development of technology will lose out and be overtaken. Much of the new technology can be transferred. State of the art equipment can be brought in. However, the question is: does the work force then have the skills and ability to use and exploit it to the best advantage? If technology can be transferred, countries and companies will compete on the skills of their work forces.

        503
        The successful countries and successful companies are invariably those with the best training programmes and the best trained work forces. They understand that it is as important to invest in people—perhaps even more so—as in the fixed assets of plants and machinery. The most important resource, the one in which systematic investment yields increasing returns, is people or human capital.
        A number of countries have based their success on understanding that truth. The industrial revolution occurred in Britain first and, as a result, Britain then led the world. Other countries, like Germany, adopted conscious policies to catch up with Britain. They did that and surpassed us. Germany now has the renowned dual training system which gives a thorough, first-class grounding of vocational training. In Japan and the United States, participation by 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time education is almost universal. In France, the United States and Japan the education system is the important source of job skills at craft level. That leads to a greater share of the costs of initial training being borne by the Government. The newly industrialised countries of the Pacific rim all now have impressive systems of education and training.
        What is the position in Britain? Last year, the Government's Training Agency published the document "Training in Britain". That was the most detailed and authoritative study of training ever undertaken in Britain. What did it tell us? It revealed nothing for our comfort. The picture was startling and bleak. Two thirds of economically active 19 to 59-year-olds said that they had not had any training in the last three years. Over half of economically active adults with no prior qualifications said that they had not received any training since leaving school.
        Employers reported that about half of their work forces had received no training during the year. Systematic approaches to training were found to be the exception. No fewer than 42 per cent. and roughly half of those over 35, said that they could not imagine any circumstances leading them to undertake any education or training. Even those who said that they could imagine themselves training, had done little about it, often through lack of funding and time and were waiting for others to take the initiative.
        As for young people, the report showed that only around one third of all 16 and 17-year-olds were in full-time education. There had been a dramatic decline in the number of apprenticeships and very few 16 or 17-year-olds entering jobs, outside the youth training scheme, receive any substantial training.
        At a time when rapidly changing technology increases the demand for people with high levels of skill and reduces the demand for unskilled manual labour, when increasingly fierce international competition raises the importance of training if we are to achieve a satisfactory economic performance and when there is a premium on a more flexible and competent work force at all levels, how are we to describe the abysmal situation revealed by the Training Agency's study?
        Mr. Tim Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Leighton: I prefer not to give way at the moment, because I have been asked to be brief.
        The description given by the previous Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton
        504
        Coldfield whom we are extremely pleased to see in the Chamber this afternoon and to whom the Training Agency's report was presented, was that the position was "mind-boggling". The right hon. Gentleman actually issued a press notice on 16 November headed "Mind boggling". For the benefit of Employment Ministers who often make complacent statements pretending that all is well, I should point out that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield did not mean mind-bogglingly good, he meant mind-bogglingly bad.
        So what is to be done about that? We all know the facts and they have been analysed to death. We need action. We get lots of governmental lip service to training, but where are the resources? Are the Government going to put their money where their rhetoric is? The estimates show that that is not the case.
        The Government's expenditure plans 1990–91 to 1992–93 are grouped under the heading
        "Skills and competence for work"
        in table 6.3 of Cm 1006. If we analyse and compare expenditure with previous and future years we can take an index figure of 100 for the estimated outturn for the year 1989–90. In real terms, the figure for 1987–88 was 122. Therefore, two years ago we were spending 22 per cent. more. In 1992–93 it is planned to be only 73. Therefore in two years' time we shall be spending a further quarter less. The cash for training has been falling and is planned to fall further. Even since last year's White Paper, the cash for 1990–91 and for 1991–92 has been cut in real terms by 18 and 21 per cent. respectively. That is a measure of the cuts in planned expenditure on training which the Treasury obtained from Ministers in last autumn's spending round.
        Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
        Mr. Leighton: No, I am sorry. I do not have time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Well, if hon. Members want me to give way, and take up more time, I will.
        Mr. Janman: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the amount of money that is being spent. Does he accept that how much is spent is important, but so too is how well it is targeted? Does he also agree that the Government's new initiative of training credits will do much to achieve the right balance between what is being spent and ensuring that it is spent in the right place, on the right person being trained in the right way?
        Mr. Leighton: I have a great deal of affection for the hon. Gentleman, but he has a bad habit of interrupting every speech that I make in the House. If he had had a little more patience he would have found that I was about to come to his point.
        As I was saying, those cuts were a major victory for the Treasury, but a defeat for the nation's training needs. I hope that no one will try to pretend that those cuts in expenditure are justified by the fall in numbers. For example, employment training reaches only a fraction of the client group. Over the next three years, cash for youth training will fall by nearly half in real terms, but the numbers will fall by only a quarter. Real expenditure per trainee will fall from £50 to £33. Quality is likely to go down, not up.
        Of course we want to see employers spending more. However, is it right to say that we shall spend less? Is that the right signal to send out? For demographic reasons there will be fewer school leavers. As employers compete for them, there will be less youth unemployment. Does

        505
        that mean that the Government should spend less per person per unit on youth training? That lends credence to those who say that YTS was just a cosmetic and a means to disguise unemployment and that the Government will now pull out and wash their hands of the matter.
        The Minister was good enough to go along to the launch of the London East training and enterprise council. He knows that some people complained of their difficulties with YT. He said that the guarantee would still be given. I must tell the Minister that I received a telephone call today from Mr. Ernest Large, the chairman of the east London managing agents network, who told me about a meeting this week in east London of more than two dozen managing agents to discuss what he called the crisis in YT. He told me that, last year, they got £39·03 a week for each trainee and that they had received that sum for the past four years. Not having been inflation-proof, in real terms that sum had gone down. It has now been cut to £32, and that has brought about a crisis that will lead to lower quality.
        Mr. Large told me that college fees had gone up three times in the past two years as a result of the Education Reform Act 1988, meaning that full costs are charged. The managing agents are angry and demoralised. They told me that their hard work made the scheme a success for which the Government took the credit. Now they say that they are being kicked in the teeth and that the guarantee cannot now be delivered. Today Mr. Large sent 12 letters to potential trainees, telling them that he cannot offer them places. Mr. Large's address is suite J, Roycraft house, 15 Linton road, Barking IG11 8HG. That is the position in east London as told to me by the people who are operating on the ground today.
        Employment training was launched amid much hype, which we seem to hear rather less of at the moment. The fall in numbers cannot be convincingly argued, as the programme reaches only about two thirds of its original target number. Even if the programme had reached the original number, it would have reached only a fraction of the client group. The Select Committee on Employment has monitored the programmes since its inception, when it replaced the new job training scheme. JTS was also supposed to provide training that was tailored to individual needs, but it was plagued by drop-outs from the scheme.
        In a previous report the Committee revealed that, in 1987–88, JTS had used only £64 million of its £215 million provision. That was a disappointment on a heroic scale. We took evidence from the Training Agency and asked what lessons it had learnt from that failure, and it told us that there were four—first, the targets for numbers on the scheme had to be realistic; secondly, trainees had to have a financial incentive to join; thirdly, managing agents should have higher incentives; and fourthly, employers needed to be encouraged to have a more positive attitude to the long-term unemployed. It does not seem that those lessons have been learnt or adequately applied.
        The target for ET was 600,000 on the scheme in one year and 300,000 participants at any given time, given an average six-month course. Those numbers were far too optimistic. They might have looked good for massaging the unemployment figures, but it was impossible to cope with them without an adequate training infrastructure of agents, managers and willing employers. The numbers have been successively reduced.
        506
        In the autumn of 1988, the number was reduced to 265,000, in the autumn of 1989 it was reduced to 250,000, and, in December 1989, according to Roger Dawe, now the director general of the Training Agency, there were 210,000 on the scheme and 40,000 unfilled places. As the numbers envisaged dropped, so did the amount of money allocated, with underspending followed by two large cuts.
        As for the financial incentive for trainees, they get £10 over benefit. That has not proved attractive. Many say that why are worse off. That allowance could be doubled at a cost of £120 million, and that point should be seriously considered. As for incentives for managing agents, the training agent in London gets £38, and an agent outside London gets £31·50 to interview a client and draw up a personalised action plan. Action plans are not drawn up very thoroughly. There is evidence that, in some cases, it takes half an hour to draw up such plans, according to parliamentary answers, it takes four to five hours over two days. The training agent then gets £15 for every placement with a training manager. That can only be described as a shoestring budget.
        At the next stage, the training manager gets £15 for every person who starts training, and then £18 a week basic grant for training. There are also supplementary grants averaging about £20, making about £38 a week to pay for training. What quality training can we get for less than £1 an hour?
        Of course, employers could make a contribution, but is it any wonder that most of them have had nothing to do with the scheme? The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) asked questions on that very point when he was a valuable member of the Select Committee. He knows that I am right, because I read his questions and answers only a couple of days ago. Only a quarter of trainees get placements with employers. The rest are expected to struggle on with the sums that I have mentioned.
        Although ET has the germ of a good idea, in its present form it is badly flawed. It is underfunded and, as a result, often inadequate and unattractive. It has been unable to reach its targets and it has not spent the money allocated to it. Perhaps the most graphic indicator of its flaws is the staggeringly high drop-out rate, the customers voting with their feet.
        Roger Dawe of the Training Agency told us on 11 December 1989 that about 45 per cent. of those referred dropped out before they got to the training agent and that there was a further large drop-out before they got to the training manager. Only about 20 to 25 per cent. stay with a training manager for more than a week. Of that number, 70 per cent. did not complete their original action plans. Of the small minority who actually complete their training, 49 per cent., or virtually half, get a job.
        With the best will in the world, I find it impossible to describe that outcome as other than shambolic. None of us would be happy with that or accept it. An inferior programme is wasting public money, and no one can pretend that it matches up to the training needs of the country. Because it is so unattractive and because there are so many drop-outs, the scheme does not spend the money that is allocated to it.
        Sir Norman Fowler: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the drop-out problem and that there has been a problem under all programmes. Will he equally accept that the great majority of those people

        507
        drop out before they get to the training programme? That is the point. Under any programme, that problem will continue, and we must tackle it.
        Mr. Leighton: The former Secretary of State is absolutely right. About 45 per cent. drop out before they get to the training agent. After the personalised action plan is done, there is a further large drop-out, and only about 20 per cent. actually stay with the training manager. Of the minority who stay with the training manager, 70 per cent. do not complete their personal action plans. Of those who complete their training, 49 per cent. do not get a job. Those are the facts as told by the Training Agency, and they are less than satisfactory.
        Because people did not go on the scheme and the money was not spent, the Treasury took back money. It first took back £100 million and then it took back £200 million. Rather than make those cuts, the Government should make an essential investment in a quality training programme. They should restore the cuts and improve the programme. We know that the Department of Employment commissioned a scrutiny and a survey on ET——
        The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar)indicated assent.
        Mr. Leighton: The Minister is nodding his head. I believe that the Secretary of State has had the result for a couple of months now and, as far as I know, it has not yet been published. I have asked for it to be published and I am asking again now that that official scrutiny, which was commissioned and carried out on behalf of the Department, should be published. Why have the Government clammed up and kept it secret? Surely we should lay all cards on the table.
        Mr. Eggar: Of course it will be published, and I shall refer to it in my speech.
        Mr. Leighton: I made a note earlier to hope that as a result of the debate we might have an outburst of glasnost and the report would be published. That might help us to decide what we can do to rescue and transform the programme and to give it some credibility. The very least that we should do is to restore the cuts. Instead of a cheap, low-quality scheme, we should restore the original money and go for higher-quality training, with fewer but more realistic numbers. Anything less will fail the country's training needs.
        Mr. Dave Nellist: My hon. Friend has spoken about restoring the scheme in real terms. Is he aware that I have received yet another written answer from the Department during the past fortnight, showing that the original youth training scheme that was set up by the Labour Government in April 1978, paid trainees an allowance of £19·50 per week and that if that had risen at the same rate as average earnings over the past 11 years, youngsters would now receive £63·48 per week instead of the £29·50 that they are paid? Does he agree with me and, I suspect, a hell of a lot of parents and trade unionists, that one of the things that needs to be restored is the real value of the training allowance, which the Government have steadily eroded over the past 11 years?
        Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend has paid close attention to the youth training scheme since he has been a Member of Parliament and makes a sound and effective point. We shall have to wait for the Government's response.
        I hope—this is my final point——
        Mr. James Paice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he referred to me earlier. He has made great play of the fact that the number of trainees has not reached the total that was originally set. However, he has not taken into account the fact that the target group of the long-term unemployed has dropped dramatically—beyond anybody's expectations—in the two years since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the scheme and has dropped considerably more than the numbers by which the Labour party promised to make it drop at the last election.
        Mr. Leighton: That is not an adequate excuse for not hitting the targets. I do not want to become involved in any party political badinage about the way in which the figures for the long-term unemployed are arrived at. Many people who begin a scheme but then drop out in the first week are then not treated as long-term unemployed. However, even accepting the alleged figure for the long-term unemployed, if we had hit the original target, we would still have dealt with only a fraction of the client group. It is not as though we are short of people who are long-term unemployed to take part in the programmes. That is not a good enough excuse to explain the inadequacies, drawbacks and flaws of the programme.
        I hope that we shall hear something of moment and consequence from the Minister. He has at least suggested that he will publish the survey. I hope that he does not seek to shuffle off or abdicate his responsibilities or wash his hands of such an important issue by saying that it is a matter for the training and enterprise councils and that he is handing all this over to the TECs—that it is their problem and not his. There is a national interest in training which is greater and larger than that of any particular group of companies. We must all wish the TECs well —after all, they are the only show in town. I wish well and will closely follow the experiences of the London East TEC under the excellent chairmanship of Mr. David Dickinson and his enthusiastic group of people.
        Although we wish all the TECs well, the ultimate responsibility always lies with Parliament. The Select Committee will continue its interest in and scrutiny of these matters. I hope and trust that we have done a service in bringing them before the House.
        5.54 pm
        Sir Philip Goodhart: I share the anxiety of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment about the fact that employment training has an unacceptably high drop-out rate. However, a considerable proportion of those who drop out of ET do so because they have found jobs, which makes it understandable.
        Mr. Nellist: How many?
        Sir Philip Goodhart: I believe that at the moment the proportion is about four fifths of those who drop out.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) has pointed out, there has been a sharp fall in the number of long-term unemployed during

        509
        the past two years. Naturally enough, that means that many of those who are left have considerable social and educational problems, and those are the reasons why they have remained unemployed for so long.
        Mr. Chris Butler: I am interested in my hon Friend's point because in the evidence given by MDS Training Ltd., it appeared that about 55 per cent. of trainees had literacy and numeracy problems. Does my hon. Friend agree that that points to deficiencies in the education system and that that is why there are so many people with problems which employment training then has to sweep up?
        Sir Philip Goodhart: That is certainly true. I believe that about 16 per cent. of those on ET have identifiable literacy and numeracy problems. However, paragraph 30 of the report points out:
        "we do not however assume that learning difficulties such as those described by our witnesses should be dealt with only by ET; many other agencies are available for this task."
        I know that the charities involved in the employment training programme are particularly well qualified to help those with literacy and numeracy problems. Our report has thus appeared at a particularly propitious moment as I believe that there is a three-way move between the Department of Employment, the TECs and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations in relation to the proposed cut in training places provided by the charities represented on the NCVO. It appears that about 5,000 training places are to be cut in the coming year, which is about 11 per cent. of the places provided by those charities. As so many people on ET programmes have special literacy and numeracy problems, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will press the TECs to ensure that the number of places offered by charities with special skills in dealing with such handicap can be maintained at the current level.
        I note that during the past couple of years the Department of Employment and training in general has moved rapidly in the direction of consumer choice and taken up the suggestion that training vouchers should be widely used. I am glad that pilot schemes for the voucher system are under way as I am worried about the large number of drop-outs from ET, which clearly shows a lack of identification between the trainee and the scheme. The introduction of vouchers will get over that problem and in the years ahead will sharply reduce the number of people who drop out from this most valuable programme.
        6 pm
        Mr. Mike Carr: It is a great honour for me to make my maiden speech in the House of Commons today. On this occasion I am reminded of a saying which the Secretary of State for Transport, who has left the Chamber, might appreciate. It is that speeches are like babies— easy to conceive but hard to deliver.
        First, I wish to refer to my election campaign. Considering the tremendous pressures placed on candidates of all parties these days in by-elections, I must say that the campaign was conducted for the most part with good humour and without resort to personal insult or abuse. I take great pleasure in the remarkable achievement of increasing the Labour share of the vote from 67 per cent. in the 1987 general election to 75 per cent. in the Bootle by-election. The overall swing of some 9·5 per cent. to Labour in what was already a Labour stronghold
        510
        underlines a trend that was demonstrated in the mid-Staffordshire by-election and the May local elections. The Labour party is on course to form the next Government of this country.
        Before I leave the by-election, I wish to refer to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and the Social Democratic party. Bootle has been described as the graveyard of the SDP. I am reminded of the words of Hilaire Belloc:
        "Here, richly with ridiculous diplay, The politician's corpse was laid away, While all his acquaintances sneered and slanged, I wept; for I had longed to see him hanged."
        On a more serious note, it would be remiss of me in making my maiden speech not to comment on my predecessor, Allan Roberts. He was not only a serious politician but a warm, generous personality. I will quote the words that he wrote in The House Magazine last year, when he said:
        "I'm proud to be a British Member of Parliament elected on a Labour ticket for one of the world's leading democracies. I've had a superb life, I enjoy good friends, good food and good wine. I have no regrets."
        Allan will be sadly missed and I shall continue the work that he did so well in the constituency.
        I owe my success—as did Allan and Simon Mahon before him—to the Labour party and movement, and to the loyal Labour voters of Bootle who returned me to this House with such an overwhelming majority. As one journalist commented in the campaign, the people of Bootle do not just vote Labour—they are Labour.
        Bootle, home to 96,000 people, is described as a tough dockland town. Its skyline is certainly dominated by the cranes on the dockside and the docks play an important role in the economy and culture of the town. But Bootle is much more than a dockland town. It houses the headquarters of National Girobank, one of the town's largest employers, with 5,500 staff. The Inland Revenue also has offices in Bootle and it is hoped that more civil service work will be transferred from London to Bootle.
        The town is not so much tough as independent. Local people are proud to come from Bootle. It long resisted being taken within the borders of its southern neighbour, Liverpool. In the mid-1970s, however, it was swallowed up by the metropolitan borough of Sefton, which includes the towns of Southport and Crosby. But Bootle still asserts its independence by refusing to vote either for the Tories or for the Liberals favoured by the populace of the other two towns.
        Every one of the 24 council seats in the constituency of Bootle is Labour, and Labour is the largest party in the hung council, with a total of 27 councillors. The people of Bootle work hard and have strong trade union traditions. The town is predominantly working-class, with twice as many semi-skilled and unskilled workers as the national average. Many skilled workers have moved out of the town to find work. The population has fallen by 20 per cent. since the 1971 census. More than a third of the population is either under 15 or over 65.
        With some success, Bootle has broadened its range of employment to avoid becoming a one-industry town, but civil service relocation has not always placed jobs for local people at the top of its agenda and unemployment is still rife. Department of Employment figures suggest that there is 13·9 per cent. unemployment, but the unemployment unit, using the pre-1982 method of calculation, puts the

        511
        figure at 20 per cent. In the league table of constituencies with high unemployment, Bootle is 18th in England and 27th in Great Britain.
        Young people, in particular, bear the brunt of unemployment with 22 per cent. of Bootle's unemployed under the age of 25 and more than half of them out of work for more than six months. The point that is relevant to today's debate is that if a sizeable proportion of the young have no stake in society, society itself appears to have given up its stake in the future. Britain is in danger of becoming the worst educated and most poorly trained nation in Europe. Further and higher education has been undermined and skill centres and industrial training boards have been shut down.
        In the recent giveaway privatisation of the nation's Training Agency, 28 staff at the Liverpool skill centre were sacked immediately by the new private owners, Metel. Existing training programmes—the youth training scheme and employment training—offer low quality training, often without any recognised qualification. Among the half million 16 and 17-year-old school leavers entering the labour market, 315,000 joined YTS in 1988–89 but only 42 per cent. left having gained any qualification. Why is that so? Previous speakers referred to the reason. For the most part, the scheme is about providing cheap labour to employers who are more interested in job substitution than the provision of decent training—and the taxpayer forks out £1 billion per year for the privilege. It is nothing less than a gross scandal. I have four children who have been on the youth training scheme. It is an insult to expect our young people to do a week's work for £29·50.
        Of the 176,000 people on employment training last year, only 25 per cent. completed their action plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) referred to that. Is it any wonder that people drop out? Where is the motivation for people in receipt of benefit, plus a £10 a week so-called training premium which has not been increased since ET started and has been reduced for single people under 25 and childless couples?
        The poor provision of training perpetuates an economic cycle of poor products and reinforces a human cycle of unemployment, insecure work, low skills and low pay, in which 9 million people are now trapped. Education and training holds the key to Britain's future prosperity. To meet the challenges of the 1990s, Britain must invest in the urgently needed skills that will enable us to compete in future world markets. Therefore, our goal must be to provide a clear, well-defined structure of educational and high quality training opportunity for all.
        That means ensuring that everyone, including the redundant and the long-term unemployed, has the opportunity to acquire new or improved skills, so that they can increase their job satisfaction, widen the range of their opportunities and extend their contribution to the economy and to society. It means that education and training needs must be regularly reviewed and an adaptable framework provided to meet those needs. It means ensuring that people have a constant opportunity to update their skills throughout their lives. It also means giving a new priority, throughout our education, training
        512
        and retraining strategies, to the needs of women so that we can tap the huge potential of skill and talent in the majority of the British people.
        Education and training are the keystones of a society of opportunity and personal fulfilment, and an economy that is competitive and efficient. Investment in education and training is a measure of a Government's vision and commitment to the future.
        6.10 pm
        Mr. Simon Coombs: It is a pleasure to be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr) on his maiden speech. It is some seven years since I made my maiden speech, and if the hon. Gentleman was as nervous today as I was on that occasion I can only say that he is an extremely good actor. He conveyed no sense of the gravity of the occasion that we all feel when we first come to the House.
        I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman pay a warm tribute to his predecessor Allan Roberts. We are all aware that he was well respected not only in his constituency but by hon. Members throughout the House. We miss him, but we warmly welcome his successor. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he will not always be listened to in this House with the same rapt attention that has been his lot on this occasion. Indeed, there may in future be the odd moment when Conservative Members may find something in what he says with which to disagree. Nevertheless, our welcome is warm and we wish him well.
        I wish to say a few words about each of the two training schemes that we are debating. I shall start with employment training. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment said in opening the debate, the Select Committee has this week published a report on that matter. It is right that, during this short debate, the House should dwell upon some of the points made by the Select Committee.
        The report was fairly critical of the employment training scheme, but I think it right to point out that a great deal of good value has come out of employment training in its few short months of existence. There are faults and we need to improve the system, but many people have benefited from that training and have returned to the workplace, to real jobs. When we are trying to be constructive in our criticism of the scheme, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that much good work has been done already.
        The shortfall in numbers from those originally suggested as appropriate for the funding of the scheme has been mentioned. It must be recognised that, during the life of the scheme, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of unemployed people. In parts of the United Kingdom such as Swindon, there are now relatively few unemployed people who are available for employment training. Therefore, it is natural that there should be some reduction in the overall funding of the scheme.
        I do not want to go over the ground that has already been covered by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). There are imperfections in the scheme, and I look forward with interest to what my hon. Friend the Minister says about the results of the internal review. We must look to the future for the scheme, and I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-East and

        513
        my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) that we need to target ET and make it more user friendly.
        There is no doubt that the sort of people coming forward for employment training find it tough enough to go through one interview, so they must find it even more difficult when they have to go through a second interview before they can hope to start their training package. Can we not discover from the internal review whether we can simplify that process for many of those who lack confidence and need a great deal of support and encouragement? Can we find a way of making it easier for them to get to the point of starting training? As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), there is a substantially higher drop-out rate among those who never even start their training than among those who start but then fail to complete it. That is the first point that we must tackle.
        My experience from talking to training managers in my constituency is that once people start with a training manager and get stuck into their training, many are surprised by their experiences. They have heard a great deal of criticism about the scheme from the House—and Opposition Members are always the first to criticise any scheme that the Goverment put forward—and they often initially come to the scheme lacking in confidence in what they can achieve. Very often they are pleasantly surprised, they find the training valuable and they then find jobs in the real world outside the world of training. I ask all hon. Members interested in the debate to agree that we need to simplify the processes that get people into the training system and I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to say something about that.
        I wish to touch on the need for increased concentration on those who lack personal skills—those who may be unable to read or write, and especially those who may lack motivation and have a low opinion of themselves, perhaps as the result of a long period of unemployment or family difficulties. Whatever the reason, they lack the self-confidence to believe that training is right for them and they need encouragement.
        Like the Chairman of the Select Committee, I believe that we must increase the per capita spending on such people to provide the additional support to get them up and running and ready for the job market. I am not talking about large sums. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will say that he has read the Select Committee's report, so he will know that we are not arguing for a vast increase in public expenditure. We are saying that there will be an increasing need to target resources on those—and we hope that it is a diminishing number—who have such problems and therefore need that support.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham rightly said that ET is not the only way in which that problem could be tackled. The Select Committee was right to say that other agencies must play their part in trying to help with problems such as difficulty with reading and writing. The key—and this is where Opposition Members lose their way—is the share of responsibility for the potential employers of the trainees. The Opposition have frequently said that there is no private sector involvement. When we hear their attacks on the level of Government expenditure we might think that that was the whole story, and that it was simply the Government reducing expenditure. That is not true, and I know that Opposition Members would not wish to mislead the public into thinking that it was.
        514
        The point at issue is the degree to which employers will be prepared to take up what the Government and Conservative Members think are their responsibilities in this matter. The problem is that, the more difficult it is to place the individual trainee, the more reluctant the employer will be to give him the opportunity or to help to fund the training scheme in some way. So I hope that the Minister will not be content with the simple answer that employers will come forward to fill the gap between what is available in public expenditure terms and what is needed to ensure good-quality training for those who would otherwise be without it.
        I am afraid that employers will be tempted to import labour—not necessarily from overseas, although after 1992 that must be a developing question in our minds—but from other parts of the country. They may be prepared in an area such as mine to bid up the cost of labour and engage in competition between themselves to get workers to fill vacancies.
        We should be making it clear in this debate that we want everybody to have a chance of sharing in the job market. That must include those with learning difficulties and those who lack motivation and self-confidence. They, too, must be part of it all, and that means that extra help will be needed from the public purse to ensure that such people take the first steps on the ladder into training and later, we hope, into jobs.
        I pay tribute to the Minister of State and the Secretary of State for the way in which they have promoted pilot schemes for those with learning difficulties, so that there are now 15 job clubs with pilot schemes. In my constituency, the jobcentre, under the management in recent years of John Down, has done well in trying to help those with learning difficulties. Much has been achieved, but the question at the heart of the matter is who will give the quality training that is needed and how will it be funded. Having put a series of questions on that issue, I hope that, by the conclusion of the debate, we shall receive some helpful answers.
        The same problem, in a sense, must be tackled in youth training. Will the funding from the public purse be sufficient to ensure that young people with learning difficulties coming into the job market for the first time have a chance to get training and find a good job?
        Recently in my constituency I was approached by the Taurus training centre, an organisation set up in 1969 to help young people with learning difficulties to find a way into the job market. I pay tribute to Sue Morgan, the manager of that centre, and to Raychem, a large international company which has supported the venture from its inception, and the senior personnel manager of which, Philip Griffiths, is currently chairman of the Taurus training centre.
        The Taurus organisation was threatened with reduced funding. It came to me, as the Member for the area most affected, asking for my help, having made it clear that its client base was not reducing. Hon. Members may think that Swindon is a place where everything is going well, with high employment and good opportunities. That is so, but there are still young people left out in the cold of the bright new world that exists in Swindon and many parts of Britain. That client base has not declined and Taurus argues that the money should be available to support those requiring special help.
        I am pleased to say that, as a result of what I was able to do, the Wiltshire training and enterprise council, which

        515
        has only recently entered its development phase, was able to initiate discussions. This story may convince Opposition Members that there are ways of overcoming problems. As a result of discussions between that training and enterprise council and Taurus, extra money has been found. We see that flexibility and room for manoeuvre exists within the budget to provide help where it is needed.
        The Minister of State was involved in that matter. An exchange of letters between us led to meetings in the constituency, as a result of which not only has the Taurus training centre obtained additional funding to help young people with learning difficulties, but contact has been made with employers who are not simply interested in employing the youngsters but have a philanthropic approach to the problems that have been brought to their attention.
        A combination of extra public money and help from the private sector means that the Taurus training centre in my constituency will have a better chance of continuing with its excellent work than seemed likely a few weeks ago.
        What next? What is the Government's message to those young people? I hope that it is not, "You are on your own. It is up to you to find help. It is up to the people who want to help you to find help." I hope that the Government's attitude will be clearly spelled out. We want everyone in the country, irrespective of ability to have a chance to get into the job market through the high-quality training that the Government intend to provide throughout Britain.
        The cost of what I am suggesting—which is flexibility to allow additional expenditure on a per capita basis to help these people—is small compared with the cost to the economy of the wage cost inflation that would result from bidding up the cost of labour in areas such as mine, or the house price inflation that would result from people moving about the country, if they were able to do so, to find jobs in relatively prosperous areas.
        We cannot rely on a few public-spirited private companies to fund training in Britain. Nor do I believe that the Government believe that that, any more than the education system, which has all too often failed the disadvantaged, can be held responsible for all that has gone wrong.
        I will not be joining Opposition Members in any wholesale criticism of ET or YT, because there is much to be said for both of them. They have achieved a great deal in an area that was underfunded until the early part of this decade, but which has been increasingly better supported by the Government in the past five to 10 years. But the time is coming when we must review our priorities. We must see what can be done for those who up to now have missed out on the help that has been available. On their behalf I appeal to the Minister to make a positive contribution and so to help them to feel that they have not been forgotten by us.
        6.28 pm
        Mr. Matthew Taylor: I wish at the outset to congratulate the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr) on taking his seat and making his maiden speech. I appreciate, having myself fought a by-election, what a nerve-racking experience it is, not just in being a candidate in such a contest but in being the candidate whom everybody else wants to knock down. On arriving here,
        516
        one finds that it is not the easiest place in which to make one's maiden speech. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not only on his speech, but on the words he chose to refer to his predecessor. I recall having to make a similar, in many ways sad, speech when I first arrived here.
        I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and I will not always agree, but today I agreed with much of what he said about training. Having some knowledge of Bootle, I endorse what he said about the needs of the area. I hope that he will campaign hard to bring to the attention of the House the issues that his constituents are anxious to have raised.
        The report published this week by the Select Committee on Employment is a damning indictment of this country's record on training. I say "this country's" rather than just "the Government's" because in the long term this country has failed to give young people—indeed all people—the skills and opportunities that they should be given in an increasingly high-tech and complicated age. The numeracy and literacy shortcomings and weaknesses are a particular indictment, and should not exist.
        Many of those problems do not exist merely among people leaving school. Although not all hon. Members would agree, we probably have the highest standards of numeracy and literacy that we have ever had in this country among young people coming out of college. But there are many people, of all ages, who do not have those skills and whom we have neglected. We have not fully addressed those problems and I agree with the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) that we must do so. I hope that the Minister will pay particular attention to the points made in the report on that matter.
        More specific criticisms are made in the report which are laid, in part, at the Government's door. The report states that 70 per cent. of those who agreed a personal action plan did not complete it, and 42 per cent. of the trainees who completed the scheme returned to unemployment. I stress three key points on employment training mentioned in the report. First, it has an unacceptably high drop-out rate. Secondly, however they arise, the high drop-out rates represent a waste of public money and the programme's failure to give trainees the necessary skills to find jobs and careers. Thirdly, the Committee wants the Government to put more emphasis on higher-quality training in view of the fact that unemployment has fallen.
        We must address the need to increase the quality of the training elements and resources given to improve the skill levels of people, at whatever level. The Government should respond to the lower numbers using the schemes by using the resources that have already been earmarked to improve the training provision, and not by reducing the amount of money spent. That choice falls to Ministers, who have the option to react in either direction. They have been wholly mistaken and used the opportunity to try to save money rather than to improve the provision that we are able to offer such people. If we look at the employment, training and educational opportunities for young people in other countries, it is hard not feel that we have neglected and left behind some of those in this country who could benefit from a greater input than they currently receive.
        One point that has not so far been raised is specific to rural communities such as mine. The allowances and help given to those entering the schemes in rural areas—compared to those who simply continue to claim benefit

        517
        and do not go on to training or educational schemes—do not meet the extra cost that some people face when taking up the courses. That has been true for a long time, and it is still true. Some people coming to my surgeries feel that they cannot afford to take some of the courses available, whereas they would be able to if they had allowances and support from the Government.
        Part of the problem is not merely the quality of the courses or the opportunities given, but the ability of people to make use of them. Some people may have to look after a family, and some single mothers may have to look after their children. Such people may not be able to afford to go on the courses. That problem must be addressed, because it cannot be acceptable that people genuinely committed to getting themselves out of difficulties find they cannot financially afford to do so.
        The records on spending and projected spending on training shows that the January expenditure plans are that spending on training and education programmes is to fall from £2·5 billion for 1990–91 to £2·4 billion for 1991–92. That is a reflection of the fall in unemployment, although we could have a long debate about what that fall shows in terms of such people obtaining work. The juggling of figures that has taken place has allowed them to fall into disrepute, but there have been some real falls which should be welcomed. Why not take the opportunity presented for improving the training for the rest? I believe that all hon. Members would acknowledge that, more than anything else, employers are now talking about a lack of the right people with the necessary skills to fill the places available.
        Last year it was estimated that British industry was short of about 30,000 experienced information technology staff. However, the same report predicted that by 1993 Britain would be short of 100,000 such experienced staff if we continue with the present IT training. The widespread use of up-to-date IT and people with the skills to operate it is imperative in every sector of our business, industrial and educational life. The need for such IT skills is a sign of the need for a better-resourced education system, and better provision of IT equipment and training opportunities.
        In my constituency, the Cornwall information technology centre has pulled out of providing such training programmes for those on the information technology schemes. That is an example of the sort of problems that have arisen from the recent changes that have taken place in the funding of the management side of such courses. The hon. Member for Swindon gave an example of how he had been able to obtain extra funds when a problem had arisen over the provision of training. In my case, that was not possible. The changes that have been made to the management and decision-making structure, while sometimes welcome, have led to difficulties in pinning down who is responsible for sorting out the problems. I have received a series of letters that effectively transferred to somebody else the responsibility for the decision and the reason for Cornwall ITEC pulling out. It was a circular argument.
        It is to be deeply regretted that the major supplier of information technology training to those, mainly young, people should be pulled out. One of the worst experiences I have had recently in relation to training, young people and opportunities was with a number of young people who had been at the Cornwall ITEC and found themselves completely left out in the cold when they were halfway through their courses. I do not lay the blame at the door
        518
        of the Government—there was something wrong with the system that meant that those people were let down Even if there was a good reason for a long-term decision to change the courses—I do not believe that there was—I do not understand why, and I do not believe that it is right, the change should have been implemented in such a way that the Cornwall ITEC felt obliged to stop providing courses for people in the middle of gaining qualifications after a long period of working towards them. Those people were thrown onto the street without gaining any benefit from the work they had been doing for a long time.
        We must do more towards adopting a more systematic approach to training and providing better provision for retraining that brings together all the qualifications. The Government have started to do that, but very little has happened yet. We should bring together all the qualifications for the 16-to-18 age group, and those who return to education later, so that they all work towards a recognised system of qualifications at suitable levels. I acknowledge that that has been done in part, but it should be extended to ensure the development of a full-blooded modular system that people can re-enter or leave, knowing that the work they do is adding to their qualifications.
        If there is any issue other than spending on which we will disagree for ever across the Floor of the House, I hope that it will not be the development of an integrated approach, so that people may have an opportunity to gain new qualifications. That will produce a more adaptable work force better suited to a growing and changing economy—getting away from the short-term, narrow approach to training that involves qualifying people for a specific job in isolation from everything else that is going on, and the attitude that once people are trained for a job, they will never need to train again. That is not true now, if it ever was. The Government have only scratched the surface of the radical changes that are needed.
        The Government say that the implementation of such changes are a priority for them, as have all the parties represented in the House, yet every right hon. and hon. Member knows that, when it comes to the individual constituent, something is still missing. We are not filling all the gaps that exist and offering all the opportunities that people need. Time and again in our constituency work, we come across people who, in one way or another, fall through the holes in the system. If this debate can help change that, it will have made a real contribution.
        I feel particularly strongly about training, as do many other right hon. and hon. Members. The report clearly demonstrates that we have not yet succeeded in meeting the aims that I have described.
        6.41 pm
        Mrs. Edwina Currie: I will not join the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) in his criticisms of employment training because from my reading of the Select Committee's report it is clear that more than 200,000 people a year are helped by it, most obtain jobs after receiving that training, and most believe that ET assisted them to do that. To me, that counts as success. It may not quite live up to the hype that surrounded ET a few years ago, but helping 200,000 people a year to get jobs that they previously did not have seems to me pretty good going. I place on record my congratulations to the people concerned.

        519
        What of the people who are not so easily helped by ET, such as those suffering from chronic illness, mental problems, or difficulties of illiteracy—which has surfaced in my area? I am not in the least surprised that the Committee found that 16 per cent. of those receiving ET have problems of illiteracy or innumeracy. A number of other problems also exist, and it is to those that I turn my attention.
        The Select Committee skated over the wide variety of problems that prevent many people from obtaining jobs. For example, most trainees are over 30, and are returning to work after redundancy or unemployment, or—as the report observes in just half a sentence—after caring for their families. There is, first, the problem of ageism—discrimination against people simply because they are regarded as too old. I suspect that there also exists somewhere along the line the problem of sexism. That applies particularly to women returning to work after caring for their families.
        There is no doubt that we need to recruit from both categories. The number of 16 to 25-year-olds available for the work force over the next 10 years will drop from 8 million currently to about 6 million. If all the other schemes and hopes that we have come to fruition, many more will be staying on at college and be unavailable for work. The Department of Employment estimates that, by 2000, 90 per cent. of all new jobs will have to go to women. Many of them will be women returning to work in the way that I described. However, we find that the returners experience great difficulties—and the women among them most of all.
        Resistance comes not from the women themselves, or from their husbands and families—who are often extremely encouraging—but from personnel directors in boardrooms and businesses throughout the country. They are precisely the people who ought to know better. A survey undertaken by Gallup on behalf of the employment agency Brook Street, "Ageism—A Problem of the 1990s", received extensive press coverage last week. That survey of 250 personnel directors found that 86 per cent. of them preferred to recruit under-35s. Two thirds preferred people aged 22 to 35, and a further 30 per cent. wanted under-25s. In other words, those personnel directors wanted to select their staff from a diminishing pool.
        The reasons most often given by companies for having age criteria were that young people were not set in their ways, are quick thinking, have more stamina, and better fit the dynamic image that many companies want to cultivate. That rules out most of the people in this Chamber. One wonders what those personnel directors think they are up to. There is no doubt that there is extensive discrimination against most women.
        A separate survey of 1,000 older employees also commissioned by Brook Street showed that nearly 80 per cent. had been turned down for a job on age grounds. In another poll, three in five applicants believed that there should be no age limits in job advertisements. Sixty per cent. of employers said that demographic changes will affect their recruitment policy in the next five years, so they all know about them. One in three said that they intend to make more use of women returning to work. However, when employers were asked into what age categories they thought certain staff should fall, two thirds answered that
        520
        secretaries should be under 35, and three quarters thought that receptionists should also be under 35. What is to be done in a country that is now short of manpower in so many places—and literally short of man-power—when almost 90 per cent. of personnel directors prefer dolly birds?
        However, when personnel directors were asked which categories of employment they feel are most appropriate for the over-50s, they name company chairmen and company cleaners. That tells us a lot about the ignorance, stupidity and prejudices of many of the people responsible for recruitment in this country. I exclude from that criticism a number of businesses. The DIY retail chain B and Q has gone against the age trend by staffing one of its stores entirely with over-50s. It feels that the scheme at Macclesfield, in Cheshire, will give many older people a new lease on working life. Good for them. I am sure that the company will receive an excellent response in terms of loyalty from that work force.
        Age discrimination affects women far more than men. Two in five interviewed for the survey said that a woman having the same skills as a man is more likely to be turned down because of her age. Those of us past 35 are not ready to give up just yet. That is just as true for women Members of Parliament as it is for the men.
        There is no doubt that employers know about impending problems and that they will have to change their employment training and procedures. One third of all companies polled said that they are prepared to meet staffing needs by attracting women returners. The majority of them, particularly in the south, are willing to consider incentives such as flexible working hours, job sharing, and time off during holiday periods. However, there was a marked reluctance towards providing help with child care, which is the most urgent and pressing need. Only 8 per cent. of companies are interested in making that provision. It is no use the hon. Member for Fyfe, Central (Mr. McLeish) pointing at my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment. The fact is that the civil service is addressing those issues far more than private employers, and is in many ways setting an excellent example—particularly in respect of senior women. I look at the Box and see that they are all very pleased.
        Only 5 per cent. of employers are prepared to give financial help with child care and, despite the recent tax changes, only 10 per cent. would provide workplace nurseries. That survey was undertaken after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his very welcome announcement. Clearly there is a large gap between the preferences of personnel directors and managers and public opinion. As The Daily Telegraph reported on Monday, there is overwhelming public support for increased availability of child care facilities for working mothers. The percentage in favour in another Gallup poll on that aspect is much higher than it used to be.
        When my hon. Friend the Minister has a go at companies and their employment practices, and tells them that they are pushing up wage rates, he should also point out to them that a substantial pool of excellent labour is available—people who want to return to work, have the necessary skills and are keen to make themselves useful. They are mainly women returners, but—as the survey has shown—many men are keen to get back to work, and need advice, support and assistance.

        521
        Retraining the returners is a very different proposition from training young people. Many returners lack confidence, as they may not have been at work for 15 or 20 years; the style of training that is adopted for them needs to be different from that applied to 16 to 18-year-olds or people who are on work experience. The first step is to restore their confidence and be sensitive to their anxieties. They may also take a while to start learning, as they may not have been in the classroom for 30 years; it is inappropriate to expect everyone to respond in exactly the same way. Later, of course, they often prove much better and more committed employees, but the traning systems must recognise their initial needs.
        The Brook Street study showed that young people were often preferred by employers because
        "They are more familiar with modern technology."
        That is one of the most unfair comments that could be made by personnel directors about both women and men returners. Frequently, the reason the older workers are less familiar with new technology is that no one has ever given them the opportunity to become familiar with it. What, above all, saps the confidence of a woman returning to work after 20 years is walking into a secretarial office that is full of word processors: she may not even know how to switch them on.
        We are often training the untrainable, instead of employing the employable who want to work. Often that is due to sheer prejudice. Perhaps some of the vast sums now directed at training should be aimed at the personnel directors who are so short-sighted about what women want, and what they can offer. Many training directors need retraining themselves, and fast.
        I commend those thoughts to my hon. Friend the Minister.
        6.52 pm
        Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to move,
        That Class VI, Vote 1 be reduced by £100,000 in respect of Subhead H1 (Skills Training Agency running costs).
        The £100,000 is a nominal sum covering payments to consultants, and to three civil servants who were given time during work to prepare a work plan to take over 46 skill centres. The skill centre giveaway is becoming a major scandal. I believe that privatisation is wrong in principle; but to do it behind closed doors—as it has been done, with the Minister's approval—is doubly wrong.
        Since my Adjournment debate on 15 May, information has come to light—not, I need hardly add, from the Minister, who has been reluctant to provide any information, but from other sources. There were at least 61 other bidders, who are listed in early-day motion 1106. Before the Minister says that there is a possible error, let me anticipate him. Mr. C. F. Lakin is listed as a potential bidder. As the motion says that
        "the following potential bidders were not informed that £14 million was to be donated by the Government to the `purchasers' of skillcentres",
        it is clear that Mr. Lakin—who subsequently became a director of TICC Skill Centres and the recipient of £2 million—was one of those who did obtain some information.
        The Minister tried, more or less in vain, to defend his position on the BBC television programme "Face the Facts" on 17 May. The programme featured comments from people who were not told that £14 million was available. I will quote some of them—people who
        522
        broadcast publicly, some of them doubtless sympathetic to the political position of the Minister and the Prime Minister. One person said:
        "It's fairly obvious that if we'd have known that there had been Government money available, our view would have been completely and utterly different. I felt, and feel, that the financial people should have come back to us, and made that simple fact available".
        Among the other bidders was Geoff Bowers of the Sheffield-based Bowford Engineering Services. His company was keenly interested in obtaining the Ipswich skill centre, because it is one of the few companies that are accepted to train welders to the high standards demanded by the nuclear industry. The centre was also close to the Sizewell B construction project. Mr. Bowers said:
        "After due consideration we decided that there was simply too much distance between the losses, that in particular the Ipswich Centre was making, and the viable commercial operation."
        Mr. O'Reilly of Wimpey—not an inconsiderable organisation, and one that is probably politically sympathetic to the Government—said:
        "We were notified that the basis of the bid which had been sort of roughly agreed was no longer valid, that they weren't prepared to accept a bid in that form. Under the circumstances, being very disappointed with all the work we'd put into it and so on, we could do nothing other than actually withdraw from the sales of the skill centres we were interested in. They moved the goal posts at the last minute, and it was impossible for us to put together any sort of bid. I think the joint venture that we were putting forward which had been acceptable a month or six weeks beforehand, was no longer acceptable. I was always aware that there was an in-house bid going on, as everybody I think bidding was, and I really didn't see that much difference between what we actually proposed, and what actually came out at the end of the day."
        Why was Wimpey turned down?
        My final quote comes from a representative of Essex Training Limited, a company owned by the motor trade in Essex. Mr. David Hale said:
        "Prior to making our final offer, we said, tongue in cheek, jokingly, 'We're taking on all of these responsibilities, what's the chances of any of the so-called sweeteners that we hear about?' And immediately, the atmosphere became very frosty and prickly, and it was made abundantly clear to us that's not the things that you should say, and not the line in which they were going to go down. But subsequently, we found that people have been paid to take skill centres off the Government. If we had known, then of course we could have made it a serious suggestion."
        Why was that organisation rejected? Was it because the people who rejected it were chums of the three civil servants who were making an insider bid? That is a serious point, and it is no good the Minister shaking his head.
        Since my Adjournment debate, 400 people have been made redundant by Astra Training Service. It got the plum that Jack Horner pulled out of the pie: the 46 skill centres and the £11 million. The Metel firm in Liverpool has sacked 27 people. I wonder whether this was not a simple case of the Government's bribing those organisations to carry out Government policy.
        The Minister has uttered platitudes about the three civil servants being removed from "sensitive decisions" in April 1989. However, the Crown employee rules produced by the Cabinet Office were simply jettisoned. They should be restored in every detail, and applied on every occasion.
        The three civil servants responsible for the skill centres were also responsible for the deficits that the Government complained about. That raises the question of how those deficits occurred. Was there a gleam in the eye of civil servants, who knew that they might be able to pick a plum out of the pie that the Government were about to provide

        523
        for them? There is a rich stench of internal corruption about this. At best, Ministers have been foolish. The stench will remain whatever they say, and one of the problems is that they say very little.
        No figure has been given for the value of the assets transferred, at no cost to Astra and to TICC Skill Centres Ltd., plus more than £13 million which was transferred to them. The total value of the land and assets given away, with minimal conditions, is at least in excess of £120 million.
        While that was going on, honest straightforward bidders were excluded. I quote Mr. Bowers again; describing what happened when they discovered that between £13 million and £14 million was being handed out, he says:
        "We were absolutely flabbergasted. It's fairly obvious that if we'd known there'd been Government money available, our view would have been completely and utterly different. I mean as a private company, and we are very much the children of the Thatcher revolution in the fact that we take our own risks, we don't borrow public money, and maybe we should have thought in terms of subsidies. We simply didn't. I felt, and feel, that the financial people should have come back to us, and made that simple fact available to us. I think that we should have been given an opportunity, if that sort of money was on the table, for a re-evaluation of the bid."
        Finally, I quote from a person who has written to me from a skill centre which has been privatised. He says:
        "I would like to thank you for your stand against the privatisation of the Skill Centre Network. I work at the … skill centre"—
        I shall not give the name, so that they will not be victimised by the Minister's chums—
        "which has become part of the TICC skillcentres Ltd. … which acquired 3 other skill centres."
        The four are East Lancashire, St. Helen's, Cumbria and Ipswich, thus retaining anonymity
        "I would like to bring to your attention the way in which our centres plus £2,000,000 of Tax Payers' Money were acquired. The Centres … and all personnel were given to Mr. Howard Lieu, accountant; Mr. Chris Lakin, university administrator; and Mr. Clive Ibbison-Steel, general production manager … This new company, T.I.C.C. Ltd. which had no past experience of running a training organisation, nor had the Directors, managed to be in a position to receive £2,000,000 plus 4 Skillcentres with all their assets (Cumbria Freehold) the rest leasehold. This seems difficult to believe but it's true. We at … Skillcentre would be obliged if you could ask the Minister concerned the following questions".
        I am asking the Minister now and I look forward to the answers.
        "How could 3 individuals with no experience of running a multi-million pound Skillcentre Network, suddenly find that they have hit the jackpot? They now own 4 Skillcentres plus £2,000,000. How much was their personal financial input? Who vetted these people and why were they allowed to proceed with their so called bid? I have enclosed Rantfix and T.I.C.C. company information. Again, I would like to thank you for your efforts on our behalf and I look forward to hearing from you."
        I look forward to hearing from the Minister, and I want one final assurance—that no Ministers, when they leave their posts, will join any of these companies to share in the spoils when the Government sell the lot off.
        7.2 pm
        Mr. Lewis Stevens: The report of the Select Committee on Employment contains some disappointments because of the nature of its criticisms. However, no surprises came out of it. The sort of training that we have
        524
        now accepted that the Government and the country need, which requires the association of industry and a wide range of training organisations, is relatively new to this country.
        The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) was quite right when he said that present training difficulties and the lack of training in the past were the fault of the country and not of any Government. In truth it was. Our approach to training was extremely static. For many years,on the industrial scene we accepted apprenticeships, which varied enormously from good to bad, and an academic structure within which the content of many courses changed very little, although they were updated at the higher level. We got into a rut.
        Some 10 years ago, we had to consider the whole concept of training. We had little experience of how to proceed. What has happened since? Perhaps the most significant thing that has happened in the past 10 years is that the Government, training organisations and those in education have not remained static in their approach to training. With the employment training scheme, we have made training more flexible.
        One part of the report which causes some concern is the way that it refers to drop-outs. Drop-outs have been a problem in almost every voluntary training scheme that I have had experience of in technical colleges, adult education courses and employment training.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) stressed the user-friendly aspect of training. I hope that, as a follow-up to the Select Committee's report, there will be an analysis of why people do not attend training courses and why people drop out—apart from those people who drop out because they have moved to a job. There should also be an analysis of those people who finish courses. Only when we have done that will we be able to modify training to provide a better structure in the future.
        Most of what we doing now has been learnt over a relatively short time but can be developed through analysis of the results of present schemes. Almost certainly, much of the training which has been carried out in this country has not been structured in such a way that it enabled people to move from stage to another or to pick up a course again if they were made redundant or moved. It has not been possible to move easily back into training. If we were to analyse training methods and the way that people enter further training, we could keep up the momentum in training systems. We need a momentum for change in training, and so do the individuals who use it. We have not been successful in that respect, because that sort of training is relatively new to this country.
        Many people do not find training acceptable or easy to take to. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) commented inadvertently that people may not have been at school for 20 years and are therefore not used to the classroom. We should not consider modern training as merely another classroom exercise of the sort that we did at the age of 12, 13 or 14. Training is a wider concept than having to get used to a classroom atmosphere. That sort of training is fine for academics. Much employment training and youth training is action and job-orientated, although not necessarily for a specific job. I am sure that many people find it difficult to maintain an interest in that type of training. It is difficult to concentrate for long on learning, even if it is practical learning, without motivation.

        525
        Hon. Members have pointed out that many people who go on training schemes are not best fitted to start learning again or perhaps they have just left school and are on such a course for the first time.
        The group of people which worries me most are those at the bottom of the academic ladder—for example, some young people coming out of what used to be called schools for the educationally subnormal and those young people who are slightly handicapped. It is important to provide the cash and effort needed to provide them with the resources to enable them to make the most of their potential. We are still not coping very well with that.
        I am not complacent about what the Government have done, although they have done well. Training is dynamic and must keep progressing. There are gaps, especially for disadvantaged people, and they should be addressed now and in the future.
        We have not concentrated sufficiently on the continuation of education in business, in the engineering profession and all the other professions. The Engineering Council and other organisations are trying to encourage training, but that has not been welcomed with the enthusiasm for which one might have hoped. Figures show that industry is training more people than ever before and that it is spending more money on training than ever before. Unless, however, people in industry are trained continually, the skills that we need will not be available. We praise Germany and Japan for the training that they provide, but that is an insult to the many fine professional people and technicians who work in British industry. Many of the people who work in the engineering industry are technically as good as any that one will find in Germany or Japan. If opportunities are provided for them, they are enthusiastic about increasing their knowledge and qualifications.
        We have been slow to train managers. It must be nearly 30 years since I last went on a management training course. At that time, the Institution of Industrial Managers was just ticking over. However, in those days we looked forward to the time when the majority of industrial managers would have a management qualification. That did not happen, not because the institutes were lax but because of higher management's lack of enthusiasm to train their personnel, or send them for training. If managers are not trained in management skills, and if they do not update them, there is no hope for the future. Nothing changes faster than the need for management to train. Their ideas and their skills must change if they are to manage effectively. The most difficult thing to manage is change. If during the past 10 years we have not learnt that the management of change is the key to the future and that it is a continuing process, we have not learnt very much.
        Employment training has been criticised, but its foundations are sound. By means of good analysis, it can be made more user friendly. Through the training and education councils we shall be able to provide the best training for people. The continuation of education and training is vital in almost every aspect of business life. Moreover, if managers are not fully trained and are not enthusiastic about being trained, the prospects for their employees to receive training will be damaged. If we train our managers and their employees, industry will succeed. Employees will then be enthusiastic and will be sufficiently trained to be capable of being employed.
        7.13 pm
        Mr. Ken Eastham: I agree with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) that the skills of some of our personnel are as good as any in the world. The problem is that we do not have enough of them. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) said that the Opposition carp about the Government's recommendations. The Opposition's role is to point out to the general public what the issues are and how things ought to be improved. It is important to face the facts. The Government use the word "training" as a buzz word, but when we compare the United Kingdom with other countries we find that the very opposite is the case.
        The Select Committee on Employment reported that this year £200 million less will be spent on training than in the previous year. Whenever the Government make a cut, they try to justify it by saying that the numbers have gone down. They play the numbers game. When, however, the Government find that they have an additional £200 million, they ought to try to improve the quality and standard of training, which so often are nowhere near good enough. As we live in a highly competitive world we must improve the quality and the standards of training.
        We are faced with a disastrous balance of payments deficit—the highest in our history. The only way to get rid of it is to export. To be successful, we must export excellent products which are better than those of our competitors and they must be competitively priced.
        The hon. Member for Nuneaton referred to the need to improve management training. We do not concentrate sufficiently on that. Seven out of 10 British managers receive no training. If they are to lead their companies effectively, that is a serious indictment. We made a grave mistake about eight or nine years ago when we abolished most of the industrial training boards. I pay tribute to the man who set them up—Lord Carr. He established the industrial training board in the early 1960s because we were in such a mess; industry was making no provision for training. Soon after the 1979 election, the Tory party decided to abolish most of the industrial training boards. That was a disaster.
        Education is the key to improving ability and potential. The Department of Education and Science, however, has been starved of funds. According to a press release that I received only today from the Department of Education and Science:
        "It must be a priority for all those responsible for post-16 education and training that the provision they offer equips young people with the skills and qualities that employers need in their workforce."
        But they are fancy words with no substance, as is demonstrated when one examines the provision of education. Earlier in the debate reference was made to the lack of numeracy and literacy. It is obvious that, if people cannot grasp the basics, they will never be technological experts. We seem to be going wrong with the basics, but we cannot have one without the other. It is therefore important that the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science should work in tandem.
        I represent a Manchester constituency and I have experience in education there. I have always supported the colleges of further education. The further education system used to be far stronger than it is today. One of its great strengths was public accountability. Further education was not organised just by the local politicians

        527
        and educationists. Industry was represented in the colleges of further education and managers took an interest in training. It is often implied that industry never had any input into further education, but that is a complete fallacy that should be refuted today.
        Despite the success of colleges of further education—and they had considerable success—further education in Manchester has suffered savage cuts. The further education budget for this year is £18 million; last year it was £24 million. It is no investment in future technology to starve colleges of further education of funds. Last year, there were three colleges of further education; this year, because of the financial crisis, there will be only two. Last year, they were allocated only £500,000 for equipment. Anyone who knows anything about technical equipment will understand that £500,000 does not go very far.
        The Government have a strong preference for private agencies. There is a great myth that something is better because it is private. But many of those so-called private agents were not qualified as the experts in the further education colleges were. They constantly put profit motives before quality training. Already Manchester has experienced many disastrous schemes which were set up by the Department of Employment. Only a few months ago one organisation collapsed, ditching 1,000 trainees. That is what happens in a privatised education system.
        Now the training and education councils have come to Manchester and have been allocated well in excess of £10 million which will be administered by private companies. I keep asking questions, but I never get satisfactory answers about how the costs will be monitored. We get all sorts of promises from civil servants, but as soon as anything goes wrong it is hushed up and covered up. It is all supposed to be a great success, but the private organisations suddenly disappear. Cost monitoring will not be the same as it was when training was publicly organised by the further education colleges. There will be less accountability for decisions about what training should involve and concentrate on.
        The engineering industry is one of our most important industries. It is the biggest exporter of British industry and the biggest money spinner, along with the chemical industry. The engineering industry is now talking about the new engineering training agency. According to the Government's diktat, that agency will be funded by subscriptions and fees. That immediately means a reduced budget, which means cuts in training, especially in small firms. Usually, small firms do not have adequate training. They will not be funded and they certainly will not volunteer any money. That was a great problem in the early 1960s, when Lord Carr had to decide to make some proper provision for training. Because the new private training agency has been set up, there will no longer be access to European funding because they are not public bodies. Hundreds of thousands of pounds that would have been available for training in Britain will no longer be available.
        We already have serious skill shortages, but we only face them when it is too late. I agree that Britain's skill force has the highest technical skills, but it is the smallest in Europe. I can illustrate that. A publication that I picked up the other day referred to a recent survey published by the European Commission which contained a pecking
        528
        order of the proportion of skills in European industrial work forces. According to the survey, France had 80 per cent. skilled workers, Italy 79 per cent., Holland 76 per cent., Germany 67 per cent., Belgium 62 per cent., Denmark 62 per cent., Ireland 59 per cent., Spain 56 per cent. and Portugal 50 per cent. The United Kingdom was bottom of the pile with 38 per cent. skilled workers. That is where we stand in the provision of skills. Everything has to be privatised. We have private agents with fancy titles, but they are meaningless and they do not come up with the goods.
        Today I received a letter from the British Institute of Management saying:
        "The recent European Commission survey indicating that Britain lagged woefully behind other Community countries in the proportion of skilled workers in out workforce shows that much more needs to be done."
        That is not a picture of the success that the Minister may attempt to present to the House tonight.
        I have just a few questions. Why do our European competitors take such a different view from that of the Conservative Government in Britain? Why do Japanese companies give greater importance to industry and training, and achieve such great success? Why are trade unions not encouraged to become involved? The trade unions represent the producers. Nowadays there is always a confrontation between the Government and the trade unions. I assure the Minister that the trade unions are not Luddites; their jobs and futures are involved.
        Some Conservative Members may be involved in the stock exchange, floating money about in companies. The difference for trade unionists is that they devote their whole lives to their industries. That is why they see the matter differently. I get the feeling that the Minister is not serious about this. He is smirking and nodding his head, but I am making a sensible plea for industry to move away from confrontation. There must be a partnership. I come from industry, so I mean what I say and I do not want empty gestures.
        There are many subcontractors in the offshore oil industry and there are men working on two-week contracts. I am sure that there is no adequate training and it is possible that some of the disasters on the oil rigs have been the result of inadequate training. There must be changes. We should do away with two-week contracts because the men on the rigs are not properly catered for or protected. We must improve; if we do not, we shall lose for the rest of the 1990s.
        7.30 pm
        Mr. James Paice: I want to remind my hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Members of my long interest in training. I thereby declare an interest—albeit faint, but it is right that I should declare it—as I used to run a training company and I remain a director of the parent holding company. I have, therefore, a particular interest in training.
        I have been listening to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), with whom I served for about two years on the Select Committee on Employment. We cannot let him get away with one or two of his remarks. He referred to education. Most Conservative Members agree—although Opposition Members would not share the view—that many of today's problems stem from the failure of education to keep pace with the ever-increasing demands being put on it. To

        529
        pretend that it is simply a matter of money, as the hon. Gentleman did, is far from the truth. Literacy and numeracy are not expensive skills to teach. They do not require much equipment or fancy buildings. However, we fall down on those skills. We heard from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), that many people on employment training are without proper literacy and numeracy skills.
        The hon. Member for Blackley also referred to colleges of further education. Most of us would say that when further education colleges came into existence they did a good job. The problem was that they did not move with the times and that they became entrenched in the systems they had used in the 1950s and 1960s. Such systems were not up to date for the demands of the 1980s.
        It was not until we moved into the training programmes which are the basis of this evening's debate—the youth training scheme, employment training and its predecessors —and which involved private contractors that employers started to place demands on further education colleges to which they had to respond. The hon. Member for Blackley referred to the public accountability of such colleges. The most important accountability is to the people who will employ those whom the colleges are training. The change has come about as a result of the introduction of private contractors, whom the hon. Member for Blackley spent some time rubbishing.
        It is a matter of great concern to us all that Britain is still so far behind some of our competitors in training. However, we must not pretend that all is gloom and that nothing is getting better. We must not underestimate the fact that expenditure by all sectors of industry has increased dramatically in the past few years to £19 billion per annum. That is a major increase of about £7 billion on the figure shown in a survey carried out only three years ago. It may not be enough, but let us not talk ourselves into believing that nothing is happening.
        It is even clearer to anybody who studies training over the past three or four decades that an awareness of a skills shortage is no new phenomenon. We have lagged woefully behind in training since the second world war. Why were the training boards set up if we did not have a skills problem'? The Government of the time believed that the boards would meet that need. However, the training boards did not achieve their aim.
        It has seemed right to Labour and to Conservative Governments to try initiative after initiative to improve the level of skills, but they have failed. When the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) referred earlier to the youth opportunities programme, which the Labour Government introduced in the late 1970s, my heart sank. Of all the initiatives tried by Labour and Conservative Governments, that must be pretty near the bottom of the pile. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not present to hear what I have to say. He referred to the real value of the wage being paid then, which was £19 a week. That underlines clearly the fundamental difference between the youth opportunities programme, and the youth training scheme—and now youth training. The youth opportunities programme was purely a make-work scheme—an opportunity to get people off the streets for six months and to pay them to do something.
        When the youth training scheme was introduced in 1983, it was a major step forward. It was not a make-work scheme. It was not intended simply to provide work, so
        530
        one should not consider the payments to trainees as wages. The young people were receiving training and, in the long term, training is of greater benefit to them than a few pounds a week would be.
        We seem to have a regular mental block about the concept of integrating training with work experience. I am the first to accept that there have been times when standards in YTS, in YT and in employment training have been woefully bad to an extent that none of us as individuals would be prepared to support. However, we cannot and should not damn the whole scheme simply because standards are wrong.
        I served on the area manpower board for Norfolk and Suffolk until I was elected to the House. I stressed time and again that we should be far more rigorous in trying to sort out the sheep from the goats among the providers, not by some easy division into public bodies and private bodies, but into those who were providing quality training and those who were not. The Government then introduced the approved training organisation status which was a major step forward, but it was not draconian enough in weeding out many organisations and managing agencies that were failing to produce the required standards.
        We have heard much about money this evening. However, we must also remember the effect of the demographic change especially on youth training. In his maiden speech, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr) referred to the fact that Bootle is about 18th from the top of the list of places with the highest employment.
        Mr. Leighton: It is 28th.
        Mr. Paice: That may be the case. However, there are many constituencies at the other end. My constituency is fifth from the bottom of the same table with unemployment of 1·2 per cent. That is great good fortune for my constituents and it means that businesses are crying out for people to work for them. Businesses recognise the market demand for them to contribute and to pay well to gain employees. They recognise the need to participate in youth training as the means of training their young people. We cannot glibly say that the allowances are not sufficient. In vast areas of the country, especially in the south-east and London, employers need young people to work for them. They recognise that the market demands that they pay a substantial contribution to employ those young people.
        I welcome the changeover from YTS to YT. We are now moving away from something that has long been a weakness of the training schemes introduced by Governments of all parties, and emphasising outcome rather than time-serving. It is the outcome of the training that is important, and it does not matter whether it is achieved in a week or in five years. We are trying to enhance people's ability and improve their skills. To insist on a fixed period, as we have in training schemes going right back to the old apprenticeships, is to fail to recognise different learning and skill abilities and the great advances that have been made in training technology and techniques.
        Many of those points apply equally to ET. What is missing—perhaps particularly from ET but also from YT —is motivation, not through money but through personal stimulus. I believe that part of the problem lies in the low calibre of many of those who run training operations and —I am sorry to say—many of those working in the

        531
        employment agencies. That is part of the reason—only a small part—why 46 per cent. do not progress from their interview at the jobcentre to the first action-plan work in a training agency: they simply do not have the necessary enthusiasm or motivation. We must examine more carefully why that is because we are talking about 46 per cent. of the whole. The Chairman of the Select Committee referred to other percentages, but they were percentages of the 54 per cent. who actually went along. In numerical terms, the biggest chunk consists of drop-outs who never even start on the scheme. We must consider that as a matter of urgency.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), who has left his place—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."] He is hiding; I have to remind the House that, as he is behind the Bar, he is still outside the Chamber. My hon. Friend said that it is those in work who are the most important. The House spends a lot of time debating the 5·7 per cent. of the population who are unemployed. But if we are worried about Britain's economy and the importance of training to it, we should concern ourselves more with training for the 94·3 per cent. who are in jobs because, to a greater or lesser extent, they contribute to the wealth of Britain. For far too long we have failed to recognise that a skill learned at 19, 20 or 21 is not sufficient to last someone for the rest of his life. Updating and refresher courses are most important.
        We must also recognise the importance of management training, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton said. Far too many people are promoted because they are the best technicians rather than because they will make the best supervisors or managers. We have gone a long way to improving high-grade management training. We have new MBA courses, and training for top managers is improving dramatically, but training for first and second-tier management often makes or breaks a company and we have a long way to go in that. It is perhaps more important in small and medium-sized companies than in large companies, which tend to have good training operations.
        Let us look to the future. I have already referred to the failure of many previous initiatives. Should we now make the political choice to adopt a programme that mirrors more closely those of our major competitors, such as the United States, Germany and even Sweden? Those countries have operations where the employers are in the driving seat. The training and enterprise councils introduced by the Government are based on what is happening in those other countries. It has to be said that many of those countries would not experience the drop-out rate that we have with ET, for the simple reason that one's receipt of unemployment benefit depends on one's attendance of the scheme.
        In that respect, our operation is far more lax than those of many other countries. The TECs that are rapidly coming into being will go a long way towards providing employers with the opportunity to get into the driving seat. We need look for no greater justification for the new arrangements than the fact that virtually the whole country is covered by TECs; the programme is already well ahead of the target set for it by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) when he
        532
        first announced the establishment of TECs only a little over a year ago. We must respect the opportunities that TECs give.
        There is an alternative, about which we may hear a little more in a few minutes. We could go back to a compulsory levy, as the Labour party proposes. We could impose a 0·5 per cent. payroll tax and appoint more bureaucrats to administer it. That would mirror the failure of the industrial training boards: a bureaucracy was required to administer them and they failed to do what really matters.
        I believe that the Government's policy on publicly funded training is absolutely right. We must devolve responsibility for the management of, and expenditure on, the schemes to those who can make real decisions—the businesses—and, through them, to the TECs.
        If we debate this matter two or three years hence, we shall find that things have improved dramatically. We shall find that, whereas previous initiatives had failed, this initiative has worked.
        7.47 pm
        Mr. Jack Thompson: Like most hon. Members, I have no objection to the allocation of money from the Consolidated Fund to support expenditure on improved training facilities, although, like many of my hon. Friends, I am somewhat concerned that £159 million has been taken out. We should have done training a better service had that sum been kept in, particularly had the money been spent in the interests of better opportunities in engineering and the development of engineering skills.
        I make no apology for concentrating on the engineering aspects of training. We have to answer a fundamental question: can we afford training—or, rather, can we afford not to have training? That is the essence of the argument. If there is one thing that frustrates me it is Britain's attitude—this is not necessarily the Government's problem—to those in the engineering profession who are considered to be second-class professionals, whose skills come somewhere below those of lawyers, doctors, dentists, artists and financial manipulators.
        "Engineering The Future", a document produced in January this year by the Engineering Council and the Secondary Heads Association, says under the heading "Proposals for action":
        "The Finniston Report made this point in 1981: 'Long-term improvements in the supply of engineers will be to no avail—indeed, may not occur—unless the contributions of the current stock of engineers are harnessed to greater effect than hitherto'."
        What applied in 1981 still applies in 1990. The document continues:
        "A young Oxbridge graduate made a similar point this year: 'At (a household name in British industry) I would have been a junior assistant engineer in ten years' time. At (a London-based business consultancy partnership) I could be advising the Chairman of that company in less than a week'. In this comment, and in the comparative salary figures he quoted, there is a major issue for industry itself to resolve."
        In this country the people who are producing the wealth are not recognised as they should be. We have forgotten that the modern economy of this country has been built on the skills and expertise of the legions of engineers who, over the past century in particular, created the wealth of this nation. People such as Stephenson, Parson, Swan and Armstrong, all from my part of the world, and numerous others over the years have given this country a sound industrial base. However, that has now been weakened by the Government's short-sighted policies.

        533
        We do not acknowledge those skills as we should. Often the public's perception of engineers is one of greasy overalls and unpleasant working conditions coupled with comparatively low pay at a professional level—that was the impression of the student to whom I referred. That is not an accurate description of an engineer's work. Engineering can be an interesting and rewarding career for a young person. However, unless attitudes change—and the Government can help in changing those attitudes—serious problems will arise as we move towards closer economic links with Europe. In general, engineers in Europe receive proper respect and remuneration, reflecting their position in the professional social structure. Most western European countries understand that their economic future depends to a large degree on professional engineers as wealth creators.
        Why has the need for the continued development of craft skills suddenly become of interest to the Department of Employment? Why has the Department suddenly woken up from its deep Rip van Winkle sleep during the 1980s, when the limitations of the YOP, YTS and ET became evident, and suddenly introduced the training credit scheme described in a press release on 27 March from the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Education and Science as
        "A revolutionary new approach to training in this country"?
        That is a fine expression. In some parts of the world revolutions cause those responsible for the regime under attack to be shot. I do not advocate that the previous Secretaries of State responsible for inadequate training schemes should be treated in that way because I do not support capital punishment. However, that revolution is being somewhat delayed and the revolutionary torch will not be lit before April next year. Even then it will produce only a glimmer in the dark.
        From time to time there will be a number of pilot schemes involving about 10 per cent. of the national total of 16 to 17-year-olds at a time when we lag seriously behind the rest of our western European neighbours. Over a number of years I have had the privilege of being linked through my constituency with a town in Germany on the Rhine called Rhemsied. I have visited that town, which is part of the engineering area of the Rhine valley, on several occasions. It has an engineering training establishment which caters for about 1,000 male and female apprentices —or trainees as we would call them.
        That engineering training establishment provides a full range of engineering skills from motor mechanics to electronics, electrical engineering and mechanical engineering. It covers the whole gambit of engineering skills to a very high standard. Indeed, I saw equipment in that training establishment which we do not have in factories in this country. The most interesting point was that that establishment was custom-built as a training centre in 1982 when unemployment in Germany was as high as it was in this country.
        Even then, the Germans were prepared for the changes that would happen in the 1990s. They recognised that their economy was going to improve and they were preparing for it. I believe that that was a typical example of what was happening particularly in the northern parts of western Europe at that time. Such things are happening now as well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham,
        534
        North-East (Mr. Leighton) said earlier, that is why most of those countries have a greater number of skilled personnel than we have in Great Britain.
        Some action has been taken here. I pay tribute to the Engineering Council, which has introduced the neighbourhood engineering scheme, and, in my part of the world, the northern engineering centre. The latter will develop neighbourhood engineering schemes linking three or four engineers with secondary schools in teams with teachers. My next-door neighbour is an engineer who will be involved in the scheme. As I understand it, he sent his application form off, but has not received a reply. If any scheme requires urgency, it is that one.
        I hope that the neighbourhood engineering schemes will provide an opportunity to increase the interests of students and pupils in engineering as a career. I recognise that the Department of Trade and Industry has contributed £612,000 to that scheme. That is a fine gesture, but it is not enough. I argue that it is a little too little and a little too late.
        The waste of the enormous engineering talent in the northern region following the demise of mining, shipbuilding and heavy engineering in the 1980s threw thousands of skilled personnel on the scrap heap. There should have been opportunities for proper training if those people had been handled properly. Not only did the people with the skills in those industries lose their jobs, but there were fewer opportunities for the apprenticeships that might have followed on in those industries. I saw the decline in my industry, the mining industry, and the lack of opportunity for young people to pick up those skills.
        I believe that two generations have lost out in the 1980s. Their chance to pick up those skills will not come again. I believe that another organisation deserves public recognition for its activities in engineering. Through its education and training committee, the Machine Tool Technologies Association has established an educational trust fund with a contribution of more than £400,000. It has encouraged other sponsors for its design and building competition as a flagship scheme. It has accepted a commitment to fund both that and students to take an interest in machine tool manufacturing and to allow employees to continue their studies.
        Government encouragement and financial support could assist in the rapid development of such enterprising schemes, but not all trade associations are able or willing to follow the example that I have given. The introduction of training and enterprise councils and the pilot schemes, including one in my county of Northumberland, which I suspect might be hit by the poll tax, and the training credit scheme, if successful, will not be effective until at least 1993 or 1994. Those projects must be seriously affected by the cut of £159 million in Government contributions.
        It is already clear that the construction industry training board is prepared to introduce major cuts in its training programme at a time when there is a high demand for skilled workers. A report to that effect appeared in our regional newspapers this week. That cut will penalise the proper development and make vocational training even more industrial based.
        That is a national issue. Over the next 10 years it is likely that the economy of this country will suffer severely from the lack of Government initiative in earlier decades. Complacency seems to have been the order of the day in

        535
        the Department of Employment. The country cannot afford that attitude if we are to catch up with our European and international competitors.
        7.57 pm
        Mr. Henry McLeish: No one would dispute the fact that the United Kingdom faces a skills crisis, and the Opposition can be forgiven for being deeply cynical about the widening gap between the claims of the ministerial team in the Department of Employment and the skills reality that they are supposed to be tackling.
        After 11 years of the Conservative Government, training policies are in a mess. We still have no coherent strategy for 16 to 19-year-olds. We have no policies for the unemployed which do not smack of coercion and employees in the work force seem to be the least important part of the Government's strategy. Obviously there is a widening skills gap between the United Kingdom and Europe and each day that passes shows clearly a developing crisis here even in the funding and application of Government programmes.
        Over the past two or three months, we have seen a catalogue of cuts and crises involving TVEI, the Rathbone Society, the Spastics Society and the YMCA, training providers, training agents and training managers who are all suffering not only from massive cuts measured against the previous budgets, but also from panic policy reactions which do the Government no good and certainly do nothing to help improve the quality of our skills base. Recent news from Europe suggests that we are officially at the bottom of the international skills league. That does not give us any satisfaction, but we hope that it shakes the Government from their complacency.
        The damning report from the Employment Select Committee demonstrates what most people have believed for a long time—that ET does not provide quality or positive outcomes for the majority of entrants—and certainly has nothing to do with value for money.
        Another crisis is creeping up on the country. It started with the election of this Government. It relates to the assault, the undermining and, finally, the dismantling of much of our training infrastructure. I shall spend my brief time talking about that part of the training infrastructure that has been privatised. Obviously, I refer to the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency. We have seen a scandal at the very heart of Government.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to growing complaints from employers and private companies throughout the country which have been involved. There has been a shabby series of political blunders in the past few months. My hon. Friend was charitable when he described it as possible foolishness. There is growing evidence that the problem goes well beyond foolishness. It is a sensational tale. We want to reveal the serious charges to be levelled against the Government. I hope that the Minister will take those matters very seriously.
        It would be bad enough if the debate were only about approximately £135 million of public assets being not sold but given to the private sector. It would not be so bad if the debate were about the £16·4 million of sweeteners that the Government have acknowledged in the estimates. It would not be so bad if the debate were about the £8·6 million that
        536
        we believe was concealed in the trading accounts of the Skills Training Agency for the year 1988–89—£8·6 million that was destined to help out with early retirement. It would not be so bad if the debate were only about the way in which civil service employees have been treated.
        The Liverpool lockout has been mentioned. There has been the laughable Lambeth matter, in which skills centres have been handed over to people with no experience, no track record and virtually nothing that would endear them to any sensible Government. Obviously, there is a deep sense of betrayal among civil servants at the launch of the Astra Training Services bonanza, whereby 400 civil servants were to be made redundant and removed from tackling the skills crisis in this country. As I said, that would be a sensational story, but we believe that it goes much further than that.
        Opposition Members challenge the ministerial team within the Department of Employment for abandoning the Government's much-vaunted sound money approach for showing total contempt for accountability to Parliament, and blatant disregard and disrespect for taxpayers. We are seeing a crisis that was hatched under the previous Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Sadly, that crisis was taken to its logical conclusion by an announcement in the House on 19 February that the centres were to be privatised.
        Our charges are quite simple. First, I want briefly to refer to the role of the Ministers, Deloittes, and Mr. Bishell, Mr. Kent and Mr. Wells, who are now the directors of Astra Training Services and were formerly senior civil servants within the Skills Training Agency. Secondly, we wish to talk about the transformation of supply estimates that were brought before the House between March 1989 and February 1990. Thirdly, we want briefly to mention an extraordinary survey that we undertook yesterday with 10 telephone calls to the prospective bidders for the skills agency. What they had to say was certainly damning of the Government. Unless the House takes action to remedy what we have heard, it will clearly bring Parliament into disrepute.
        The Government announced that the three civil servants involved would be taken away from sensitive issues of policy and finance in April 1989, but later in a parliamentary answer we found that the three civil servants, Bishell, Kent and Wells, had been working on the privatisation management buy-out since the autumn of 1988. For seven months they had access to sensitive, highly confidential and commercial information about the future of the agency, and they were also working with Deloittes in that process.
        The tragedy is that the management buy-out team was being advised by Coopers and Lybrand. The feasibility study for the same Department was undertaken by Deloittes Haskin and Sells. A few months later, they merged to become Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte.
        To what information were they privy in that seven months between autumn 1988 and April 1989 which gave them a preferable bidding position in any privatisation process and also undoubtedly gave them a competitive edge when faced with the challenge of bids from any other participants in the process? As soon as an interest was declared by the three civil servants about a management buy-out, they should have been immediately taken out of that sensitive arena for the period autumn 1988 to April 1989. It is barely credible that, when faced with such

        537
        insider information, the participants in that bidding process could have felt anything other than a deep sense of dismay, anger and betrayal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has mentioned, those people are not traditional allies and friends of the movement and the party that we represent.
        Serious charges are being made as to why this matter arose and why the ministerial team in the Department of Employment could not accept that it would be highly damaging. It also meant that people who were bidding for the skill centres would regard it as an elaborate charade.
        In March 1989, the supply estimates showed not the accounts of the skills training agency but its income, expenditure and turnover. It was showing a surplus of £16·4 million in March 1989. Why did that surplus turn into a deficit of £22 million by February of this year? Eight months is not long enough for the information upon which the first estimates were based to be redundant by the time the Department of Employment, the Treasury and Ministers had submitted the estimates in February 1990. What is more intriguing is that those same estimates reveal that £40 million was taken out of the employment training budget, £19·2 million of which was then applied to the expenditure totals of the skills training agency. Another £19 million was used as a bookkeeping exercise to cover the Department's expenditure.
        The Government may argue that they were going to privatise the agency earlier than anticipated. If that is true, it is simply incompetence. Indeed, we can be charitable and say that it is incompetence and financial mismanagement, and it is. We can say that the Government are complacent about the use of public expenditure—and they are. However, the more serious charge is that there are now serious doubts about the way in which the supply estimates that were presented to the House were handled by the ministerial team in that Department. It is clear that Parliament has been misled by the actions of Ministers when presenting the estimates to the House.
        The other argument that the Government may advance is to say that they could not get sufficient numbers to fill the employment training schemes, so income went down. However, if they are arguing that the expenditure figure decreased because it was only a partial year because of the privatisation, how can they cope with a full year of income? The income from employment training and from employers decreased significantly. There was a 40 per cent. cut in the income of the skills training agency between March and February. In the country as a whole, there was only a 5 per cent. cut in employment training expenditure, and yet there was a 40 per cent. cut in the money taken from the skills training agency.
        I have said that the Government have at least misled Parliament, but there is a suspicion that things were a great deal worse. We must ask why money is moving about so easily in the Department of Employment budget. Why does expenditure dip and then rise? Why does its income decrease, unrelated to anything that is happening in the country as a whole? In my view, the answer is simply that a combination of ministerial incompetence and of civil servants working to prepare estimates may have created a situation in which privatisation was the best solution for a problem that was created largely by the Government.
        Our final points are convincing. Yesterday we telephoned 10 people who had been involved in the bidding process. They are too frightened to go public, but
        538
        they levelled charges, and the dossier will be given to the appropriate authorities in the House so that they can investigate it.
        Those people say that the bidding process was an elaborate charade and that there was no level playing field. They say that they were given desperately inadequate information upon which to base their bids. They are concerned because when the finals bids were submitted, but before they were accepted and announced in the House on 19 February, certain bidders were asked to rebid. That has implications for fair trading. I hope that the Minister will consider that point.
        Most of the bidders were not given any idea that large tax handouts would be available as part of the restructuring. The Lakin consortium is a classic example because £0·5 million was given to each of the four centres and yet was denied to the bidder mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. Those bidders believe that the management buyout had the hid sewn up from an early date.
        If that is the case, we must ask who the Government are trying to fool. Are they trying to fool the 61 prospective bidders who had thought that they were making a real bid? Are they trying to fool Parliament, or are they trying to fool themselves by thinking that they could transfer nearly £200 million worth of publicly provided assets from the public sector to the private sector and yet provide no income either for the Consolidated Fund, the budget of the Department of Employment or to defray in any way the huge excesses that we have identified this evening?
        We think that it is a scandal. We demand firm action from the Government and that they make a statement at the earliest possible date. We shall give our evidence and dossier to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service so that it can investigate the misleading of Parliament in the supply estimates. We shall also seek further to expose the fair trading aspects of the bidding process and if our evidence is conclusive, we shall take it to the Law Officers. We look forward to the Minister's speech.
        8.14 pm
        The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): I begin by paying tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr). We were all touched by his tribute to his predecessor, Mr. Allan Roberts, who was a very well liked Member. I was also touched by the hon. Gentleman's obvious commitment to the constituency that he is taking over. I was interested in and reflected on his comments that Bootle has provided a permanent majority for hon. Members representing his party. It must therefore be a shock for the hon. Gentleman to come to the House, where, of course, he will be in a permanent minority throughout his parliamentary career.
        I am grateful to the Select Committee on Employment and to its Chairman for ensuring that the House has had this opportunity to debate the training estimates today. No hon. Member—of any party—underestimates the importance of training to our future economic prosperity and international competitiveness. Only with a skilled and competent work force will the country possibly be able to meet the challenges which lie ahead of us in the coming years.
        I shall try to cover as many of the points that have been made as I can during the time available to me.

        539
        The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and several other hon. Members of all parties have drawn attention to the European Commission's report on relative skill levels in this country and other European Community countries. It is extremely difficult to make sensible international comparisons about such matters. That fact cannot be better illustrated than by the survey that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, which suggests that Greece has a more highly skilled work force than Germany. That may be Madam Papandreou's aspiration, but on an objective level, it is not thought likely.
        We have heard a lot from Opposition Members over the last couple of hours about reductions in Government expenditure on training. The House must recognise that the Government will be spending £2·7 billion on training in the current year. That is a massive investment by any standards. Government spending on training has risen sharply, by 60 per cent. in real terms over the past four years. Over the same period, unemployment has gone down by 50 per cent. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) did not say that the current level of our training expenditure is nearly three times more in real terms than the amount that the Labour party spent on training in its last year of government
        Of course, the funding levels on youth training and employment training reflect changes in the groups that those programmes are designed to benefit. As the House knows, there has been a severe decline in school leavers. In conjunction with that, there has been a welcome increase in the number of young people staying on at school in full-time education, and a sharp fall in unemployment. It is right that Government programmes and expenditure should adapt to and meet those welcome developments.
        As my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) have said, it is important that a Government should work in partnership with employers on training. After all, employers are best placed to judge what training is needed and how best that training can be delivered. Employers spent £18 billion on training in 1987, and their contribution to the youth training scheme increased no less than sixfold between 1985 and 1989. We believe that it is right and proper that employers take the main share of responsibility for the investment in training.
        I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) who stressed that employers need to consider taking advantage of recruiting older workers and women returners.
        Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Eggar: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. There is a lot of ground to cover and he was not present throughout the debate. I hope that he will forgive me.
        Mr. Nellist: Yes, I was.
        Mr. Eggar: The hon. Member for Newham, North-East drew attention to the Select Committee's report on employment training.
        Mr. Nellist: Take that back.
        Mr. Eggar: Employment training is the biggest programme of its kind in Europe. About 700,000 people
        540
        have joined the programme since it started less than two years ago. More than 200,000 people are on ET at any one time.
        Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Eggar: That is a massive achievement by any standards. Employment training is a voluntary programme and a popular programme.
        Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Eggar: I should say to the hon. Gentleman——
        Mr. Nellist: We have only 10 minutes.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly the Minister does not wish to give way.
        Mr. Nellist: I do not wish to take longer than necessary.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Eggar.
        Mr. EggarAs the hon. Gentleman should be aware, about half of the people involved in ET at any one time are on a work placement. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the figure was one quarter. Employment training is helping a wide range of unemployed people, many of whom have particular disadvantages. My hon. Friends and several hon. Gentlemen referred to the need for ET to assist those with special needs of one kind or another. A third of all those who start on ET have been unemployed for more than two years.
        Employment training has been of great value to people who lack confidence and motivation to take on a training course, let alone present themselves directly to an employer. Most significantly, the trainees themselves on ET value their training highly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon said, and as the Select Committee knows, a recent survey showed that four out of five of those interviewed agreed that ET had increased their self-confidence and improved their chances of obtaining a job.
        Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Eggar: In an excellent report, the Employment Select Committee expressed anxiety about drop-out from employment training.
        Mr. Nellist: Is this a debate or a monologue?
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is attempting to reply to the debate and is not prepared to give way.
        Mr. Eggar: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have a great deal to cover. The hon. Member for Fife, Central raised several points that I wish to address. The Select Committee also raised several matters. If the hon. Gentleman had sat throughout the debate and had spoken, of course, I should give way.
        Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Eggar: This is intolerable.
        Mr. Nellist: You started it, sunshine.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
        Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister started it. If he had given way, this would not have happened—[Interruption.]——
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am attempting to listen to a point of order.
        Mr. Nellist: If the Minister had given way, we could have dealt with this more quickly. Given the constraints of the debate, it is not possible for everyone who wants to take part to speak. I spoke to the occupant of the Chair at the beginning of the debate and advised the Chair that I would not seek to take up the time of the Minister and other hon. Members but would seek to make only one point. I have tried to make that point to the Minister for the past lour or five minutes. He should withdraw his remark that I did not take part in the debate.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman knows. If the hon. Gentleman had sought to catch my eye or that of my predecessor in the Chair, I am sure that every attempt would have been made to accommodate him.
        Mr. Eggar: I was commenting on the Select Committee's report about drop-out from ET. We have introduced several measures designed to deal with the problem. I should like to run through them.
        We made several important changes to the employment service's counselling arrangements designed to provide more effective help for people returning to work, particularly the long-term unemployed. Those include specific back-to-work plans setting out the agreed action at the end of each counselling interview and more rigorous and systematic follow-up of those who fail to take the agreed action. That should meet some of the Committee's anxieties.
        Secondly, we have introduced more intensive help and advice for every unemployed person who remains unemployed after two years. From the autumn, those in that group who persistently refuse all options on offer will be required to take one of our short restart courses.
        Thirdly, we have set the new Employment Service Agency a specific target for the number of long-term unemployed people who start on ET—rather than those who are simply referred to employment training. That will give the employment service clear responsibility for helping people to start on programmes.
        Fourthly, we have streamlined the procedures for entry into ET, to cut down time from the initial interview to the start of training.
        Finally, as I have said already, we set up an internal scrutiny group to examine the specific issue of take-up. Several of the measures that I have announced today address the scrutiny group's recommendations. We intend to make the scrutiny public and to decide on any further action before the recess. I shall certainly take into account the points made on the matter by both the Select Committee and hon. Members on both sides of the House when we come to make our decisions.
        In the few minutes available to me, I shall deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Fife, Central. Both commented on the sale of the Skills Training Agency. On behalf of the Government I wish to make our position
        542
        absolutely clear. There is no scandal. No one received favourable treatment and there were no sweeteners. The sale was conducted in an entirely fair and scrupulous way. All the organisations that expressed an interest were able to bid on an equal basis. All the bids that we received were evaluated on an equal basis by our professional advisers so that a proper comparison could be made between each bid.
        In our final decision on the sale, we went for the combination which best met the Government's objectives for the sale. Those objectives started with the need to preserve training capacity and to offer the best return to the taxpayer. I resent the attack that was made on civil servants. I assure the House that those three civil servants were divorced from decisions affecting personnel and resource matters which might affect the new companies.
        The right way to have the matter examined—I welcome the decision of the National Audit Office—is for the NAO to carry out a study into the sale of the Skills Training Agency. The appropriation accounts audited by the NAO show that the STA made a loss in all but one of the past five years. Estimates were laid before the House and were available for all hon. Members to sell. We expected to sell the STA in the financial year of 1989–90. We missed that deadline. We completed the bulk of the sale at the end of April, some four weeks after the end of the financial year in 1990. The House will recognise our difficulty in producing estimates to cover that time of flux. I am confident that the NAO will confirm the substantial loss of the STA indicated in the revised estimates.
        I apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House that I have not covered some points. In the time available to me, I have tried to deal with the issues as fully, comprehensively, and fairly as possible. I welcome the decision of the House to have this debate. I know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East wishes to have the last word.
        Mr. Leighton rose——
        Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We still have time left.
        Mr. Leighton rose——
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must listen to a point of order.
        Mr. Nellist: We still have one minute left. Therefore, I rise to make a short speech.
        Mr. Leighton: The Minister has kindly agreed to give ——
        Mr. Nellist rose——
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to put a point of order to me?
        Mr. Nellist: I do not need to ask the leave of the House to speak a second time. Therefore, I rise to take the last minute if the Minister does not want it.
        The scandal about this debate, which the Minister has refused to answer, is the point that——
        The Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings were deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates) and the Resolution [6 June].

Department of Social Security
  Low INCOME STATISTICS

    Class XIV, Vote 7
    [Relevant documents: Fourth Report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1987–88, Families on Low Income: Low Income Statistics ( House of Commons Paper No. 565), the Government's reply to that Report (Cm. 523), the Fourth Report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90, Low Income Statistics (House of Commons Paper No. 376) and Memoranda laid before the Committee: Households Below Average Income: A regional analysis 1980–85, a study commissioned by the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90 (House of Commons Paper No. 378–1), and The Income Support System and the Distribution of Income in 1987, a study commissioned by the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90 (House of Commons Paper No. 378–11)]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £991,572,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, and for certain other services including grants to local authorities, voluntary organisations, and major capital works projects for the Department of Health, including telecommunications capital.—[Mr. Nicholas Scott.]
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Frank Field: I wish to thank the Liaison Committee for the time that has been made available to discuss the estimate. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, where I am listed as parliamentary consultant to the Civil and Public Servants Association. Hon. Members might feel that my contribution will be unduly influenced by that responsibility. There will be a prize for anyone who can spot the bias. However, I warn the House that I will be judge and jury on whether the prize is to be awarded.
    I thank Bob Twigger in the statistics section of the Library for the help that he gave the Select Committee with its report. I thank the specialist advisers Tony Atkinson, Richard Berthoud and Michael O'Higgins. I thank the two researchers from the Institute for Fiscal Studies who carried out the work for the Committee—Steven Webb and Paul Johnson. The debate gives me the opportunity, on behalf of the Committee, to thank our staff. They number only six and their performance is something that I and other hon. Members wish to salute.
    The debate is about the estimate and the opportunity provided to carry out our traditional function as parliamentarians: to monitor how the poor fare, and especially how they have fared during the past decade. In fairness, the Minister may say that we should debate a slightly narrower span. We must be honest and complimentary about the Government, in that they have always been clear about how they believe they should carry out the responsibility of judging the welfare of the poor. They have not been interested, as historically we have been interested, in counting the numbers—indeed, the head count exercise has been abolished. Those hon. Members who have longer experience than I have—I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in his place—may say that that was because the
    544
    Government knew what was happening to the figures. However, we all know that the head-counting exercise ceased operation half way through this Parliament.
    The Government also said that they were not interested —as other Governments had been—in measuring whether the gap had grown between the living standards of those at the bottom of society and those on average earnings, let alone those on high earnings. They said that they were interested in only one thing—that if they could get the economy to grow, the living standards of those at the bottom would grow faster than they would otherwise grow in periods of more modest economic growth. We can understand why the Government, after abolishing the low income statistics and introducing their new analysis of households below average earnings, were so happy to fall on the results, which seemed to justify all that the Government had asserted—that if they got the economy moving, not just crumbs but whole loaves would fall off the rich man's table to those below the tablecloth.
    We might ask why the Government so readily accepted the figures from their statisticians. Opposition Members and perhaps some Conservative Members—I would call them hon. Friends—might question whether the Government checked those figures. If they did, who did the checking? It was because the figures did not make sense to the Select Committee that we asked Parliament for money to ask the Institute for Fiscal Studies to prepare a report, and that report gave us very different findings to those published by the Government.
    When the Committee examined the figures it asked how, with the big increase in unemployment, the figures could be true. How could they add up when the Government had had a strategy of trying to get people into low-paid jobs? Indeed, the Government subsidised people who took low-paid jobs. How could the figures make sense when there had been cuts in child benefit? How could they make sense when the Government had abolished the link with earnings or prices, whichever was most favourable, for payment of long-term benefits? How could they make sense when a record number of people were becoming disqualified from benefit? How could they make sense when, in some instances, wages councils had been abolished or their scope impaired?
    It is important to put the findings on the record. The Government's original report said that the poorest 10 per cent. had experienced an increase in their living standards of twice that experienced by the average household. We questioned that. The findings of the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that, far from the gain for the poorest being twice that of the average household, it was only half. To some extent, therefore, this debate is genuinely seeking information from the Government about how they operate, and I hope that the Minister will not treat that cynically when he replies.
    Do the Government use those figures? When they were setting the recent benefit increases, did they look at their findings on what was happening to the living standards of those on below average earnings, and especially the poorest? If so, how did that affect the uprating? What will the Government do at the next uprating when their figures must be put aside and they are aware of the Select Committee findings, which show a different picture? If the Government pay no attention either to their figures or to our figures, why collect them in the first place and why go through the charade of pretending that they are important?

    545
    I wish to explain what the Committee hopes that the Government's approach will be. The Minister may emphasise the favourable parts of our previous report which welcomed the new data published by the Government. The Committee did not suggest that it was a foul and unnecessary exercise; it said that the information was an important collection of data on what was happening to the living standards of those on below average incomes.
    For instance, it allows us to relate how the living standards of those at the bottom are rising compared with all other groups in the community. It allows us to check the numbers. Unlike having a lowest 10 per cent.—and there must always be a bottom 10 per cent.—if the Government pick a point at half average earnings, it is of interest to know whether their policy on targeting is working. If it is, we would expect the numbers on below half average earnings to fall. If the numbers were increasing, that might suggest that the targeting policy was not as successful as the Government have claimed. Therefore, the Opposition and the Select Committee welcome the introduction of the new data, although we might make a plea for it to be better checked next time.
    We have said that it is important to run that data in parallel with other data counting the numbers on benefit, not because it will prove a political point but because the House sets the rates of benefit and it has a duty and a responsibility to determine how many people are claiming those benefits and—probably more important—how many people who may be eligible are not claiming and therefore have living standards below that level.
    In making a plea for the reintroduction of the old series, to run parallel with the Government's series, I hope that no one will use that as a definition of poverty. That would be a sterile debate. It would mean that if a Government increased the real value of benefits, one side could say that the numbers of poor had gone up, even though the living standards of those groups had risen.
    Equally, if the Government reduced the real rates of benefits, they could proudly tell Parliament, "We have achieved the target of reducing the numbers in poverty," although at the same time they would have to admit, if they were honest, that they were making the survival of the poor that much more difficult.
    I am not, therefore, asking for such a reintroduction so that we can return to that sterile debate. We need it because historically, for more than a century, we have examined the rates laid down by the House—in the Poor Laws, under the old unemployment assistance board, in terms of national assistance, under supplementary benefit or now under income support—to see how the numbers claiming are rising or falling and, of particular importance, whether people are below that level.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the Chairman of the Select Committee saying that, when there is economic growth in a country, all people, whatever their income—whether they are in receipt of income or earnings or benefit—should benefit from that economic growth? Does he agree that that should be the objective of any Government, Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative?
    Mr. Field: Yes indeed, and the two Conservative Members seated below the Gangway—the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price)—were Members when a Conservative Government
    546
    put on to the statute book regulations to ensure that that happened. They were also Members when, sadly, the Government abolished the link between earnings and prices, using whichever was the most favourable to claimants, and thus ensured that during a period of record economic growth those at the bottom did not participate in the way in which the hon. Member for Macclesfield described.
    If all hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate are to get in, we must be disciplined and limit ourselves to about 10 minutes, so I end with three further questions, and I hope that in the Minister's 10-minute reply he will give a hint of an answer.
    First, the Minister is in a superior position to the rest of us, except for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, whom we welcome to the debate, in that he has seen the results of the data concerning living standards between 1985 and 1987. Would we be right in thinking that one reason why the Government have not published those figures relating to the period up to 1987 is that the results for the poorest show an even worse outcome than the revised figures that the Select Committee published for 1981 to 1985?
    Secondly, given that the biggest reforms since Beveridge —that is how the Government billed them—were introduced by income support in 1988, will the Government undertake a special analysis of the data for that year so that we can see who gained, who lost and how effective that whole policy review was?
    If the Government say that their resources are limited and their statisticians overworked, and similar circumstances with which we can sympathise, may I ask them, thirdly, as the Conservatives favour contracting out, to consider contracting out the whole of this operation to the Institute of Fiscal Studies? Not only might that result in fewer mistakes, but, considering the performance of the institute, we would have the results much sooner. Might that be the reason why the Government do not want to go in for a bit of privatisation on this front?
    8.43 pm
    Sir David Price: I support the general thrust of what the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said. The House will recognise that he was speaking as Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Services. As such, he should—I am sure that he does—command the respect and attention of the House. The hon. Gentleman was so comprehensive in his remarks that I can be mercifully brief.
    I have only one general point to make. It is that the more accurate measurement of low incomes is essential to the implementation of this or any other Government's social policies. For many years it has been agreed across the party spectrum that there should be a floor in society below which nobody—I emphasise "nobody"—should be allowed to fall.
    I remind my hon. Friends that we in the Conservative party have been committed to such a proposition certainly since the wartime coalition Government and their 1944 White Papers, and many could argue, much earlier. In "The Right Road for Britain," a policy statement of our party in 1950, we said:
    "The social services are no longer, even in theory. a form of poor relief. They are a co-operative system of mutual aid

    547
    and self-help provided by the whole nation and designed to give to all the basic minimum of security, of housing, of opportunity, of employment and of living standards"—
    I ask the House to mark the following words —
    "below which our duty to one another forbids us to permit anyone to fall."
    "The Right Road for Britain" was only a spelling out of what our then leader, Winston Churchill, declared to our Brighton party conference in 1947, which I attended, when he said:
    "The scheme of society for which we stand is the establishment and maintenance of a basic minimum standard of life and labour below which a man or woman of goodwill, however old and weak, will not be allowed to fall."
    The obvious question which arises from such clear social purposes is how we collectively, as a society, set and then monitor that basic minimum standard. That is the issue before us tonight.
    The current mechanism by which we deliver financial assistance to those at the lowest levels of the income scale is income support and housing benefit, following, historically, supplementary benefit. But how are we to know whether that income support is at any moment set at a level sufficient to achieve that purpose? How do we know when it is failing because it is insufficient? Are there any objective measures by which income levels can be set? Is that an impossible statistical exercise? Must we be content with more subjective factors to determine minimum income?
    I confess that I seek some objective measure which all can recognise and accept as a fair description of minimum income at any moment, an objective measure that is resistant to political disputation. Perhaps I express a faint and distant hope. But only by that means can we do right by the poorest of our fellow citizens. As the great Lord Kelvin stated:
    "When you can measure what you are speaking of, and express it in numbers, you know that of which you are discoursing. But when you cannot measure it, and express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a very meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
    None of those who study these matters would claim that current figures are very meagre. That would be a reckless assertion. But I hope that we can all recognise that they are far from fully satisfactory. The hon. Member for Birkenhead began to illustrate their unsatisfactory nature.
    As I see it, the current discussion about how to measure low income—some would say how to measure poverty —is a choice between using social security benefit or using some defined point in the distribution of income. The second key issue, whichever yardstick is chosen, is what can be bought at that level of income—in other words, what standard of living that income permits.
    The third issue is who is living at or below that standard of living—what are the composition and characteristics of the lowest income groups? Are they permanent groups or do people move in and out? The use of social security benefit scales, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, has an obvious appeal because there is a clear policy relationship. To some extent, the scales represent the levels of living for others that we as a community are willing to pay for. Therefore, there is an obvious interest in how people are faring in relation to those income levels. Their use also means that the choice of that cut-off point does not lie solely with the interpreter of the figures, although
    548
    there has been some disagreement about whether the appropriate cut-off point is 100 per cent. of the scale, 110 per cent. or 120 per cent.
    However, the benefit scales approach can be positively misleading. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, Ministers and officials have, for at least 20 years, made that, point by saying that if benefit rates are increased, the effect is to raise the number of people in poverty. Equally, if benefits fall relative to the incomes of the rest of the population, the use of benefit scales as a yardstick will mask an underlying increase in poverty. In some ways, by using that yardstick, one can determine how great the poverty is, rather than the reality of the poverty.
    The value of a criterion based on a particular point on the distribution of income has the advantage of allowing the effect of policy changes to be examined. But that depends on the criterion chosen. A crude choice would focus on, for example, the bottom 10 or 20 per cent. on the income scale. But as there will always be a bottom 10 or 20 per cent., such a choice is not of itself illuminating. That is why the usual choice in such an analysis is to examine the numbers or characteristics of people below a particular proportion of the average in the distribution of income. That approach runs into the objection that it is not a measure of poverty or low income, but of inequality in the distribution of income. Therefore, both the favoured measures seem to have major disadvantages.
    I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate to the House the difficulty of measuring low incomes accurately, and why the current measures are not totally satisfactory for determining the floor in society that all hon. Members are determined to achieve. That is why we on the Select Committee have been encouraging further examination of the issues and why, next month, we shall hold a seminar to try to advance the issue. I hope that we have the fullest approval of the House for a noble cause—improving the lot of the poorest of our fellow citizens.
    8.54 pm
    Mr. Michael Meacher: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) has postulated a noble and worthy objective. The only problem is that the Government have not delivered it—indeed many Opposition Members would say that they never had any intention of doing so. I do not say that about the hon. Member for Eastleigh, but I certainly say it about the Government.
    I wish to start my remarks constructively. We all agree that the House owes a considerable debt of gratitude to the Select Committee on Social Services for its report. I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who chaired the Committee, and all its members for so strikingly bringing to light a dark corner of this nation's life about which there has been so much obfuscation and deception. It showed the Select Committee system at its best, and I offer unstinting praise to all its members who have persevered to discover the truth and publish it. I recognise that it had a Conservative majority.
    The report puts poverty squarely back on the political agenda. The Government have striven vigorously, by every trick in the book, to prevent that. First, they denied that it even existed. In 1986, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), obviously an authority on the subject, judging from his string of City directorships, said:
    "Poverty is just not an issue."

    549
    The Prime Minister said in the House:
    "Everyone in the nation has benefited from the increased prosperity—everyone."—[Official Report, 17 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 801.]
    When the Government could deny the existence of poverty no longer, they decided to muddy the ground by altering the basis of the statistics. A good maxim of this Government is always, "If the facts are embarrassing, change the method of calculation." They have done so repeatedly, most notably with the unemployment figures, which have been changed no fewer than 27 times. But they still cannot get the figure lower than the one they inherited in 1979. They have also done so by massaging the trade figures, culling the hospital waiting lists and, most recently, trying to fiddle the retail prices index. There have never been a Government who have so shamelessly doctored the figures. It is well known that there are many senior officials in the Government's statistical service who are deeply unhappy at the political abuse of their professional services.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Not true.
    Mr. Meacher: It is well known, and has certainly been widely reported. If the Minister wishes to challenge it, I shall send him the evidence on which I base my remark.
    In the same vein, as poverty mounted in the mid-1980s, the Government announced a technical review of the methodology of calculating the level of poverty. The review reported in 1988—just in time, because at the same time, the 1985 low-income families' figures were published showing startling increases in the number of people living on the lowest incomes. Therefore, using the review as an excuse, the Government promptly shut down the statistical series that produced such embarrassing results.
    I hope that it is not unfair to say that the Government's motto is clearly, "If you can't beat them, close them down." I suppose that is roughly the Prime Minister's attitude to the Greater London council. The Government's new line was that supplementary benefit rate should no longer be used as the benchmark of poverty, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. They said that in future the yardstick would be average earnings, and those below various fixed proportions of average earnings, and those below various fixed proportions of average earnings.
    That approach is flawed in three ways. First, the Government closed down the first statistical series in 1985, which the review committee never recommended. It is impossible to have continuity in estimates of poverty throughout the 1980s. The Government have succeeded well in blurring the comparison of what happened in the first half of the decade with what has happened in the second half.
    Secondly, the new statistical series produced a howler, as we know, that was convenient for the Government. Far from admitting the huge increase in poverty that was taking place, the Government used the new figures to claim that the poor were becoming better off at twice the rate of those on average income, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said. That is such an absurd mistake that one cannot help wondering, as my hon. Friend did, whether it owed more to politics than to arithmetic. However, I suppose that we must accept that it was an official error. Like my hon. Friend, I would simply add that, if Ministers did not immediately regard such a
    550
    conclusion as totally contrary to all practical experience as unemployment tripled in the mid-1980s, and did not then immediately demand that the figures should be rechecked, their judgment loses all credibility.
    The third flaw in the Government's approach is that, having produced a new statistical framework that was not only discontinuous with what went before but started life with a palpable falsehood, they are publishing no information at all on the subject. In 1979, the low-income family figures were published every year. Today, poverty statistics are five years out of date. The 1987 figures of households having below-average incomes were promised before last Christmas, then early in the new year, then before Easter. They have still not been published. If the Government expect revised poll tax assessments for millions of people to be processed and dispatched within a matter of weeks, failing still to produce poverty statistics that are now three years out of date smells more of political deviousness than administrative incompetence.
    What is so contemptible about the Government's response is that, while they reject the traditional definition of poverty—and I understand the objections—they refuse to produce any definition of their own. It is not difficult to understand why. Whatever definition one chooses, poverty has sharply increased over the past decade.
    Suppose that one adopts the traditional definition based on those living on, below, or only just above the supplementary benefit line. That is a reasonable definition, because it represents the minimum income on which Parliament expects people to live. It is also a distinctly conservative definition. Today's income support rate for an adult over 25 is £36·70, or £57·60 for a couple. Compare that with today's average wage of £295 per week, according to the Government's figures.
    That means that a single adult on supplementary benefit has to survive on one eighth of the average wage, and a couple on less than one fifth. I wonder how many right hon. and hon. Members, and particularly the Tory Members to whom I am addressing this remark, could live on such a small income for a week, let alone for months or years on end. One former Conservative Member, Matthew Parris, could not manage to do so when he tried.
    Taking even an extremely meagre definition of poverty, it is a matter for urgent attention on this country's political agenda that, in 1979, 4 million people were living on supplementary benefit but by 1985, there were 7 million. In 1979, a further 2 million people were living below the supplementary benefit level, but by 1985 the figure had risen to 2·5 million.
    Because supplementary benefit involved entitlement to single payments for such items as bedding and fridges, until the former Secretary of State abolished them in the infamous Fowler reviews, and because such items are worth up to 40 per cent. of basic supplementary benefit rates, it is relevant that, in 1979, a total of 5·5 million people were living just 40 per cent. above the supplementary benefit line, but by 1985 the figure had risen to 6 million.
    By a highly conservative definition of poverty, by 1985 an extra 4 million people, making a total of 15·5 million, were living on extremely low incomes. That is about one in four of the population, according to the Government's own figures. It is particularly worrying that the number of children living below the supplementary benefit line nearly doubled in the six years to 1985, to 2·5 million. That puts an entirely different gloss on the upbeat picture that the

    551
    Prime Minister so often and so misleadingly paints, when she says that average earnings have increased by 31 per cent. since 1979. The right hon. Lady omits to mention that that increase is confined to those in work and excludes all who cannot work and who are dependent on benefits. They account for one third of the whole nation.
    The Prime Minister also manages to avoid mentioning that that group has increased—not decreased—by as much as one third under her regime, and she has been forced to eat her words that the poorest one tenth of the population have enjoyed a rise in their real living standards of double the average. As we now know, the actual rise of 2 per cent. per year is little more than one third of the national average.
    Even that 2 per cent. is an average figure covering 5 million people, which suggests that large numbers of them have almost certainly enjoyed no increase. In other words, there has been a growth in absolute poverty during the Government's first six years.
    We continually talk about percentage increases for this group or that group. At the risk of sounding banal, let me point out that people do not buy things in shops with percentages; they pay money. The Government's use of percentages is a gross concealment of what is happening in our society. Let me give three examples.
    The Government have now been forced to admit that the poorest tenth of the population have had an average income rise of 2 per cent. a year; the average worker—the Government are constantly complaining—is receiving a rise of9·5 per cent.; but a recent survey in The Guardian showed that the chairmen of Britain's top 100 companies paid themselves a 33 per cent. increase last year.
    That implies that the average worker did four times better than the lowest-paid tenth of the population, and that the top chairmen did four times better than the average worker; but that is not the case. The percentages are calculated on completely different bases. Those percentages actually mean that the poorest tenth of the population have been receiving about a 70p rise a week and the average worker a rise of £27 a week, but that Britain's top chairmen have been paying themselves rises that average £2,400 a week.
    The Government should stop their pretence that ours is a percentages society. They should stop veiling the reality of inequality in Britain today and spell out the facts of poverty in pounds and pence, which everyone can understand and with which everyone can identify. If they will not do that, it is because they do not want the truth to be known, but Opposition Members do. In future, we shall regularly give the straight money facts about poverty and wealth in cash figures for all to see.
    The Government last published figures five years ago. It is a scandal that they have shut down the low income family series, thus depriving us of the only comprehensive data that analyse the performance of social security and its ability to provide an income safety net for those in need. That, of course, is precisely why the Government shut it down. Nevertheless, despite all the Government's attempts to conceal, there are pointers to what has been happening post-1985.
    I am sure that all hon. Members take the point so nicely made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead about privatising, but there is one form of it that we would
    552
    all favour. It was the Institute for Fiscal Studies that exposed the Government's howler pre-1985, and it has now produced estimates for 1987 on a similar basis to the low-income family series. It found that the number of people in families living on, below or no more than 40 per cent. above the poverty line had risen to 18·5 million—7 million more than in 1979. What makes that all the more remarkable is that it was after the longest burst of economic growth since the war, as the former Chancellor —who is not known for his modesty—constantly reminds us. On that basis, one wonders what is happening now, when the economy is in stagnation and on the brink of recession.
    For more than a century, Governments have been keeping an annual check on the position of low-paid workers. Throughout that century, with monotonous consistency, the lowest-paid tenth have maintained their pay at 65 or 66 per cent. of the national average: that was exactly the position in 1979. Today their pay has been cut to 58 per cent.—probably the lowest relative position that low-paid workers have held for 100 years.
    We have a two-thirds/one-third society with a vengeance. The wealthy have been showered with gains beyond the dreams of avarice; the middle two thirds—at least until the poll tax and bruising interest rates—have done well; whereas for the bottom third—we must not forget that that means nearly 20 million people—there has been unrelieved disaster.
    Poverty, however one defines it, has been sharply on the increase in the past decade. To deny it, misrepresent it, conceal it and then ignore it—which has been the Government's response—may be the cynical politics of complacency, but there are clear signs that that is distasteful to an increasing majority of the electorate. As the recession bites and unemployment rises, I predict that poverty will rise on the political agenda. That is one more reason why the Government's days are numbered.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this debate has to end at 10 o'clock and that quite a number of hon. Members wish to participate. If they confine their speeches to six minutes each, that will enable more hon. Members to be called and allow time for the Minister to speak.
    9.12 pm
    Mr. Barry Field: I do not feel tempted to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) although I think that he introduced a rather specious note into a debate that was getting on rather well. To put the lie to his claim that the Government wish to sweep things under the carpet, I have a letter from the Central Statistical Office, dated 12 December 1989, signed by Mr. T. Griffin, which came about as a result of work done by Martin Lloyd, the managing director of the Isle of Wight development board, and some parliamentary questions which I asked about the gross domestic product of the island. The Central Statistical Office has agreed that the island, along with the border regions of Scotland which were previously grouped with Lothian, should have distinct statistics for GDP.
    Lest anyone come to the debate with the spurious view that these issues affect only areas other than the south-east, may I say that the Isle of Wight, which I represent, has a

    553
    GDP which is 77 per cent. of the United Kingdom average and the highest seasonal unemployment in the United Kingdom.
    I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security will find my contribution helpful or enlightening. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) put his finger on it when he said words to the effect, "Some hopes that we will ever debate this subject and agree on a definition."
    I want to draw to the Minister's attention the fact that the Rural Development Commission, in conjunction with the Isle of Wight development board, has funded a study by Ernst Young, the first stage of which has just been completed, and deals with the curent economic position of the island and its evolution over the past decade.
    The study shows that, although the economy has grown substantially, reflecting the expansion of our manufacturing and service base, we are still 25 per cent. behind the United Kingdom and 33 per cent. behind the rest of the south-east. When we study the figures, an extraordinary situation is revealed. The study has only just been published and we are awaiting phases two and three to enable us to create an economic strategy for the island. It reveals that, while the average gross weekly full-time male earnings on the island are substantially below those in Hampshire and the United Kingdom as a whole, car ownership, which is generally taken as a reliable indicator or personal wealth, is much above the average for the United Kingdom. That is the point that I wish to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister.
    There is a continual contradiction within our local economy on the Isle of Wight: for some years we have worn the badge of low wages, without the consequent economic deprivation, and we score "Z" factors in local government terms.
    The degree of hardship that one might have expected to find, given the level of wages, is absent. Although there is a seasonal level of unemployment, the black economy has to be taken into account, but I am far from certain as to how it can be measured. It will not divide the House either politically or in any other way if I say that my constituency is an economy in its own right.
    The excellent report from Ernst Young, with two additional phases to come, may be more constructive than what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West in his harangue. The Isle of Wight might be an appropriate place in which to look further at the problem of defining statistics. Both my hon. Friend and I know that there are
    "lies, damned lies and statistics."
    The extraordinary feature of the Isle of Wight is that wages are low, though home ownership and car ownership are well above average. That is incompatible with wage levels on the Isle of Wight and the level of economic activity.
    9.16 pm
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The House will forgive me if I do not follow the wholly economics-driven argument advanced by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). This is an important debate. I echo the tributes that have been paid to the Select Committee for the valuable work that it has done. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that this is exactly how Select Committees should work and that the Government ought to be cross-examined rigorously about these important subjects.
    554
    There is a danger of getting too hung up on methodology—of concentrating too much on statistics and forgetting that human beings are the object of the exercise: to make life better for those at the bottom of the financial league table.
    Most of my points are derived unashamedly from the Select Committee report. For obvious reasons, I am anxious that more information should be provided on a regional basis. There would be difficulties over sample statistics in the case of the English regions and the nations of Wales and Scotland. There is a big difference between the economy in the south of the country and that in the highlands and islands, the borders and Wales. Living standards are quite different. Temperature plays its part, as do transport costs. There are many other significant factors.
    I wholeheartedly endorse, therefore, the plea for more information to be made available on a regional basis. The Department made a limp excuse in the memorandum that it submitted to the Select Committee. It said that it would cost too much money to do that, but then it said that it would cost about £100,000. If the Department of Social Security wishes to guard itself against the charge of massaging the figures and hiding the truth, it would do itself a favour if it provided statistics on a regional basis.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) that it is important to know exactly who the poorest members of the community are—not just the numbers but the composition of the group. Do the poorest 10 per cent. of the population stay in the lowest decile or do people pass through it? Is there a pattern? That information is vital in determining Government policy.
    The Select Committee drew attention to the impact of benefit and the extent to which the incomes of the lowest 10 per cent. of the population are determined by benefit. Nearly 2·3 million people have been on long-term benefit for more than three years. They represent a significant group of people and we must turn our attention to help them more in future if these debates are to mean anything.
    It is also important to study the impact of the 1988 changes. The Select Committee was right to say that the combination of the introduction of water rates being charged at the full level and the 20 per cent. contribution to local government finance—offset by the £1·30 flat rate one-off payment—have made a significant impact. My constituency casework has reflected that. The statisticians will have to consider that as a matter of some urgency. The Select Committee was right to say that the living standards of the poorest 10 per cent. in the community have fallen by about 5 per cent. as a direct result of those changes. If that is true, the Government should address that matter urgently.
    The Select Committee correctly identified housing tenure as a factor that needed attention. Housing costs —particularly for single elderly pensioners in my constituency—are becoming a much bigger proportion of people's income.
    There are difficulties in measuring poverty, and I am sure that the Select Committee is right to carry out a longer-term study on minimum income. I hope that. I can get a ticket to the seminar and I also hope that the tickets are free. The longer-term study is a valuable piece of work, if only to concentrate the Department's mind. The fact that the Department has someone at its shoulder will keep its mind concentrated, especially as the Select Committee is so capable and has access to so much expert advice.

    555
    Explicit income levels that may well require subjective and in some cases arbitrary judgments are necessary, even case by case, to establish a target, an objective or a standard by which other things can be measured. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that setting poverty levels is a spurious game. In the past, Governments of both political complexions have run up against that problem. I hope that he will agree that the work that has been carried out by the family budget unit and some other organisations to put a real cost on people's economic situations is nothing but helpful. Of course we must be careful about how we use that information, but it provides a comparison with the level of benefit that we are offering claimants. I consider that, by that standard, benefits will be found inadequate, but that is not a new argument.
    The technical review that was carried out by the Department of Social Security was flawed because it did not take any independent advice whatsoever. It was an internal review. The Minister is looking shocked and horrified by that suggestion, but it would have been much better had the Department taken representations from outside experts. I am sure that the experts in the Department are reliable and technically sensible, but the results would have been accepted more readily had there been some input from elsewhere. There were a number of objections. The use of household incomes instead of family incomes was a mistake, and I entirely endorse the pleas that have been made from both sides of the House today that the new series and the old series of statistics should be run in parallel if we are to achieve any sensible comparisons throughout the decade.
    The quality and timing of the statistics are a scandal. I do not know whose fault that is and I am not trying to make a cheap party political point. However, not to have data available for five years on such a crucial issue of public policy is indefensible. I do not know what the statistical problems are. I understand that the family expenditure survey takes a wee while to generate and that the figures are drawn from that. However, it is not acceptable that it has taken so long to produce information that is so essential to any Government's promulgation of sensible policy in this area.
    9.25 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I will accept your advice, Mr. Speaker, to be brief. There is one area in which I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), which is that the activity of the Select Committee on Social Services displays the work of the Select Committees at its best. The Select Committees do an excellent job. They are a most important part of this House and it is clear to me how important they are when we say to the House that we have spotted a major discrepancy in Government figures which clearly has had a bearing on Government policy.
    The Government have accepted with a good grace that they are wrong, and it is most unfortunate that the hon. Member for Oldham, West did not pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for his outstanding work. I am often critical of my party's Government, but I believe that the hon. Member for Oldham, West could have praised my right hon. Friend for his excellent work since
    556
    he has held his present office. On all occasions, he has done his best to represent the interests of those for whom he is responsible and to improve the benefits payable.
    I also give the same praise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I have known him in the House for many years. He has given outstanding service to the Department of Social Security and I only regret that he was not placed in his present position sooner to bring his guidance and dynamism to the job. I am convinced that he will do a great deal more good.
    The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Services, inspired us to take on our inquiry into minimum income statistics and he was right to do so. The Select Committee has provided a fine service to the House.
    Four major themes came from the contribution of the hon. Member for Birkenhead and from the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). They referred to the errors in the low income statistics and to the policy implications of those errors, which the Select Committee discovered and highlighted. They also spoke of how best to measure poverty/low income and about the trends in poverty/low income in recent years. I do not want to go over the ground that has been covered so capably by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and by the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
    I wish to point out to Ministers that there are problems facing us today. There are people who have not benefited from the fairly substantial growth from which so many have benefited. The hon. Member for Oldham, West pointed out that the greater percentage of people have benefited from the improvement in economic growth over the past 11 years. However, some people in my constituency are falling deeper and deeper into debt.
    As the hon. Member for Birkenhead knows, my area has seen tremendous strides made in recent years. We have had immense economic improvement in our area and it is scarcely recognisable compared with what it was 20 years ago. I have seen an immense improvement since I have been the Member of Parliament for Macclesfield. [Laughter.] I must say to the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that I do not claim full credit for the improvements, although I claim some of it. However, I still have some objectives to achieve before I finally hang up my political boots.
    For a limited number of people in my area, the problems are becoming so acute that the citizens' advice bureau has had to employ a debt counsellor for the first time ever. That finding is highlighted in the CAB's annual report, and the bureau believes that, sadly, there is worse to come. The report said:
    "Some consider that the problem is confined to the feckless, but experience shows that money difficulties are being experienced across the social strata."
    The list includes people who have fallen into multiple and single debt and those who cannot pay fuel bills, rent and rates, and, in severe cases, some who face bankruptcy.
    The bureau manager, Liz Goodman, says that at least one new person every day seeks help from the Macclesfield advice bureau:
    "It is getting out of hand. It spills over into family problems"—
    I find this sad, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Birkenhead shares my concern —
    "marriage problems and also alcohol problems."

    557
    Mrs. Goodman said that people on social security were finding life very difficult for a number of reasons because of the changes in the benefits system which took place in 1988.
    I have full confidence in the objectives that the Government have set themselves. I agree that we should target those who need help and give them more generous help, but let us also realise that the Government's objectives have not yet been achieved in the policies that they have implemented.
    I have been a member of the Select Committee for many years and I am concerned about what is happening. The Committee has done a valuable job in highlighting certain areas of concern, such as the need for more accurate statistics. I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Birkenhead about that, which were taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh. Let us use the expertise of the Institute of Fiscal Studies to produce accurate statistics which the House and the Government can use in developing social security policy.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh quoted Sir Winston Churchill. It was Sir Winston Churchill who talked about the importance of the welfare state as the net below the ladder of life, which was there so that those who slipped off the ladder, through no fault of their own, could rely upon an adequate standard of living and adequate support from the state. As a Conservative, I hope that that is what we shall achieve.
    9.32 pm
    Ms. Mildred Gordon: I represent Bow and Poplar in the borough of Tower Hamlets and unfortunately my constituency contains many poor people, a number of whom are in the lowest income brackets. The policies of this Government have dramatically increased their problems over the past 10 years, and no amount of statistical manipulation or massaging of the figures can disguise that stark fact. Every Friday evening at my surgery, men and women weep when they tell me of the problems they have in managing on very low incomes.
    In the current edition of the "Households Below Average Income" report, published in May 1988, the Government claimed that there had been an increase of 8·4 per cent. in real terms in the incomes of the bottom 10 per cent. of the population. This was found to be untrue by the research of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which showed an increase of only 2·6 per cent. Moreover, the noted social scientist, Peter Townsend, using data from the Department of Employment, demonstrated that there had, in fact, been a decrease, rather than an increase, in the incomes of the bottom 10 per cent. of the population. That has not been refuted.
    The evidence is there for all to see. Young people can be found begging in every major city in the country, and the Victorian problems of child prostitution and hunger remain. Hon. Members need only take a short walk down to the south bank to cardboard city to see for themselves the reality behind the statistics, if they have the will to do so. They would see the human tragedies behind the report that we are considering tonight.
    The statistics speak loudly of the injustice and the Government's failure. Between 1979 and 1985, the number of families on low incomes rose from 6 million to more than 9 million—a rise of more than 3 million. According
    558
    to the fourth report of the Social Services Select Committee, in 1988 the proportion of families—with children—on or below the supplementary benefit level increased from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. between 1979 and 1985.
    The Government's response to that increase in poverty has not been to introduce policies to help poor people, but to stop collecting the figures. Furthermore, they have frozen child benefit and many mothers with no independent incomes are now having to cut household spending to pay their poll tax. One of the little-mentioned effects of the poll tax has been to rearrange finances and resources within the family, leaving men with more money in their pockets and women with less. We rarely find poor children with mothers who have money to spare, but more often find poor children whose fathers might have money to jingle in their pockets.
    The Government argue that people on income support levels and below are relatively poor and not absolutely poor. However, relative to what? Perhaps it is relative to freezing or starving. On the other hand, Peter Townsend defines poverty as being a level of income so low that one is excluded in all kinds of ways from the normal activities of the community in which one lives. That is the kind of poverty that requires people to count every teahag they use. It takes a terrible toll in stress, which undermines health and personal relations between people. Insecurity and constant worry about every penny make life a misery for men and women alike, and the work burden for women is massively increased.
    It is fortunate that members of the Social Service Select Committee were not satisfied with the Government's failure to produce the necessary statistics and commissioned research from the Institute of Fiscal Studies. The institute's provisional figures show that the number of people in families on low incomes increased to at least 10 million by 1987. The indications are that further research will probably reveal an increase to 12 million—a colossal figure.
    As we have heard, the official figures are not available because the Government, who talk so piously about the individual and pay lip service to the family, have decided that individuals and families are not important when counting people who live in poverty. The Government now want to make the household the unit of measure.
    The Government how appear to believe that every person in the household will share out their income equally. That flies in the face of reality. Does any hon. Member believe that, on a Friday night, all the members of a household sit round a table, put their money in the middle and divide it up equally and fairly? That does not happen. The Government are preparing the ground for a return to the pre-Beveridge 1930s household means test. That is what is behind the changes and that is what is really happening.
    The response of the Department of Social Security to the massive increase in poverty has been to insult poor people. On 11 May 1989, in the St. Stephen's club, the then Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) delivered a speech entitled "The End of the Line of Poverty" in which he airily claimed that poverty no longer existed. That speech proved to be the end of the line for his ministerial career. Unfortunately, poverty did not disappear so easily.
    On 15 June 1988 Mr. Hickey, the assistant secretary for policy on family benefit and low income at the Department

    559
    of Health and Social Security, told members of the Social Services Select Committee that the word "poor" was one which the Government actually disputed. The Government seek to eradicate poverty not by helping poor people, but by removing the word "poverty" from their dictionary. That is their response to the huge increase in poverty and human misery over the past decade.
    The hollowness of the Government's claim that wealth has trickled down to the poorest people has been clearly exposed. Poor families know exactly what is going on. They know that their income and standard of living have been the target of Government policy.
    9.39 pm
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: From the bustle, I gather that it may be convenient if I speak for less than my allotted six minutes, so that hon. Members may have limited experience of the eloquence of the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
    I shall concentrate on targeting. I do not believe that it helps to talk about groups of people as though there were no strong differences within those groups. The problem in the approach of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and that of his party over many years is that there is insufficient discrimination within groups. Therefore, it does no good to talk about child benefit alleviating poverty if child benefit is available to a mother on the day on which she puts down her son's name for Eton. However, it makes great sense to talk about child benefit alleviating poverty if that benefit is targeted specifically and with discrimination.
    The same applies to the Opposition's policy on pensions. We are promised that, in the remote future when they finally become a Government—not a terribly likely contingency—their immediate action to alleviate poverty will include an across-the-board basic increase for pensioners. That approach is flawed if the aim is to alleviate the poverty that is suffered by the poorest pensioners.
    Within the group we call pensioners are those who enjoy substantial occupational pensions and who have paid into such schemes all their lives. In the same group are those for whom, when they were working, occupational pension schemes were not so universal, who do not have the benefit of such schemes and must rely wholly on the state pension and whatever additional benefits they may qualify for. There is a vast disparity between the circumstances of those two groups, yet all that the Opposition can offer is an across-the-board increase that will benefit rich pensioners as well as poor pensioners.
    If we are to target, it makes sense to limit across-the-board increases and spend the money that is saved on those who actually require additional help. That would help those pensioners who did not have the benefit of an occupational pension, who became pensioners at the beginning of the last Labour Government, who have suffered years of inflation during which their savings have been eroded and who have since had to survive on the results of that period of Labour Government. They are the people whom we must help. The Opposition must take that point on board. They are not talking about alleviating poverty and alleviating the circumstances of the poorest;
    560
    they are talking about popular, easy, uncosted and totally unrealistic measures that help nobody except those who do not need help.
    9.42 pm
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). I congratulate the Select Committee on its valuable work. The results bear considerable thought. We want figures that honestly and effectively highlight the real problem of low pay so that we can have policies that correspond to it.
    We in Wales know what low income means. If the European definition of pay decency is adopted—in 1989 it was 163 a week—35 per cent. of all employees in Wales are below it. In 1989, whereas the average weekly earnings of all males in Britain was £270 a week, men in Wales were earning £31 a week less. In some parts of Wales matters were chronically worse. In Dyfed, the average male manual earnings were the lowest of any county in Britain —20 per cent. of all workers in Dyfed earn less than £120 a week. Four out of 10 men and six out of 10 women in my county of Gwynedd earn less than the European decency threshold.
    One of the tables in the regional analysis has shown how patterns are changing. In Wales, 41 per cent. of families earned less than 20 per cent. of average family income in 1980–82. By the period 1983–85, that had worsened from 41 per cent. to 47 per cent. below the 70 per cent. level, whereas in south-east England the figure had decreased from 29 per cent. to 24 per cent.—which means a 5 per cent. increase in that area.
    If those trends continue, we in Wales will have a serious problem. That is why it is vital that we have more up-to-date statistics than those which have been made available. It is ridiculous that we do not have the figures for 1985–87 now. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to what can be done to overcome that difficulty.
    I turn to the Committee's conclusions about the inaccuracy of the lower decile, where the increase in real income was only 2·6 per cent. compared with the claimed 8·4 per cent. That must lead to a change of Government policy. If the figures are that different, we must have a change of policy to respond to them.
    Two or three groups of people need our particular attention. The figures relating to families have shown how those with children are overwhelmingly likely to have an income level that is below the average. To that extent, I believe that child benefit is an effective way of trying to get money to those who most need it. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Maidstone that some who do not need it will receive the benefit. However, when we consider the failure to take up other benefits—the report highlighted this, and I am aware of problems in my own constituency about the take-up of family credit—the price of giving the benefit to even those who send their children to Eton is more than made up for by ensuring that those who need the benefit actually get it.
    I should like to draw the attention of the House to something of which I know hon. Members are well aware. I refer to the poverty and low incomes of those who care for disabled people and for the need to establish a carer's benefit or payment to ensure that we are not taking unfair advantage of people who are working for next to nothing. As there are 6 million disabled people in our community, that must be important to all of us.

    561
    When we have finished arguing about the way in which we calculate the figures, it is the policy that the figures lead to that is important and the way in which we can overcome the problems of low income and ensure adequate pay. I believe that we need a national minimum wage. Although there is no time to discuss this now, I have studied some of the work on the subject that has been carried out in other countries. We need to look closely at the family credit system to ensure that it responds more quickly and sensitively to those on low incomes, and especially to those who are self-employed and on a low income, of whom I have many in my constituency.
    As I have said, child benefit and provisions for carers should be improved. We have a tremendous responsibility to get the policies right and to respond to what the figures are telling us. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government intend to do that.
    9.47 pm
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In the few minutes available to me, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in pleading with the Minister to make the 1987 figures available to us. From the questioning of his civil servants, we know that those figures have now been placed on his desk. It would help all of us if he could give us those figures at the earliest possible opportunity and certainly before he and his ministerial colleagues appeared before the Select Committee in two weeks' time to answer our questions. We need time to consider the figures carefully.
    I heard the pleas for more targeting that were made by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). However, it seems odd that the whole thrust of our report was that, despite the Government's claims to have carried out so much targeting in at least the first five of their 10 years in office, targeting had missed. It had failed to reach the target. We should therefore call into question that whole process.
    I regret that the Government are not prepared to consider publishing budgets to show the way in which Ministers think that the money should be spent. However, I understand why they do not do it—because they know it is an impossible task. Nevertheless, it would be helpful in the task of convincing the rest of the country and in ensuring that other people are prepared to take a little bit less so that people on the lowest incomes can have a little bit more. In the early part of this century, it was people such as Charles Booth and those involved in the Rowntree effort which showed people the impossibility facing those who had to survive on the lowest incomes who convinced people that we had to start a system of benefits. Publishing budgets would be a useful approach.
    I plead with the Government to look carefully at the problems of those who are in poverty for long periods. My hon. Friends have challenged Ministers on whether hon. Members could live on benefit for a week. We know the difficulties that at least one of our former colleagues encountered when trying to do that. For many people, the greatest problem is the long period in which they are in poverty.
    What help can the Minister offer one of my constituents whom I visited the other day? He is 65 and a widower. He is on basic pension and a little income support. He has not
    562
    worked for the past eight years, not through any fault of his own but because he was one of those made redundant to make industry in Denton leaner and fitter.
    My constituent's flat is spotlessly clean, but everything in it cries out his poverty. He has a black and white television. His only form of entertainment is a black and white television. His cooker and his fridge are extremely old and worn. He has worries about the safety of his electric kettle, but he has patched it up. There is nothing new in the flat. Even his newspaper comes pushed through from next door a few hours late to keep down his expenses. His carpet is threadbare. His curtains need replacing.
    My constituent has lived in poverty for eight years since he lost his job. He is just starting life as a pensioner. His prospects are that he will live the rest of his life in poverty. It is long-term poverty. He has lost any savings that he had.
    What sort of help can the Minister offer my constituent? There are many millions of such people in this country. What hope can the Minister offer that, in the next few years, their lives will be made more pleasant and that they will enjoy some of the luxuries that some of us take for granted?
    9.51 pm
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I hope that the House will understand that in replying to such a wide-ranging debate in the minutes that are left, I cannot deal with every point that has been raised.
    The subject of the debate is immensely complex. Anyone who studies it carefully rather than superficially knows that poverty cannot be solved by waving a wand or by any particular policy approach. Indeed, when one reads some of the academic work on the subject, one is convinced that it is not merely complex but arcane in the extreme. Yet, for some reason, some people use it— I might limit myself to saying one person—as a political ping-pong campaign simply to score points against the Government, knowing full well that when their party was in office—this would be so if it were in office again—it found that the problem was not susceptible to easy, simplistic solutions.
    Mr. Meacher: I did not say that there were simplistic solutions, but we could make some improvements.
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman will resist making sedentary interventions, I shall deal with some of the points that he made.
    I listened carefully to the points made by the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) about regional differences. I am not convinced by the arguments. I shall read each of their speeches in detail and the points made, as well as the comments of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the regional work that it has done. I am not convinced that we would benefit greatly from putting considerable resources into regional work. There would be differences between regions and within regions. The special position of particular towns, communities and hamlets within a region might mean that simple regional work is not particularly illuminative.
    I am grateful for this opportunity to respond to the debate and, indeed, for the work of the Select Committee. I was never a Chairman of a Select Committee. I was what

    563
    the Americans would call a majority leader on a Select Committee at the beginning of the experiment. The Select Committee system has developed effectively.
    The Select Committee has done effective work in producing its report. Neither the Chairman nor the members will expect me to agree with every word of it, but we shall respond constructively in due course to the suggestions that they have made. I hope that that will be acceptable.
    I shall make some general observations on the issues before the House tonight before dealing with the speeches of individual hon. Members. To some extent, I repeat my opening remarks when I recall the remarks made in the New Statesman and Society in its debate on poverty. It said:
    "The debate…has become the modern equivalent of the Schleswig-Holstein question, which, said Palmerston, only three people ever understood—but one had died, one had gone mad, and the third [Palmerston himself] had forgotten all about it."
    It is easy to get to grips with the subject briefly, but it is difficult to sustain a command of all of it.
    I was especially impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is Chairman of the Select Committee. However, he made a few points with which I must take issue. He mentioned the position of the poorest in our society, and his remarks were echoed by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I know that there are people in our society who suffer poverty. They do not go in and out of poverty, but suffer it for prolonged periods. It would have been proper for the hon. Member for Birkenhead to recognise the steps that the Government have taken recently to help the poor, especially pensioners and families with children, by seeking to concentrate the resources available in an attempt to alleviate their position.
    In case I do not have the opportunity to advert to it again, I must say that I had considerable sympathy with the comments of the Select Committee on the need to make some study of the composition of the lowest decile of the poor—the extent to which people move in and out of poverty, what traps people into those circumstances, what might move them down from higher in the scale, and what might be done to alleviate it.
    The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked me three particular questions. First, he asked when the 1987 figures would be available. We are anxious to produce them as soon——
    Mr. Frank Field: Soon?
    Mr. Scott: Yes, as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the hon. Gentleman explaining the time scale. We want to respond to the Select Committee, publish the figures and meet the sort of suggestions put forward by the Committee in producing both the reports.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman suggested that we might privatise all that work and hand it over to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It is interesting that such a suggestion should come from an Opposition Member. I do not doubt that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has done excellent work, but it has done so with the fullest and most
    564
    constructive co-operation of the statisticians within the Department, who work with tremendous dedication and utter integrity.
    At the risk of not being able to respond to many of the other points raised, I wish to deal with some of those raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)——
    Mr. Frank Field: The Minister has not answered my third question. Has he seen the 1987 figures, and are they better or worse than the 1985 figures?
    Mr. Scott: I have seen only a preliminary analysis of those figures. Obviously, I want to see the final outcome of that work. I shall see that at about the same time as the House and everyone else sees it. The hon. Gentleman has made a brave effort to rescue his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West from some of his more absurd allegations.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West suggested that the Government withdrew the low-income families figures because they showed an uncomfortable rise in 1985. If he had taken the trouble to look at those figures, he would know that the numbers on supplementary benefit or below 140 per cent. of that level actually fell, not rose, between 1983 and 1985, so the hon. Gentleman's allegation was absurd. Secondly, he alleged that we have made it our policy to delay and conceal the low income statistics, but that simply does not stand up to the light of day. On only one occasion did we publish the statistics on the day that the House rose for the recess.
    None of the hon. Gentleman's allegations stands up to analysis. He said that the Institute for Fiscal Studies had produced figures in the low-income family series for 1987 showing that the number for those below income support for that year was 18·5 million—7 million more than in 1979. That is an utter perversion of reality. The figure does not refer to those on supplementary benefit, but to those on or below 140 per cent. of a hypothetical income support level——
    Mr. Meacher: That is what I said.
    Mr. Scott: I shall consider carefully what the hon. Gentleman said, but in any case it is a wholly discredited low income level. Had the hon. Gentleman read the IFS report in full he would have seen on page 2 the following words, which are underlined:
    "These tables are not low income families' tables for 1987."
    The IFS was doing its best to ensure that no misguided reader would compare the figures with those for 1979, but that is precisely what the hon. Member for Oldham, West has done. The report goes on to describe in seven lengthy paragraphs three major reasons why the 1987 IFS analyses could not be compared with the low income families figures for earlier years. I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West will withdraw his remarks.
    The Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).
    It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on Estimates, 1990–91 (Class VI, vote I and Class XIV, vote 7).

    Class XIV, Vote 7

      CLASS VI, VOTE 1
      Question, That Class VI, vote 1 be reduced by £100,000 in respect of Subhead H1 (Skills Training Agency running costs), put and negatived.
      Resolved,
      That a further sum, not exceeding £1,286,770,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Employment on improving, promoting and disseminating training among individuals, small firms and employers, encouraging enterprise, running services for small firms and the Enterprise Allowance Scheme, providing training programmes for young people and adults, providing employment rehabilitation services, technical and vocational education, work-related further education and the costs of the Skills Training Agency until privatisation, on the administration of training and enterprise, and central and miscellaneous services.

      CLASS XIV, VOTE 7
      Resolved,
      That a further sum, not exceeding £991,572,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, and for certain other services including grants to local authorities, voluntary organisations, and major capital works projects for the Department of Health, including telecommunications capital.

Overseas Development and Co-operation
10.1 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.
The International Fund for Agricultural Development —IFAD—was set up to help the most-disadvantaged sections of society in rural areas of developing countries to increase food production. Its focus is the small farmer, nomadic pastoralists, artisarial fishermen, the landless and rural women. IFAD's operations are relatively small-scale. In its first decade of operations, it has committed $2·8 billion for roughly 260 projects, an average of $10 million per loan.
Smallness is a characteristic of the organisation in other ways. It was designed to have only a small professional core staff, and to work primarily through other international agencies. Funding has also been on a relatively modest scale. These factors have shaped the institution and explain the rather special place it occupies in the network of institutions channelling assistance to developing countries.
Partly because of those various influences—its specific mandate to assist the rural poor, its small size as an institution and the relatively modest financial resources at its disposal—IFAD has been making greater efforts over the past few years to target its activities more closely on disadvantaged groups.
The causes of rural poverty are complex. They include scarcity of land, harsh environmental and climatic conditions, isolation and lack of assets to cushion the poor against unforeseen events or emergencies. Improving access of the poor to resources—water for irrigation and sanitation, fertilisers and seeds for increased agricultural production, marketing facilities for the sale of produce and so on—is one of the main aims of IFAD-assisted projects.
IFAD gives high priority to beneficiary participation in all stages of the project cycle, from design and appraisal onwards. One way it does this is through group lending —that is, village groups, farmer organisations, women's groups and other grassroots organisations. IFAD has pioneered a number of ways of facilitating access to credit by the rural poor, who are frequently ignored by traditional financing mechanisms.
Group lending, because of peer pressure, reduces the risk of default, as well as making it cheaper to reach small-scale borrowers. Perhaps the best-known example of this is the Grameen bank in Bangladesh, which has successfully provided credit to those traditionally regarded as the greatest credit risks, the landless or near landless and women. About four fifths of the loans are to women, whose repayment record, I am sure the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) will be glad to know, is better than that of the men, although the bank's overall default rate is extremely low.
The loans finance a wide range of income-generating activities, including livestock, poultry and fisheries, small-scale processing and manufacturing, and trading or shopkeeping. IFAD was the first international agency to provide assistance to the Grameen bank.
A similar group lending approach has been used in the small farmer development programme in the hill regions of

567
Nepal, in the village development fund project in Mali, in the small-scale rural operations project in Senegal, and in many other IFAD-assisted projects.
IFAD is conscious of the link between rural poverty and environmental degradation, and how the weight of population growth in many regions, especially Africa, will exacerbate these pressures. Last year, IFAD produced an excellent discussion paper on the need to ensure effective integration of environmental issues into its lending operations. IFAD recognises that unless those issues are directly addressed, its efforts to alleviate rural poverty will be frustrated and the long-term sustainability of its projects undermined.
In Mali, IFAD has a project which aims to rehabilitate a poor pastoral community in an area devastated by drought, by focusing on improved soil and water conservation techniques. In Senegal, an agro-forestry project is helping to arrest environmental degradation caused by overcropping and excessive tree clearance. In Bangladesh, IFAD's ox-bow lake fisheries project is helping small-scale fishermen to develop sustainable fisheries by introducing biologically sound management practices.
Another policy orientation that we welcome is IFAD's efforts to promote the economic welfare of rural women by incorporating specific components into projects that are targeted at their needs. I have seen this recently in Bangladesh, where a credit union scheme through BRAC —the Bangladesh rural action committee—is working very well. We are now supporting BRAC through a new project which will extend the geographical coverage of BRAC's rural development programme and establish a new rural credit finance mechanism. The total cost is US$50 million. We will contribute 25 per cent. A recently approved Smallholder project in Ghana, for example, was preceded by a socio-economic survey that indicated that households headed by women accounted for more than one third of the target group; and a credit allocation of appropriate size specifically earmarked for women was incorporated into the project.
In India, the Tamil Nadu women's development project will offer opportunities in a wide range of income-generating activities, from horticulture and silkworm rearing to business courses and marketing skills. There is a dovetailing of formal and informal credit schemes with women's groups. The project is targeted to benefit some 40,000.
In the north-west province of Cameroon, an IFAD project has helped to increase food output significantly, and women farmers have been able to sell surpluses of maize to neighbouring areas. The project has introduced a soil conservation programme that promotes integrated crop and animal husbandry and safeguards the environment.
Because of these efforts to target assistance more effectively towards the poorest and most disadvantaged groups, IFAD attaches great weight to evaluation activities. It needs to weigh which approaches are successful, and which are less successful. We welcome its efforts systematically to incorporate lessons learned from previous activities in the design of new projects. The bulk of IFAD's resources, some two thirds of the total, are concentrated on the poorest countries
568
IFAD also operates in middle-income countries, however, in areas where there are pockets of poverty. To some extent, IFAD's desire to maintain a broad geographical coverage is understandable. But its projects are small in size, and the active loan portfolio in any one country is also small—often no more than two or three projects. We think that operating in so many countries is not warranted given IFAD's small size; and we should prefer to see a greater concentration of resources and effort in the poorest countries, espicially in Africa and Asia.
There are calls to the contrary, of course, especially from Latin American members of the fund, but we think management risks overstretching itself in attempting to respond to those demands. In our view, IFAD would stand a better chance of demonstrating the effectiveness of its approach to rural poverty alleviation if its resources were not spread so thinly across the globe.
Apart from the issue of regional allocation of resources, IFAD's credentials are solid. It has a dedicated team of professionals under the leadership of its president, Idriss Jazairy, a national of Algeria. Given its poverty-focused mandate and efficient operating style, the question may be asked why it has such difficulty in raising the resources it requires. The answer to that conundrum lies in the institutional structure of the organisation. IFAD was founded on the basis of a partnership between three distinct groups of countries. Each holds one third of the voting power and one third of the seats on the board of directors. Category I consists of OECD countries, category II of OPEC countries, and category III covers non-oil exporting developing countries.
Because IFAD is a partnership, it receives its funding from contributions negotiated jointly between category and category II. It started off for the period 1977–80 with just over $1 billion. Of that, 57 per cent. came from OECD countries and 43 per cent. from OPEC countries. The western donors argued from the outset that categories I and II should contribute equally, as each holds an equal stake in the institution. That was resisted by OPEC members and has been an issue at the root of IFAD's subsequent funding difficulties.
The third replenishment negotiations were concluded last year. In an effort to raise a higher total than last time, and in recognition of the continuing financial constraints on OPEC members, a two-pronged strategy evolved. First, OECD donors agreed that they would match contributions by OPEC donors in the traditional way, in a burden-sharing ratio of 60:40. That was the ratio established during the second replenishment negotiations. That element became known as the core funding.
Secondly, OECD countries agreed to match contributions in convertible currencies by other developing countries in a favourable ratio of 3:1, in the expectation that exceptional efforts by that group of countries would act as a spur to the OPEC donors. This became known as the supplementary funding element.
In the event, category II, OPEC donors, pledged $124·4 million, compared with $184 million last time. That sum will be matched by category I, OECD donors, in the ratio 60:40—that is, $186·6 million. The United Kingdom's share of that core-funding element is $8·9 million, representing 4·78 per cent. of category I's total contribution.
Category III, other developing countries, set itself a target of $75 million. Pledges of $63·8 million were realised. The OECD matching element for that

569
supplementary financing, therefore, will be $191·5 million. The United Kingdom share will be $10·9 million. Thus, the total resources raised in the third replenishment, will be $566 million. Of that, OECD countries will provide $378 million—two thirds of the total. That will cover IFAD's operations for the period up to 30 June 1992.
The outcome was more successful than the second replenishment, which raised only $487 million. Nevertheless, the underlying issue of the relative burden sharing between OECD and OPEC countries remains. Category III, other developing countries, regard their efforts in this replenishment as an exceptional measure, not establishing a precedent for future replenishment exercises.
The results of this replenishment have reinforced the view that serious examination must be given to IFAD's future financial basis before the negotiations on the next replenishment begin. A so-called high-level intergovernmental committee began consideration of these issues in 1986, but after some useful initial work, its work was suspended while the third replenishment was negotiated.
The committee will be resuming its work soon, in an effort to find a more acceptable solution that will put IFAD's resources on a more secure footing for the future. The crucial aim, as we see it, will be to engage OPEC countries in a frank and open dialogue, to see how their perceptions of the assumptions underlying the original foundation of IFAD have changed. We may need to realign the structure, and the voting power, so that it better reflects relative financial stakes in the institution.
The draft order authorises the Secretary of State to pay the British contribution to the new replenishment. Subject to parliamentary approval, we shall contribute £11·3 million, which is equivalent to over $19 million at the agreed exchange rate.
As I said earlier, our share of the total OECD core contribution remains the same as for the last replenishment—about 4·8 per cent. We intend to pay in three instalments, by depositing non-interest-bearing promissory notes. The first of the notes has to be deposited within 30 days of our instrument of contribution coming into effect, the second on the anniversary of the entry into effect of the replenishment, and the last by 30 June 1992. We expect them to be encashed over a period of years from about January 1992. The arrangements include provision for other countries to modify their contributions pro rata if one or more donors fail to meet their obligations in full.
I know that some of this may seem complicated, but the hon. Member for Cynon Valley wanted to know the detail of the IFAD replenishment, and as it crops up only once every few years, and I thought it worthwhile to put it on record. I commend the draft order to the House, in the conviction that its approval will help IFAD to continue its profoundly important work with the full support of the British Government and people.
10.16 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Minister's enthusiasm for the International Fund for Agricultural Development is widely shared. IFAD plays a vital and unique role in development. As the only multilateral agency with a mandate to focus exclusively on agriculture, and particularly on poor farmers, it deserves our full support.
570
IFAD's focus on agriculture is unusual in today's world of economic adjustment. Its social focus on poor and marginal people in developing countries is even more remarkable. Most important of all, it succeeds in reaching and assisting poor farmers. The democratic basis of IFAD is also unique, thanks to the equal distribution of power between the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries and developing countries. IFAD has the full confidence and participation of Governments of developing countries. It is perceived in both the north and the south as more responsive to the needs of developing countries than other United Nations or World bank institutions.
The importance of agriculture in development cannot be underestimated. More than two thirds of the labour force in most African developing countries work in agriculture. For the poorer citizens, agricultural production is the basis of their livelihood. Nothing—except perhaps water—is more important than the production of food. Farmers rely on what they can grow, and herdsmen rely on what they can obtain from their cattle.
The importance of agriculture is increasing for several reasons. With the world's population set to double to 10 billion, it is essential that agricultural production increases at the same rate. However, that is not happening. Agricultural output per head is declining in many countries, especially in Africa, where there were 100 million undernourished people by the early 1980s. Urban populations are increasing rapidly and that puts an extra burden on farmers, who must produce enough to support themselves and urban dwellers. The importance of agriculture is also increasing, because the pressure of rising population makes improvements in agriculture not only more urgent, but also more difficult.
In many areas there is not enough fertile land. Pressure on the land causes declining crop yields and overgrazing. Competition for land pushes farmers on to marginal land on the edge of the desert or in newly cleared forest. That only exacerbates the process of soil erosion, land degradation and the encroaching of the desert. Those environmental problems are mounting. We know now that the effects are cumulative and tend to be irreversible. It has proved only too easy to set off the vicious circle of land clearance, soil erosion, decreased fertility of the land, disappearing vegetation and an increasingly arid climate. There is no evidence that we can so easily reverse the process to achieve thicker vegetation and improved land fertility, humidity and productivity.
Therefore, immediate action to invest in environmentally-sound agricultural techniques is essential. That means that the long-term value of IFAD's investments in environmental protection, such as its projects to assist families with soil and water conservation in Lesotho, is immeasurable.
Despite the overwhelming importance of agriculture, it has been pushed to the sidelines over the past decade. Many donors and institutions tried with enthusiasm to work with small farmers in the 1960s and 1970s, but encountered problems and gave up. They are now focusing on structural adjustments, macro-economic planning and free markets.
IFAD continues to promote agricultural development. It is persevering and succeeding where many others have failed. For example, in Niger, IFAD projects have resulted in a 40 per cent. increase in crops.

571
Unfortunately, the British aid programme of the Government puts less priority on agriculture than other donors and institutions. In 1988, according to the OECD, only 9·1 per cent. of British aid was committed to agricultural developments, less than average for the Development Assistance Committee of OECD donors. It is a poor comparison to the 22 per cent. of Irish aid, 26 per cent. of Danish aid, 23 per cent. of Dutch aid, 21 per cent. of Swiss aid, 17 per cent. of Belgium aid and 23 per cent. of EC, World bank and United Nations aid.
Therefore, a renewed focus on agriculture is urgently needed. More research is needed on agricultural techniques which are appropriate for poor farmers, and on methods of adapting to a warmer climate, but the Government are cutting funding for agricultural research.
If IFAD had invested in agricultural developments by funding large private high-technology farms, producing cash crops from the labour of landless peasants, I would probably not have bothered to be here tonight. The strength of IFAD is that it works with the poorest and the most marginal in society. It supplies credit for investments, as the Minister said, to exactly those people who have least access to credit from the usual sources.
It is not just the quantity of agricultural crops produced that matters, but the quantity of food available to families. Too often development planners overlook the critical issues of food security in their eagerness for gross national product growth. Markets do not supply the family food; the family does. IFAD's approach recognises that.
Working with the poor is difficult at times, but also essential. Let me take Ethiopia as an example. Even if the rains fall for the next harvest, many farmers will have no tools or cattle to work with; they sold them off in sheer desperation to obtain food. IFAD has made loans to 70,000 peasants to buy oxen so that they can produce their own food next time round
A major factor in IFAD's success is its willingness to take up new ideas and new approaches, particularly ideas from farmers at the bottom, not the planners at the top. By building institutions within the local community, it provides projects with a secure foundation. Making loans through peer groups has achieved repayment rates of 95 per cent. in many countries.
Development funds have shifted away from the poor since the 1960s commitment to basic needs. Too many development planners are forgetting what development is, or should be, all about—improving the quality of life for the majority of people in developing countries. It is not just about percentage changes in gross national product, or about tonnes of concrete or miles of roads, or about changes in the trade balance. They are important, but they are only means to the desired end of improving people's lives. By working directly with poor farmers, particularly women, IFAD goes straight to the heart of development.
Of course IFAD could do even better. On the ground, it is not quite as ideal as it appears to be on paper. Like many international organisations, it faces the problems of bureaucracy and inflexibility. Its lack of field staff compounds the problem. Implementation of projects is slow. Its commitments to working with women and to taking full account of the environment are yet to be fully translated into action at every level. However, there is evidence that IFAD is doing better than many in limiting
572
these bureaucratic difficulties. I hope that the Government will play a constructive role within IFAD to ensure that it intensifies its efforts to reach women farmers and to adapt to their special needs, such as lack of legal status or of property to serve as collateral.
Given the importance of IFAD's work, the third replenishment is disappointingly inadequate. It does little to make up the losses suffered in the second replenishment. When IFAD began work in 1978, it had $217 million a year. That is equivalent to $396 million in 1990 terms. Therefore, this year's funding of $211 million represents a cut of 47 per cent. since 1978. The third replenishment would need to be increased by 40 per cent. if IFAD were to regain its initial financial strength in 1991. Nevertheless, with the Minister, I am glad that agreement has at last been reached on a third replenishment.
I particularly applaud the exceptional contributions made by category 3 members—the developing countries. Nigeria, Gabon, Venezuela and others have increased their contributions, despite going through a difficult period of economic adjustment. I welcome the decision by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development members, category 1, to match these contributions on a ratio of 3:1. I am glad, too, that a high-level intergovernmental committee is considering the future financial situation of IFAD. I hope that at the meeting in Rome next Monday, and in future meetings, the United Kingdom Government will seek to ensure stable and sufficient funding for IFAD in the future. I welcome the Minister's assurances on that point.
The third replenishment was disappointing, but the Government's attitude to the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa is, I am afraid, lamentable. The special programme for sub-Saharan Africa was launched in 1977 to enable IFAD to give greater support to agricultural development in Africn countries, stricken by drought and the encroaching desert, at a time of acute economic crisis. Since then there has been general approval of its work. By the end of the year, IFAD will have 30 projects in 24 sub-Saharan countries.
However, when a second phase of the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa was suggested in January, the Government stood out alone against a chorus of support to oppose the proposal. France, Belgium and Italy all supported the programme. Every African member of IFAD supported it. Latin American countries—Colombia and Argentina—supported it. Australia and Pakistan gave their support.
Why did the United Kingdom oppose it? There can be only two explanations of the Government's opposition. First, perhaps the Government believe that the first phase of the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa has not been successful. I ask the Minister whether the programme has been successful in raising the target funding of $300 million through voluntary contributions. Has it been successful in committing those funds for projects in sub-Saharan Africa? Has IFAD successfully co-ordinated the special programme with the work of the regular programme in sub-Saharan Africa? Has the Minister evidence of that? Does the Minister agree with the analysis of the United States and other donors that IFAD's work in Africa is generally positive? I doubt whether the Minister can answer no to any of those questions. The right hon. Lady can surely not oppose the second phase of the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa on the ground that it has not worked.

573
Possibly the only other reason for opposing the extension of the special programme is a belief that the situation in Africa no longer merits the programme. Is it believed that there is no longer an extreme and urgent crisis that needs priority attention? Is that what the Minister really believes? We are faced with the facts that GNP per capita is only $330, and has fallen by 2·8 per cent. since the 1980s, that debt service is 15 times greater than export earnings in sub-Saharan Africa, and that agriculture production per capita is falling. Surely no one can argue that Africa has recovered from the economic crisis of the 1980s.
Given the crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, especially that of agriculture, the region must be a priority for IFAD. The special programme ensures that Africa receives the special attention that it needs. If the programme is not extended, funds for IFAD's work in sub-Saharan Africa will be cut by 40 per cent.
Why should Africa be a priority for IFAD's work? Given the severe economic crisis, African countries do not have the funds themselves to invest in agriculture. In 1988, for example, $21·7 billion were transferred from Africa to the industrialised countries. As a result, investment in rural infrastructure and agriculture has plummeted. Donors are spending billions of dollars on structural adjustment programmes. Therefore, there should be an adequate response to the needs of the poorest who suffer the worst impact of recession.
The projects of IFAD assist those who are at the sharp end. The programmes of other donors that are aimed at alleviating the social impact of adjustment work mainly with urban consumers who are hit by higher prices for basic goods and the problems of those who lose their jobs in the trimming of state bureaucracies. In contrast, IFAD works with the very poorest. It can both shield them and help them to take advantage of opportunities that are provided by an improved economic climate.
As everyone knows, agriculture is even more important in Africa than it is in other developing countries.
Eighty-four per cent. of Mozambicans, 77 per cent. of Ethiopians and 79 per cent. of Tanzanians work in agriculture. Most of the farmers are smallholders and women. Women produce 80 per cent. of family food.
The World bank has described the immense challenge facing agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. It says:
"The task facing African agriculture in the 1990s and beyond is formidable indeed. It must cope with the needs of a rapidly growing population. It must achieve sufficient growth in food crops not merely to maintain output per person, but also to reduce food calorie deficits and to lower food imports. In the process, it must be a major employer of Africa's growing labour and compete on world markets to earn the foreign exchange that Africa needs to fuel its economic growth. And it must do all that while reversing the degradation of natural resources that threatens long-term production. This challenge requires a transformation of agriculture."
The World bank estimates that to meet that challenge, agricultural growth should reach 4 per cent. a year compared with a record of only 2 per cent. over the past 20 years. Clearly that will require an enormous effort on the part of farmers, African Governments, agricultural researchers, western donors and IFAD.
We all know that the environmental problems in Africa are immense. We have heard much from the Overseas Development Administration about protecting the global environment, and about projects for the rain forests, biodiversity and energy efficiency. However, in our
574
concern for the headline issues of global warming and tropical rain forests, we must not forget the mundane environmental problems that threaten millions of Africans every day.
Deforestation in arid—not tropical—areas has been a major problem for many years. Women in Africa spend hours every day hunting for fuel wood. Only when deforestation became a problem for the atmosphere, not just for the poor, did the world start to sit up and take note. If this Government are truly committed to caring for the environment for the sake of the poor, and not just to producing glossy brochures and green platitudes, they will invest in tree planting projects in arid areas, in soil conservation and in local small-scale irrigation with the same enthusiasm that they put into tropical forests and biodiversity. If the Government emphasise such a commitment, IFAD and its special programme for sub-Saharan Africa provide a suitable channel to translate that commitment into reality.
There is now a new threat to Africa—the risk of the diversion of funds to eastern Europe. The Government have repeated many times that there will be no diversion of aid funds from Africa to eastern Europe this year, but they will give no assurances for future years. The sorry comparison between the Government's eagerness in setting up know-how funds for eastern Europe and the bank for European reconstruction and development, and their opposition to a second phase of the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa tells a different tale. It is clear that Africa will lose funds if the special programme fund is not extended. It is shocking that the United Kingdom Government are the main opponent of that extension.
The most recent threat to Africa came from the Foreign Secretary last week. He waved the big stick, threatening to withdraw aid if African countries did not toe the line on free markets and elections. Many of his goals—democracy and economic growth—are desired by us all, but threatening to withdraw aid from the world's poorest is not the way to achieve them. The Labour party, of course, wants to see the Governments of developing countries pursue sound environmental policies, promote social progress and respect human rights. We do and will encourage such aims. However, democracy cannot be established overnight, and during the transition period we should not be penalising the impoverished citizens of those countries when we could be helping them.
Voluntary contributions to the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa have partially mitigated the effect of the overall cut in IFAD's regular funds on the poorest, most drought-stricken countries. The special programme enables donors who are willing to give extra support to the worst-off countries without breaking the principle of equal shares between OPEC and OECD in the regular programme. As long as OPEC countries feel unable to commit more money, and as long as OECD countries, particularly the United States, are unwilling for OECD contributions to outstrip OPEC funding, the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa will be essential to fund IFAD's work there.
Ideally, in the long term, the special programme will be incorporated into the regular programme. I hope that the high-level group currently working on IFAD's future funding will establish a system so that a high level of funding and a high degree of commitment to sub-Saharan Africa can be maintained through the regular programme.

575
But that will not happen yet. Until such a system is established, it is essential to extend the special programme for a second phase.
Thanks to the first phase of the special programme, 50 per cent. of IFAD's funds have been devoted to sub-Saharan Africa. If the special programme is ended, less than 35 per cent. of IFAD's funds will go to Africa. I stress again that that means that Africa's support will fall by 40 per cent.
I suggest that, by opposing the second phase, the Government are trying to deny Africa millions of pounds. They are actually trying to prevent other donors from making contributions that they are willing to give by closing down the channel for those funds. Surely, even if the Government do not want to contribute to the special fund, there can be no reason for closing down the options of other donors.
I hope that the Government will not only support the idea of extending the special programme for a second phase but will make a sizeable contribution. After all, had the third replenishment reached the original target of $750 million, the United Kingdom's share would be an extra $6·4 million. We should be ready to put that much and more into the special programme.
Even when the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa was launched, the United Kingdom was a recalcitrant supporter and an ungenerous donor. The
576
Government contributed $12·7 million, whereas Belgium contributed $33·7 million, France $34·6 million, Italy $33 million and Sweden $21·5 million. So the United Kingdom's share of the OECD contribution on the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa was 4·41 per cent. of the total from all countries.
I hope that the Minister will not dismiss the idea with the argument that the Government give extra support to Africa in other ways. The proportion of British aid that goes to sub-Saharan Africa is 42 per cent., compared to 69 per cent. from Ireland, 68 per cent. from Belgium and 57 per cent. from Italy. Certainly we give aid to Africa through other multilaterals, but it is not targeted on the poor.
What should the Government do? They should support the special programme for Africa and make a large contribution to it. More important, they should increase the shockingly low overall aid budget, so that the United Kingdom could afford to make extra contributions without denying funds to other worthy projects. The current aid budget of 0·32 per cent. of gross national product is one of the most miserly in Europe. It is planned to increase by less than 1 per cent. a year in real terms, even on the Government's optimistic inflation forecast. That is despicable.
Only when the Labour party is in power, with a commitment to reaching a 0·7 per cent. of GNP target in five years, will the United Kingdom even approach playing its full role in supporting developments around the world, and particularly developments in Africa.
10.44 pm
Mr. Jim Lester: I almost hesitate to intervene in this debate after we have heard two eminent ladies discuss this very important replenishment. They both dealt fully with the amount of money that goes from the fund to women in Africa. Although I am a mere male, I have had a tremendous interest in the development of IFAD and its work, and I thought that I should support and welcome the third replenishment and the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) struck a slightly discordant note. My right hon. Friend the Minister told us how the proportions of support for IFAD were renegotiated from its original context. The OECD countries should be commended for picking up the shortfall of the other partners. I welcome the contributions made by the developing countries, but the fact that we have taken on a higher proportion of the assistance to keep the fund going should be commended and not criticised. I remember how critical the lobbying was in earlier years for the fund to continue. I welcome the change of atmosphere which my right hon. Friend the Minister revealed in that we are now considering a normal replenishment and we are taking a long look ahead at the way in which it can continue.
All of us who follow these matters support the IFAD principle and operation. That reflects great credit on Idriss Jazairy, who runs the organisation. We should seek to develop agriculture especially among the poorest wherever they are in the world. We all recognise that over the next decade and beyond it is essential to retain that commitment to rural improvement.
We recognise more clearly now that, although food is important and of course we want to encourage people to develop self-sufficiency and to provide the amount of food that they require in their communities, we must also encourage them to diversify from the traditional crops. Part of the problem with developing countries is their history of producing basic commodities for export. Those commodities can be profitable one year, but disastrously unprofitable the next because of changes in world commodity prices and the way they function.
I realised only relatively recently how little development of agriculture has taken place in many of the poorest countries with regard to the ability to exchange trade one country with another within regional groupings. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to Mali. That country produced a surplus of wheat last year, but, because of a lack of infrastructure, it cannot sell that surplus to its neighbours which desperately need wheat. Mali's neighbours have to import it from hard currency countries. There is much that we could encourage IFAD to do, not only in improving the quality of growing food, but with regard to the range of crops and the development of regional markets, so that people in the countries concerned can improve their own position by trading with each other.
We must also consider the proportion given to the poorest families. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Minister can tell us what the criteria are for the poorest families. Those criteria are critical. Those of us who travel widely in marginal areas know just how difficult it is to support those families and how difficult it is to get alongside them. We know how difficult it is for extension workers to operate in what are very often hard conditions
578
and spend the necessary time to bring about a change in pastoral habits and nomadic practices. We are not talking about schemes that will last one, two or three years or even, in parliamentary terms, four or five years. Often it will take 20 or 25 years for schemes to come to fruition and change those habits. That is why it is so important to recognise the criterion, the poorest, and to ensure that a large proportion is given.
The next point is how we link IFAD's priorities and operations with the ODA's aims and operations. Until I heard the speech by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, I had always imagined that 68 per cent. of our ODA funds went to the poorest. I understand also that a high proportion goes to agriculture. A Select Committee report entitled "UK Aid to African Agriculture" analyses the figures.
One can often get an odd impression of what is agricultural and what benefits agriculture. Those of us who travel widely know that a road, for instance, may not be mentioned in the agricultural budget. However, a road that enables poor farmers to get their produce to big markets is essential to the development of rural agriculture. One has only to go to Kenya to see that. In countries such as Tanzania, food surpluses are produced in the highlands and in some other parts, but farmers literally cannot transport it to Dar es Salaam in time for the population to eat it before it gets overripe. Therefore, more food is imported to feed the urban population.
When we talk about necessary proportions for agriculture, we should recognise that agriculture requires access to markets. That is part and parcel of the development that we should encourage.
I have been involved in several recent conferences at which concern was expressed about the diversion of aid to eastern Europe affecting Africa and other developing countries. That topic is raised in almost every third-world country that one visits. I understand from the European Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that there is no question of diverting ODA funds to eastern Europe. Although we want to assist eastern Europe, no country in eastern Europe is sufficiently poor to qualify for ODA funds.
As far as I am aware, know-how funds, industrial funds and so on for eastern Europe have been additional to the agreed, expanding figures for ODA budgets. I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that any suggestion that there should be any diversion of ODA funds to eastern Europe would be severely resisted. I am convinced that that option is not being considered. Norway's Minister responsible for overseas development made precisely that point.
The Americans have been the only people to divert short-term funds. I understand from their Minister that they have clawed it back. It was a matter of short-termism. The Italian Government have diverted funds in the first year. Again, I understand that the money will be clawed back. Funds that are desperately required for development in the third world should not be used for eastern Europe. That is a wholly different matter, even though it might come within my right hon. Friend's responsibility.
I disagree with the interpretation by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at the conference on prospects for Africa. We are talking about political conditionality and withdrawing aid from countries that do not meet certain standards. The voices that I have heard come from Africa as much as anywhere else.

579
If we want to see economic recovery and the standards of living of the poorest in such countries increase, I should have thought that we would need to ensure democratic accountability. That is one of the conditions that we have accepted for eastern Europe. We need Governments who seek to be free from corruption and who follow policies that profitably and sensibly utilise the resources that we want to transfer to them. It makes no sense to offer funds to Governments whose track record is such that the funds do not achieve the objectives that we all seek for the people of those Governments.
There is no suggestion that that would in any way damage humanitarian interests in countries such as Ethiopia, the policies of whose Government we have never supported, but we have none the less given millions and millions of pounds of humanitarian aid to ensure that people do not starve. If the Ethiopian Government began to have policies that we could see were benefiting their people, I would be one of the very first to encourage a development programme for that Government.
I do not accept that there is a "big stick" or that we have made anything other than a gradual incremental suggestion in line with the World bank and with many others, especially from the countries concerned, who seek the same standards as those enjoyed by countries in the west and which are now appearing in the east. We must ensure that the transfer of resources that many of us seek and want to see encouraged through IFAD and whatever other means are used to the advantage of the people we seek to assist.
Therefore, I commend the order to my right hon. Friend. I am glad that it has been moved. I hope that we shall continue to work actively with IFAD and to support its objectives. I further hope that we shall see the fund increase and diversify in some of the ways that I have suggested.
10.56 pm
Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond as briefly as I can to some of the points that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).
Perhaps we could get one or two things straight at the beginning. The Foreign Secretary's speech to the Overseas Development Institute was not a new message and the prescriptions are not Thatcherite, as the hon. Lady said on the radio. As the hon. Lady would know if she had read it thoroughly, the World bank study on sub-Saharan Africa reached the same conclusions on the need for good government and economic and political liberalisation. It stated:
"Equally worrying is the widespread impression of political decline. Corruption, oppression and nepotism are increasingly evident. These are hardly unique to Africa, but they may have been exacerbated by development strategies that concentrate power and resources in government bureaucracies without countervailing measures to ensure public accountability or political consensus".
The report contains many similar comments. We believe that it is absolutely essential that there is good government because without it our efforts, whether in Africa, Asia or anywhere else, will not be as valuable as they could be to the people who need our help. The hon.
580
Lady should think a little harder about what the Foreign Secretary said, because comments such as she made do not bear on the reality.
The result of economic activity in Africa has shifted increasingly to the informal sector. We need to help people in such countries to realise their own ambition. Things will be done if the people are involved, and that means good government. Without it, one cannot be successful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has almost dealt with the hon. Lady's other point about aid for eastern Europe. I simply reaffirm what he said: aid to eastern Europe is separate from, and additional to, the aid to developing countries that is provided through the aid programme. There is no diversion of funds. The £150 million over five years of the know-how fund for eastern Europe compares with a total of more than £1,600 million this year in assistance to the third world. Although I know that that fear has been raised, I assure the hon. Lady that, whatever she may think, we are not diverting funds to eastern Europe from the third world. There is a separate line in the public expenditure survey committee and that is what we are using.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mrs. Chalker: I shall give way briefly.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not see why it has to be briefly. Can she assure us that that principle will apply in subsequent years?
Mrs. Chalker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, where we have a PESC line for support for Africa, the money intended for Africa and the third world will be spent there. I also assure him that, in all that we have agreed, the money for eastern Europe is separate from and additional to other money. I cannot bind successor Governments. I cannot make promises that my successors might wish to alter. What I can say is exactly what I have agreed and what I intend to do. I shall not be deflected from that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made a balanced and realistic speech. He said that agriculture is more than just growing food. How right he is. It is the ability of growers to get the food that they grow to the people who need it. That requires infrastructure and many of the other things that are taken care of by other programmes.
Let us consider what IFAD is. IFAD's aid to Africa is about one third of total IFAD resources. We have always felt that IFAD was useful but that it was not alone. It is not the whole answer for the development of sub-Saharan Africa in agriculture and associated matters. It is but one instrument among many.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley made great play of her view that the United Kingdom contribution to the special programme for Africa was miserly. She must remember the United Kingdom's total aid to Africa. United Kingdom bilateral aid to Africa rose from £305 million in 1987 to £422 million in 1988. Over the period from 1988 to 1991 we have committed £250 million to the World bank special programme of assistance for sub-Saharan Africa. We have cancelled the aid debts of 15 African countries at a cost of £284 million. Half of IDA9, which we have just negotiated—some $15 billion—will go

581
to sub-Saharan Africa. Over 90 per cent. of the European development fund goes to sub-Saharan Africa. In 1990 the EDF will total about £950 million.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe asked about the criteria for the poorest countries. Two thirds of IFAD's aid goes to the poorest countries with special emphasis on the least developed and low-income food-deficit countries. IFAD seeks increasingly to target its assistance on those poorest sectors by undertaking socio-economic base line surveys before it implements the projects. It does a total job in its own way. However, it is only part of the whole, and we should always remember that, even though tonight we are dealing with the replenishment of IFAD.
We should also remember that IFAD works through other organisations. It relies on them for the implementation and supervision of projects. I know that IFAD is conscious of the need to intensify its efforts in these areas. There are increasing staff inputs for a greater direct IFAD role in project implementation. But if that were to go on and on, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley seems to want, it would change the character of the organisation, which is essentially to target those who need special help.
IFAD was never designed to be a project-executing agency. That is done through other organisations. It is a funding agency and it is in funding special projects, which are clearly targeted, that it has had considerable success. However, if we try to make it outgrow what it was intended to be, I fear that it might well fail.
Of course, there is anxiety about IFAD's future. But there is a growing feeling among OECD donors that IFAD may not be able to continue as they originally envisaged unless OPEC countries live up to their collective responsibilities for their share of the basic funding. That is why the high level intergovernmental committee that will sit again shortly is important. I hope that when it resumes its work next week it will make sure that the issue of how to deliver the resources most efficiently to those most in need will receive the careful scrutiny that it deserves.
The hon. Lady asked about IFAD's policy towards women in development. I mentioned that in my opening speech. It takes a positive bias in its approach to the problems of rural women and enlists them as creative partners in the rural development endeavours. There is a special programme for women in development, which is designed to enhance IFAD's technical capacity to meet the challenges posed by poor rural women and its efforts to integrate them into the development process. It is a specialist job designed to meet a special need.
The hon. Lady spent a long time making great play about the third replenishment and asked why we could not contribute more. The size of our contribution depends on the overall size of the replenishment. That is decided by negotiation with other members of the fund and on the basis of burden sharing. The OECD members in this replenishment have made considerable efforts to achieve a satisfactory outcome. Of the total of $566 million raised, $378 million—almost 70 per cent.—is being raised by the OECD countries.
The hon. Lady asked why we had contributed less in percentage terms to the core contribution of this replenishment than we did to the last replenishment. She did not put it quite that way, but I think that that is what she meant. Our share of category 1 core contribution is down by 0·1 per cent.—from 4·79 per cent. in the second
582
replenishment to 4·78 per cent. in this replenishment. The reason for that is that Greece has transferred from category 3 to category 1 membership for the first time.
There are many more technical details that I will not discuss tonight for the sake of my hon. Friends. However, I must say that the net flows of official development assistance to Africa have remained strongly positive throughout the 1980s. One would never have thought that when listening to the hon. Lady. We all know that the problem with IFAD has been the sharp reduction in the OPEC pledges. The OECD does not feel that it should be putting up more than three fifths of the resources, although the voting power remains equally shared. The second replenishment only raised a disappointing sum—$400 million—and that was why we had the voluntary fund, the special programme for Africa. That programme, which was proposed in 1985, was important as it came in the wake of the famine and at a time when the finalisation of the second replenishment was still in doubt. The pledges were voluntary, not negotiated, and the target of $300 million was reached. It focused on 24 countries suffering from drought and desertification. However, that programme does not finance famine relief but is used for longer-term development, and it was there just at the time when we were having trouble with the second replenishment.
I do not think that we can continue to have special programme after special programme; we do far better to concentrate our resources on mainstream programmes and ensure that they get through to the people for whom they are intended. Special programmes cause extra costs in administration. One of the problems is that, as time goes on, donors tend to put more and more money into such funds and less and less into core programmes. Those core programmes then break down and fail to deliver the real intent for which they were established.
In the case of IFAD, a voluntary fund of that special sort and size also poses some clear dangers to the process of negotiated contributions on which the institution is founded. Only OECD donors with token sums of support from the countries have made contributions. When we announced our contribution of £7 million, we made it clear that we regarded the programme as justified, but only in the context of the disappointing outcome of the second replenishment. We expect the activities that were taken up by the special programme for Africa to he fully incorporated into IFAD's regular programme in the next replenishment. That is important if we are to keep down the bureaucratic costs of special programmes.
We are not in favour of continuing to increase special programmes. We are in favour of targeting effort to those most in need, of making sure that our approach is rounded, of seeing that it focuses not only on the growing of food but on the delivery of that food when grown, on its efficient and sound storage and on the sensible use of the resources that are available.
I am certain that the special programme for Africa has been valuable. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley said that it breached the principle of burden sharing. That is not the case. The SPA relied almost entirely, as I said, on contributions from OECD donors. We are not opposing others contributing; we merely make it clear that in relation to a case for an extension of the programme, the circumstances are now very different from those of 1986, when the programme was put forward.

583
Looking again at the World bank's long-term perspective study for sub-Saharan Africa, one realises the importance of agriculture—which accounts for over one third of Africa's GDP—both as an engine of growth and as a major contributor to improving food security. One appreciates the constraints on land availability. That means that growth must come largely from increased productivity. That, in turn, can come only through technological change. Such changes must be conservation-oriented if they are to be sustainable. That is why the World bank has the right approach to the whole question of agriculture in the long term.
That study also described Africa's decline in economic performance over the last 20 years. None of that is new. But, above all, that study managed—we should focus on this in discussing agricultural development in Africa—to accentuate the two main priorities. They are, first, the need to increase the role of the private sector in pricing and marketing agricultural products and farming inputs and improving financial services to farmers; and, secondly, the need to identify and disseminate new technologies to increase productivity.
It is important, in the latter context, to revitalise Africa's agricultural research and extension institutions, which are currently not doing much useful work but are doing it at great expense. We are not cutting back on that. We are making sure that in our programmes we target our aid to deliver what is really needed. IFAD is but one instrument. It has been most effective and useful, but it cannot do everything and it was never intended to do so. It would be wrong to try to develop it beyond its natural life, particularly if the funding is to remain solely on the shoulders of the OECD countries.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the environment. IFAD recognises environment as a key issue. It has focused on environmental sustainability alongside rural poverty alleviation. Given that focus, it is clear that it has become increasingly aware of the systematic linkages between environmental degradation and rural poverty alleviation.
IFAD's two reports last year detailed the approach to environmental sustainability and rural poverty alleviation, and the policies outlined in those reports are totally compatible with the policies adopted by other institutions. I believe that we can get on with the job well if we use IFAD as one useful instrument, but remember that we have many others and that we should work in all the spheres to tackle the many and varied problems as they arise.
There is no way in which I would favour cutting back on what we do to help agricultural development in Africa, but that must be approached in an intelligent and widely based way and not in the rather simplistic way that the hon. Lady suggested tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.

Catheters
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Fallon.]
11.14 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising a problem that involves one of my constituents, but is also faced by many other people. The more I have looked into the difficulties faced, not only by my constituent but by others in her position, the more sympathy I have with the case that I am pressing. I hope that the Minister will be responsive this evening.
Many people who require essential medical treatment are not exempt from prescription charges, and it is absolutely necessary that they should be. The specific problem to which I draw the Minister's attention is the difficulty faced by those people—mainly, but not exclusively, women—who have to use catheters regularly, several times a day, but who have to pay for the prescription that they get on the health service from their doctors for the equipment that they need.
The constituent who brought the matter to my attention is a woman in her early 50s, who had a job that she found enjoyable and satisfying, helping elderly people. She had an accident at work that led to a spinal injury which resulted in problems with her nerves, and she required a great deal of treatment. She has been left with permanent nerve damage and is unable to pass water in the normal way. She has to self-catheterise herself at least three times a day. She finds it difficult to come to terms with that. Having spoken to doctors and continence advisers, I find that that is not unusual for such patients. She finds it an embarrassment and a disability, and also frustrating.
My constituent is also angry that, at the same time that she is having to cope with this difficult medical problem, she has to pay for the prescription for the equipment she requires. She feels that that is unfair, and I agree. There are three reasons why I believe my constituent is right to feel that she, and others in a similar position, have a genuine grievance.
First, we are talking about an essential bodily function. My constituent manages by using catheters three or four times a day. If she did not do so, the National Health Service would be faced with a patient in a crisis, and it would be an emergency. My constituent has no alternative; there is no way that she can cut down on the prescribed items she uses. Her needs are essential, on a day-in, day-out basis.
Secondly, many other comparable items of equipment are exempt from prescription charges. Colostomy bags are, in many ways, comparable. Those who need colostomy bags receive them free. The Minister may say, as one Minister has in a letter to me, that there is a difference between needing catheters and needing a colostomy bag. The reason that Ministers have given in the past is that if a patient needs to use catheters he or she does not have a permanent fistula. That is the distinction which Ministers have made when deciding who should be exempt from presciption charges. I do not accept that it is as simple as that or that that should be the deciding factor.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Colostomies are reversible.
Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend says, colostomies are often reversible. We are talking about similar problems. Both conditions involve essential bodily functions and, on occasion, there is an option available for some people who choose to self-catheterise, rather than have a permanent fistula. Some of those involved were given the option of having a urostomy, which is a permanent fistula. If a urostomy——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Which is also reversible.
Mrs. Taylor: —which is sometimes reversible, though not always—is performed, the appropriate bags are available on prescription with no charge being levied. One woman in my constituency in her early 30s suffered nerve damage after intense gynaecological surgery and was left with the problem of lack of bladder control because of nerve damage. She was given the option of having a urostomy, but chose to use catheters instead, despite the difficulties—perhaps because of the dangers sometimes associated with irritation and the other difficulties that can arise with a fistula.
It would be ludicrous if a patient, having been advised that she could opt for either treatment, chose a urostomy on the ground that it would not cost her anything in the future because all the prescription items she needed would be exempt. If the same patient chose a catheter, thus saving the health service the cost of the operation, she would have to pay for every prescription. Patients should not have to make a decision on that basis.
There is also a straightforward medical reason why the items required should be available free of charge. I refer to the serious risk of infection that arises from reusing catheters. I understand that two different types are in regular use. One kind, preferred by many patients, is supplied already lubricated, which makes for ease of use. The other kind is not and has to be lubricated by the user. That second type may not be as good at preventing infection.
Manufacturers of the prelubricated catheter recommend that they are used only once. I appreciate that it may be in their commercial interests to give that advice, but there could be a problem, in terms of the possible transference of infection if further lubrication is required. For that reason, many users feel far safer using a catheter only once.
When patients have to pay for the catheters they obtain on prescription, there may be a temptation to wash and reuse them, giving rise to associated health risks. While patients may get away with that practice to a limited extent, it is surely wrong to encourage them to do anything that increases the risk to their health. Many users who self-catheterise are strongly dissuaded from reusing their catheters overmuch by their medical advisers, doctors and continence advisers. They are certainly dissuaded from reusing them outside their own homes, as that introduces additional risks. In any event, the risk increases if, because of the cost involved, users decide to reuse their catheters.
Let me sum up. The Minister should take the matter seriously for the following reasons. The equipment is needed for an essential bodily function; other comparable items are exempt from charges; moreover, there is a risk of infection from the reuse of catheters, involving a subsequent cost to the health service.
There may not be many cases of self-catheterisation at present—although we do not know the exact number: the
586
information is not collected centrally, and even the health centres must rely on information from hospitals, which is sometimes slow in arriving. Nevertheless, it is an increasing problem. I spoke to Mrs. Anita Barker, a continence adviser based at one of the health centres in my part of West Yorkshire and she gave me an insight—for which I am grateful—into the many problems that arise. Her specialty is relatively new; I understand that the first continence adviser was appointed only about 10 years ago. Now, however, there is increasing awareness of the problems that face many people, most—although not all —of them women, and some of them relatively young.
New techniques are being developed. When the lists were first drawn up, the fact that catheters were not exempt from prescription charges was probably not a problem, as very few people were self-catheterising. I gather that the constituent of mine who raised the matter was one of the first people in the north to be taught how to do it. Now, however, more people are being considered as candidates for the technique, although it is not suitable for everyone.
The Department should spend more time thinking about the number of people who could be affected. I understand that such problems as incontinence—which are not the glamorous end of medicine, by any means—have not been the subject of a great deal of work recently. A 1984 study showed that 3 million people suffered from incontinence, although that was thought to be an underestimate: as I am sure the Minister will agree, many people do not want to tell others that they have such a problem. I am told that many sufferers buy the equipment that they need by mail order or from the chemist without seeing their doctors, because they mistakenly see their problem as one of which they should be ashamed.
Although the debate is specifically about catheters, may I suggest to the Minister that all incontinence equipment should be available from GPs free on prescription? That might help to reduce the stigma associated with such health problems.
The Minister may say that many people who use catheters will in any event be exempt from all prescription charges for other reasons. Incontinence or bladder control problems are sometimes a consequence of a larger health problem, such as multiple sclerosis or a colostomy. That does not apply to everyone, however. I am told that many young men with spinal injuries must pay for the male-incontinence sheaths that they have to use regularly.
It is all very strange. Some patients are exempt while others are not. Some items are exempt, such as collection bags—which are necessary following urostomies—and the same items, if issued by a health authority, can be given to patients free of charge.
I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the problems affecting an increasing number of people, and I hope that he will realise from the debate that there is a need to carry out more research into this issue. When the prescription exemption list was first drawn up it was very rare for people to self-catheterise. It is now becoming increasingly common. Perhaps there will be further technological advances, which will make it a suitable procedure for more people.
I hope that the Minister will not close his mind to the possibility of helping people who are faced with this situation, because it is essential to every one of them. Having to pay for the equipment required adds insult to injury for many people.
11.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): It is a great pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). She and I spent quite a long time in each other's company when I was in an earlier incarnation in the Whips' Office. We both served on the Criminal Justice Bill Standing Committee. On that occasion she had plenty to say and I was unable to respond to any of it, so it is nice to be able to respond, even if I am not in total agreement with her, this evening.
The hon. Lady advanced the case of her constituent who feels that there is an injustice associated with the fact that the supply of catheters on prescription leads to a prescription charge and that, in her own phrase, that "adds insult to injury" to the position in which her constituent finds herself.
The hon. Lady drew attention to three arguments which, in her view, justify her case that her constituent should not be required to pay a prescription charge for the supply of catheters: that the bodily functions involved are essential and that if self-catheterisation did not continue it would lead to substantial problems for the health authority and, of course, for the patient, the hon. Lady's constituent; that other similar conditions lead to free prescriptions; and that there is a significant health risk attached to the hon. Lady's constituent. The hon. Lady also made some general remarks about research on unglamorous medical issues, which I shall return to at the end of my speech.
General policy on prescription charges is one of the issues that has been hotly debated ever since the national health service was set up, and perhaps it is a debate which, over the years, has generated a great deal more heat than light. It is hard to think of anything new to say on the subject of prescription charges after 40 years. It remains the Government's view that it is reasonable that those who can afford to make a contribution towards the costs of medicines prescribed to them should do so, and that regimes of exemption from prescription charges should be properly directed and should be justified by medical or social considerations.
As a background to the debate it is worth remembering that, of more than £2 billion spent on pharmaceutical services, prescription charges now comprise £177 million, or roughly 8 per cent. of the total cost of the pharmaceutical services of the national health service. Therefore, the prescription charge, while it raises a significant sum, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to finance the majority, or even a substantial minority, of the cost of pharmaceutical services.
Furthermore, we should also remember that the charge that we are discussing is £3·05 for each prescription, with a maximum charge, because of the season ticket system, of £43·50 during the year. Not only are the charges relatively modest, but they are levied on only a quarter of all prescriptions dispensed, as 75 per cent. of prescriptions are dispensed free. That is the issue to which the hon. Lady has referred. She has argued that her constituent should be among the 75 per cent., not the 25 per cent.
To assess the robustness of that argument we must look at the rules and see who is entitled to free prescriptions. The main determinant, which covers the vast majority of free prescriptions, is income. We believe that those who find it difficult to meet prescription charges on income grounds should be entitled to free prescriptions. That is
588
why the list includes all men over 65 and all women over 60, all children under 16, all students under 19 in full-time education and all those receiving income support and family credit—the main means-tested benefits.
Furthermore, there is an independent system within the NHS, outside the means-tested benefits system, to ensure that those over 16 on low incomes do not have to pay prescription charges. Expectant mothers and mothers with a baby of under 12 months do not have to pay prescription charges. Ministry of Defence disablement pensioners do not have to pay prescription charges if the prescription is related to the cause of their disablement. Finally—this is the only exception from the principle of income determination—there are those who are exempted from having to pay prescription charges because they receive a particular type of medical treatment. Viewed in the context of the entirety of that list, they are very much the exception rather than the rule.
With those who are exempt on grounds of the medical treatment that they receive, the list of treatments is relatively short. It originated when charges for prescriptions were reintroduced in 1968. The list is substantially unchanged from that which was introduced over 20 years ago. It was drawn up as a means of exempting some of the chronically sick from prescription charges. It has been reviewed on a number of occasions by Governments of both political complexions since 1968—most recently in 1986. On each occasion the conclusion of the review was that the exemption arrangements should not be altered.
There are two reasons. While the cost of adding any one medical condition, such as the requirement for catheters, to the list is not great, it is important to remember that if the principle were accepted for one condition, I should quickly be summoned back to the Dispatch Box on behalf of patients suffering from another condition. The case that the hon. Lady advances for those who need catheters is neither stronger not weaker than the case that could be advanced for those who suffer from cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis—which the hon. Lady mentioned as one condition that she wished the Government to consider—cancer, asthma and Parkinson's disease. If we sat down together for 10 minutes, I am sure that the hon. Lady and I could think of a number of other conditions for which a case, on medical grounds, could be made that was as strong as that for the conditions that are already included on the list.
Mrs. Taylor: I did not intervene when the Minister referred to the income aspect. However, many women who are in the same position as my constituent are in employment and earning money. Dependency adds to their difficulties. My point was that we are referring to a natural and daily bodily function. Absence of such equipment is life endangering. It would lead to a person having to be readmitted to hospital very quickly. It is the life-saving nature of the equipment that we are discussing. That is why I believe that it should be included.
Mr. Dorrell: I understand what the hon. Lady says. Neither she nor I is sufficiently well qualified in medical matters to be able to quote the treatment that would be required to deal with the diseases that I have listed. We would not be able to bandy treatments in that way. If, however, we were to compare those illnesses with the medical conditions that are linked with free prescriptions, it would be difficult to justify the inclusion of those that are

589
on the list and the exclusion of others, condition by condition. If the force of the hon. Lady's argument for including catheterisation on the list were accepted, the floodgates would be opened and it would be difficult to resist the arguments of those who campaign for other groups. Once the argument is accepted, the resource implications become more considerable than on the basis of the hon. Lady's argument alone.
That is only one of the two reasons that the hon. Lady should consider in reflecting on the force of her argument. The other concern reflects on what I said earlier about the exemption rules being principally income oriented, being designed so that those in most financial need are protected from the requirement to pay prescription charges while those who can afford to contribute something towards the cost of their medicines do so. Many of those who are chronically sick already qualify for exemption in one or more of the other groups. I understand that the exemption list would almost certainly not help directly those in most immediate need if the measurement of need was based on income. Only the chronically sick whose resources exceeded the low-income qualifying level would benefit from such a change.
Extending the list would provide additional assistance for those who are not in the greatest need when income is taken into account and measured. In my view, that would not be the best use of the resources that are available to the NHS.
I should prefer to see the use of scarce resources to secure other advances, and the hon. Lady suggested one or
590
two in her concluding remarks. I do not want to commit myself at this time of night to a great research programme without having thought about it further, but her comment that the Department of Health should remember the need to undertake research programmes in the less glamorous aspects of medicine as well as in the leading-edge technologies, which can always guarantee good press coverage and media interest, is an entirely sensible proposition to advance. If the result of that research were to suggest that treatments were not being allowed to develop in the way that she fears, policy makers would have to take that seriously into consideration.
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive comments. Would he be willing to meet some of those who feel that they are facing difficulties, and who could suggest areas of research and refer to others that are not being covered?
Mr. Dorrell: Yes. I should be happy to meet them and hear their proposals for research programmes, or how others might direct research programmes, to achieve the objectives to which the hon. Lady has referred. I hope that on that basis she will feel that she has made some progress this evening. I look forward to seeing her with a delegation.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to Bradford.

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

  Methyl Chloroform
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy that the time horizon of between 10 and 15 years for the 100 per cent. phase-out of methyl chloroform be used by Her Majesty's Government as a base starting point for agreement at the Montreal protocol meetings due to take place in London later this month.

  The Prime Minister
  It is the Government's policy ultimately to phase out all ozone-depleting substances. However, it is impossible at this stage to predict whether safe substitutes for all uses of methyl chloroform will be found within the next 10 or 15 years.

  Advisers
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer,Official Report, 24 May, column 286, if she has any plans to make funds available from the Cabinet Office vote for political advisers to the leaders of all political parties with parliamentary representation.

  The Prime Minister
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 5 June at column 397.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will take steps to ensure that departmental Ministers have sufficient staff to reply to hon. Members' lettes within an acceptable span of time; and whether it is in accordance with her policy that a letter to the Secretary of State for Health dated 27 February should be answered on 6 June.

  The Prime Minister
  Long delays in replying to correspondence from Members of Parliament can rarely be justified. The Department of Health has introduced major changes in the national health service which have generated a great deal of public interest. Revised procedures have now been implemented to help in dealing with the large increase in correspondence. My hon. Friend will recall that I announced on 29 March a review of the handling of correspondence across all Departments.

  Engagements
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.
  270
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be hosting a dinner at Downing street in honour of Sir Sonny Ramphal, Secretary General of the Commonwealth.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list those countries to which she has paid an official visit in each of the last 11 years, indicating in each case whether the visit was followed by an oral statement to the House.

  The Prime Minister
  I have paid an official visit to the following countries in the past 11 years:

  Country

  1979

  June

  France

  June–July

  Australia

  October

  Italy, Luxembourg, West Germany

  December

  United States

  1980

  May

  Yugoslavia

  September

  France, Greece, Yugoslavia

  November

  Italy, West Germany

  December

  Irish Republic

  1981

  February

  Netherlands, United States

  April

  India, Saudi Arabia

  September

  Bahrain, Kuwait

  October

  United Arab Emirate, Oman, Qatar, Pakistan, Mexico

  November

  West Germany

  1982

  July

  Italy

  September

  China, Hong Kong India, Japan

  October

  West Germany

  November

  France

  1983

  January

  Falkland Islands

  September

  Netherlands, Canada, United States

  November

  West Germany, India

  December

  Greece (twice)

  1984

  January

  France, Italy

  February

  Hungary, Soviet Union

  March

  Belgium

  April

  Portugal

  May

  France

  June

  France

  November

  India, France

  December

  Irish Republic, China, Hong Kong, United States

  1985

  February

  United States

  March

  Soviet Union, Belgium

  April

  Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Saudi Arabia

  May

  West Germany

  June

  Italy

  July

  United States

  271

  Country

  September

  Egypt, Jordan

  October

  Bahamas, United States

  November

  Belgium

  December

  Luxembourg

  1986

  January

  France

  March

  Italy

  May

  South Korea, Japan, Israel

  June

  Netherlands

  July

  Canada

  September

  Norway, West Germany

  November

  United States, France

  December

  France

  1987

  March

  Soviet Union

  June

  Italy, Belgium

  July

  United States, Jamaica, France

  September

  West Germany

  October

  Canada

  November

  France

  December

  Denmark

  1988

  January

  Kenya, Nigeria

  February

  Belgium (twice)

  April

  Turkey

  June

  France, Canada, West Germany

  August

  Bahrain, Oman, Singapore, Australia, Malaysia, Thailand, UAE (stopover)

  October

  Italy

  November

  Poland, United States, France

  1989

  Februrary

  West Germany, France

  March

  Morocco, Nigeria (stopover), Zimbabwe, Malawi

  April

  West Germany, Namibia

  May

  Luxembourg, Belgium

  June

  Spain

  July

  France

  September

  Japan, Soviet Union

  October

  Malaysia, Qatar (stopover)

  November

  United States, France

  December

  Belgium, France

  1990

  January

  France

  April

  Bermuda, Turkey, Irish Republic

  June

  Soviet Union

  Oral statements to the House are made whenever appropriate.

HEALTH

  Blood Products
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which pharmaceutical companies are presently importing factor VIII concentrates into the United Kingdom; and if he will list each company's share of the market.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  For reasons of confidentiality, the information held by the Medicines Licensing Authority about pharmaceutical companies importing Factor VIII concentrate cannot be divulged.

  Plutonium Contamination
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans or studies have been made by his Department to assess what measures would have to be taken in the event of contamination by airborne plutonium resulting from a nuclear weapons accident on board a Royal Navy ship docked at Greenwich.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans or studies have been made by his Department to assess what measures would have to be taken in the event of contamination by airborne plutonium resulting from a nuclear weapons accident on board a Royal Navy ship docked at Greenwich.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 8 June at column 724. The contingency plans referred to cover action necessary by all relevant Government Departments and public bodies, including this Department and health authorities.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements for access to information and expertise his Department has with the Gracewell clinic for rehabilitating sexual offenders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are aware of the work undertaken by the Gracewell clinic; officials have recently visited the organisation.

  Child Sex Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has of the percentage of children who are sexually abused.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. The information collected centrally relates to the number of children who are on the child protection registers who have been categorised as "sexually abused". The latest information available relates to the year ending 31 March 1989 and is published in the provisional feedback "Children and Young Persons on Child Protection Registers England 1989". Copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contact his Department has with Governments in America, Australia and the EEC regarding their experience in the creation and running of national institutes for research into child sexual abuse.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department does not have direct contact with overseas Governments concerning their research programmes into child sexual abuse. Professional staff within the Department keep in touch with research abroad as appropriate and researchers from departmentally funded programmes and units have contact from time to time with overseas counterparts.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the amount of money being spent by
  273
  Government Departments on research into the sexual abuse of children (a) at May 1989 and (b) currently; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The following amounts were allocated by Government Departments for research into child sexual abuse.

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Department of Health

  92,000

  125,000

  Home Office

  72,000

  32,000

  Social Work Services Group (Scottish Office)

  17,000

  52,000

  Total

  181,000

  209,000

  In addition, the Department of Health funds a number of projects covering both sexual and physical abuse of children. The cost of these projects in 1990–91 is £221,000 which brings the total to £430,000.

  Medical Accidents
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what review has been made of the gathering of information on medical accidents; if he will regularly publish statistics about the incidence of claims and settlements or awards achieved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No review has been made of the gathering of information on medical accidents. When the health authority indemnity for medical negligence was introduced on 1 January 1990, the Department asked health authorities for an annual return of the number of claims of medical negligence, the number of such cases settled, and the total cost of the settlements reached or awards made. The returns for the period to 31 March 1990 are now being received. No decision has been taken on publishing any statistics.

  Complaints Procedure
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he intends to monitor and assess hospital complaints, family practitioner committee complaints, and the procedures at the General Medical Council and other related professional bodies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Complaints made about the services provided in NHS hospitals are monitored by health authorities as required in directions made under section 17 of the National Health Service Act 1977; Family practitioner committees are obliged by regulations to forward reports to the Secretary of State. In addition, the Health Service Commissioner provides an independent assessment of the handling of complaints by health authorities and publishes his report annually.

  The General Medical Council is an independent statutory body whose procedures are governed by the Medical Act 1983. The council publishes annually a summary of cases considered by its disciplinary Committees. The Department is not routinely informed by professional bodies of complaints which they receive.

  Sheppey General Hospital
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in the assessment made as to the closure of the Sheppey general hospital, what regard was paid to 274
  questions of (a) population influx in the summer months, (b) future housing development, (c) the nature of access to the island and (d) the availability of an ambulance service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Medway health authority has no plans to close Sheppey general hospital.

  Mr. Joseph Watts
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the report of the inquiry into the circumstances leading to the death of Mr. Joseph Watts, a patient at Broadmoor hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Further to the reply of my hon. Friend, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 25 April 1990 at column 219, I welcome the intention of the Special Hospitals Service Authority to make the report widely available. I have arranged for copies of the report, with the authority's response, to be placed in the Library.

  The authority shares many of the concerns of the inquiry team and has ensured that action on the report's recommendations is well in hand. The inquiry team produced an authoritative, comprehensive and constructive report. I am grateful to its chairman and members for the thorough way in which they approached their work.

  Ophthalmic Clinics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new attendances at ophthalmic clinics were recorded in each quarter of 1988–89 and 1989–90 in each district health authority area in England.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about consultant out-patient activity is not available centrally on a quarterly basis. Details of the numbers of new referral attendances for all consultant out-patient clinics are published annually and copies of these summaries for 1987–88 and 1988–89 will be placed in the Library.

  Medical and Dental Schools
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the special increment for teaching paid to each medical and dental school in England; and what that sum represents per student.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The service increment for teaching—SIFT—is allocated to regional health Authorities to compensate hospitals for the additional service costs incurred through providing clinical facilities for undergraduate medical and dental education and research. In 1990–91, SIFT amounted to £343 million in total. It is allocated to RHAs according to numbers of undergraduate medical and dental students, at rates of £32,017 per medical student and £12,764 per dental student in 1990–91. For students in London, these figures attract a 9 per cent. weighting.

  RHAs should distribute SIFT to specific hospitals according to a range of factors, taking advice from universities, and other research interests as appropriate. Information on sub-regional distribution is not collected centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct regional health authorities to commission an opinion poll survey of the local population in each area where there is a proposal to establish a self-governing trust, in order to determine their views about such a proposal.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. Successive Governments have never thought it sensible for changes in management of NHS services to be subject to opinion polls. When formal applications for NHS trust status are made, following parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, regions will seek the views of the local community, community health councils and other parties with an interest, on individual proposals before any decisions are made.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total cost to his Department of commissioning the NOP survey on sight tests.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The cost of the survey is a commercial matter between the Department of Health and NOP.

  Drug Side-effects
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place between his officials and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry about setting up a drug damage compensation scheme for victims of drug side-effects which have become apparent some years after a drug was first prescribed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No such discussions have taken place.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 231, what progress has been made by the research project reviewing the possible connections between BSE and Creutzfeld-Jakob disease; and what information he has on the common properties of the two diseases.

  Mr. Dorrell
  After detailed planning the Department of Health has recently commissioned the neuropathology component of the study which my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State announced in a reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 31 January at column 231. The two diseases Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease, a spongiform encephalopathy in humans, and bovine spongiform encephalopathy are both fatal, progressive, neurological disorders and have a large number of common properties.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Vietnam
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received seeking further aid to Vietnam; and if he will make a statement.
  276
  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 17 May about the provision of aid support for NGO activities in Vietnam. Since then I have received no representations seeking further aid for Vietnam.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the population at risk from famine in Ethiopia he estimates can be reached by the southern supply route of the joint relief partnership.

  Mrs. Chalker
  From the start of the southern line operation on 20 March up to 3 June, 16,030 tonnes of food were delivered to northern Wello and Tigray. As damaged roads are repaired and additional transport capacity becomes available—in both of which areas Britain is providing assistance—the joint relief partnership hopes to build up deliveries towards its monthly target figure of 14,500 tonnes. This should be sufficient to feed just over 1 million people or perhaps a quarter of the total number at risk in northern Ethiopia.

  Irrigation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many new irrigation projects he is currently supporting in the third world; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are currently funding 11 major irrigation projects, of which seven are in Pakistan and one in each of Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sudan and Zimbabwe. The total value of our support for these products over their duration is just under 100 million. We are also funding irrigation research with a total value of 3 million. Some of our wider programmes also include an irrigation component, but it would be disproportionately costly to collate this information.

  Environmental Programmes
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Government's plans to help developing countries with their environmental programmes.

  Mrs. Chalker
  To promote sustainable economic growth and meet developing countries' diverse needs, our help covers a wide range including population programmes, energy efficiency, conserving biodiversity, natural resource management and the promotion of environmental awareness among other subjects.

  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.

  International Service for National Agricultural Research
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all United Kingdom contributions to the international service for national agricultural research made since 1980.
  277
  Mrs. Chalker
  Our contributions to the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) since 198() have been as follows:

  Financial year

  Contribution £

  1979–80

  15,000

  1980–81

  50,000

  1981–82

  50,000

  1982–83

  100,000

  1983–84

  120,000

  1984–85

  120,000

  1985–86

  120,000

  1986–87

  130,000

  1987–88

  135,000

  1988–89

  142,000

  1989–90

  140,000

  1 1990–91

  140,000

  1 Planned.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Nuclear Accident, Greenwich
  Mrs. Mahon
  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 with regard to children at schools in the area.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 11 June 1990,Official Report, column 22.

  Mr. Peter Hunt
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the hon. Member for Ravensbourne may expect an answer to his letters of 2 April, 4 April and 4 June and his telephone calls of 10 May, 16 May and 22 May relating to the case of Mr. Peter Hunt; and what are the reasons for the delays in his Department's handling of this case.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 12 June apologising for the delay in replying to his letter of 2 April. In considering Mr. Hunt's case it was necessary for the Department to make inquiries of Bromley local education authority. The facts of the case were then given very careful consideration within the Department.

  The final decision was communicated as soon as possible.

  University Staff(Pay Offer)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the reasons for the delay in his Department's approving, via committee B of the universities' negotiating machinery, the vice-chancellors' offer of a 9 per cent. pay increase, accepted by university academic and related staff on 11 May; and what steps he is taking to expedite the process of ratification.

  Mr. Jackson
  There has been no unnecessary delay. The Government are giving careful consideration to the salary 278
  increases for university non-clinical academic and related staff proposed in the 25th report of committee A of the universities academic salaries committees.

  Academic Awards
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes to publish his Department's policy review of the Council for National Academic Awards.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The review has now been completed and I am publishing the report today. Copies have been placed in the Library. The report contains a number of important recommendations, on which I am seeking the views of interested parties. These have been requested by 14 September. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be arranging parallel consultations in Scotland and Wales. I shall announce the Government's response to the report in due course after these consultations.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report in tabular form, details of all research into meningitis being supported by the Medical Research Council, indicating (a) the location of the research work, (b) the precise nature of the research project and (c) its tenure.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: The Medical Research Council, which receives a grant in aid from this Department, is supporting the following research projects on meningitis:

  Direct Support—through MRC establishments

  (A) MRC Clinical Research Centre Middlesex.

  (B) Project Title:

  1. Pathogenesis and immunobiology of meningococcal infection.

  2. Isoenzyme analysis for differentiation of neisseria meningitidis infection.

  Indirect Support—Grants

  (A) Professor E. R. Moxon, Oxford University.

  (B) Project Title: Molecular basis of Haemophilius influenzae pathogenicity.

  (C) Tenure: 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1995.

  (A) Dr. G. J. Boulnois, Leicester University

  (B) Project Title: Genetic Engineering of Polysaccharides

  (C) Tenure: 18 July 1988 to 17 July 1991.

  (A) Professor T. H. Pennington, Aberdeen University

  (B) Project Title: Studies on the population genetics and typing of neisseria meningitidis.

  (C) Tenure: 21 November 1988 to 20 November 1991.

  (A) Dr. J. E. Heckels, Southampton University.

  (B) Project Title: Immunobiology of meningococcal outer member proteins.

  (C) Tenure: 1 September 1988 to 31 August 1991.

  (A) Dr. D. M. Jones, London, Public Health Laboratory Service Board.

  (B) Project Title: To investigate neisseria meningitidis surgace antigens for induction of protective antibody after disease/carriage.

  (C) Tenure: 1 July 1988 to 30 June 1991.

  (A) Dr. J. J. McFadden, University of Surrey.

  279

  (B) Project Title: DNA Probes to study epidemiology and virulence of neisseria meningitidis infection.

  (C) Tenure: 31 January 1989 to 2 January 1992.

  (A) Dr. B. G. Spratt, University of Sussex.

  (B) Project Title: Molecular basis and molecular epidemiology of the emergence of penicillin resistance in neisseria meningitidis.

  (C) Tenure: 1 May 1989 to 30 April 1992.

  (A) Dr. A. Robinson, Porton, Centre for applied microbiology and research.

  (B) Project Title: A preliminary investigation into mechanisms of meningoccal meningitis.

  (C) Tenure: To be arranged.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the firms in the Mid-Ulster area which are registered with the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Agency in Strabane district council, Omagh district council and Cookstown district council areas; and what are the number of employees in each and the Fair Employment Agency religious break-down of each.

  Mr. Needham
  The firms listed are those in the Strabane, Omagh and Cookstown district council areas which have been registered by the Fair Employment Commission. The total number of employees is shown alongside the name of the firm.

  The Fair Employment Commission is not releasing information on community composition from individual monitoring returns at present.

  Firms registered with FEC and number of employees in each case Strabane District Council Area

  Numbers

  Adria Limited

  Beechmount Avenue

  Strabane

  County Tyrone

  BT82 9BG

  1,085

  Ballantine A.S. Limited

  Aughafad Quarrry

  Donemana

  County Tyrone

  BT82 0SB

  32

  Leckpatrick Dairies Limited

  Artigarvan

  Strabane

  County Tyrone

  BT82 0HN

  346

  Linton and Robinson Limited

  Abercorn Square

  Strabane

  BT82 8DH

  48

  Melmount Community Care Limited

  6 Ballycolman Avenue

  Strabane

  County Tyrone

  BT82 9AF

  130

  Millar L. J.

  25 Seein Road

  Sion Mills

  Strabane

  County Tyrone

  39

  280

  Numbers

  Porter H. G. & Company Limited

  Abercorn Factory

  Derry Road

  Strabane

  BT82 8DX

  115

  Strabane Community Project

  St. Josephs Centre

  Springhill

  Strabane

  BT82 8HT

  42

  Ardstraw Parish Community Scheme

  The Rectory

  2 Bunderg Road

  Newtownstewart

  County Tyrone

  BT78 4NQ

  29

  Herdmans Limited

  11 Mill Avenue

  Sion Mills

  County Tyrone

  BT82 9HE

  760

  Linian Knitwear Limited

  Spamount Mills

  Castlederg

  County Tyrone

  BT81 7NB

  33

  McGolgan Brothers Ltd.

  Dublin Road Industrial Estate

  Strabane

  BT82 9CA

  55

  Melmount Foods Ltd.

  Unit F965

  Dublin Road Industrial Estate

  Strabane

  County Tyrone

  35

  Octopus Sportswear

  Ballycolman Avenue

  Strabane

  BT82 9AF

  53

  Roulston & McLaughlin NI Ltd.

  2 Drumquin Road

  Castlederg

  County Tyrone

  BT81 7PX

  49

  Barrett Electrical

  9 Gortrush Industrial Estate

  Derry Road

  Omagh

  BT78 5EJ

  50

  Coolaness Private Nursing Home

  Kesh Road

  Irvinestown

  County Fermanagh

  38

  Eakin James & Sons Ltd.

  Dublin Road

  Omagh

  County Tyrone

  BT78 1ET

  30

  Knock Na Moe Hotel Ltd.

  59 Old Mountfield Road

  Omagh

  County Tyrone

  40

  281

  Numbers

  McAleer & Teague

  Dromore

  County Tyrone

  BT78 3AU

  45

  Naturelle Consumer Products Ltd.

  Mountjoy Road

  Omagh

  County Tyrone

  BT79 7EQ

  52

  Omagh & District Advice Centres and Projects

  9 Holmview Terrace

  Omagh

  BT79 0AH

  71

  Bradley & McElhatton

  25 and 31 Main Street

  Mountfield

  Omagh

  BT79 7PY

  26

  Duncan & Griffin Company Limited

  Silverbirch Hotel

  5 Gortin Road

  Omagh

  County Tyrone

  30

  Finlay Hydrascreens Limited

  Drumquin Road

  Omagh

  County Tyrone

  BT78 5PN

  145

  Master Meat Packers Limited

  52 Doogary Road

  Omagh

  County Tyrone

  BT79 0BQ

  85

  Moffatts (Drumquin) Limited

  61 Drumscra Road

  Drumquin

  Omagh

  61

  Nestle Company Limited

  46 Beltany Road

  Omagh

  County Tyrone

  BT78 3NF

  173

  North West of Ireland Printing & Publishing Company Limited

  John Street

  Omagh

  County Tyrone

  BT78 1DT

  44

  Omaglass Limited

  Gortrush Industrial Estate

  Derry Road

  Omagh

  BT78

  66

  Scott T. W. & Sons (Fuels Limited)

  51 Curr Road

  Beragh

  Omagh

  BT79 0UW

  34

  282

  Omagh District Council Area

  Numbers

  Shergrim Limited

  Gortrush Industrial Estate

  Derry Road

  Omagh

  County Tyrone

  BT78 5EJ

  26

  Royal Arms Hotel

  51–53 High Street

  Omagh

  BT78 1BA

  41

  St. Vincent De Paul Ace Scheme

  11 Holmview Terrace

  Campsie

  Omagh

  30

  Alexander W. & Sons

  39 William Street

  Cookstown

  BT80 8BD

  32

  Blue Circle Cement

  29 Sandholes Road

  Cookstown

  County Tyrone

  BT80 9AP

  182

  Cookstown Community Renewal Projects Limited

  16E Old town Street

  Cookstown

  County Tyrone

  BT80 8EF

  105

  Drapersfield House

  19 Drapersfield Road

  Cookstown

  County Tyrone

  BT80 8PS

  26

  Tyrone Constitution

  25–27 High Street

  Omagh

  BT78 1BD

  34

  Scott W.& C. Limited

  9 Mountjoy Road

  Omagh

  County Tyrone

  BT79 7AD

  43

  Woodlock Joinery Limited

  3 Killybrack Road

  Omagh

  County Tyrone

  BT79 7DG

  75

  Ardboe Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

  T/A Forbes Kitchens & Forbes Furniture

  Ardboe Coagh

  Stewartstown

  County Tyrone

  BT71 5AX

  63

  Cookstown Community Projects Ltd.

  Drum Road

  Cookstown

  County Tyrone

  58

  Fairfields Nursing Home

  Fairhill Road

  Cookstown

  BT80 8RB

  35

  283

  Numbers

  Hilton Meats (Cookstown) Ltd.

  Derryloran Industrial Estate

  Cookstown

  County Tyrone

  BT80 8UJ

  46

  Glenavon Hotel (1982) Ltd.

  52 Drum Road

  Cookstown

  County Tyrone

  BT80 3JQ

  43

  MacMahon Mr. J. J. (Building Contractor) Ltd.

  4 Loy Street

  Cookstown

  County Tyrone

  BT80 8PE

  47

  Marina Private Nursing Home

  Shore Road

  Ballyronan

  Magherafelt

  BT45 6JA

  30

  Milton Thom

  Royal Hotel

  64 Coagh Street

  Cookstown

  BT80 8NG

  26

  Mallon Brothers

  Unit 6 Derryloran Industrial Estate

  Sandholes Road

  Cookstown

  BT80 9LU

  29

  McAleer & Rushe Ltd.

  24 Dungannon Road

  Cookstown

  County Tyrone

  BT80 8TL

  43

  Orr W. G. (UK) Ltd.

  45 Ruskey road

  Coagh

  Cookstown

  County Tyrone

  BT80 0AH

  40

  Cookstown District Council Area

  Numbers

  O'Neill Engineering

  48 Ballygittle Road

  Stewartstown

  County Tyrone

  26

  Viper International

  Orritor Road

  Cookstown

  County Tyrone

  BT80 8BL

  45

  Unipork Limited

  70 Molesworth Road

  Cookstown

  County Tyrone

  BT80 8PJ

  794

  St. Vincent de Paul Ace Scheme

  35 Loy Street

  Cookstown

  County Tyrone

  BT80 8PZ

  50

  Quinns of Cookstown Limited

  7 Sandholes Road

  Cookstown

  County Tyrone

  BT80 9AR

  51

  Primary Schools
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what discussions have taken place about the proposed rationalisation of the primary school sector within the Southern education and library board;

  (2) what consultations have been held with the school principals within the primary school sector in the controlled section about the proposals for rationalisation in the Southern education and library board.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The proposed rationalisation of schools is a matter in the first instance for either the education and library board in the case of controlled schools or the school authority in the case of voluntary schools. I am not aware of any discussions within the Southern board or between the board and primary school principals on proposed rationalisation, but I understand that the board has established a sub-committee to examine current school places.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the proposed rationalisation of the primary school sector within the Southern education and library board.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have received one letter from the hon. Gentleman.

  Fencing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have taken place about the introduction of financial assistance in respect of the provisions of fencing at agricultural holdings in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Grants are available for fencing on agricultural holdings under both the United Kingdom farm and conservation grant scheme and the Northern Ireland agricultural development programme.

  Sheep and Lamb
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further action will be taken to promote the Northern Ireland sheep industry and the sale of Northern Irish lamb.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Livestock Marketing Commission for Northern Ireland is mainly responsible for market promotion and is intensifying its efforts, particularly in relation to export markets.

  The Department of Agriculture is supporting the development of a high-quality product through its promotional programmes and various schemes including breeding schemes and its education and advisory services.

  Union Flag
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members there are on the Southern health and social services board; how many of these members selected by him are non-elected members; what arrangements he makes for flying the union flag at its various premises; and why it was not flown at Tower Hill hospital, Armagh, on 2 June.

  Mr. Needham
  There are currently 25 places on the Southern health and social services board, one of which is vacant.
  285
  Nine of the places on the board are filled after consultation with professional, academic and trade union interests. Nine people are appointed because of the individual contribution they can make to the conduct of the board affairs. Seven places are filled by district councillors.

  The requirements to fly the union flag on those prescribed dates relevant to Northern Ireland applies only to central Government offices. There is no requirement therefore for it to be flown on Tower Hill hospital, Armagh.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: There is one dedicated energy manager in the Northern Ireland energy conservation unit for the Northern Ireland Government office estate. Three person-years were devoted to energy management in this estate by the unit in 1989–90.

ENERGY

  Spent Magnox Fuel
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to require Magnox operators to backfit at site dry storage facilities for spent fuel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. This is a matter for the operators of the Magnox stations. Neither Nuclear Electric nor British Nuclear Fuels have any such plans.

  Nuclear Technology
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy which countries, not being signatories of the non-proliferation treaty, have received nuclear technology from the United Kingdom since 1985.

  Mr. Baldry
  No export licence has been issued since 1985 for the export of nuclear technology to countries which are not signatories to the non-proliferation treaty. The guidelines for all United Kingdom nuclear exports remain as set out by the then Foreign Secretary now Lord Callaghan on 31 March 1976 at columns 514–16, which has been reaffirmed by the Prime Minister. These guidelines ensure that our nuclear exports are fully consistent with our international non-proliferation obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.

  Spent Fuel Processing
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey,Official Report, 23 May, column 207, what amounts by weight and volume of (a) high-level waste, (b) intermediate-level waste, (c) low-level waste, (d) reusable plutonium and (e) reusable uranium he estimates will result from the reprocessing of (i) the Magnox fuel and (ii) the spent oxide fuel awaiting reprocessing at Sellafield at 31 March.
  286
  Mr. Baldry
  Detailed information on the quantities of materials arising from reprocessing is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Nuclear Reprocessing Contracts
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairman of Nuclear Electric concerning the review and revaluation of nuclear reprocessing contracts inherited from the Central Electricity Generating Board.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of Nuclear Electric regularly to discuss aspects of the nuclear industry. Reprocessing contracts between Nuclear Electric and British Nuclear Fuels are a commercial matter for the parties concerned.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to bring forward proposals at the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in August-September, for a multilateral programme for the long-term management of spent nuclear fuel, vitrified high-level wastes and the decommissioning of nuclear facilities developed under bilateral or multilateral nuclear technology transfer under the provision of article IV of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Nuclear Materials
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has agreed the definition adopted for the detection time concerning the diversion of nuclear materials from intended peaceful uses, by the safeguards authorities of the International Atomic Energy Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The definition of detection time is given in paragraph 108 of the "IAEA Safeguards Glossary" 1987 edition—ref. IAEA/SG/INF/1 (Rev. 1)—a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. This definition is accepted by the member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency, including the United Kingdom.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what developments have taken place since 1985 in safeguards to ensure that non-nuclear weapons states acquiring reprocessing facilities do not use plutonium for military purposes.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have full confidence in the safeguards arrangements which are currently applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency which has reported no evidence of diversion of civil nuclear material to non-peaceful use.

  In recent years there has been a series of meetings to consider the application of safeguards techniques to large-scale commercial reprocessing plants, in which the United Kingdom has been involved; this programme is continuing. Furthermore, the United Kingdom has, since 1981, carried out a safeguards research and development programme, which is funded to the sum of approximately

  287
  £1 million annually, in support of the International Atomic Energy Agency. A substantial proportion of this programme is devoted to the development of techniques relevant to the safeguarding of reprocessing plants.

  Hinkley Point C
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received the inspector's report from the Hinkley Point C public inquiry; and when he intends to announce his decision on Nuclear Electric's application and to publish the report.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have just received the inspector's report. I shall not be in a position to reach a decision on Nuclear Electric's application until I have thoroughly considered it, but I hope to reach this position by the late summer.

  The normal procedure for planning inquiries is for the inspector's report to be published at the same time as my Decision. I intend to follow this procedure in the case of the Hinkley Point C inquiry.

  Electricity Agreement (France)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the implications for the three-year agreement between the electricity supply industry and Electricité de France as part of the non-fossil fuel obligation as a result of current electricity output reductions in France; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The agreements between Electricité de France and the public electricity supply companies are not part of the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Loft Insulation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what criteria were considered when fixing the limit of 30 mm for topping-up loft insulation within the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The reference to 30 mm was in the consultation paper issued by the Energy Efficiency Office in February. The figure is that used previously for the homes insulation scheme. A number of representations concerning that level of insulation have been received as a result of the consultation process and are currently being considered.

  Nuclear Power (Privatisation Fees)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he proposes to pay Kleinwort its full fees for the advice it gave on the privatisation of nuclear power.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Kleinwort Benson's fees for the relevant periods have been paid in full.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the price of shares in the electricity distribution companies.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce the price of the shares in the 12 regional electricity companies on impact day. It is expected that will be during November 1990.
  288
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the television advertising campaign to sell the electricity distribution companies will commence.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Advertising to publicise the offer for sale of the 12 regional electricity companies will be undertaken to inform the public of the forthcoming flotations. It would be premature to set out provisional plans, which are subject to matters that will not be resolved until much nearer the time of flotations.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to have the estimated total of expenditure on advertising the sale of the electricity distribution companies.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have nothing further to add to the answers that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member on 1 May and 6 June 1990.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he anticipates the Energy Efficiency Office announcing plans to include cavity wall insulation, electrical appliances and hot water tank thermostats within the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The possible inclusion of additional energy efficiency measures within the home energy efficiency scheme was an area on which a number of comments were received as a result of the recent consultation process. Those comments are currently being considered.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to implement a minimum standard of knowledge for the energy advisers to be operating under the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A number of those responding to the recent consultation paper on the home energy efficiency scheme commented on the need for standards for the provision of energy advice. Those comments are currently being considered.

  Nuclear Fuel (Reprocessing)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what further capital investment will be required by British Nuclear Fuels plc to meet its contractual obligations to the owners of foreign nuclear fuel to be reprocessed in Britain;

  (2) what capital has been invested by British Nuclear Fuels plc to enable it to reprocess foreign nuclear fuel in Britain.

  Mr. Wakeham
  British Nuclear Fuels plc has reprocessing contracts for both Magnox fuel and thermal oxide fuel. Magnox fuel is reprocessed in facilities constructed for the United Kingdom's own Magnox reactors and no significant additional capital investment has been necessary to reprocess foreign fuel.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc thermal oxide reprocessing plant is being constructed to store and reprocess both United Kingdom and foreign thermal oxide fuel. Several of the associated plants for the treatment of wastes arising from THORP reprocessing will also treat wastes from Magnox fuel. British Nuclear Fuels plc estimates that the

  289
  allocation of capital investment for the storage, reprocessing and waste management of foreign thermal oxide fuel to date is £1,100 million with £600 million still to be spent.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is the estimated value of British Nuclear Fuels plc contracts to reprocess foreign nuclear fuel in Britain in the current year and each succeeding year up to 1995;

  (2) what is the estimated total value of British Nuclear Fuels plc contracts to reprocess foreign nuclear fuel in Britain;

  (3) what is the longest period of any contract entered into by British Nuclear Fuels Ltdplc to reprocess foreign nuclear fuel in Britain.

  Mr. Wakeham
  BNFL's estimated turnover relating to storage, reprocessing and waste treatment still to be performed on foreign nuclear fuel is around £4 billion, excluding £0·75 billion from the series of contracts which BNFL is currently completing with West German utilities. More detailed information on contracts is a matter for the company.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Police (Complaints)
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average period of time taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in processing complaints by prisoners against police officers in specific cases; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Records of the time taken to process such cases are not kept. However, all such cases are processed as swiftly as possible. The time taken for any particular case depends on the complexity and size of the case. Simple straightforward cases are normally processed within two weeks of receipt of the police investigation report, more complex cases within three months and the most complex and largest cases within six to 12 months.

  High Court, Northern Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General whether there is a separate family division at the High Court in Northern Ireland; how many judges at the High Court deal with the family problem of custody of children and access to children following separation or divorce; how many such applications await hearing in the High Court; and if he has any proposals to shorten the time required before such cases are heard in the High Court.

  The Attorney-General
  A separate family division of the High Court in Northern Ireland was created by the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. The business of the family division is assigned to one of the judges of the High Court who is assisted by other judges of the Supreme Court as necessary. All 10 High Court judges hear petitions for divorce and judicial separation and deal with questions of custody of and access to children arising therefrom.

  There are two custody applications awaiting hearing and one access application listed for hearing in the week beginning 11 June 1990.
  290
  Waiting times are in general considered to be satisfactory and there are therefore no proposals to shorten the time required before custody cases are heard by the court.

  Court House, Armagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General what are the arrangements for flying the union flag at the court house in Armagh city; and why it was not flown on 2 June.

  The Attorney-General
  An attempt was made by the office manager to fly the union flag at Armagh court house on 2 June 1990, but when being hoisted it caught on barbed wire and was torn to the extent that it was rendered unusable.

  A new flag has been supplied and will be flown on all appropriate dates in accordance with standing instructions.

  Evidence (Fax Machines)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether there is any proposal to make provision, in relation to the Supreme Court for the admissibility of evidence from solicitors of documents in evidence via fax machines; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  There are currently no proposals to make provision in the Supreme Court, for the admissibility of evidence from solicitors of documents in evidence via fax machines.

  Fax copies are unsuited for use as part of the permanent court record because of their tendency to fade. The question of filing court documents by fax will be kept under review, in particular whether technological advances will make fax copies suitable as permanent documents.

ENVIRONMENT

  Toxic Waste Imports
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide details of the quantity of toxic waste imported into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  The latest figure for imports of hazardous waste into the United Kingdom under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations for the calender year 1989, is 41,554 tonnes. This figure is an update of the one given in the written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) on 21 March 1990,Official Report columns 684–85, taking into account additional notifications received from disposers.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the Government's estimates of toxic waste imports to the United Kingdom in each of the next five years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government make no estimate of future imports of hazardous waste into the United Kingdom. However, it is expected that imports from other EC member states will reduce in future years following the Council of Environment Ministers' decision in Luxembourg on 7 June 1990 that member states must aim to be self-sufficient in waste disposal.

  Drought
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will commission a study into the effects of prolonged drought on bird life that requires a diet of freshwater fish; and what information he has on the numbers of herons observed fishing in the sea along the south coast.

  Mr. Trippier
  There is no evidence that the risk to birds from the effects of drought is so significant as to justify commissioning a study. Populations of herons and other waterways birds are monitored annually. I have no information about the extent to which herons fish in the sea, but I understand that it is not unusual.

  Sea Birds (Poisoning)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the research centre at Monkswood has within the last 12 months examined any sea birds for evidence of glycol poisoning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology's Monkswood experimental station—part of the natural environment research council—has not examined any sea-birds for evidence of glycol poisoning in the past 12 months.

  In 1988 the institute carried out analysis and post mortem studies on a number of birds found dead in the Bacton area of Norfolk. No single cause of death could be found at post mortem and none of the chemical or metal residues found in the birds could, taken singly, be considered to have caused death. Tests for glycol residues were inconclusive, although glycols are not generally considered to be especially toxic to vertebrates. No further incidents have been brought to the institute's attention.

  Planning Appeals, Manchester
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number of planning appeals made to his Department against decisions made by each local authority in Greater Manchester in(a) 1985, (b) 1986, (c) 1987, (d) 1988 and (e) 1989, together with the number of appeals upheld in each year against each authority.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information requested is as follows:

  Appeals 1985–86

  Local authority

  Received

  Decided

  Allowed

  Greater Manchester

  4

  4

  0

  Bolton

  58

  51

  22

  Bury

  20

  9

  3

  Manchester

  28

  21

  10

  Oldham

  31

  31

  10

  Rochdale

  20

  15

  6

  Salford

  29

  21

  9

  Stockport

  42

  39

  14

  Tameside

  29

  29

  12

  Trafford

  57

  44

  20

  Wigan

  49

  22

  8

  Appeals 1986–87

  Local authority

  Received

  Decided

  Allowed

  Greater Manchester

  2

  5

  1

  Bolton

  53

  53

  27

  Bury

  28

  23

  9

  292

  Local authority

  Received

  Decided

  Allowed

  Manchester

  30

  21

  9

  Oldham

  34

  31

  11

  Rochdale

  21

  16

  3

  Salford

  30

  28

  9

  Stockport

  60

  46

  20

  Tameside

  44

  30

  15

  Trafford

  45

  41

  20

  Wigan

  38

  39

  13

  Appeals 1987–88

  Local authority

  Received

  Decided

  Allowed

  Greater Manchester

  —

  1

  0

  Bolton

  60

  60

  26

  Bury

  28

  31

  11

  Manchester

  17

  22

  11

  Oldham

  22

  24

  10

  Rochdale

  30

  30

  16

  Salford

  25

  20

  11

  Stockport

  51

  46

  16

  Tameside

  53

  50

  20

  Trafford

  54

  34

  16

  Wigan

  51

  44

  18

  Appeals 1988–89

  Local authority

  Received

  Decided

  Allowed

  Greater Manchester

  —

  1

  0

  Bolton

  53

  47

  19

  Bury

  26

  23

  9

  Manchester

  22

  14

  6

  Oldham

  29

  23

  5

  Rochdale

  36

  24

  13

  Salford

  26

  19

  13

  Stockport

  55

  47

  17

  Tameside

  53

  55

  32

  Trafford

  63

  44

  18

  Wigan

  49

  52

  18

  Appeals 1989–90

  Local authority

  Received

  Decided

  Allowed

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  Bolton

  63

  47

  22

  Bury

  33

  24

  11

  Manchester

  38

  21

  9

  Oldham

  41

  32

  10

  Rochdale

  41

  36

  15

  Salford

  33

  22

  11

  Stockport

  80

  61

  27

  Tameside

  61

  43

  24

  Trafford

  64

  48

  21

  Wigan

  51

  29

  9

  Notes:

  1. Appeals received do not equal those decided. Cases decided in any one year were not necessarily received in that year.

  2. The Greater Manchester Metropolitan County Council was abolished in 1986.

  Development Plans
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cases there have been in the last 12 months where developers have been found liable for costs after they have pursued appeals against refusals properly substantiated by policies in up-to-date development plans.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  During the 12 months from 1 June 1989 to 31 May 1990, my right hon. Friend and planning inspectors awarded the planning authority's appeal costs against an appellant in 53 cases, where the appellant's
  293
  "unreasonable" behaviour, as interpreted in DOE circular 2/87, caused the planning authority to incur costs unnecessarily. These awards were justified by the circumstances in each case; and I regret that an analysis of cases in which the award was based solely on inconsistency with an up-to-date development plan could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Leaseholders
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce legislation for the enfranchisement of leaseholders of flats.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have no immediate plans to do so. As the law stands, freehold tenure does not provide a sound basis for the ownership of flats. The concept of commonhold is being developed with a view to overcoming this problem, but a number of important issues remain to be resolved. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor intends to make a statement on the subject in due course.

  Climatic Change
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what support Her Majesty's Government are giving to proposals for a European Community centre of studies of climatic change; and if he will make a statement on the results of discussions held in Madrid for this purpose.

  Mr. Trippier
  There is at present no European Community proposal for a centre for climate change studies. The directors of western European meteorological services have recently established an ad-hoc working group, which first met in Madrid on 5 and 6 June to consider possible initiatives for co-ordinating their activities on climate change issues. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister opened the new Hadley centre for climate prediction and research on 25 May. This will build on the leading work of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office, and international co-operation will be an important part of its remit.

  Industrial Rates
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the cost to the Treasury of industrial derating for manufacturing industries.

  Mr. Chope
  The aggregate rate liability of factories, mills, works and workshops in England and Wales in 1990–91, subject to transition, is around £2·1 billion.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what limit he can impose on the amounts that firms situated in enterprise zones may offset against any taxable benefit tied to that location in respect of other enterprises outside such zones making losses.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None. The circumstances in which tax relief available in enterprise zones can be utilised is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Ozone
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that information on low-level ozone build-up is released automatically to the press and public on a daily basis wherever it exceeds World Health Organisation air quality guidelines.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information on ozone levels is already automatically released through the Department's press office, as I said in the answer I gave on Tuesday 24 April 1990 to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, (Mr. Hughes) at column 121. So far this year, 27 daily summaries have been released and many requests for information have been received.

  Housing Associations (Low-cost Houses)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in implementation of the provisions for repurchase by housing associations of low-cost houses.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department is anxious to ensure that shared ownership housing association schemes on scarce sites in rural communities continue to benefit local people with modest means. We are now considering proposals from the Housing Corporation for a housing association rural repurchase scheme, which it is hoped to introduce shortly.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what progress has been made in reclassifying psychiatric student nurses as students for the purposes of the community charge;

  (2) if he will now reconsider the definition or classification of student nurses for the purpose of the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  The eligibility criteria for the student relief are set out in the Personal Community Charge (Students) Regulations 1989—S.I. 1989/443. They already provide that students on undergraduate nursing courses and those undertaking Project 2000 training will be eligible for the student relief. Over the next few years the Project 2000 scheme will be extended to cover all pre-registration nursing trainees at schools of nursing, including those training for psychiatric nursing.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of percentage price increases in the cost of living each year for the next five years in Scotland, Wales, northern England, southern England and south-east England due to the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Chope
  In fixing the national non-domestic rate poundages for England and Wales for 1990–91 the Government have aimed to raise in real terms from private businesses and the nationalised industries broadly the same amount in rates as they paid in 1989–90. In future years, the poundage cannot, by law, rise by more than the level of inflation. The new system is therefore not
  295
  inflationary. There is no uniform business rate in Scotland, though my right hon. and learned Friend has taken powers to harmonise the local poundages there with the non-domestic rate poundage in England over a period of years.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he proposes to make to the announcement by West Germany of a ban on the domestic use and production of chlorofluorocarbons by 1995, and the banning of the use of halogenated hydrocarbons in hand-held extinguishers and on the use of carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroforms as solvents by 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Future international controls on ozone depleting substances will be decided at the meeting of the Montreal protocol parties in London at the end of this month. In the light of the results of that meeting, member states of the European Community will discuss what measures to impose within the Community, consistent with the operation of the single European market.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce a Bill to implement the Montreal protocol proposals to cause a reduction in the use of chlorofluorocarbons and halons.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Montreal protocol is implemented on a Community wide basis by EC regulation 3322/88, which is directly applicable in United Kingdom law. The Commission has proposed a new regulation aimed at implementing the changes to the protocol which should be agreed at the end of this month. Member states will consider the draft regulation in the light of the changes which are actually agreed—we expect to complete the process by the end of 1990.

  North Sea Conference
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the implementation, proposed to be drawn up within three months, of the North sea conference on 8 March.

  Mr. Trippier
  I hope to publish the Government's guidance note on implementation of the third North sea conference within the next month.

  Disability Grants
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will delay implementation of the new scheme for means-tested grants for people with disabilities until local authorities have received full information on the scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  The new scheme will be introduced on 1 July by which time local authorities will have received full information by way of Departmental circulars.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Hands of Calderdale as part of the consultation process on proposed procedures for means-testing home improvement grants for people with disabilities; and if he will be responding to their questions.
  296
  Mr. Chope
  The Department received a letter from Hands of Calderdale in response to the consultation exercise on the test of resources for the new disabled facilities grants being introduced under part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Their comments were considered along with those of other consultees in finalising the test of resources regulations.

  Housing
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table which, allowing for recent adjustments to the Housing Corporation's capital programme, shows for 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93(a) the number of housing association new approvals and (b) the number of housing association completions.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: The Housing Corporation is currently discussing with housing associations the implications of recent adjustments to the corporation's capital programme for the level of approvals and completions over the next three years. The Housing Corporation has already indicated that housing association completions in 1990–91 are expected to exceed earlier forecasts. Thereafter, massive expansion in the output of new homes is still expected.

  Norman Shaw North (Water Supply)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what pollutants have recently been found in the water supply to the Norman Shaw North parliamentary office building; and what action has been taken to remove them.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: Following a complaint about the quality of drinking water in the building, samples were tested by the laboratory of the Government chemist. Those taken from the supply to the Embankment side of the building were found to contain coli-aerogenes. Remedial action was taken. Further tests samples taken on 5 June 1990 contained no coli-aerogenes and the supply has now been reinstated.

  Tyne and Wear Development Corporation
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest information he has as to how many new jobs in Sunderland have been created by the activities of the Tyne and Wear development corporation, from its inception.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 13 June 1990]: To date, 1,138 jobs have been created in Sunderland through the activities of the Tyne and Wear development corporation.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to test the accuracy of job creation forecasts given to his Department by Tyne and Wear Development Corporation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 13 June 1990]: The corporation is well aware of the advice issued by the Department about job-creation figures and I have every confidence that the appropriate techniques are being applied.

  Sunderland Enterprise Zone
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current estimate of the cost to Her Majesty's Government of the Sunderland enterprise zone, broken down into(a) rate relief and (b) capital allowances.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 13 June 1990]: The initial estimate of the overall costs of the zone was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 7 December 1988. The cost of rate relief and capital allowances in the zone will depend on the progress of reclamation and development and the decisions of individual firms.

  Children (Sexual Abuse)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what facilities his Department offers to local government to spread the best practice in suspected cases of sexual abuse of children.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department routinely issues guidance to local authorities, and has recently hosted a national conference for chairmen of area child protection committees, the proceedings of which will be disseminated. In addition, several projects in the Department's central training initiative are concerned with child sexual abuse and as part of the training support programme (child care) a special development group has produced guidelines for local authority training officers to assist them with planning their staff training in this area. The Department's social services inspectorate also produce reports which highlight good practice.

  Aquaguard
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to renew the product licence for Aquaguard.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister is hoping to make a statement shortly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Tuna
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he has taken to assure himself that the tuna fish served in the House is caught in a manner harmless to dolphins.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Refreshment Department purchases only canned tuna fish products which derive from skipjack tuna and, which it is understood, do not usually swim with dolphins. It is also keeping itself informed of developments in the marketing of "dolphin-safe" canned tuna fish. It is impracticable for the Department to purchase foodstuffs from other than a wholesaler.

  Parliament (Organisation)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will consider an approach from a management consultancy company to undertake a study on the organisation of the House.
  298
  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I am always interested in suggestions which may lead to improvements in the organisation of the House and the services provided for hon. and right hon. Members. However, a separate study by management consultants would not seem appropriate at present in the light of the review of management, decision-taking and financial responsibilities which was announced by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, on 23 May,Official Report, column 179.

  Motions
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on how many days since 1 July 1987 the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has tabled notices of motion relating to each of(a) a Select Committee on Legal Affairs, (b) the reform of the House of Commons procedure, (c) sittings of the House and (d) Members' facilities; and what estimate he has made of the total cost to public funds and the volume of newsprint that have been involved in the printing of these motions.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The total cost to public funds of printing and publishing notices of motions relating to (a) a Select Committee on Legal Affairs, (b) the reform of the House of Commons procedure, (c) sittings of the House and (d) Members facilities, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) since Sessions 1987–88, 1988–89 with 1989–90 up to and including 7 June 1990, is estimated as £55,000. The volume of paper consumed was about 300,000 sheets of A4 paper.

  The number of days on which the notices of motions were tabled in each Session are as follows:

  Number of days

  Motion

  Session 1987–88

  Session 1988–89

  Session 1989–901

  Total

  (a) Select Committee on Legal Affairs

  —

  71

  92

  163

  (b) Procedure

  69

  122

  92

  283

  (c) Sittings

  69

  123

  92

  284

  (d) Facilities

  —

  115

  92

  207

  1 Up to and including 7 June 1990.

  Secretarial Facilities
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what action he intends to take to improve the secretarial facilities for hon. Members.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  In the context of planning for the new parliamentary buildings several initiatives have been taken to improve conditions for Members' secretaries. Further accommodation has been provided in Canon row; 100 new desk spaces are planned for phase 1; more will be included in phase 2; and, in the Services Committee's third report of this Session (HC 334) recommendations are made to establish basic minimum standards in respect of planning for future accommodation.

  Any proposal to increase the secretarial allowance is a matter for the House to decide.

  Pedestrian Access
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any proposals to improve pedestrian access across the road directly outside St. Stephen's entrance and Chancellor's Gate.
  299
  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has accepted the advice of the traffic authorities that all pedestrians crossing St. Margaret's street should be encouraged to use the existing facility. It is understood that the installation of any additional crossing would run counter to plans to improve the management and safety of pedestrians and traffic in that area.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by the Privy Council Office, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The Privy Council Office, as the joint occupier of a building complex, pays a negotiated proportion of composite charges for gas, and for electricity. The office does not incur any costs in repect of liquid or solid fuels. The total units of consumption for gas and electricity in the financial year 1989–90 were given in my answer on 10 May 1990, but comparable figures for the previous decade could not be accurately calculated except at disproportionate cost. The annual costs to the Department in cash, and 1978–79 money, terms for gas and electricity for those years for which figures are available are as follows:

  Cash terms

  1978–79 money terms

  Gas £

  Electricity £

  Gas £

  Electricity £

  1983–84

  1,350

  6,150

  793

  3,611

  1984–85

  1,854

  8,446

  1,037

  4,725

  1985–86

  2,160

  9,840

  1,146

  5,224

  1986–87

  2,511

  11,439

  1,289

  5,874

  1987–88

  1,782

  8,118

  868

  3,956

  1988–89

  1,675

  7,632

  762

  3,472

  1989–90

  1,920

  10,923

  820

  4,666

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Advisers
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the advisers to his Department, and the area of work for which their advice was required, for the period since 1 January 1984.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are two special advisers at present, Mr. D. Lidington and Mr. M. Fraser. Their role is to consider the presentational and domestic political aspects of policy issues, including those for which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not have lead responsibility. Others who have held the post during the period since January 1984 are Mr. J. Houston, Mr. A. Teasdale and Mr. A. Fergusson.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining the courses of action available to Her Majesty's Government(a) in the prevention of the settlement of Russian emigrants in territories illegally occupied by Israel and (b) to persuade Israel to take part in a conference with a view to negotiating a settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute.
  300
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Israelis are well aware of our view that the settlement of Soviet Jews in the occupied territories, including east Jerusalem, is both illegal and a serious obstacle to peace and should not be permitted. We are working closely with the United States and other interested parties to encourage Israel to open a dialogue with representative Palestinians as a first step towards a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute which will have to be negotiated at an international conference.

  Mrs. Asmat Jan and Son
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on the applications made to the post in Islamabad by Mrs. Asmat Jan and her son Atlas Khan, Refs: IMM/92511 and K22704, to enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In accordance with the guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the question to the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member will receive a reply from the unit as soon as possible.

  Defence Policy
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to the foreign policy implications of the options for change study.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has, of course, been consulting us and other colleagues on the work he has in hand. He will be reporting to the House on this in due course.

  Naval Policy
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what international negotiations on(a) naval confidence-building measures and (b) naval disarmament the Government are currently involved.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No negotiations are taking place on naval arms control involving the United Kingdom. The subject of naval disarmament does, however, feature on the agenda of the annual United Nations disarmament conference.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current assessment of the feasibility of opening negotiations on(a) naval confidence-building measures and (b) naval disarmament.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The alliance's priority for conventional arms control remains land and air forces, because of the potential threat they can pose to stability. Naval forces are explicitly excluded from conventional arms control negotiations taking place in Vienna by their terms of reference.

  Mr. Choudhry Mohammad Waheed
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he issued instructions to the post in Islamabad to issue entry clearance to Mr.
  301
  Choudhry Mohammad Waheed following his successful appeal against refusal to grant entry clearance, Ref. TH/7817, in August 1989; when they were received there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Services
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider making grants to the British Rail Board towards the reopening of rail lines or the reinstatement of rail services where such services will relieve traffic congestion or enhance travel opportunities to the benefit of the community.

  Mr. Freeman
  Grants may be made under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 towards the cost of investments which are not financially viable but which can be justified on wider social and economic grounds. The availability of such grants to British Rail was noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his letter of 19 December 1989 to the chairman of the British Rail reported in the Official Report on 19 December, at columns 227–32.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the extent to which bus substitution provides an acceptable alternative to existing rail services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for British Rail to make any such assessment in the first instance in the light of the objectives set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his letter of 19 December 1989 to the chairman of the British Railways Board.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider increasing the public service obligation grant to British Rail in respect of the Provincial Services Network in line with inflation each year; and what account he takes of the need to reduce overcrowding and congestion and increase reliability of services when considering increases to the public service obligation grant.

  Mr. Freeman
  The size of the grant needs to reflect progress made by British Rail in increasing revenue and reducing costs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set quality targets for reliability, punctuality and load factors, which were taken into account when the current financial targets were set in his letter of 19 December 1989 to the chairman of the board.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish guidelines to Network SouthEast and the Provincial Services Network of British Rail concerning the level of services supported by public services obligation grant he expects them to provide.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Railways Board was directed on 30 March 1988 to provide a public service generally comparable with that provided at the date the direction was made. The direction is published each year in the board's annual report and accounts. Quality of service standards were among the objectives set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his letter of 19 December 1989 to the chairman of the board.

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

  Mr. Atkins
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I have nothing to add to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 30 March 1990 and to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 15 March 1990.

  Smoking on Trains
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to seek to reintroduce section 20 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1868, repealed in 1959.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provision of smoking accommodation on trains is now a matter for the management of British Rail and other railway undertakings to decide.

  Dangerous Substances
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give consideration to transferring to local authorities the enforcement of the Dangerous Substances (Conveyance by Road in Road Tankers and Tank Containers) Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Atkins
  The regulations are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. I have no plans to change this.

  Aircraft Pollution
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies are being carried out into the influence of water vapour created by aircraft on the atmosphere, and on the stratosphere in particular, over and above naturally occuring water vapour levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In the troposphere, water vapour is known to be an important natural contributor to the greenhouse effect, although the contribution made by aircraft is negligible. Whether the amounts emitted by aircraft directly into the lower reaches of the stratosphere are significant is a matter on which I am seeking advice from Professor Hoskins, the Department's scientific adviser on global environment.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals exist for scienific studies into the effect on stratospheric ozone in relation to proposals for a post-Concorde fleet of supersonic transport aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In the United States of America the National Aeronautical and Space Administration is undertaking a major programme of research into this issue in view of the recent revival of interest in supersonic transport aircraft. In addition to determining the potential impact of an supersonic transport aircraft fleet on the protective ozone layer, NASA is also seeking to establish technologies and operational procedures that would
  303
  ensure that future supersonic transport operations would not result in significant ozone depletion. At home, Warren Spring laboratory has been asked to consider what effect aircraft operations in the stratosphere might have on the ozone layer.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from the railway inspectorate on the safety implications of allowing locomotive number 86238 to travel from Norwich Crown Point to Manningtree on 7 June without a qualified driver.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the locomotive was used in conjunction with one of the driving trailers which are to be introduced on Liverpool Street to Norwich InterCity services later in the year. The train was driven by a traction inspector who was fully qualified to drive both the locomotive and driving trailer. Two other, similarly qualified inspectors were also on board. Had a driver been present he would only have assisted with route knowledge and all three traction inspectors were fully competent in that respect. The railway inspectorate assures me that safety was not compromised.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money he estimates to have been saved by compulsory competitive tendering in road and other transport schemes in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: Competitive tendering has been the long-term policy for the construction of the Department's motorway and trunk road schemes. Fee competition for consultants responsible for the preparation, design and supervision of construction of these schemes was introduced in January 1985. This has resulted in projected savings of about 25 per cent. on the total whole life costs of commissions placed in the first five years.

  Local authority highway works have been increasingly exposed to compulsory competitive tendering since 1981 but information on which to base estimates of savings is not available. The Audit Commission has begun a study of effects of the 1987 and 1988 regulatory changes, which require all highway works over £25,000 and 60 per cent. of work at or below that threshold to be subjected to compulsory competitive tender.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give full details of the ships, aircraft and other pollution control equipment available to the marine pollution control unit; where these ships and aircraft are based; and what plans he has to augment the unit's equipment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: The list of directly owned or contracted counter-pollution resources available to the marine pollution control unit is extensive; copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  In addition, the unit can also hire equipment from commercial sources in the United Kingdom and can call
  304
  on assistance from other North sea states under the terms of the Bonn agreement for co-operation in dealing with oil spillages.

  A full review of United Kingdom preparedness to deal with an oil spill at sea was completed last year after the Exxon Valdez incident in Alaska. I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 6 March 1990, Official Report, columns 551–52.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has supplied to the European Commission on arrangements concerning the transport of nuclear fuel and waste through the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  When Eurotunnel puts forward proposals covering the movement of dangerous goods and radioactive materials, they will be considered by the intergovernmental commission established by the channel tunnel treaty to oversee safety, and any necessary advice sought.

  The European Commission does not at present have any direct influence in this field.

THE ARTS

  European Audiovisual Industry
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the European Commission's proposals to encourage the production of more European-made programmes for television.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon West (Miss Nicholson) on 6 June,Official Report, column 607, on Her Majesty's Government's support for the Commission's proposed 250 million ecu budget to promote the European audiovisual industry.

EMPLOYMENT

  Special Needs Training
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy that the cost of funding special needs training will continue to be underwritten by the Government.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government will continue to ensure that all eligible people with special training needs who join youth training or employment training have access to suitable training programmes. The cost of such training will in part be met by the contributions of scheme sponsors and employers, and in some cases by training and enterprise councils out of their own self-generated funds. The Government contribute funds, totalling more than £2 billion, for youth training and employment training in 1990–91, to ensure that its declared guarantees and aims for youth and adult training are fully met.

  Genetic Manipulation
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list any prosecutions, enforcement notices or improvement notices issued under the Genetic Manipulation Regulations 1989.
  305
  Mr. Nicholls
  Since the Health and Safety (Genetic Manipulation) Regulations 1989 came into force on I November 1989 a total of five improvement notices have been served by the Health and Safety Executive to enforce the requirements of these regulations.

  Three of the notices were served on the City and Hackney health authorities at St. Bartholomew's hospital, London and a further two were served on a department head at the hospital.

  Employment Exchanges
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will give full consideration to the social value of a local part-time employment exchange before considering any proposal for its closure;

  (2) if he will ensure that the local authorities covering any part of the area served by a part-time local employment exchange are fully consulted and that full weight is given to their response before considering any proposal to close any such office; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will list any part-time local employment exchanges in Wales which his Department is currently considering closing;

  (4) if he will undertake a full process of public consultation with any community served by a local part-time employment exchange before considering any proposal for its closure.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 13 June.

  In considering the closure of a part-time local office, full consideration is given as to how best to provide the most effective service to ES clients. Larger full-time offices offer a comprehensive range of services and are better able to help unemployed people back to work.

  The following part-time local offices in Wales are scheduled for closure by the end of July:

  Bethesda

  Brynamman

  Clydach

  Cwm

  Hirwaun

  Merthyr Vale (Aberfan)

  New Tredegar

  Pembroke

  Senghenydd.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Industry Council
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the European Economic Community Industry Council meeting of 28 May.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Industry Council on 28 May discussed the involvement of small and medium sized enterprises in public procurement and EC R&D programmes, and the implications for such firms of the business environment. The Council considered the subject of semiconductors and held a first debate on the Commission's proposal for a seventh directive on aid to the shipbuilding industry. The Commission also presented its views of prospects for the EC steel industry over the next five years. The business was both uncontroversial and routine in character.
  306
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether Britain was represented at ministerial level at the recent meeting of the European Community Industry Council at which steel was discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom was represented by the United Kingdom permanent representative to the Community, Sir David Hannay, supported by senior DTI officials.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the proposed closure of the strip mill at Ravenscraig.

  Mr. Ridley
  I last met Sir Robert Scholey on 5 June when we had a confidential discussion.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to discuss the future of the steel industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  I last met Sir Robert Scholey on 5 June when we had a confidential discussion.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received any representations about the working of the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Redwood
  I receive a considerable number of representations on a variety of topics relating to the regulation of financial services.

  Chartered Accountants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has for fresh legislation to cover the chartered accountants profession; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  We have no plans to legislate in respect of chartered accountants in particular or the accountancy profession in general. However, the implementation of part II of the Companies Act 1989 and of Directive 89/48/EEC on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications will affect parts of the accountancy profession, including chartered accountants.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information his Department collects on the production of chemicals which may have a harmful effect on the ozone layer; if he will break down this information by manufacturer for the most recent 12-month period available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  There are only two United Kingdom manufacturers of chlorofluorocarbons, one of which also manufactures halons. They are obliged, under EC Regulation 3322/88, to report their production of these substances to the European Commission at six-monthly intervals. They do so on a commercially confidential basis, and copy the data to my Department and to the Department of the Environment.
  307
  There are no reporting arrangements for the production of other ozone-depleting substances.

  British Steel
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the date of his last meeting with the chairman of British Steel; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: I last met Sir Robert Scholey on 5 June when we had a confidential discussion.

  National Consumer Council
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much is paid from public funds to the National Consumer Council; for what purpose those funds are paid; and who are the members of the council.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: For the financial year 1990–91 the total grant-in-aid to the National Consumer Council will be £2·178 million. This amount includes the grants-in-aid to the Scottish Consumer Council, Welsh Consumer Council and Consumers in the European Community Group which are paid via the National Consumer Council.

  The grant is paid to the National Consumer Council to enable it to carry out the functions described in its memorandum of association, that is to promote action for furthering and safeguarding the interests of consumers, to ensure that those who take decisions which will affect the consumer can have a balanced and authoritative view of the interests of consumers before them and to insist that the interests of all consumers, including the inarticulate and disadvantaged, are taken into account.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that the National Consumer Council reflects the views of consumers.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: On many subjects there may be no one consumer view. However, I am satisfied that in so far as it is possible to do so, the National Consumer Council reflects the views of consumers.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are taken by his Department to check claims made by the National Consumer Council before those claims are made public knowledge.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: The Department does not check the claims made by the National Consumer Council (NCC) before they are made public knowledge, nor does it believe that it would be appropriate for it to do so.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to increase the accountability of the National Consumer Council to consumers.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: No. I am satisfied that the National Consumer Council adequately takes account of the views of consumers.
  308
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to phase out the funding of the National Consumer Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: No.

  Export licences
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences have been granted under the powers given to him by the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 to firms seeking to export equipment to(a) Jordan, (b) Syria, (c) Libya, (d) India, (e) Pakistan, (f) Israel, (g) Saudi Arabia, (h) Egypt and (i) Argentina in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: This information is not readily available and could be provided only at extremely disproportionate cost.

  Trade Licences
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences have been granted under the powers given to him by the Import, Export and Custom Powers (Defence) Act 1939 to(a) Matrix Churchill Ltd., (b) TMG Engineering Ltd., (c) Technology and Trade Development Group Ltd. and (d) Canira Technical Corp. Ltd., in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: It is not the practice to publish such information.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the chief constable of Warwickshire to discuss crime figures.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets chief officers of police on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of policing matters, but he has no present plans for a meeting with the chief constable of Warwickshire to discuss crime figures in particular.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the Chief Constable of Cumbria to discuss crime figures.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets chief officers of police on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of policing matters, but he has no present plans for a meeting with the chief constable of Cumbria to discuss crime figures in particular.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the chief constable of Gwent to discuss crime figures.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets chief officers of police on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of policing matters, but he has no present plans for a meeting with the chief constable of Gwent to discuss crime figures in particular.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the chief constable of Staffordshire to discuss crime figures.
  309
  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets chief officers of police on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of policing matters, but he has no present plans for a meeting with the chief constable of Staffordshire to discuss crime figures in particular.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the chief constable of Leicestershire to discuss crime figures.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the Chief Constable of Wiltshire to discuss crime figures.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the Chief Constable of Surrey to discuss crime figures.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the Chief Constable of Sussex to discuss crime figures.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the Chief Constable of Derbyshire to discuss crime figures.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester to discuss crime figures

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets chief officers of police on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of policing matters, but he has no present plans for meetings to discuss crime figures in particular.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what comparable figures he has on international levels of crime and on the level of crime in England and Wales.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the level of crime in England and Wales, in each member country of the European Community and in the United States of America.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine).

  British Summer Time
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received in respect of proposed changes to British summer time.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received in respect of proposed changes to British summer time.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones).

  Car Security
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with motor manufacturers in the last year on improving the quality of car security.
  310
  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no discussions with motor manufacturers in the last year but he has written recently to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to invite them to discuss what more can be done by motor manufacturers to improve the quality of car security. I have also written to the Consumers Association to invite it to meet me to consider how consumer demand for improved car security can be encouraged.

  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the quality of car security.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the quality of car security.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the quality of car security.

  Mr. John Patten
  So far this year, we have answered two parliamentary questions, four letters from Members of Parliament and three letters from members of the public about car security. The parliamentary questions and one letter from a Member were concerned about the action taken by the motor manufacturers to improve the quality of car security.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the chief constable of West Yorkshire to discuss crime prevention initiatives.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend has, at present, no plans to meet the chief constable of West Yorkshire, but officials maintain regular contact with the West Yorkshire police to discuss crime prevention issues.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider the remaining scientific evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case, in the light of the statements to the May inquiry that forensic evidence in the Maguire case can no longer be considered reliable.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider the remaining scientific evidence in the Birmingham pub bombing case, in the light of the statements to the May inquiry that forensic evidence in the Maguire case can no longer be considered reliable.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider the remaining scientific evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case, in the light of the statements to the May inquiry that forensic evidence in the Maguire case can no longer be considered reliable.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have said on many occasions that I will consider any new evidence which appears to call into question the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six. I will of course take into account any evidence presented to the May inquiry which may be relevant to those convictions.
  311
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to have the results of the Devon and Cornwall police investigation into aspects of the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to have the results of the Devon and Cornwall police investigation into aspects of the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to have the results of the Devon and Cornwall police investigation into aspects of the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to have the results of the Devon and Cornwall police investigations into aspects of the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given earlier to the question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short).

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to ensure that material in police or other official archives relating to the Birmingham pub bombings case will not be destroyed.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to ensure that material in police or other official archives relating to the Birmingham pub bombings case will not be destroyed.

  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to ensure that material in police and other official archives relating to the Birmingham pub bombings case will not be destroyed.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to ensure that material in police or other official archives relating to the Birmingham pub bombings case will not be destroyed.

  Mr. Waddington
  As I made clear in response to a question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 26 April, I understand that the West Midlands police and the Devon and Cornwall constabulary have made arrangements to ensure that all material in their possession relating to the Birmingham pub bombings case is stored in secure conditions pending the outcome of further inquiries into the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six. Relevant papers in the possession of the Home Office will also be preserved.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to recover the 2,000 or so non-material statements which were not made available to solicitors acting for the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the Birmingham six; and if he will make a statement.
  312
  Mr. John Patten
  Since the beginning of this year, we have received representations from Members of both Houses of Parliament, representatives of the clergy and members of the public, both here and abroad, expressing concern about the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six.

  Careful consideration is given to all representations received about the safety of convictions. My right hon. and learned Friend has asked the chief constable of the West Midlands police for a report on a number of points arising out of representations made to him about the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six. These matters are now the subject of inquiries by the Devon and Cornwall constabulary, and my right hon. and learned Friend will take full account of the report of the outcome of those inquiries, together with any other relevant information, before deciding whether his further intervention in the case would be justified.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to recover the playing cards which were an exhibit in the Birmingham pub bombings case but which have since disappeared.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to recover the playing cards which were an exhibit in the Birmingham pub bombings case but which have since disappeared.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to recover the playing cards which were an exhibit in the Birmingham pub bombings case but which have since disappeared.

  Mr. John Patten
  The cards, which were mentioned in the evidence for the defence, were not an exhibit at the trial. It was, of course, open to the defence to bring them before the court if they had wished to do so, but they did not. However, the police are making inquiries to trace the present location of the playing cards said to have been used by various members of the Birmingham Six on the train journey from Birmingham to Heysham.

  Police Allowances
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on his discussions with the Police Federation regarding allowances and the community charge.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Regulations to modify police rent allowance were laid on 9 March. These regulations took account of representations made be my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and representatives of the staff side of the police negotiating board, including the Police Federation. The discussions resulted in a number of important changes to the original proposals.

  Immigration
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals have been made under the 1992 programme to facilitate the greater access of residents in European Economic Community nations to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  These matters remain under discussion between member states. My right hon. and
  313
  learned Friend will in the usual way report to the House the conclusions of the current meeting of Immigration Ministers in Dublin.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from pensioners' representatives about free television licences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since 1 January we have received 103 letters from people representing pensioners about free or reduced price television licences for pensioners. Ninety-seven were from hon. Members and six from organisations. We have no plans to change the present concessionary arrangements.

  Strangeways Prison
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of the damage caused to Strangeways prision, Manchester, caused by the recent disturbances.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated total cost of damage to Strangeways prison, Manchester, caused by the recent disturbances.

  Mr. Mellor
  I announced on 17 May at columns 489–90 plans for the refurbishment of Strangeways prison to provide a range of new and improved facilities, including integral sanitation at a cost of £60 million. This work will also include repair of the damage done during the recent disturbances, which amounts to about £30 million.

  The Greater Manchester police authority advises that the additional cost of policing as a result of the disturbances was £580,000.

  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to refurbish Strangeways prison to enable it to be brought back into use as soon as possible.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to refurbish Strangeways prison to enable it to be brought back into use as soon as possible.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress of his plans to refurbish Strangeways prison.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to refurbish Strangeways prison to enable it to be brought back into use as soon as possible.

  Mr. Mellor
  As I announced on 17 May at columns 489–90 the refurbishment of HM prison Manchester should be completed in about three years' time. One of the remand wings—K wing—should, however, be back in use by October of this year, and the remaining accommodation in the remand wings should be available in about a year's time.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward legislation in the light of recent judgments on Sunday trading cases by the courts; and if he will make a statement.
  314
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on the question of Sunday trading.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it remains the Government's intention to reform the Shops Act 1950.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on the question of Sunday trading.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on reform of the Shops Act 1950.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans).

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many written representations in favour of and against Sunday trading he has received since 3 May.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since 3 May 1990 we have received 10 written representations broadly in favour of Sunday trading and three against.

  Police Houses
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the pay and conditions of police officers living in police houses.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have recently received a large number of representations from police officers, from hon. Members on behalf of police officers and from police representative organisations. These refer, in particular, to the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990 and a proportion concern the position of officers living in provided accommodation. In response we have explained the reasons for setting aside certain aspects of the police negotiating board agreement on rent allowance. My right hon. and learned Friend has also made a number of important changes to the original proposals to meet points which were raised.

  Prison Boards of Visitors
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the uprating of car mileage allowances payable to members of prison boards of visitors to the same level as that payable to prison staff and members of other prison committees.

  Mr. Mellor
  The co-ordinating committee made representations to the prison department in May 1988 to request that rates for boards of visitors travelling, subsistence and loss of earnings should be linked to the civil service rates rather than those applicable to justices of the peace.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of who are the most likely victims of violent crime.
  315
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of who are the most likely victims of violent crime.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of who are the most likely victims of violent crime.

  Mr. John Patten
  Recent research shows that in England and Wales young people aged 16 to 24 remain most at risk of becoming victims of assaults, and young men are by far at the greatest risk. People in England and Wales are less likely to be victims of violent crime (robbery, assaults and sexual assaults) than in most western European countries, the United States of America, Australia and Canada.

  Prison Conditions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to accelerate the ending of slopping out in prisons.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to speed up action to provide access to sanitation in prisons to enable the procedure of slopping out in British prisons to be phased out by the year 2000.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to accelerate the ending of slopping out in prisons.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on 3 May 1990 at column 659.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what submissions he has received recently about the state of prisons in England.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Home Office receives numerous communications about the state of prisons. These vary considerably in content from an individual's problem to more general concerns.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the chairman of the Prison Officers Association to discuss prison regimes.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at this stage to meet the chairman of the Prison Officers Association to discuss prison regimes, but should a request be made he will give the matter urgent consideration.

  Football Matches
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce legislation to enable chief constables to veto the holding of Football Association and league football matches.

  Sir Marcus Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what machinery now exists for the exercise of a police veto on a football fixture.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 8 May when my right hon. and learned Friend met representatives of the Football League 316
  they agreed to work out urgently with the Association of Chief Police Officers effective arrangements for obtaining police advice about the scheduling of fixtures and to act upon it on all occasions. We shall keep these arrangements under review, but at present we have no plans to introduce legislation on this matter.

  Drugs
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on any new Government initiatives to deal with the drugs problem.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on 29 January at column 19 in which I listed recent initiatives for combating the misuse of and traffic in drugs.

  Further developments include:

  the announcement of plans for a United Kingdom task force to advise other countries on ways of reducing the demand for drugs;

  the setting up of a joint police/customs task force, to target cocaine and crack;

  plans for the first seven Home Office drug prevention teams to be located in the London boroughs of Hackney, Lewisham, Newham and Southwark and in Birmingham, Brighton and Liverpool;

  a further tranche of drug-related assistance to Colombia, amounting to some £4·5 million;

  the unanimous adoption of a detailed 35-point political declaration at the conclusion of the world ministerial drugs summit in April giving a commitment to a range of practical measures to reduce the demand for drugs and combat the cocaine threat.

  Police Manpower, Warwickshire
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current level of police manpower in Warwickshire; and what it was three years ago.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The position at 31 March is set out in the table:

  1987—965

  (2 vacancies)

  1990—975

  (45 vacancies)

  Trevi Group
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet other members of the Trevi group to discuss the implications of open frontiers on levels of drug smuggling and terrorist activity.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend is attending meetings of Trevi Ministers in Dublin today and tomorrow at which progress is strengthening police co-operation with a view to the implementation of the single European market will be reviewed. The Government are strongly committed to such co-operation, while believing that checks at United Kingdom ports and airports will continue to play a necessary part in combatting terrorism, drug trafficking and other crimes.

  Public Order Laws
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is considering any amendments to the public order legislation currently in force.
  317
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In reply to a question from my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), the then Home Secretary, announced on 26 October 1989 at column 620 that an evaluation of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 was to be undertaken to obtain a clearer picture of the consistency and effectiveness of its application. We are now considering the representations received.

  My right hon. and learned Friend is also considering the recommendations in Lord Justice Taylor's final report on the Hillsborough stadium disaster for the creation of some new offences and penalties in connection with behaviour at sports grounds.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the Prison Officers Association to discuss pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to meet the Prison Officers Association to discuss pay and conditions of service. Discussions concerning the annual pay award are currently taking place between officials of the Treasury, the Home Office and the appropriate trades unions, including the Prison Officers Association.

  Videos
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the enforcement of the Video Recordings Act 1984 which restricts retailers from hiring 18 videos to children under the age of 18 years.

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he is making of the effectiveness of the law prohibiting the sale of 18 classification videos to minors; and what steps he is taking to make enforcement more effective.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides powers for local authority trading standards officers to enforce the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984 and the manner in which they discharge these duties is a matter for each local authority to decide. The Video Standards Council has recently drawn up a code of practice for the industry and we shall be monitoring its effectiveness closely. However, we have not ruled out the possibility of fresh legislation if such self-regulation proves inadequate.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current prison population; what it was one year ago; and what are the equivalent figures for young offenders.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current(a) adult and (b) young prisoner prison population; and what it was one year ago.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current prison population; what it was one year ago; and what are the equivalent figures for young offenders.
  318
  Mr. Mellor
  On Friday 8 June the total prison population, including those held in police cells, was 45,630. The corresponding figure for 9 June 1989 was 48,604. The latest information available in the form requested is for 31 March, when the total number of prisoners held in prison service establishments was 46,888: 37,224 were adult prisoners; 9,664 were prisoners aged under 21, of whom 6,655 were sentenced young offenders. The corresponding figures for 31 March 1989 were 49,180, 38,597, 10,583 and 7,395 respectively.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Metropolitan Police Commissioner; and if he discussed traffic problems.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the Commissioner on 5 June. Although traffic problems were not on the agenda on that occasion, regular contact is maintained with the Metropolitan police on traffic issues.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss police manpower.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend last discussed police manpower with the commissioner on 21 December, when he met him to discuss his strategy statement for 1990, which was published on 11 January.

  Mid-Glamorgan Fire Service
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the chairman of the Mid-Glamorgan fire service to discuss emergency planning procedures.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have no plans for such a meeting.

  Prisons, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to increase the current levels of security at Her Majesty's prisons on the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Mellor
  A number of improvements to the physical security of the three prisons on the Isle of Wight are currently in hand, planned or under consideration.

  Football Hooligans
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutory provisions relating to the imposition of restriction orders and exclusion orders on football hooligans.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers there are to allow courts to impose restriction orders and exclusion orders on football hooligans.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since August 1987 part IV of the Public Order Act 1986 has empowered courts to impose exclusion orders on those convicted of football-related offences as defined in that Act to prevent them from attending designated matches in England and Wales. Since
  319
  24 April 1990 the courts have been empowered by part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989 to impose restriction orders on those convicted of football-related offences as defined in that Act to prevent them from attending key matches outside England and Wales. From 1 June 1990 magistrates courts have had the power under the 1989 Act to impose restriction orders on those convicted of corresponding offences in Scotland or Italy.

  Expatriates (Voting Rights)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many United Kingdom expatriates have registered for voting purposes to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are 1,237 overseas electors on the United Kingdom electoral register for 1990–91. Corresponding information for the 1991–92 register, which will include those registered under the new provisions introduced by the Representation of the People Act 1989, will not become available until the draft register is published on or before 28 November of this year.

  Firearms
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to review the effects of the Firearms (Amendment) Act and its implementation by different police forces.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under section 22 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 it is the function of the firearms consultative committee to review the provisions of the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1988 and to make to the Home Secretary such recommendations for improving their working as the committee thinks necessary. The Home Office also keeps the operation of the Act under general review. Administration of firearms controls is a matter for individual chief officers of police.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to amend the procedure for considering claims for asylum in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to amend the procedure for considering claims for asylum in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to amend the procedure for considering claims for asylum in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Procedures are kept under review. We have no present plans for fundamental change.

  South Yorkshire Fire Authority
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the results of the review that is being currently carried out by the South Yorkshire fire authority of its own operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that the chief fire officer of South Yorkshire fire service is reviewing the fire risk 320
  categorisation and standards of fire cover throughout the South Yorkshire area. When the review has been completed, the chief fire officer will submit his report and findings to the South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority. I understand that the review is still at a very early stage and it would be inappropriate for my right hon. and learned friend to speculate on when the results of the review will be available.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the setting up of a war crimes investigation unit.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary indicated in the Second Reading debate on the War Crimes Bill on 19 March that the unit would not be set up before the Bill received Royal Assent. On 14 June another place declined to give the Bill a Second Reading. The Government now intend to reflect on all aspects of the issue before taking any decision on further action.

  Right of Silence
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to amend the law relating to the right of silence of suspects in police custody; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 7 March at column 639.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has recently revised his guidance to police officers about dealing with domestic violence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Work on a new set of guidelines is at an advanced stage and my right hon. and learned Friend hopes to issue them within the next few weeks. The new guidelines will represent an important step in ensuring that the victims of domestic violence receive the full protection of the law to which they are entitled.

  Immigration (Airlines Liability)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals relating to the operation of the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987 as it affects airlines.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 21 May at column 8.

  Police Manpower, Northumbria
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the chief constable of Northumbria police to discuss manpower levels.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State met the chief constable and the police authority on 3 April when police manpower was discussed.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of remand prisoners held in police cells; and what it was one year ago.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn).

  Mr. Cecil Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated total cost of damage to Strangeways prison, Manchester, caused by the recent disturbances.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter).

  Ticket Touts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to curb the activities of ticket touts.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no general plans to introduce legislation in this area. We are currently considering the recommendation by Lord Justice Taylor for control of ticket touting at football matches.

  Radio Broadcasting
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet the Director General of the BBC to discuss radio broadcasting.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the BBC board of governors yesterday, together with the director general and board of management, and discussed a wide range of broadcasting matters, including radio.

  Sentencing
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the chairman of the National Association of Probation Officers to discuss sentencing policy.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are no plans at present for the Home Secretary to meet the chairman of the National Association of Probation Officers, but we maintain regular contact with the association.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women in open prisons requested home leave to visit their children during 1989 or during the most recent available period.

  Mr. Mellor
  There were 212 recorded applications for home leave for this purpose during the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women in open prisons were granted home leave to visit their children during 1989 or during the most recent convenient period; and how many periods of home leave they were granted on average during this time.
  322
  Mr. Mellor
  During the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990, 152 women from the three open establishments were granted at least one period of home leave to visit their children. Details of the average number of periods of home leave granted to individual prisoners are not readily available.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria for granting home leave to women in open prison; and at what level the decision was made.

  Mr. Mellor
  All applications for home leave are considered by the establishment's home leave board and must be approved by the governor. The criteria for considering applications are laid down in circular instructions 9/1988 and 12/1988. For prisoners in open establishments, these will include the length of the prisoner's sentence, her behaviour in prison, whether the prisoner can be trusted not to commit any further offence during the leave and to return on time and the suitability of the accommodation where the home leave is to be spent.

  Drinking in Public Places
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the request by Bolton metropolitan borough council to introduce a byelaw to prohibit drinking in public places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The byelaw is being tested on an experimental basis in seven areas. A decision on whether the byelaw will be made widely available will depend on the results of these experiments.

  BBC Report (Chinese Nationals)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department made any representations to the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding its report at 1 pm on Friday 18 May, regarding 33 Chinese nationals.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. After the 1 pm report, the BBC asked for, and was given, the views of the Home Office.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an agency independent of the police charged with maintaining criminal records and meeting vetting requests.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Arrangements are being made for an early scrutiny of the issues involved and the implications of establishing such an agency.

  Football Licensing Authority
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the location of the offices for the Football Licensing Authority and the number of staff to be employed.

  Mr. John Patten
  No final decision has yet been taken on the location of the offices of the Football Licensing Authority. We envisage that the authority will have a small headquarters staff headed by a chief executive, and a team of inspectors some of whom will probably be located in different parts of the country.
  323
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to announce the chairman and members of the Football Licensing Authority.

  Mr. John Patten
  As soon as possible.

  Nuclear Accident, Greenwich
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans or studies have been undertaken to assess the measures that would have to be taken in the event of widespread contamination by airborne plutonium resulting from a nuclear weapons accident aboard a Royal Navy ship docked at Greenwich.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to a question from the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 8 June at column 724.

  Evidence (Fax Machines)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of his Department's parole unit in relation to the admissibility of evidence from solicitors of documents in evidence via fax machines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The parole unit will accept documents by fax subject, where appropriate, to confirmation later of their provenance.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are to be taken to improve the effectiveness of policing the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 by the Scientific Procedures Inspectorate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This country is unique in having a full-time inspectorate consisting only of qualified medical practitioners and veterinary surgeons. The present controls are highly effective and my right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to change them.

  Boundary Changes, Northampton
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the timetable of any prospective changes in ward or constituency boundaries within any part of the Northampton, North constituency or concerning Northampton, North.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Local Government Boundary Commission for England has agreed to carry out a review of the electoral arrangements for the borough of Northampton. This is likely to commence as soon as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has reached a decision in respect of a recent review of parishes in the borough of Northampton. The review is expected to be completed in good time for the next local elections to the borough council in 1995.

  The Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England will commence its next general review of all constituency boundaries in England, including those of the Northampton, North constituency, in 1991. The commissions report must be submitted between 1993 and 1998.

  Mother-and-Baby Units
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost per week of keeping a mother and her baby in the units at(a) Holloway, (b) Askham Grange and (c) Styal.

  Mr. Mellor
  In 1988–89, the average net operating costs per inmate per week for Her Majesty's prison, Holloway, Her Majesty's prison and young offender institution, Styal and Her Majesty's prison, Askham Grange were, respectively, £491, £340 and £314. Operating costs of the mother and baby units are not separately identified.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters per month are being received by his Department from hon. Members; and what proportion of them are being answered within five, 10, 20 and 40 working days, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is laid out in the table:

  Number of inquiries received by the Home Office from members of parliament for the months of January to April 1990.

  Answered within

  January

  February

  March

  April

  10 days

  687

  554

  374

  249

  11–20 days

  567

  786

  874

  536

  21–30 days

  646

  680

  585

  823

  31–40 days

  263

  189

  336

  268

  Total number of inquiries

  2,551

  2,875

  2,904

  2,534

  Police Disciplinary Proceedings
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, following the outcome of recent police disciplinary proceedings relating to the investigation into the murder of PC Keith Blakelock, he will now review the convictions of Winston Silcott, Mark Braithwaite and Eugin Raghip.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 13 June 1990]: The disciplinary charges against Detective Chief Superintendent Melvin concerned Mr. Jason Hill, not the convictions of Mr. Braithwaite, Mr. Raghip or Mr. Silcott. My right hon. and learned Friend is always ready to consider cases in which it is suggested there might be new evidence which might call the safety of the convictions into question. We are considering whether the recent television programme contained any new evidence or other consideration of substance.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet Lord Justice Lane to discuss the safety of the convictions of Winston Silcott, Mark Braithwaite and Eugin Raghip for the murder of PC Keith Blakelock.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 13 June 1990]: No.

DEFENCE

  Tanks and Helicopters
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department is making concerning the proper balance between tanks and helicopters for the British Army.
  325
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The balance between tanks and helicopters is kept under constant review.

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if insensitive high explosives are used on the nuclear warheads fitted to United States air force SRAM-A missiles based in Britain.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no United States air force SRAM-A missiles based in Britain.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any nuclear warheads of British manufacture use insensitive high explosive.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It would not be in the national interest to reveal such details of nuclear weapon design.

  Harrier GR7
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the first Harrier GR7s to enter Royal Air Force service.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence took delivery of the first Harrier GR7 on 5 June this year. It will be in Royal Air Force service within the next few months.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying movements were authorised in the Borders tactical training area at less than 250 ft in the periods (1) 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987, (2) 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988 and (3) 1 July 1988 to 30 June 1989; and if he will provide a breakdown of the 1988–89 figure into movements in the Borders tactical training area (west) and the Borders tactical training area (east).

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested regarding aircraft movements authorised in the Borders tactical training area at less than 250 ft is given in the table. It should be noted that the movements figures for the Borders tactical training area have, since 1988, been recorded on a different basis following the extension to the Borders training area, and the number of movements quoted for this area from July 1988 onwards is not directly comparable with earlier movement figures which predate the extension of the area. I regret that central records do not separately identify movements in the Borders tactical training area west and the Borders tactical training area east over the period for which information is requested.

  Operational low-flying movements in Borders tactical training area

  Period

  Number

  1 July 1986 to 30 July 1987

  873

  1 July 1987 to 30 July 1988

  558

  1 July 1988 to 30 July 1989

  1,865

  French Defence Minister
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his French counterpart; and whether he discussed European security.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had a bilateral meeting with Mr.326
  Chevènement at the Anglo-French summit in London on 4 May, when a wide range of defence questions was discussed, including future European security.

  Army Regiments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the regiments of the British Army arid(a) the location and value of the property associated with each and (b) the location and value of the property associated with each which has been sold in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The regular regiments and corps of the British Army are listed below:

  Regular Regiments and Corps of the British Army

  1. Household Cavalry

  The Life Guards

  The Blues and Royals (Royal Horse Guards and 1st Dragoons)

  2. Royal Armoured Corps

  1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards

  The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys)

  4th/7th Royal Dragoon Guards

  5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards

  The Queen's Own Hussars

  The Queen's Royal Irish Hussars

  9th/12th Royal Lancers (Prince of Wales's)

  The Royal Hussars (Prince of Wales's Own)

  13th/18th Royal Hussars (Queen Mary's Own)

  14th/20th King's Hussars

  15th/19th The King's Royal Hussars

  16th/5th The Queen's Royal Lancers

  17th/21st Lancers

  Regiments of the Royal Tank Regiment

  3. The Royal Regiment of Artillery

  4. Corps of Royal Engineers

  5. Royal Corps of Signals

  6. Infantry

  (a) The Guards Division

  Grenadier Guards

  Coldstream Guards

  Scots Guards

  Irish Guards

  Welsh Guards

  (b) The Scottish Division

  The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment)

  The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment)

  The King's Own Scottish Borderers

  The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment)

  Queen's Own Highlanders (Seaforth and Camerons)

  The Gordon Highlanders

  The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)

  (c) The Queen's Division

  The Queen's Regiment

  The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  The Royal Anglian Regiment

  (d) The King's Division

  The King's Own Royal Border Regiment

  The King's Regiment

  The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire

  The Green Howards (Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own Yorkshire Regiment)

  The Royal Irish Rangers (27th (Inniskilling) 83rd and 87th)

  The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding)

  (e) The Prince of Wales's Division

  The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  The Cheshire Regiment

  The Royal Welch Fusiliers

  327

  The Royal Regiment of Wales (24/41st Foot)

  The Gloucestershire Regiment

  The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment (29th/45th Foot)

  The Royal Hampshire Regiment

  The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's)

  The Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment (Berkshire and Wiltshire)

  (f) The Light Division

  The Light Infantry

  The Royal Green Jackets

  (g) The Brigade of Gurkhas

  2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles (The Simoor Rifles)

  6th Queen Elizabeth's Own Gurkha Rifles

  7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles

  10th Princess Mary's Own Gurkha Rifles

  (h) The Parachute Regiment

  (i) Special Air Service Regiment

  (j) Other Corps

  Army Air Corps

  Royal Army Chaplains' Department

  Royal Corps of Transport

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  Royal Army Ordnance Corps

  Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  Corps of Royal Military Police

  Royal Army Pay Corps

  Royal Army Veterinary Corps

  Small Arms School Corps

  Military Provost Staff Corps

  Royal Army Educational Corps

  Royal Army Dental Corps

  Royal Pioneer Corps

  Intelligence Corps

  Army Physical Training Corps

  Army Catering Corps

  Army Legal Corps

  General Service Corps

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  Women's Royal Army Corps

  The data requested concerning location and value of property could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British Army regiments existed in 1979 and currently; and if he will name those which(a) have been amalgamated or abolished and (b) it is proposed to amalgamate or abolish.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details of numbers of combat arm regiments and infantry battalions are given annually in volume 1 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates.

  Of these, the only regiments or battalions that have been amalgamated or disbanded since 1979 are 2nd battalion, 7th Gurkha Rifles, which was raised in 1981 and disbanded in 1986; 2 Regiment and 9 Regiment Army Air Corps, which were disbanded in 1983 and 1982 respectively; the Composite Infantry Demonstration Battalion, which was disbanded in 1982; and 25 Regiment, Royal Artillery, which was disbanded in 1984.

  As for future amalgamations or disbandments, this will depend on the circumstances at the time. However, we recognise that the changing circumstances in Europe will have implications for the deployment and structure of our forces and that we are therefore examining the options for change.

  Army Property
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the outside management consultants used by his Department to rationalise the property assets of the British Army since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence—and, before 1988, the Property Services Agency—has employed a great many outside management consultants to assist with the rationalisation of property assets across all three services and the procurement executive. No central record is maintained of the use made of consultants, however, and it is not possible to provide this information retrospectively.

  Territorial Army
  Mr Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spends on the Territorial Army at the present time; and what the figure was in 1979 at constant prices.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1990–91, expenditure on the Territorial Army will total £345 million compared with £271 million in 1979–80. Both figures are at 1989–90 prices.

  Defence Policy
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will initiate a review of Britain's defence policy, following the recent summit conference between Presidents Bush and Gorbachev.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are already examining options for change in the structure and deployment of our armed forces in light of the changing international circumstances.

  United States Navy Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the visits of United States navy nuclear submarines to Bangor since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no records of any port visits to Bangor, Wales, or Bangor, Northern Ireland by United States navy nuclear-powered submarines.

  Stoney Castle Ranges
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about unauthorised access across his Department's land at Stoney Castle ranges, Pirbright, for the illegal tipping of waste; and what steps he is taking to prevent this.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has received representations from the Pirbright parish and Surrey county councils and a number of local residents about access across Ministry of Defence land at Stoney Castle ranges, Pirbright, Surrey, for the illegal tipping of waste.

  Action is in hand to establish the status of access. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to my hon. Friend.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the management structure for atomic weapons establishment sites after contractorisation.
  329
  Mr. Neubert
  No decisions have yet been made on the details of the future interim management structure of AWE. It will be open to the contractor in discussion with MOD to recommend organisational changes or additional management posts to facilitate efficient operation of the establishment as a whole.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce his choice of contractor for the atomic weapons establishment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  We expect to let an interim management contract at AWE in the autumn of this year.

  Maguire Case
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions he has given to RARDE regarding the making available to Sir John May's inquiry of papers relating to the Maguire case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  My officials have been instructed to be as helpful as possible in the inquiry.

  Arms Exports, Middle East
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the role of British exports of military equipment in spreading sophisicated weapons and military technology to the middle east.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom has won orders for a range of military equipment to some middle east countries, but these have been allowed only after very careful consideration of each export to ensure that it is consistent with our national interests and international obligations. The factors considered always include assessments of political, strategic and technology transfer aspects.

  Police Review
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure has been incurred to date on the study of options for change.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The work is being done by personnel in the office of management and budget and the defence staff in addition to their normal duties. We have not sought to attribute their time and related costs between this and their other tasks.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications have taken place with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies about the study of the options for change.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has informed our NATO allies that work on options for change is taking place and he is in close touch with them about international developments and the evolution of alliance policy, which are important elements in that work.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the options for change study will be completed;

  (2) whether the results of the study of the options for change will be published.
  330
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Parliament will be informed once the Government have reached a view on the appropriate way forward on the options for change exercise.

  Nuclear Accident, Greenwich
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave to the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 8 June,Official Report, column 724.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Low Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the poorest one tenth of the population in the period 1981 to 1985 he estimates had an income rise of (i) minus 5 per cent, or less, (ii) 0 to minus 5 per cent., (iii) 0 to plus 5 per cent. and (iv) plus 5 per cent. or more.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The households below average income analysis is derived from data on incomes contained in the family expenditure survey which is a continual annual survey of a sample of private households in the United Kingdom. The households below average income analysis enables comparisons to be made between the position of decile groups over time, but, because the sample consists of different families each year, it is not possible to draw similar comparisons between individual families. The information requested is therefore not available.

  Income Support
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, if claimants in receipt of unemployment benefit income support have their fortnightly benefit payment suspended for not actively seeking employment on three successive occasions, and they then satisfy the condition, they have to make a fresh claim for benefit and complete a new B1 or whether their fortnightly payment is automatically reinstated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No fresh claim for income support is required if hardship payments are made when benefit has been suspended on account of failing to actively seek employment. However, if hardship payments have not been made and income support has been suspended for longer than a fortnight, a fresh claim on a new form B1 will be required.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether a non-householder income support claimant without dependants whose income support is suspended for not actively seeking work or being available for work can be paid on income support hardship payment; and if he will make a statement.
  331
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Yes. The adjudication officer has to be satisfied that, unless income support is paid, the claimant will suffer hardship. No distinction is made between householders and non-householders.

  Personal Pension Plans
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing on 21 December,Official Report, column 405, he has completed his review of the disclosure requirements for occupational and personal pension schemes, including unit-linked personal pension plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The disclosure of information regulations will need amendment as a result of the provisions on occupational pensions in the Social Security Bill and of other recommendations in the Occupational Pensions Board report "Protecting Pensions" which we have accepted. A number of interested bodies have been asked for their views on the existing regulations, and responses are due very soon. In the light of these comments, we hope to bring forward our proposals as soon as possible.

  Family Credit and Income Support
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently receiving family credit or income support in each county in England and in each district council area in England.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on the number of recipients of family credit or income support by county and district council area is not available.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much public expenditure has been reduced as a result of policy changes to housing benefit each year since 1982, both at current prices and at 1990–91 prices; and what has been the cumulative total of savings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information is not available in the detail requested because, over time, the financial effects of successive policy changes overlap with other changes such as uprating of benefit levels, movements in housing costs, changes in unemployment, and movements in income levels. In cash terms, housing benefit expenditure was £1·6 billion in 1982–83, including help with rates, and the forecast for the current year is £7 billion, including community charge benefit. This represents a substantial real terms increase since 1982–83.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost to public funds in the current financial year, and with retrospective effect to 6 April of(a) raising from £3,000 to £6,000 the savings disregarded for community charge rebate, while leaving the £16,000 figure unchanged and (b) assuming that each £500 of savings produces £1 a week of income.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: The estimated benefit cost of increasing, for community charge benefit, the lower capital limit from £3,000 to
  332
  £6,000 and changing the tariff rate to £1 of every £500 over £6,000, allowing for retrospection to 6 April 1990, would be £100 million in 1990–91. (Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1985–86–87 family expenditure survey).

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost to public funds in the current financial year and with retrospective effect to 6 April, of entitling all non-employed spouses of persons who are paying income tax only at the standard rate to a community charge rebate of 80 per cent.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: I regret that it is not possible to make an estimate of this. Any estimate of the total benefit cost requires such a wide range of assumptions, for example, the allocation of community charge benefit children's allowances to the employed spouse, and the allocation of savings between the partners, as to make any estimate both arbitrary and uncertain.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions compensation has been refused in respect of confirmed BSE cattle since January 1989; under what circumstances such applications are refused; what advice he offers to farmers to avoid such refusal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Ministry is required by the Animal Health Act 1981 to pay compensation in respect of all cattle slaughtered as BSE suspects.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards being able to identify the presence of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy infective agent in cattle prior to the onset of clinical symptoms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 21 May at column 86.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 734, to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), what recent research is being undertaken to establish whether the infective agent responsible for bovine spongiform encephalopathy can be transmitted to (a) pigs, (b) poultry and (c) dogs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 12 June at column 135.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contingency plans he has to cover the event of BSE being found to be vertically transmissible.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no evidence to suggest that BSE is vertically transmissible. However, measures are in hand to require cattle owners to maintain herd breeding records, including the identity of each calf and its dam, and to retain these and the existing movement records for 10 years. These measures will assist the tracing of calves born
  333
  to dams in which BSE is subsequently confirmed, should further animal health measures be necessary to facilitate the elimination of the disease.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average cost to his Department of each case of BSE; and what is the breakdown of such cost into its components of compensation, carcase disposal, laboratory test and other.

  Mr. Maclean
  The average expenditure between August 1988 and April 1990 is estimated to be as follows:

  Item

  Average cost £

  Compensation

  422

  Carcass disposal and miscellaneous expenditure

  216

  Laboratory costs

  166

  Veterinary field service

  251

  Total

  1,055

  Colorado Beetle
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions Colorado beetle has been found in the United Kingdom in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Thirty seven live and nine dead Colorado beetles were found on produce imported into the United Kingdom in the 12-month period ending 31 May 1990. No breeding colonies have been identified here.

  The Colorado beetle presents a serious threat to our potato crops and the Government remain determined to prevent its introduction and spread in the United Kingdom. We maintain careful surveillance of imports and continuing public awareness campaigns to ensure that our crops remain free from this pest.

  Marine Turtles
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Southern sea fisheries committee has distributed information to Isle of Wight fishermen on marine turtles; and if he will make this information available to hon. Members.

  Mr. Curry
  The activities of sea fisheries committees are, of course, a matter for the committees themselves as constituent bodies of local councils. I understand that the Southern Sea Fisheries Committee has neither sought nor distributed any information on marine turtles to fishermen within its district.

  Animal Health Inspectors
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animal health inspectors are now in post; what qualfications were required for recruitment; what training provision was undergone by recruits; and what arrangements have been made for reviewing the effectiveness of training and the working of the scheme as a whole.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are currently 547 state veterinary service (SVS) staff appointed as inspectors by the Minister for the purposes of the Animal Health Act 1981. All veterinary offices are qualified on entry to the SVS to be 334
  appointed as veterinary inspectors for the purposes of the Act, without further training. The technical support staff (animal health officers) receive training on entry to the SVS over at least two years, on the provisions of the Act and its associated orders, the service of statutory notices and the duties of an inspector under the Act. The performance of all inspectors is constantly monitored as part of the routine staff appraisal process, and appointments can be withdrawn if duties are not effectively carried out.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what rules exist in respect of the voltage levels and use of cattle goads; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps he is taking to minimise offences in respect of the use of goads under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no specific statutory controls on the energy output of cattle goads. Their use is. however, subject to the general provisions of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 and orders made under the Animal Health Act 1981. We are planning to introduce statutory welfare measures in markets and slaughterhouses which would prohibit the use of electric goads on all animals, other than adult cattle and adult pigs under certain conditions.

  Fishing Investment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much British finance is committed to EC structural policy 4028/86 on fishing; how much money comes back to this country in return; and what is his estimate of the net benefit/loss to the United Kingdom for 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Curry
  This information is not readily available.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give his estimate of the amount spent on decommissioning grants for fishing vessels of its national Governments by the Commission in(a) France, (b) Denmark, (c) Holland, (d) Belgium and (e) Spain in the latest available year.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest available figures of European Community reimbursements in 1989 for decommissioning grants are as follows:

  £ million

  France

  Nil

  Denmark

  1·64

  Holland

  1·87

  Belgium

  Nil

  Spain

  Nil

  Meat Tenderising Enzymes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his assessment of the extent of the usage of meat tenderising enzymes administered pre-slaughter.
  335
  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that about 2 per cent. of cattle are treated with the enzyme Papain before slaughter.

  The Government have announced that they will not be seeking provision for the continued use of this pre-slaughter treatment under the rules to be adopted for the single market.

  Hill Livestock
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when delays in payment of hill livestock compensatory agreement premiums will be resolved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Hill livestock compensatory allowances are paid as quickly as possible following receipt of claims, once the necessary administrative checks have been completed.

  Beef
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of beef produced in the United Kingdom is from(a) steers and (b) bulls under the age of 14 months.

  Mr. Gummer
  No information is available on the age of slaughtered stock. However, in 1989 steers accounted for 46 per cent. of United Kingdom beef production by carcase weight and young bulls for 8 per cent.

  ADAS (General Charging)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give for each complete financial year since the introduction of general charging by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, the income and the number of customers.

  Mr. Curry
  Charging for ADAS services on a general scale was introduced in April 1987. Income for the financial years since then is as follows:

  £ milion

  1987–88

  16·7

  1988–89

  21·1

  1989–90

  25·8

  Almost 85,000 customers have purchased ADAS services since April 1987. Customer figures by year are not available.

  Marine Environment
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking to improve the quality of the marine environment.

  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 April 1990, c..971]: The Government are determined that the unpleasant practice of dumping colliery minestone on beaches in the north-east of England should stop as soon as practicable. As a result of a great deal of study carried out at the Government's direction various options have been considered for disposal of the waste on land. However, before any disposal on land can begin, British Coal must get planning permission.

  I am therefore now requiring British Coal to seek all necessary permissions for a land-based means of disposal of their minestone.
  336
  It is important to set a deadline for this process. The Government consider that five years is a tight, but not unreasonable, timescale for British Coal to prepare an application, have it properly assessed through the planning system, and to construct the necessary arrangements for dealing with these large quantities of stone on land. I am therefore making clear to British Coal that the Ministry envisages that the licences which permit British Coal to dump minestone on the beaches should end in five years. The only reason for extending the licences beyond that date would be if the outcome of pursuing a planning application were that no practical means of disposing of the stone on land is in fact available to British Coal.

  I shall similarly be requiring British Coal to seek permissions for disposing on land the minestone that they currently dump out at sea from Wearmouth and Westoe collieries. For these licences, a seven-year deadline will be set.

  Dietary Survey
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish the results of the dietary and nutritional survey of British adults.

  Mr. Maclean
  The first detailed results of this major survey of the diet and health of more than 2,000 adults throughout Great Britain are published today. I have placed a copy of the report in the library of the House.

  The survey was conducted by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health. In addition, MAFF and the Department of Health provided the dietary, nutritional and health expertise needed to conduct and interpret such a complex survey.

  My noble Friend Baroness Hooper, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, and I welcome this excellent report, which will provide a sound base for future food and health policy. The detailed findings provide an invaluable source of reference for those outside as well as within Government, and are a benchmark against which future developments can be measured.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Customs and Excise (Devon)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of staffing in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in Torbay; what was the level of staffing in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The current and previous three years staffing levels of Customs and Excise officers engaged in Customs work in Torquay is as follows.

  Numbers

  1987

  5

  1988

  5

  1989

  4

  1990

  2

  337
  The reductions in 1989 and 1990 were the result of transferring Customs posts to the Brixham office. There are currently a further 14 VAT staff and one excise officer also located in Torquay.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of staffing in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in Brixham; what was the level of staffing in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The current and previous three years staffing levels of Customs and Excise in Brixham is as follows. All staff are engaged on customs work.

  Numbers

  1987

  2

  1988

  2

  1989

  4

  1990

  6

  The increases in 1989 and 1990 were the result of transferring customs posts from the nearby Dartmouth and Torquay offices.

  Pensions
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the percentage increases over the past 10 years in(a) the state retirement pension, (b) the armed forces pensions and (c) police pensions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  The percentages used to increase the state retirement pension, the armed forces pensions and police pensions in each of the last 10 years are in the table.

  per cent

  1980

  16·5

  1981

  9·0

  1982

  11·0

  1983

  3·7

  1984

  5·1

  1985

  7·0

  1986

  1·1

  1987

  2·1

  1988

  4·2

  1989

  5·9

  1990

  7·6

WALES

  Silage
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received any scientific advice concerning possible dangers to sheep from eating silage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Listeria organisms can be found in silage and in some circumstances can cause death in sheep. The overall incidence of this disease is low; fewer than 80 deaths were diagnosed in Wales last year by the veterinary investigation service. ADAS advisory leaflets on the production and feeding of silage to sheep are available to farmers on request. Advice is also available from ADAS nutrition chemists and the veterinary investigation service.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives have been taken by his Department to try to secure an improvement in the acid rain problem facing Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department has initiated a programme of research which has been designed to assess the impact of acid rain on Wales and seek practical steps to reduce its impact.

  In addition, the Welsh Office has supported the Department of the Environment in funding a major research project in the Llyn Brianne area to assess the relative contribution which air pollution, afforestation, land type and land use and practice make to the acidification of Welsh water.

  Limitation of the effects of acid rain on Wales is dependent, of course, upon a reduction of emissions throughout the United Kingdom and Europe. Using 1980 as a base line, the United Kingdom is committed to reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide by 20 per cent. and oxides of nitrogen by 15 per cent. from existing large combustion plants by 1993 as the first stage of directive 88/609/EEC, "The Limitation of Emissions of Certain Pollutants Into the Air From Large Combustion Plants".

  Mental Handicap Nurses
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on an all-Wales level with regard to the future role of mental handicap nurses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  In the context of the development of community-based services for people with a mental handicap, under the all-Wales strategy, mental handicap nurses have a valuable and important role in the provision of the range of services required in support of those people living in, or resettled into, the community and who require nursing care.

  The four chief nursing officers in the United Kingdom have established a working group to review the needs of people with a mental handicap, and identify the future requirement for skilled nursing care arising from the changes outlined in the White Paper "Caring for People". Their report, which will address the issues that require resolution at the all-Wales level, will be ready in the autumn.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for the number of confirmed cases of BSE in cattle in(a) Carmarthen, (b) Dyfed, (c) Wales and (d) Britain.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  Total number of confirmed cases as at 1 June 1990

  Number

  (a) Old County of Carmarthen

  162

  (b) Dyfed

  493

  (c) Wales

  967

  Lactofol
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what investigations have been undertaken by his agricultural department of the Welsh Office into Lactofol, in relation to its potential as a fertiliser and as an agent to counteract acid rain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The analytical facilities of the Government's Agricultural Development and Advisory Service are available to the private sector on a contractual basis. The details of such contracts are a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Year

  Submitted

  Decided

  Granted

  Number

  Per Cent.

  Brecon Beacons NP

  1988

  812

  650

  463

  (71)

  1989

  907

  819

  558

  (68)

  Pembrokeshire Coast NP

  1988

  727

  600

  489

  (82)

  1989

  787

  704

  526

  (75)

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of children aged under 16 years received free eye tests in Wales(a) in each quarter of 1988–89 and (b) in each quarter of 1989–90.

  Mr. Grist
  The data requested were not collected centrally before 1 April 1989, since when it has been collected on a six-monthly basis.

  The available info.mation is given in the following table:

  Estimated1 percentage of relevant population who received eye tests in the six months ending

  30 September 1989

  31 March 1990

  Children aged under 16

  6

  7

  1 Estimates based upon a 2 per cent, sample of all such sight tests paid for by family practitioner committees and expressed as a percentage of the estimated number of children aged under 16 (as at 30 June 1988).

  Beef
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to assist the beef-rearing industry in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The beef-rearing industry is assisted by a number of measures, directly by the suckler cow premium and indirectly by market support measures. My agriculture colleagues and I are considering the suckler cow premium rate for 1990–91 and will make an announcement in due course.

  Heart Operations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of heart patients who were sent for surgery from Wales to England for each of the years 1984 to the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Information is not available in the form requested.
  340
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many planning applications were submitted in each of the Welsh national parks in the last two years for which figures are available; how many were determined; and how many of those determined, in numbers and as proportions, were successful.

  Mr. Roberts
  The information on planning applications in the calendar years 1988 and 1989 for Brecon Beacons national park and the Pembrokeshire coast national park is set out in the following table. No statistical returns were received from Snowdonia national park.

  However, an indication of the number of cases of Welsh residents treated in the 14 regional health authorities of England whose speciality on discharge was cardiothoracic surgery is as follows:

  Numbers

  1984

  511

  1985

  462

  1986

  446

  11987–88

  408

  11988–89

  405

  1 1 April to 31 March

  Notes:

  1. These estimates are based on the best available information supplied by the English regional health authorities.

  2. The estimates relate to the specialty of cardiothoracic surgery as figures for cardiac surgery cannot be separately identified.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales are awaiting heart surgery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on the number of people in Wales awaiting heart surgery is not available centrally, but the number waiting for in-patient treatment in hospitals in Wales in the specialty of cardiac surgery at 31 December 1989 was 242.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he has any proposals to eliminate waiting lists for investigating heart problems;

  (2) what proposals he has to increase facilities in Wales for heart surgery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Proposals for major developments in the investigation and treatment of patients with heart disease in Wales are well under way following a review by the cardiology committee of the Royal College of Physicians. A centre of excellence capable of providing 800 open heart operations yearly for adults with appropriate cardiology is to be developed at University hospital of Wales (UHW), Cardiff. Funds have already been provided to upgrade the cardiac catheter laboratories and are to be made available this year to enhance intensive and coronary care facilities at the hospital. Consideration is also being given to the development of a second adult cardiac unit in South Wales. In the interim, funds have been made available to secure additional cardiological procedures and cardiac surgery from other specialist centres in England.
  341
  A new paediatric cardiac unit at UHW is on schedule for completion in autumn this year.

  In North Wales, additional funds have been made available to improve access to cardiology and cardiac surgery for patients in Clwyd, and Gwynedd health authority has been asked to assess its requirements and present detailed proposals to the department.

  Local Authorities (Devolution)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to devolve more powers during the next five years to Welsh local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no plans for changes in the responsibilities of local authorities in Wales.

  Schools (Opting Out)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales have formally expressed interest in opting out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roberts
  To date four schools in Wales have balloted parents on making application for grant-maintained status. Two of these have voted against and two in favour of making an application.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications he has received from hospital trusts in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has not yet received any applications from hospitals for trust status.

  NHS Pay Awards
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what ways he proposes to help the area health authorities of Wales meet pay awards and national health service medical inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Health authorities in Wales have already benefited from supplementary provision of £11·125 million towards the excess cost of pay awards to staff covered by the review bodies' machinery over and above the allowance for inflation already provided in allocations for 1990–91.

  When taken together these extra funds represent a cash increase averaging 7·8 per cent. over last year. This increase, together with the resources which authorities are expected to unlock by cash improvement programmes and income-generation schemes, should be sufficient to meet anticipated inflation and provide for further service developments.

  The excess cost of other pay awards which are negotiated through the Whitley machinery have not in the past been met from Exchequer funds. Authorities are represented on Whitley councils and it is therefore appropriate that they should be expected to meet the consequences of settlements to which they are party.

  Myodil
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, further to his replies of 27 March,Official Report, column 134, 28 March, Official Report, column 186 and 29 March, Official Report, column 271 and his letter dated 27 April, what information he now has on the number of patients who have come forward to complain of after-effects and side-effects of the drug Myodil; and if he will now agree to instigate a thorough and independent investigation into the incidence of such cases in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Representations have been received on behalf of 12 patients in Wales who may have been affected adversely by the use of Myodil. That point aside, there is nothing I can add to my letter of 27 April.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he anticipates issuing a revised letter of agreement on the radioactive site licence for atomic weapons establishment, Cardiff, pursuant to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, section 13;

  (2) what consultations have taken place with the Environmental Health department of Cardiff city council, the South Glamorgan county fire service and the National Rivers Authority regarding revision of the letter of agreement issued by his Department to the Ministry of Defence under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, section 13, regarding the atomic weapons establishment, Cardiff;

  (3) if he will revise and publish the letters of agreement issued to the Ministry of Defence in respect of the atomic weapons establishment, Cardiff under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, section 13, before contractorisation takes place.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The revision of the agreement is currently being considered and it is expected that it will be completed before the atomic weapons establishment site at Cardiff becomes contractor operated.

  Although no consultations with the organisations mentioned are required under the terms of section 14 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, my Department will be informing the local authorities of the proposed revision at an appropriate stage. The Department will also he copying to them the revised letter of agreement for their records.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the actions of the French and German Governments concerning BSE and the export of beef from Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 7 June 1990]: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food indicated in his statement to the House on 7 June, the illegal ban on British beef exports imposed by France, Germany and Italy was dealt with at a meeting of the Agriculture Council on 6 and 7 June. The Council was able to consider the latest advice from the Commission's scientific veterinary committee, which confirmed that the existing Community rules in respect of bovine spongiform encephalopathy provided full protection for public health. However, after prolonged discussions the Council agreed

  343
  to amend Community rules to provide certain additional guarantees. The unilateral bans imposed by certain member states were immediately lifted.

SCOTLAND

  Mental Health Programmes
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to avert staff redundancies and unfilled training places in the programmes run by the providers of training for those with mental health problems.

  Mr. Rifkind
  It is the duty of the Training Agency to enter into contracts with training providers to provide for the delivery of sufficient places to meet likely demand from potential trainees including those with mental health problems and other special needs groups. It is the responsibility of training providers to maintain their staffing at levels commensurate with the efficient and cost-effective delivery of their training commitment in terms of such contracts.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he or any agency responsible to him has commissioned a business plan for an independent Scottish steel industry.

  Mr. Lang
  No, nor would it be appropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend to do so.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has formally asked British Steel if it is prepared to sell its Scottish assets to enable them to form the basis of an independent Scottish steel industry.

  Mr. Lang
  The chairman of British Steel has assured my right hon. and learned Friend and me that if the company should wish at some stage to close its steelmaking facilities at Ravenscraig, it would consider on a commercial basis, any wholly private sector offer for those facilities as an alternative to closure.

  Provision for under 5s in Scotland (pupils or places)

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Borders

  1,728

  1,416

  1,321

  1,422

  1,952

  2,020

  2,077

  2,130

  2,239

  2,431

  2,282

  Central

  4,182

  4,142

  4,383

  4,647

  4,808

  5,055

  5,089

  5,321

  5,628

  6,008

  6,373

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,492

  1,548

  1,571

  1,673

  1,951

  2,060

  2,265

  2,127

  2,278

  2,428

  2,695

  Fife

  6,676

  5,804

  5,817

  5,729

  7,214

  6,627

  7,073

  7,231

  7,499

  7,921

  8,370

  Grampian

  7,955

  7,748

  7,981

  8,211

  8,134

  8,230

  8,741

  8,490

  8,764

  8,915

  9,617

  Highland

  2,923

  3,060

  3,230

  3,426

  3,729

  3,339

  3,572

  4,140

  4,010

  4,229

  4,727

  Lothian

  14,665

  13,727

  14,152

  14,018

  13,859

  14,524

  15,356

  14,947

  16,109

  16,406

  18,217

  Strathclyde

  36,278

  34,646

  36,925

  35,662

  37,915

  39,881

  40,113

  39,343

  40,301

  44,767

  41,557

  Tayside

  5,998

  6,269

  5,920

  5,620

  6,145

  6,232

  6,244

  5,760

  6,486

  6,858

  7,636

  Orkney

  472

  558

  543

  506

  548

  553

  643

  522

  700

  729

  811

  Shetland

  518

  622

  630

  671

  677

  578

  575

  649

  665

  699

  708

  Western Isles

  431

  498

  538

  479

  589

  679

  1,274

  1,587

  1,680

  1,503

  968

  Scotland

  83,318

  80,040

  83,643

  82,056

  86,821

  89,748

  93,022

  92,247

  96,359

  102,894

  103,961

  Ravenscraig
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when British Steel was informed of the House's view on the closure of the Ravenscraig hot strip mill, as set out in the Official Report, of 21 May, column 75.
  344
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Scottish Development Agency or any of his departments has taken to assess the viability of an independent Scottish steel industry.

  Mr. Lang
  It would be for any business parties interested in establishing or acquiring steelmaking facilities in Scotland to consider whether such an entity—however defined—might be viable.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the number of nursery school or other pre-five facilities places available in each regional council area in each of the past 12 years;

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of children in the current year who are unlikely to be accommodated in pre-five facilities.

  Mr. Lang
  The table gives for each regional and islands council the total of the following:

  pupils attending local authority nursery schools,

  places in local authority day nurseries,

  places in local authority and registered pre school playgroups,

  places for which local authority sponsored and private childminders are registered.

  Figures for numbers of pupils attending nursery schools have been used because there are no reliable figures for the number of places and because many children attend nursery school part time. It should also be noted that some children may make use of more than one of type of provision.

  There were in addition 1,392 children in September 1989 below the age of five attending independent schools, 351 children below the age of five attending special schools at September 1988 and an estimated 1,500 places in registered day nurseries. Information for 1977–78 is not available on a consistent basis and that on private nursery schools is not collected centally. At June 1988 there were an estimated 322,989 children under five and 126,079 children in the population aged three and four years, the range which is the relevant age group for nursery education.

  Mr. Lang
  No doubt British Steel took note of the House's view, as set out in the Official Report, and which was widely reported in the media following the debate on 21 May.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the names of companies and identification of proposed site locations in Scotland for toxic waste incinerators.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the constituencies in which there are proposals to site new licensed toxic waste incinerators; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Applications for planning consent or for waste disposal licensing are in the first instance matters for district and islands councils. There is no statutory requirement for information to be held centrally.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's policy on an increase in the numbers of licensed incinerators in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to limit the numbers of licensed incinerators in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government regard incineration as a sound means of waste disposal, provided that the appropriate statutory conditions for operation are fully met. We have no policy to increase or to limit the existing number of incinerators in Scotland.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to bring forward proposals to charge members of the public for the right of appeal against the siting of incinerators or dumps.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The right of appeal exists only for those who have been refused planning permission. Members of the public may object both to their local planning authorities during the consideration of an application and to my right hon. and learned Friend during any subsequent appeal. There are no proposals to charge members of the public for submitting such objections.

  Sheep
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by region(a) how many sheep and (b) how many farms, still have restrictions in force because of the Chernobyl explosion.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for each of the Regions in Scotland where restrictions are in force is set out in the table:

  Region

  Number of sheep

  Number of farms

  Central

  46,000

  19

  Dumfries and Galloway

  22,000

  17

  Strathclyde

  56,000

  38

  Total

  124,000

  74

  Public Houses
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions were mounted for offences in connection with under-age drinking; and how many convictions resulted in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The available information is set out in the table.

  Under age drinking offences, Scotland 1988

  Offence

  Persons proceeded against

  Persons with a charge proved

  Sale of drink to persons under 18

  270

  106

  Person under 18 buying alcoholic liquor or consuming alcoholic liquor in a bar

  190

  189

  Purchasing alcoholic liquor for consumption by person under 18

  96

  87

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many applications for late licences for public houses were granted under section 64 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) how many public house licences were in operation in 1976 in Scotland and at the latest available date; and, in each case, how many public houses per thousand of the population this represents;

  (3) how many licences for the sale of liquor were in operation in Scotland in 1976 and at the latest available date; and, in each case, how many licences per thousand of the population this represents.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Five thousand six hundred and four extensions of permitted hours were granted in 1980 in respect of licensed premises in Scotland. Separate figures in respect of public houses and afternoon or evening extensions are not available. I refer the hon. Member to table 4.4 of civil judicial statistics Scotland 1980 (Cmnd. 8710).

  In 1976 there were 4,132 public house licences in force in Scotland, which represented 0·79 public houses per 1,000 of the Scottish population at that time. In 1980, the latest year for which official figures are available, there were 4,472 public house licences in operation, representing 0·86 public houses per 1,000 of the population.

  In 1976 there were 14,781 liquor licences in force in Scotland, representing 2·83 licences per 1,000 of the Scottish population at that time. In 1980, the latest year for which official figures are available, there were 16,412 liquor licences in operation, which represented 3·16 licences per 1,000 of the population.

  The collection and publication of liquor licensing statistics in Scotland was discontinued after 1980, following consultation with the police and local authorities on the use being made of the statistics. Information on licensing statistics up to 1980 was contained in the annual civil judicial statistics Scotland; and unofficial estimates for later years are contained in the annual Brewers Society statistical handbook. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Charities
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what bodies he proposes to treat as a Scottish charity as the phrase is used in clause 1(6) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Clause 1(6) will entitle any Scottish body recognised by the Inland Revenue as charitable to describe itself as "a Scottish charity". There may be 15,000 such bodies.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of admissions to prisons in Scotland of persons for non-payment of fines of(a) up to £25 and (b) between £25 and £50, at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The available information is for value of fine outstanding rather than fine imposed at court and for receptions rather than persons admitted to prison. One reception is counted if one or more warrants arrive for the same person for the same court on the same day. Some receptions relate to warrants arriving at establishments for people already held in custody.

  In 1989, the number of receptions where the fine outstanding was (a) up to and including £25 was 387, and (b) greater than £25 and up to and including £50 was 1,420.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were admitted to Scottish prisons as a result of non-payment of fines in the last year for which figures are available; what percentage this was of total admissions and what was the average length of stay in prison before release.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The available information is for receptions rather than persons admitted to prison. One reception is counted if one or more warrants arrive for the same person from the same court on the same day. Some receptions relate to warrants arriving at establishments for people already held in custody.

  In 1989, there were 9,154 receptions into penal establishments in Scotland for non-payment of fines, 47 per cent. of all receptions. The average period spent in custody by fine defaulters was 11 days.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the daily prison population in Scotland was made up of inmates in prison because of non-payment of fines, excluding remand prisoners.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In 1989, 6 per cent. of the average daily population in penal establishments, excluding those held on remand, were there for non-payment of fines.

  Public Trusts
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been made to the Court of Session for the reorganisation or amalgamation of public trusts whose objectives are obsolete or have otherwise been fulfilled in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Divorce
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many decrees of divorce were granted in Scotland in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will break this figure down on the basis of the grounds of divorce used to establish the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The numbers of decrees of divorce granted in Scotland for 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, broken down by grounds are set out in the table.

  1988

  Adultery

  1,309

  Behaviour

  3,559

  Desertion

  83

  Non-cohabitation for 2 years with consent

  4,879

  Non-cohabitation for 5 years

  1,626

  Cases with more than one ground

  12

  Total

  11,468

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate, using current divorce statistics, of the percentage of marriages now contracted in Scotland which will end in divorce.

  Mr. Rifkind
  A paper on "Trends in Marriage and Divorce in Scotland 1951–1987", published by the Registrar General for Scotland with the vital statistics return for the week 17–20 June 1989, estimated that approximately one quarter of recent Scottish marriages would end in divorce.

  Government Buildings (Security)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the management report prepared for his Department by David Stevenson dealing with the use of private security firms to oversee his Department's premises.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on 11 June, Vol. 174, c.50.

  Marriages
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of marriages contracted in Scotland in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The provisional figure for 1989 is 35,325.

  Conveyancing
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department has carried out any research into the legal fees charged in conveyancing transactions in Scotland since the abolition of scale fees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 19 January Official Report, Vol. 165 col. 418. Of the projects referred to there, the report on the first has just reached my Department, while the report on the second is expected early next year.

  Water Supply
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide figures for the separate costs of liming and orthophosphate treatment in the water supply in Scotland in each year between 1979 and 1990, inclusive, and for the projected annual cost of these treatments from 1990 to 1998; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is an operational matter for each regional and islands council and such costs, which will vary considerably between individual treatment works, may not be separately identified. Costs incurred by authoriies for particular treatments to meet individual water quality standards are not recorded on a national basis.

  Scotland-Ireland Bridge
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will initiate a survey and report into the possibility of a bridge between the Mull of Kintyre and Torr Head, Co. Antrim; and if he will seek the co-operation of the Commission of the European Community for this research.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The right hon. Member will not be surprised to learn that my right hon. and learned Friend has no intention of initiating a study into the feasibility of a bridge between Mull of Kintyre and Toor Head, Co Antrim.

  Adult Education
  Ms. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list his office's priorities and objectives for the expansion of community-based adult education in Scotland; and what guidance he has issued to Scottish education authorities on the matter;

  (2) if he will list his office's priorities and objectives for the expansion of English as a second language provision in Scotland (a) on a community-based adult education programme and (b) as a school-based provision; and what guidance he has issued to Scottish education authorities on this matter.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 7 June to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

  As to school-based provision of English as a second language, this remains the responsibility of education authorities to determine in the light of other first language usage. Circular 1178, issued by the Scottish Education Department in January 1989, commends to authorities the practice of using another language in primary schools as a bridge to proficiency in English.

  "Step up the Wordpower"
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total level of expenditure allocated by his Department for the provision of support to the BBC "Step up the Wordpower" basic skills campaign in the current financial year.

  Mr. Lang
  The BBC initiative "Step up the Wordpower" took place in 1989–90. The Scottish Education Department contributed £16,500 in that year in 350
  direct support, and further contributions were made by the Scottish Community Education Council, which received a total grant of £528,000 from the Department, arid by the Training Agency.

  A BBC numeracy initiative is due to commence in the current financial year, and £10,500 has already been made available by the Department towards the costs of this initiative.

  Family Planning (Lothian Region)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much it costs per case for Lothian health board to provide family planning advice through(a) community clinics, (b) the general practitioner service and (c) the Brook Advisory Centre.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Medical and Dental Schools
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total additional cost for teaching paid to each medical and dental school in Scotland; and how much that represents per student.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The additional cost of undergraduate medical and dental education and research in hospitals which support teaching is reflected in the allocation of resources for recurrent expenditure made to the four teaching health boards. The amount made available for this purpose for the financial year 1990–91 is set out in the table:

  Teaching Health Board

  £ million

  Greater Glasgow

  32·076

  Lothian

  22·671

  Grampian

  14·215

  Tayside

  14·797

  This represents a cost of £36,450 per medical student and £9,110 per dental student.

  Piper Alpha (Pollution)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what monitoring is being undertaken to establish the effects on the marine environment, including fish stocks and sea mammals, of the loss of polychlorinated biphenyls from the Piper Alpha platform; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 25 January (Vol. 165, columns 839–40.

  Officials have since discussed with representatives of the fishing industry and the Nature Conservancy Council the results of the surveys carried out under the abandonment programme approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. My right hon. Friend is considering what further monitoring may be needed under the abandonment programme.

  DAFS will continue to monitor the area round Piper Alpha as part of its general monitoring of the contaminant levels in sea water and in fish stocks in sea waters around Scotland.
  351
  Research on contaminants in seals and other sea mammals in Great Britain's coastal waters has been commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The sea mammal research unit in co-operation with the DAFS marine laboratory, Aberdeen is at present examining the relationship between contaminant burdens in seals and their feeding sites by studying a group of breeding female grey seals over a number of years. Results are expected soon.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employment training places have been taken up by people who have disabilities in Scotland by Training Agency area over the last two years.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: In the period September 1988 to March 1990, 2,822 people with disabilities have taken up employment training places in Scotland. This information is not available by Training Agency area.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Tributes to the late Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the whole House will have been saddened to hear of the death of Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, Opposition Chief Whip in the House since 1982. Over the past eight years Tom Ponsonby played a key role in the life of your Lordships' House. I know that on all sides we feel that he served the whole House with great devotion and integrity and that in Tom we had, and we have lost, a friend.
Through his skilful reconciliation of the demands of party politics and parliamentary duty, he ensured that the constitutional role of opposition was carried out in a way which did credit to all sides and all sections of opinion. A man of strong convictions himself, he was also a reconciler of opinions. In Tom Ponsonby we mourn the passing of a master of the art of securing agreement.
Outside the House he fulfilled many public duties for which his background and abilities had fitted him. His experience of local government was extensive and he had been an alderman of both the Kensington and Chelsea council and of the Greater London Council. He also played a leading role in the tourist industry in this country and particularly here in the capital.
We share the loss with noble Lords in his own party. Not only will Tom Ponsonby be remembered with great affection and respect. As Opposition Chief Whip he occupied a position of great importance. The way in which he carried out his responsibilities will leave its imprint on your Lordships' House for the future. I speak for us all in expressing our deepest sympathy to his wife, Maureen, and in paying tribute to Tom Ponsonby today.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his generous tribute to our noble friend Lord Ponsonby. Although he had been ill for some weeks, his death came as a distressing shock to us all yesterday. It is difficult to realise that he is no longer with us.
Tom Ponsonby came of a long line of distinguished public servants and his own life was one of unremitting service to public causes. As the noble Lord said, he made a notable contribution to London local government, becoming a councillor in Kensington at the age of 26 and ending as chairman of the Greater London Council, 20 years later. He was active in many other fields, not least the Fabian Society, and he supported a large number of charities.
402
When I started working with him in this House, I quickly realised that Tom knew everyone in London and everyone knew him. It was a pleasure and a privilege to work with him as our Chief Whip. As all of us know, the office involves heavy responsibilities, long hours and difficult problems, some of them insoluble. Tom Ponsonby coped with these with skill and good humour, and always with consideration for his colleagues.
He was recently asked in an interview which part of his life he had most enjoyed. He answered without hesitation, "My work in the House of Lords". He was a most devoted servant of this House. We have lost a fine parliamentarian and a most lovable colleague and friend. We send our deep sympathies to Maureen and the family.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I join in the sorrow and sympathy which have been so appropriately and poignantly expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, and the Leader of the House. The House feels an exceptional sense of collective loss. Yesterday afternoon when the news of Tom Ponsonby's death came through, there was an almost physical atmosphere of deprivation and dismay in the corridors, particularly those which he most frequented, such as I have never known before in this House.
I first knew Tom Ponsonby over 30 years ago when he was a Kensington councillor and an active member of the Fabian Society. He later became general secretary of that distinguished organisation. In that office he succeeded not only the almost legendary E. R. Pease of 100 years ago but also in the more recent past such diverse figures as John Parker, later Father of the House of Commons, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, Mr. William Rodgers and Mrs. Shirley Williams. In Fabian circles he was widely and affectionately known as "Hon Tom Pon". The soubriquet reflected something both of his enthusiastic informality and of his distinguished provenance. His great-grandfather was a notable adviser and courtier to Queen Victoria; his grandfather, at the beginning of his career, was private secretary to Campbell-Bannerman, his successor as MP for the Stirling districts, and then a Labour Minister and Leader of the Opposition in this House for four years.
Tom Ponsonby fully maintained that tradition of public service, whether as Fabian secretary, chairman of the Greater London Council or Opposition Chief Whip in this House. More than that, he was an eminently lovable man. We shall all miss him very much. On behalf of those on these Benches, I extend my deepest sympathy to his wife and the other members of his family. I also extend my sympathy, if I may be permitted to do so, to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. It is a heavy blow for him and he will not find it easy to obtain a replacement who will serve him and the whole House as well as did Tom Ponsonby.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, the Cross-Bench Peers would, I know, like to be associated with the tributes already paid to Lord Ponsonby. As Cross-Bench Peers are not members

403
of the usual channels, we did not have regular contact with him, but whenever there were any little difficulties that had to be sorted out, he was always very helpful. He was also a patient listener. He was a delightful character, helpful to everyone, although he held what must have been a difficult and exhausting job. We should like to join with others in sending our sympathy to his relatives.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, as a newcomer to your Lordships' House, I did not have the pleasure of meeting Tom Ponsonby. Yet in addition to what we have heard, I have been taken aback by the clear sense of shock and deprivation which other noble Lords have mentioned, making it quite clear that he was a person who was held in the highest regard. I know that he was a man who never allowed differences of political view to cloud personal friendships. He was highly respected both outside as well as within his own party. I am told, too, that he held your Lordships' House in great affection. I know that he will be greatly missed for his sagacity and his good humour. It is an honour for me as a newcomer to pay him tribute and likewise to extend my sympathy to his family.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about Tom Ponsonby because when I was Opposition Chief Whip he was my deputy and later he of course succeeded me. I had known him and worked with him in the Fabian Society days and in general party matters for nearly 30 years. I suppose we were rather old-fashioned socialists in those days. We worked in a world of antiquated duplicating machines and piles of dusty books and pamphlets. That world was punctuated by fighting fierce elections, mostly for perfectly hopeless seats. He was a splendid colleague. He was hard working, loyal and always kind. He had a quality of originality which made him remarkable. He was an unusual man. He was dedicated, very private, and gently eccentric if one may call it that. Our party loved him and valued him highly.
Above all he was a complete and natural House of Lords man. The whole House will greatly miss him, especially his instantly recognisable presence striding down the corridors and presiding over the Division Lobbies. He always lightened solemn moments with his warm humour. His tragic and almost unbelievable death came much too soon. Above all we grieve deeply for Maureen and his family and we send them our heartfelt sympathy.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to contribute a few words on this sad occasion of the death of a good friend and a most likeable man. I, too, have known him for over 30 years. I found him one of the easiest of men to work with whom I have ever come across because he seemed to bring to his work not only the qualities which we have all observed but also a fund of goodwill, understanding and patience which he could draw on to make difficult moments a little easier.
It is especially poignant to me, and I daresay to all other noble Lords who have well exceeded the
404
allotted biblical span of life, that we should pay tribute to a man who has died at a comparatively young age when he had so much left to contribute to life, to his family's happiness and to the work of your Lordships' House. I hope it will be taken as a token of my sincerity when I say that I very much hope his wife and family will have the strength to undergo the ordeal which faces them.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I wish to say a few words as a relation of the late Lord Ponsonby. He was a great friend of mine and he was indeed my noble kinsman. Although he was on the other side of the House he had no objection to my saying that he was my noble kinsman. I am moved by his tragic death. The noble Lord was a great friend of mine and he lived in a part of the world not far from where I live. His grandfather, Arthur Ponsonby, who I believe was the first Leader of the Labour Party in your Lordships' House, was a close friend of my father. They were devoted to one another. I can tell your Lordships that it is not only noble Lords on all sides of the House who greatly regret his passing but also all the Ponsonby family.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, Tom Ponsonby was one of my sponsors when I was introduced into your Lordships' House. My other sponsor was the noble Lord, Lord Denham. I was proud and privileged to be introduced by two Chief Whips. I asked them both to introduce me because that epitomised to me the importance of the usual channels in the running of the parliamentary system. I got to know Tom well through the usual channels long before I came here, through my work in another place. I was not only struck by his great good humour but also by his tolerance. Long before I came to your Lordships' House he taught me the importance of the usual channels in the system, particularly in relation to your Lordships' House, and the essential part they play in the running of our Constitution. I wish to extend my tribute to him and to his work. I also wish to extend my sympathy to his family.

Academics: Migration
3.16 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they now accept that there is a brain drain from this country, especially in terms of the quality of those leaving, and if so whether they propose any action.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the best evidence available, from the universities statistical record, does not support the view that there is a net outflow of academics overseas or that the quality of those leaving is higher than those remaining. The Government have invited the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to provide better information. We await its findings with interest.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Although the overall figures may sustain what she says, is it not a fact that it is the quality of those leaving that causes concern? Every year since 1981 more readers and senior lecturers

405
have left than have arrived. Some key professors, particularly in science and engineering, have also left. Does that not cause the Government concern?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in my first response I said there is no evidence that the quality of those leaving is higher than that of those remaining. My information is contrary to that of the noble Baroness. The figures that I have seen do not uphold what she has said about a net outflow overseas.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that over one-fifth of the Fellows of the Royal Society live abroad? Does she not agree that the loss of those most eminent scientists is damaging to the nation? Will she say what the Government propose to do about that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again my evidence is at odds with that of the noble Baroness. I have figures on the Fellows of the Royal Society if the noble Baroness will bear with me while I look for them.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can help the noble Baroness by assuring her that the figures I have provided are accurate.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we came upon this matter rather quickly. However, I shall have to find the figures and write to the noble Baroness as I must not keep the House waiting.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend say how this situation compares with the time when taxation was high? Is the outward migration less now or is it the same?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is a net inflow of academics into this country.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Baroness. The official figures which I have show that there has been a net outflow of senior lecturers in the past nine years. I shall have great pleasure in showing the noble Baroness those figures later. Is it not another cause for anxiety that a number of postdoctoral and senior research members of university teams are leaving? That is especially worrying as regards a lack of staff in the future in the departments that they are leaving. Is not that departure the result not only of less money but also of fewer facilities, fewer opportunities and less money for research here, whereas in the United States and Canada there are far better facilities and much more money is available for research?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a basic principle is being ignored; namely, that we live in a free country and we must not restrain people if they wish to go abroad or if they wish to come into this country. Even so, the figures show that fewer than 10 per cent. of former research council supported students take up academic posts abroad. The figures for post-doctoral academics mentioned by the noble Baroness do not stand up to the evidence that we have.
Baroness David: My Lords, all I can say is that we must have different figures. I shall have great pleasure in consulting the noble Baroness afterwards.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that poor pay and poor facilities must be a disincentive for academics? Is she not aware of the fact that many academics feel deeply demoralised by the fact that their pay has fallen more than that of any other public sector group in this country over the past 10 years? Can she say what the Government will do to rectify the problems of the universities and polytechnics in paying their staff adequately?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. The agreement reached between the employers and the Association of University Teachers, which is currently under consideration by the Government, would provide for an increase of 9 per cent. on all salaries from 1st May. A further 1 per cent. for flexibility will be payable from January 1991 and will build in further discretionary elements based on previous settlements.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, while she has made general assertions and has denied the facts put forward by noble Baronesses on this side of the House, she has not provided one single piece of hard evidence to controvert anything that has been said?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to have hard evidence I shall write to him giving further details.
I now have figures concerning Fellows of the Royal Society. Some suggest that the brain drain is best demonstrated by the increasing number of Fellows of the Royal Society resident in the United States of America. My honourable friend took up the point with the Royal Society last year. There are currently 77 British Fellows resident in America. Of those, more than two-thirds have been there since before 1979.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is another factor which contributes to the brain drain; namely, the age discrimination factor? A number of people have to leave this country because they are too old at 40, 45 or younger. Would she care to comment on the effect that that has in forcing people to leave this country to take employment elsewhere?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like the noble Lord to write to me with his evidence showing that there is age discrimination in this area.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I sympathise with what the noble Baroness said about freedom of choice, but is she also aware that in most fields, certainly including my own, the number of junior academic appointments available is so small that it is essential to advise postgraduates that if they wish for academic employment they must seek it abroad?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on the subject of younger academics, the new academic appointments

407
scheme which was started by the UGC and is being continued by the UFC enables universities to make appointments in advance of the many vacancies which will be created by retirements in the mid-1990s. That is extremely helpful to young academics. The Royal Society is extending its scheme of university research fellowships. About 200 of those fellowships will be supported this year. In addition, the research councils are increasing the number of long-term post-doctoral fellowships. All of that must be very good news for young academics.
Lord Annan: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness be better advised to accept that while there has always been a brain drain—and I well remember asking questions about it in the 1960s—the brain drain today is very much more serious, and for easily explicable reasons?
If there is a bulge in the age group of academics which means that promotion is very difficult to obtain, if there are no funds available for the universities to maintain the standards that they used to have only some 15 years ago, why do the Government not explain that those are the facts? Why do they not explain that circumstances make it impossible for the Government to fund universities as they should be funded because the Government are putting money into the education of the workforce through training schemes for the workforce? Or perhaps that is not the policy of the Government. Will they explain whether they have a policy of priorities in higher education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord is saying about our priorities for agreeing that training is very important. I do not agree with the premise. We have asked the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to provide better information. That request for better information will include data and qualification for that data.
I have to say that at this moment my brain feels fairly drained.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the noble Baroness have any figures available about those people who have been obliged to take premature retirement from departments in our universities and have immediately been snapped up by universities overseas?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the exodus of academics from universities is very much a matter for the management of those universities.

European Air Traffic: Slot Allocations
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the code of conduct on slot allocation which was to have been produced shortly by the Commission of the European Communities (HL Deb., 17th May, col. 383) is now to be delayed
408
until October/November because of pressure by the airlines; and if so what action they propose to take to assist the Commission in its objectives.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I understand that the Commission, having consulted experts from member states and other interested parties, is still working on its proposals, and can be expected to produce them in due course.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, having listened carefully to that reply I still believe that the answer to the first part of my Question is yes. The Minister has not even attempted to answer the second part. Concerning the second part, do the Government support the attitude of Sir Leon Brittan, our senior commissioner in Brussels and the commissioner responsible for competition affairs, when he said on 25th May that one of the changes that he is particularly keen to introduce involves making it easier for new entrants to obtain slots at congested airports? If the Government support that attitude will they now make it clear publicly?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sorry to have to tell the noble Baroness that Her Majesty's Government are not in control of the European Commission's timetable for action and, indeed, are not aware that any such timetable exists. The Commission sets its own timetable for bringing proposals forward.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the noble Viscount has still not answered the second part of my Question. I have now asked him both on the Order Paper and orally in the House.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am unable to answer the second part of the noble Baroness's Question.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the point raised by the noble Baroness and Sir Leon Brittan on the allocation of slots to independent airlines is rather important. Can the noble Viscount say what support the Government are likely to be giving to small independent airlines, which have a very big part to play in regional development? Can he also say whether the Government expect that when Stansted comes on stream it will be easier for, and encouragement will be given to, small independent airlines to obtain slots in the South East of Britain?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there is ample spare capacity on Stansted's runway and in that narrow sense there is no shortage of runway slots as such. The airport's capacity to handle traffic is limited by the capacity of its terminal, which is around 2 million passengers a year. The new terminal which is due to enter service next March will, in time, take Stansted's terminal capacity to some 8 million, so releasing runway capacity and in that sense creating slots. The question of which airlines will use those slots will be a matter for negotiation. I cannot go further than that at the moment.

Channel Tunnel Construction: Accidents
3.29 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the rate of accidents during the construction of the Channel Tunnel, and what action they propose to take in connection therewith.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, provisional figures show that 502 accidents were reported to the Health and Safety Executive between April 1987 and March 1990. In 1989–90 that was equivalent to a rate of 4,468 per 100,000 employees. All fatal accidents and some other accidents are investigated by HSE inspectors to see what can be done to prevent any recurrence.
Lord Clinton-Davies: My Lords, are not those figures absolutely horrendous? Is there not an urgent need to dispel the anxiety on the part of the public that safety considerations are perhaps being sacrificed in order to achieve speed in the construction of the tunnel? How does the incidence of accidents on our side of the Channel compare with those on the French side?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the accident figures are extremely regrettable and we obviously feel that they are too high. However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord when he said that it was due to cost-cutting. Everyone involved in the construction industry knows that an efficient site is a safe site and that goes, as far as possible, for the Channel Tunnel site. As for comparisons with the French sector, they are not entirely helpful because the French set different criteria for reporting accidents.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that trade unions representing workers on that project have complained about intimidation that their members face from management if they complain about standards of health and safety, with threats of losing their jobs if they pursue their complaints? Is that not quite unacceptable, and what do the Government intend to do about it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I was not aware of that and I am surprised that the noble Baroness should make that accusation through the unions because they are represented on a variety of safety committees There is full and regular consultation with members of the four unions represented on the site and, as I understand it, those consultations work effectively.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a consultant's report on safety with regard to building contracts, issued before the project started, predicted that there was a probability of 24 deaths during the construction of the Channel Tunnel? Is it not rather sad that there should have been a death for every mile that has been built from
410
this side? With six deaths in six miles, is it not tragic that we have not been able to take steps to prove that consultant wrong?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is tragic, but let us also remember that that site is the largest construction site in Europe. It is one of the bravest kinds of construction sites that we have seen in recent years, beneath the Channel. It is not surprising that accidents should occur, even though it is very regrettable.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, reverting to the question that I asked earlier and with regard to the Minister's response, is he aware that I was speaking to a brief provided to me by the Trades Union Congress and that I am willing to provide him with the information? If I do so, will he take some steps to deal with the matter?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords, but I must point out that I am advised that there is a well developed system of safety committees and employee safety representatives on the project, that trade unions are well represented among the workers and that the trade union safety representatives have forwarded no complaints to the Health and Safety Executive. However, if the noble Baroness has evidence to support her case, I shall of course be interested in seeing it.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, I do not suppose that my noble friend the Minister can tell us how many accidents took place during the building of the pyramids, but can he tell us how many occurred during the building of the Forth railway bridge?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that that would be useful information, but I regret that I have no information on either of those two projects.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does not the Minister hope that safety standards have improved a little since those days?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, for once I am able to agree with the noble Lord.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, on leaving school I was for two years an apprentice surveyor on the Rimutaka Tunnel in New Zealand, which was a railway tunnel going from the north of the Hutt Valley through to the hinterland beyond and it was driven through argalite and greywackey. Does my noble friend agree with me that the art of tunnelling is extremely dangerous and that one of the major problems associated with it is the unpredictability of the land through which one goes? Bore holes may have been made, but shale slants and various other factors can produce accidents at a moment's notice. Does he agree that it is an extremely difficult and dangerous exercise?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a useful contribution from my noble friend, who has experience in such matters. Perhaps I may tell him that the contractors themselves are worried and

411
concerned about their safety record. However, we believe that their safety endeavours are commendable and we shall maintain close contact with them to ensure that the safety record improves.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that an accident rate of 4 per cent. is extremely high by any standards? Can he state any other industry or project which has an accident rate as high as that?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this construction site is way above the average for the construction industry as a whole. That is partly due to under-reporting in the rest of the construction industry. I am not able to tell the noble Lord how it compares with other industries overall. In any case, I am not sure that that is strictly relevant.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if there is under-reporting in other areas of the building industry, should not the contractors involved be prosecuted for breaking the law?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we understand that there is a certain amount of under-reporting. When the contractors are caught out, the full weight of the law is brought to bear.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the conditions under which that construction work is undertaken and the timetable and urgency involved give rise to a certain measure of anxiety for the safety of the workers? Would it be possible for him to take special consideration of their safety into account?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. To that effect, the Secretary of State has already met with the chief executive of the contractors' consortium to discuss the position of the safety of workers.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the statistics relating to accidents at that site represent 4 per cent. of the workforce, compared with 1·8 per cent. in the construction industry as a whole, which is one of the most dangerous industries in the country? Is he further aware that the acceptance of the inevitability of accidents represented by a number of noble Lords in questioning him today is in itself unacceptable? What the House surely wants to know from him is what action the Government are prepared to take to reduce the incidence of accidents, and particularly whether they are prepared to set up an independent inquiry.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am surprised that with his experience in those matters the noble Lord should use statistics so selectively. When we deal with statistics involving the construction industry, we include plumbers, carpenters and even decorators. When we deal with the Channel Tunnel, we deal with people who work deep underground under the sea, and that is obviously bound to be more dangerous.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate what action the Government are disposed to take?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the HSE is working on the matter.

Manchester Prison: Refurbishment
3.38 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are now in a position to announce the rebuilding programme and time-scale for Her Majesty's Prison Strangeways.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of State announced our plans for the future of Manchester Prison on 17th May. These include a major refurbishment of the living accommodation and the provision of a range of new or improved supporting facilities. The programme aims to have some 970 places back in use within about three years. However, we hope to provide accommodation for up to 200 remand prisoners by October of this year. All the remand accommodation—over 300 places—should be in use in about a year's time.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the detailed reply that he has given. However, will the Government take on board suggestions that, as the various phases of the building are completed, they are put into immediate use in order to create a viable establishment at Strangeways? Will he refer briefly to the part that has been played by the visitors' centre, which is controlled by the voluntary organisation Selcare and which is the only building that has been serviceable for some time? Does he agree that it has played a tremendous part in supporting the prison authorities and staff during the difficult period that they have experienced and are still experiencing?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's desire to have the gaol brought into operation as soon as possible and in various stages. I am bound to tell him that K wing, which was the least damaged part of the remand prison, will be available after four months. The other parts of the remand wings—G, H and I—will be ready after 12 months. The remaining wings, which are to take the convicted prisoners, will not in fact be able to be introduced separately. As I understand it, there are fundamental alterations with regard to the common services and so on which require to be done all in one piece.
With regard to the visitors' centre, I agree with the noble Lord. It has been of remarkable assistance and has been supported by voluntary people who have done most magnificent work, not only after the disturbances but also beforehand. However, the work done after the disturbances has been of enormous benefit and help.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, can the noble Earl explain why Her Majesty's prisons, almost uniquely among

413
public buildings, seem to provide ready access to the roof from inside the building? In rebuilding Strangeways, will care be taken not to provide such access and perhaps remove it in other cases, so as to take away the temptation to prisoners to parade there for the benefit of the ever-ready television cameras?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that that is a question which I have often asked myself. I suppose the answer is that the prisoners cannot get downstairs and therefore the easiest way is to get upstairs. I can assure the noble Lord that in the rebuilding of Strangeways that particular precaution will be taken to ensure that it does not happen again.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, without in any way wishing him to prejudge Lord Justice Woolf's anticipated report, can the Minister confirm that included in the refurbishing and rebuilding programmes are the essential civilised elements that, unfortunately, are lacking in Strangeways prison at the moment and have been over past years?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is the Government's intention to renovate as soon as possible those parts of those prisons to which, quite understandably, the noble Lord refers. I can assure him that such matters as internal sanitation and so forth will be put in the refurbished Strangeways.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does that mean that there will be internal sanitation when the rebuilt remand facility is opened? Moreover, is the noble Earl aware that, following Strangeways and as a result of disputes with some branches of the Prison Officers' Association, many hundreds of prisoners are now being held in police cells in most deplorable conditions? What action does he propose to take to deal with that situation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question about the position on the remand wings, the fact is that they will not have internal sanitation immediately because we wish to get the prisoners back into that accommodation as soon as possible. If rebuilding were to be delayed because of the introduction of internal sanitation, the overcrowding in police cells to which he refers in the latter part of his question would continue elsewhere. With regard to the question of prisoners in police cells, it is of course our desire to get them down to the lowest possible number as soon as possible. However, the noble Lord will realise that when all of a sudden 1,600 additional prisoners are put into the system inevitably police cells have to be used.

Business
3.43 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about an hour and that during the
414
adjournment the Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill will be taken.

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment.
Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
3.45 p.m.
The Parliammentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 43 [Provision of accommodation and welfare services: agency arrangements]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 47, line 37, at end insert:
("(aa) at the end of that subsection there shall be added—"(c) for the avoidance of doubt, "other circumstances" shall include persons currently or recently dependent on drugs or alcohol, having any HIV or AIDS related disease, having the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, vulnerable as a result of domestic violence or sexual or physical abuse or having an unsettled way of life." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 145. This discussion starts us on the community care aspects of the Bill. At the outset I should like to take the point that some of the government amendments have appeared rather late in the day on the Marshalled List. I find that a bit hard after my noble friend Lord Seebohm was criticised the other day for tabling a late amendment to the Social Security Bill. However, I hope that none of that will affect the amiability of our exchanges on the formidable agenda on which we are now starting.
Amendment No. 144 relates to the duties of local authorities to provide accommodation for particular groups in need of care and attention. Amendment No. 145 relates to the general duty of local authorities to promote the welfare of certain specified categories of people. Once again I seek to ascertain who exactly is entitled to receive community care. The nearest thing to a list of clients, if I may so describe them, is in Clause 47(4) which lists the statutes covering the elderly, mothers and children, those suffering from mental disorder and, crucially, those qualifying for services under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948. The question is whether those with drug

415
and alcohol problems, and the others mentioned in these amendments, who have moved into the centre of the stage since the 1948 Act was passed, are covered by the provisons of that Act as amended in this Bill by Clause 43.
When the noble Lord, Lord Peston—who was in the Chamber but a moment ago—at Committee stage asked for a categorical assurance that those dependent on drugs and alcohol were already covered, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, gave an unequivocal answer yes; but then I fear, she went on to add words which, the more I study them, cause me to feel alarm rather than comfort. But for her part, the noble Baroness said that she would wish to return to the subject on Report. In the absence of any government amendment or any communication of any kind, these amendements give her that opportunity.
Having read in the White Paper (at paragraph 2.8) the splendid promises about helping people who have drug and alcohol-related problems and illnesses such as AIDS, my attention was orginally drawn to the possible gap in the Bill by the fact that in Clause 57 as it now stands, dealing with residential accommodation with nursing in Scotland, it has been found necessary to make specific reference, for example, to dependency on drugs and alcohol. Try as I might, I still cannot understand the explanation as to why the provision is needed for Scotland but is unnecessary for England and Wales in the context that we are discussing.
The noble Baroness suggested that the answer was in the speaking note. Since I have no idea what that note contains, or indeed what a speaking note is, that helps me but little. I confess that for a moment I was tempted to think that the advisers of the noble Baroness had not noticed this anomaly but I naturally hastened to banish so unworthy a thought. However, it seemed a little odd to be told that being specific risked narrowing the all-embracing effect of the existing provisions when the Scottish clause does precisely that.
Clause 43(1)(a) of the Bill extends the duty placed on local authorities by Section 21(1) of the 1948 Act to provide accommodation for those in need in order to cover those whose need arises because of illness or disability. The general duty in Section 29(1) of the 1948 Act, to which the second amendment relates, is not at present affected by the Bill. The duties falling on local authorities under this head remain as summarised in the words in brackets in our amendment. They include,
"the welfare of persons who are … substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity or such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the Minister".
The trouble is that a person dependent on drugs or alcohol may or may not be ill but may well be in great need of community care services such as detoxification. Indeed, after detoxification the need may be at its greatest. Since illness is such a key word, can we be sure that people coming off drugs and alcohol will be covered at the moment it matters most?
People who have HIV and AIDS-related conditions may not be at the stage of being
416
substantially and permanently handicapped—to use the words of the statute—by their illness. HIV can be episodic but the need for care is continuous. Would it not be wrong for those people to be turned away on the ground that they are not yet ill enough?
Some of the homeless will not be ill but is there not a good chance that without care they would follow the path down to mental illness and institutionalisation?
Can the Government point to the words in the 1948 Act, with the one amendment made in the Bill relating to accommodation, which ensure that the individuals covered by our amendments or any part of them are already provided for? Are they confident that a person with, say, a drugs or alcohol problem who is refused community care services by a local authority on the ground that he is not covered by the legislation would be bound to succeed if he went for judicial review?
Do the Government have in mind to use the powers in Section 29(1) of the 1948 Act to specify any additional forms of disability? I gather that that power has not so far been used and I realise that, under the Section 21 duty, it would not help to provide accommodation.
The questions that we raise are absolutely crucial to the functioning of this part of the Bill. I could continue for some time. However, I hope that I have said enough to show that there is a real problem to which so far we have not had a convincing answer. The rumours that one hears about the reluctance of local authorities to touch on cases involving drug and alcohol problems are disquieting, to put it no higher.
In my simple way, it seems to me that there is much to be said for following the precedent that the Government set in the Scottish divisions, and for putting beyond doubt the fact that community services are to be available to the categories listed in these amendments, who are now at the centre of the need for community care. For some the White Paper fully recognises that. We await with great interest and some concern to learn where the ruminations of Government since the Committee stage have taken them. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the noble Lord has explained the two amendments so well that there is very little to add. I have added my name through the concern that I have with the treatment of people with HIV and AIDS in the community.
As the noble Lord has already stated, the problem concerns who is to receive community care and under what provision. The community care provisions of the Bill seem to hang almost entirely on Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948. That was designed for another era at a time when factors that are prevalent in our present society were not so prevalent. The Government also seem to have attached their provision to Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 which deals with accommodation and to have overlooked Section 29 which deals with welfare, which could be more closely identified with community care in the present context.

417
The noble Lord pointed out that illness appears to be the key word in that statute. It is therefore hard to envisage that that could be used to cover people attempting to come off drugs or alcohol or those with HIV infection attempting to survive in the community.
HIV is an episodic condition. People may be very ill at one time and almost completely recover until the next bout of the infection occurs. The term "substantially and permanently" may therefore be understood to exclude people who are not ill all the time, in particular if assessment occurs at a time of relative good health. It is vital for people with HIV that care is provided on a continuous basis and not only at crisis times. Evidence has shown that the onset of infections may be very rapid. If care services are not already in place they may arrive too late. The Government must give us an assurance that people with HIV are eligible for community care services.
The argument that has been advanced by both noble Baronessess on the Government Front Bench against such specification on the face of the statute is that they wished to cast the net wide so that all client groups would be able to come in. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on 8th May, said,
"That is why the definition is cast in [such] wide terms" —[Official Report. 8/5/90; col. 1274.]
However, that could be considered the other way round. What the Government see as a catch-all statutory provision may well be seen by hard-pressed social services departments as an escape-all provision if certain factors are not specified.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Allen, I hope that we shall hear either that the Government are prepared to accept the amendments or that they will ensure that the issues are covered in guidance. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
4 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was glad to add my name to the amendment and to support it. There is little more to say because it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, with his usual lucidity and clarity. Clarification of the definitions is crucially important. The Government are replying on previous legislation but we believe that the definitions should be spelt out clearly in the Bill because it must be apparent who will receive community care. The Minister promised to think about the matter and come back on Report. The Government have not brought forward amendments and therefore we hope that they will be able to explain their thinking.
A number of Members have been advised by Turning Point, an organisation which helps people with drink, drugs and mental health problems. It states:
"From our discussions with the Department of Health we understand that the local authorities will not be directed in guidance to include drugs and alcohol. It is clear from our contact at local levels that without a direct requirement on local authorities the needs of our clients are unlikely to be considered in any depth".
I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on that statement.
418
The wording of Amendment No. 144 must follow that of the 1948 Act. It is interesting to note how events have moved on because we no longer use the phrase "deaf and dumb" contained in that Act. The phase now used is "hearing and speech impared". If the amendment is accepted I hope to come back at Third reading and replace that phrase, which is no longer used in the disabled community.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I do not have a great deal to add to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, because he made the case very well. I put my name to the amendment with care and caution and after much thought because I believe that its importance is considerable. An important point has yet to be made in relation to the definition of the word "illness" and what is a disability and whether people qualify. As of today Her Majesty's Government are the only government in the Western world, including the United States and Europe, who refuse to accept addiction and alcoholism as an illness or disease. Theoretically, therefore, the definition has been moved outside those brackets even before we start to discuss it. The definition is important.
From what I have heard and read of the various exchanges during the past few weeks, it is clear that the Government hold a definite belief that drug and alcohol dependents are included in community care. It is equally clear, however, that local authorities do not believe that. There is a major communication problem which could be overcome by placing drug and alcohol dependents fairly and squarely on the face of the Bill. No vast matters of cost or principle appear to be involved, but it is a big issue to the enormous number of people covered by the amendment. These are unseen patients and therefore one has a tendency to believe that the group is only a small one and is suffering from an obscure condition. However, I wish to remind the House of what I said in Committee. At present about 800,000 people are suffering from alcohol problems; between 800,000 and 1·6 million people are suffering from dependency on prescription drugs; and approximately 150,000 people are suffering from addiction to street drugs. That is not a tiny group; it is a large group and the figures do not take into account the families who suffer along with the sufferers.
We need to be assured by the Government that they realise that the local authorities are in the dark. It would take little for the Government to give that assurance to those working in the voluntary sector and who carry approximately 75 to 80 per cent. of the workload in this area.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wish to refer to a point that has not been made; it is the perception of the community and the public. When I was a director of social services I was often asked, "Why don't you do this? Why doesn't your department help that person and do something?" I contend that members of the general public will welcome the amendment and I hope that they will be considered.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the amendments illustrate the real worry and insecurity now surrounding all those people mentioned in them. They also illustrate the anxiety of the people running the organisations. Many people might fall through the net of help. Therefore I support the amendments.
Barones Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 144 contains the words, "for the avoidance of doubt". It goes on to describe a group of people as, "having an unsettled way of life". For clarity and the avoidance of doubt, I must press the noble Lord to say precisely what the phrase means.
Amendment No. 144 covers the provision of residential and nursing home care by local authorities. As I explained in Committee, we deliberately cast the definition of the people for whom local authorities may provide these services very broadly in order to be as inclusive as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has chosen to deem a number of groups to be excluded by the definition. I hasten to say that I suspect that that is more in the mind than in reality. The term "inclusive" is meant to provide that all people requiring the services shall be covered.
It may help if I remind your Lordships of what Section 21(1)(a) provides. With the amendments already set out in Clause 43 of the Bill it will read:
"subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act, a local authority may with the approval of the Secretary of State and to such extent as he may direct shall make arrangements for providing residential accommodation for persons who by reason of age, illness, disability or any other circumstances are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them".
I do not believe that anything could be more inclusive than that.
However, I appreciate that the purpose of this amendment is not to broaden the scope of Section 21 but to make it quite clear that people in the groups listed are covered by the definition. I do not believe that there can be any doubt but that this is the case. As I have indicated, it is unnecessary to make any changes on the face of the Bill. However, there is a further safeguard. The provisions of Section 21 as I quoted them a few moments ago are subject to approval and directions by the Secretary of State, and it is in giving such approvals and directions that the attention can be drawn to any group, such as people with drug and alcohol dependency, which it is felt needs a special mention. As I explained, we want to limit specific references to such groups so far as possible because mentioning one implies that others may not be so included. This is not the case; and, as I have already said, our intention is to be as inclusive as possible.
Turning to Amendment No. 145, the position here is a little more complicated. Section 29 of the 1948 Act and other legislation dependent upon it, such as Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, are all aimed at helping people to cope with the effects of permanent and serious disability. It would only weaken the thrust of such provision to bring within it people who are not subject to such conditions. For them separate provision exists in Schedule 8 of the National Health
420
Service Act 1977. Paragraph 2 of this schedule contains powers to provide services for the prevention of illness, the care of the ill and the after-care of those who have been ill. Like the 1948 Act this power is subject to approval and directions by the Secretary of State and here again we can use this means to specify groups needing special attention.
Home help services are covered by paragraph 3 of the same schedule which states that local authorities must provide services which are adequate for the needs of their area in order to assist households where for example there is a person suffering from illness.
At this stage therefore we do not see any need for bringing any of these groups within the definition of disabled persons. But if we subsequently decided that there was a case for this it would be possible to do so. The Act already provides for the Secretary of State to add by regulations further disabilities to those listed. This device could be used therefore to bring other groups within the definition. However, the wording of Section 29 means that people suffering from such conditions would only be brought within its scope in so far as they were substantially and permanently handicapped by them. This, however, is consistent with the purposes of this legislation which as I have explained is to help people cope with the effects of serious problems of disability.
To summarise, there is no difficulty at all with residential accommodation which local authorities can provide for anyone who is in need of care and attention not otherwise available to them. For day and domiciliary services there are powers in Schedule 8 to the 1977 Act which local authorities would be able to use in so far as the Secretary of State gives approval to provide such services for people mentioned in these amendments.
Finally, if we wished to include any further group within the definition of disabled persons it would be possible to do this, within the limitations of Section 29, by regulations under that section. I hope that I have demonstrated that, although it may provide some reassurance to have one or more of these conditions specifically mentioned in legislation, there is no legal reason why that needs to be done and other ways exist to bring these groups to the special attention of local authorities.
As regards the words,
"vulnerable as a result of domestic violence or sexual or physical abuse or having an unsettled way of life",
it would be very difficult to define, with any degree of precision, the people who would fall within that description. There could well be an overlap, particularly in the case of people who have an unsettled way of life, with provision for homeless people. For those reasons we prefer to rely on the wording of Section 21 of the National Assistance Act as at present drafted. That provides for care and attention not otherwise available. Such people will not have substantial and permanent handicap. That is the underlying reason that those groups should not be included among disabled people.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, made reference to the difference between Scottish and English legislation.

421
The Scottish legislation is drafted in narrower terms than the English legislation because it is only concerned with nursing homes. The English legislation, as is now obvious, refers to both residential care homes and nursing homes. Because it deals with residential care homes, it needs to be drafted in broader rather than less specific terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to legal authority for providing for drug addicts, alcoholics and HIV sufferers. We have ascertained that local authorities could provide services for drug and alcohol misusers under paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977. That deals with the care of the ill, the after care of those who have been ill and the prevention of illness. Before that can be done the approval of the Secretary of State is required. That was given in a circular issued in 1974 as regards another Act and that will be repeated in new guidance which we propose to issue in connection with the new community care arrangements.
I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was rather cynical about my first reply and I have been somewhat repetitious in this reply. I hope that some of his cynicism has diminished as a result of my second reply.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it would help me if the noble Baroness could explain one point. As I understand it, she said that provision of care would be available for people who for any other reason were in need of care. Whose right is it to decide whether care is needed? For example, I can envisage a household in which there is a person who is deeply into alcohol or drugs. He or she is living in the household but it is becoming intolerable for the family to cope. I believe that if the words of the amendment were written on the face of the Bill the family could go along to the local authority and say, "This is someone who is really in need of care which we can no longer give". I see the noble Baroness's point in not wishing the wording to be too specific. However, that family could then be refused care (could it not?) because there is no specified right to care. Am I wrong about that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, whether or not these amendments are written into the Bill, attending to the needs of anybody will always be a matter for judgment. People will not be attended to because they are alcoholic or HIV positive. It will be a question of whether their needs require attention. Judgment will have to be made about the needs of the individual rather than the particular client group from which they come.
4.15 p m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I put a specific question to the Minister and I should be grateful if she could answer it because upon the answer depends the way in which we regard the amendment. I quoted from Turning Point, which stated:
"From our discussions with the Department of Health we now understand the local authorities will not be directed in guidance to include drugs and alcohol".
If that is the case, these amendments are essential.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that there will be guidance with specific mention of drugs and alcohol abuse. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the responsibility for assessment will always be laid on the local authority.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Baroness finally sits down, perhaps I may ask her why she feels that it is better to leave the matter in vague terms rather than to be specific. Will she take on board the point made by her noble friend Lady Faithfull, who was arguing that if these matters are written on to the face of the Bill the public, the local authorities and everyone else who reads the Bill will know that certain categories of people who need care will be included? Why is it best to leave that in vague terms?
The noble Baroness referred to categories of age, illness and disabilities. As I understand it, this amendment is concerned with those who cannot be classified as aged, ill or disabled. However, they are certainly people who need care. Does she not agree that, rather than leaving uncertainty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, there is great merit in making it clear in the Bill that we are talking about a whole range of categories of people who desperately need help? Society wants them to be helped. Therefore, is it not best to include them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the aim of the Bill is that the needs of all people are met—and we are talking about the degree of need—whether alcoholic, HIV positive and so on. The particular client groups are not mentioned. The noble Lord mentioned vagueness. The words:
"having an unsettled way of life",
are extremely vague.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, as regards the guidance, the noble Baroness said that alcohol and drug related diseases will be included. Will HIV and AIDS conditions also be included in that guidance?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that they will be included and I understand also that the draft guidance will be published tomorrow.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, to say that I am disappointed in that reply would be putting it mildly. I concede immediately that the words at the end of the amendment about having an unsettled way of life are too general. They are primarily intended to cover the homeless. Had the Government accepted the approach in principle, I should have been happy to draft an alternative which met that problem. Unfortunately they are not prepared to co-operate in principle on an amendment which has secured support on all sides of the House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, the cases here have taken on an importance which was in nobody's mind when the 1948 Act was passed but they have now moved to centre stage. It is not an answer to say that these matters will be covered in guidance to local authorities. Local authorities are

423
entitled to look to the law. If they go to the courts and say that there is nothing in this Bill which puts an obligation on them to give care to an HIV sufferer who is not at present substantially ill, I do not know what will happen. When the debate started I had no intention of dividing the House.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Does he not think that there is something very strange in the way the Government decide that tomorrow—the day after these amendments are debated in your Lordships' House—they will publish guidelines for discussion? Does he not feel that that shows disrespect for noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken with experience on behalf of a vast range of organisations that are interested? It seems to me to be quite extraordinary.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I agree with that point, but having myself behaved in a similar way in the past on more than one occasion perhaps I had better not pursue the matter.
I was slightly puzzled by the answer concerning Scotland. The noble Baroness said that one does not have to be specific as regards nursing homes because people who should qualify may be excluded. I am still left in a state of puzzlement. I am torn between withdrawing the amendment and trying again at Third Reading or dividing the House. On the whole I think I must take the opinion of the House.
4.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 144) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,110; Not-Contents, 114.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ezra, L.

Airedale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Falkender, B.

[Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Ardwick, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Aylestone, L.

Foot, L.

Bancroft, L.

Gallacher, L.

Birk, B.

Galpern, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gibson, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bottomley, L.

[Teller.]

Brightman, L.

Grantchester, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Grey, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Hampton, L.

L.

Hanworth, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carter, L.

Hayter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Crook, L.

Hughes, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

David, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ilchester, E.

Diamond, L.

Jay, L.

Ennals, L.

Jeger, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

424

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rochester, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Russell, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kinloss, Ly.

Seear, B.

Leatherland, L.

Seebohm, L.

Listowel, E.

Serota, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Shannon, E.

B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stallard, L.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McNair, L.

Swann, L.

Mancroft, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mayhew, L.

Thurlow, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tordoff, L.

Molloy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Nicol, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Northfield, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ogmore, L.

White, B.

Oram, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Phillips, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Porritt, L.

Winstanley, L.

Rea, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Gridley, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Havers, L.

Atholl, D.

Henley, L.

Auckland, L.

Hesketh, L.

Balfour, E.

Hives, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Howe, E.

Bessborough, E.

Kimball, L.

Blatch, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Blyth, L.

Kitchener, E.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Manchester, D.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Milverton, L.

Carnock, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Morris, L.

Chesham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountevans, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Munster, E.

Colwyn, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone,

Denham, L.

L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Quinton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Reay, L.

Elibank, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Sandys, L.

Elles, B.

Selborne, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Sharpies, B.

Foley, L.

Strange, B.

Fortescue, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gainford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Gisborough, L.

E.

Granville, E.

Swansea, L.

425

Swinton, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Teviot, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Westbury, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Wise, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Wolfson, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Ullswaer, V. [Teller.]

Young, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

4.29 p.m.
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 145ZA:
Page 48, line 19, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1BB) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 145A, 145B, 167A, 169A and also Amendment No. 180A which is the Scottish equivalent.
When we discussed Clause 43 in Committee, my noble friend Lord Mancroft drew attention to the need to ensure that it would be possible to arrange community care services without delay for those in urgent need of them. I know my noble friend had particularly in mind the provision of nursing home accommodation for drug and alcohol misusers. I said at the time that we would look again at the Bill to see whether any changes were needed to make it absolutely clear that services could be provided in cases of urgency without the need either to seek the consent of the health authority as required by the new Section 26(1B) of the National Assistance Act 1948 (as inserted by Clause 43 of the Bill) or the need to carry out an assessment in accordance with Clause 48. The result of the examination was that we decided that further provision would clarify the position. This is contained in the government amendments.
I turn now to Amendment No. 145A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. This amendment would achieve the need to which my noble friend drew attention at Committee stage, but we feel that there is a need to go further and cover not only the emergency provision of nursing home care but also the provision of other community care services by the local authority. Our amendments do that.
I appreciate that the government amendments mean that a voluntary organisation providing community care services would need to come to some arrangement with a local authority regarding the provision of urgent treatment. But, equally, the local authority itself will need—and, indeed will have a duty—to come to arrangements with providers in order to meet the need of their local communities. Therefore, there is nothing to stop a voluntary organisation and a local authority agreeing together for the provision of temporary care without any formalities in order to cope with situations where care is required urgently.
The government amendments provide a mechanism for such arrangements and we shall certainly be advising and encouraging local authorities to make them in order to supplement the
426
consultations that they will also need to make with voluntary sector and other interested parties in preparing their community care plans. I would say to my noble friend—and to others because I know there are anxieties in this area—that once the Bill has received Royal Assent it is the intention of my honourable friend the Minister of State and myself to meet representatives of the various voluntary sector bodies, including people involved in the alcohol and drug-related areas, to ensure that they are fully aware of all the mechanisms that are in place and what they will need to do to fulfil what they consider to be their own duties in this respect.
Therefore, I believe that the amendments tabled in my name remove any obstacles to the urgent provision of services, including those identified by my noble friend and others in our previous debate. I commend them to the House and I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, when is this very welcome meeting, to which the noble Baroness referred, to take place and will the result be available before Third Reading of this Bill?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe I said that the meeting would be after the Bill had received Royal Assent.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, it was heartening to hear my noble friend's words this afternoon. I hope that the Government finally appreciate the difficulty of this area. However, looking at the wording of the amendments, I am slightly concerned at the use of the word "authority" which is printed with a small "a" and without the preface of the word "local". What does "authority" mean in this context? Is it a local authority, a district health authority, my authority or yours?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, or is it a water authority?
Lord Mancroft: Yes, my Lords, it could be that. I hope and believe that my noble friend may be using the word in a wide context to cover voluntary organisations because the biggest part of the problem that we discussed in Committee was the very poor relationships between local authorities and the voluntary sector. The voluntary sector in this case is by far and away the largest, most professional and most able carer. The local authorities have not shown themselves over-willing—which is a gentle way of putting it—to deal with their voluntary sector brethren.
Over the past few weeks I have not heard of one local authority which has said it will enter into arrangements with the voluntary sector. When I discussed that with my noble friend she said that they must keep trying. I appreciate that and they are trying; but a few more weeks have passed and nothing has happened. I believe I said to the Committee that Quentin House in Bournemouth—a facility which I know quite well—had written to 127 local authorities. Replies had been received from only 23 and only seven of those replies were remotely positive—and they were only remotely positive. The situation does not bode well.

427
Therefore, the one Question that hangs in the air above my noble friend's amendments is: does this word "authority" encompass voluntary sector organisations? If voluntary sector organisations are dependent on local authority assessment then the amendment does nothing. If they are not dependent on local authority assessment the amendment does everything.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and I spoke in Committee in his support. The importance of the matter is that we all understand that speed is essential in certain cases. We hope that the Government have gone far enough but we shall decide what to do with our amendment when we hear the Minister's answer.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister how long these payments will continue. Are they just crisis payments or will they go on to the rehabilitation stage? Will payments be only for nursing homes or will they be for other places? Otherwise, everyone will be taking nursing home status.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I respond first to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. The reference to "authority" is to local government authority. I have been trying to relate this to the Bill because I realise that in the Bill we tend to refer to "local authorities" when speaking about local government authorities as opposed to health authorities, but in this instance we are referring to another Act and therefore to the terminology in that Act. I think the House will find that in that context the word "authority" is defined as a local government authority. Of course I will make absolutely sure that we are being entirely consistent.
In regard to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I believe I said in moving the amendment that we feel that our amendments should go further than the request put on record by my noble friend Lord Mancroft; that they should go further than the provision of emergency nursing home care and include the provision of other community care services by local authorities.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how far "further" is? Does it continue as long as it is needed?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are running into difficulties in our procedures at this Report stage. With the leave of the House, I can say that "further" is used in the context of such community care services as there are available which will be, if necessary, those provided by voluntary organisations. In response to the other question raised by the noble Baroness, we do not want to be limiting about the length of time for which care is covered. It will be the length of time that is necessary for adequate assessments to take place.
Lord Carter: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I point out that there is something odd with
428
the drafting on the question of authority. The new subsection (1BB) follows subsection (1B) which refers to an authority that is a district health authority. One then immediately goes to subsection (1BB) which refers to an authority that is a local authority. The drafting is curious, to say the least.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I ask the noble Lord to look at subsection (1B). Above the reference to a "District Health Authority" there is reference to an authority with a small "a". That is why I said that we shall have to look at the matter. I take the point.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if no indication is given as to how long temporary is, does the Minister not agree that there will be all kinds of argumentation with the authority about whether six months, three months or a year is necessary? Surely, there has to be some clarification of that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I point out that our amendment says that as soon as practicable arrangements should be made. On the whole, that must be a short period. If there is a need for a longer period, obviously that will be possible.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, before my noble friend finally sits down, which I am sure she is longing to do, I ask her to clarify the point that she made before. I am probably being very slow this afternoon. Can my noble friend say whether her amendment means that a voluntary sector establishment may not admit a patient without prior permission or arrangement with an authority? That is the crux on which the whole issue hangs. If that cannot be done then we are back where we started.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, on the procedural question we are getting a little out of hand. Report stage requires that people speak only once to amendments, within reason.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, we are entitled to ask questions. If an amendment is moved which we do not understand, how can we possibly take a decision on it? I thought it was clear from earlier advice taken through the appropriate channels that we were entitled to ask questions; otherwise, what is a debate?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it clearly was not clear. I appreciate that questions have to be asked but there are limits to the number of questions that need to be asked. That intervention has caused me to forget almost entirely what my noble friend was asking me.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, before my noble friend finally sat down, I was asking her whether or not her earlier words confirmed that voluntary organisations would need to have prior permission or authority from an authority before taking a patient. That is the most important point.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we would expect that a voluntary organisation offering the services that

429
come within the scope of this amendment would have a general arrangement with a local authority to provide facilities in urgent cases, but permission would not be required in each specific case.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend does not need to reply to me this afternoon, but I think—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is Report stage and this is not a point of clarification. The noble Baroness has wound up on this amendment.
[Amendment No. 145A not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 145B:
Page 48, line 22, at end insert:
("(1BB) Subsection (1B) above does not apply to the making by an authority of temporary arrangements for the accommodation of any person as a matter of urgency; but, as soon as practicable after any such temporary arrangements have been made, the authority shall seek the consent required by subsection (1B) above to the making of appropriate arrangements for the accommodation of the person concerned.").
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 48, line 28, at end insert:
("(1D) Before arrangements are made by virtue of this section with any person, that person shall disclose to the local authority making the arrangements any relevant criminal convictions.
(1E) On request by a local authority, a police officer shall disclose to the authority any relevant criminal convictions of any person with whom it is proposed to make arrangements by virtue of this section.
(1F) Relevant criminal convictions for the purposes of subsections (1D) and (1E) above shall be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(1G) Any person in respect of whom a disclosure is made under subsection (1E) above shall be informed of the disclosure.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a repeat of an amendment that I moved at Committee stage. I then withdrew it in the light of government assurances that the issues were under discussion. Since then I have heard no more. The amendment is concerned with the protection of especially vulnerable people, such as the elderly and infirm in residential homes. It stands out a mile that persons who have been convicted of certain types of offence such as manslaughter, blackmail, physical cruelty and some sexual offences should be precluded from running these homes. If there have been convictions then at the very least the registering authority should know about them before deciding how relevant they are.
We were told that the Government are thinking, in what I am bound to say appears to be a somewhat leisurely way, of altering the regulations under the Registered Homes Act 1984 to require that previous convictions are disclosed by an applicant. It is not clear to me whether the regulations would apply to all convictions, including, for example, traffic offences, or to certain types of offence.
Be that as it may, it is not much good going through all that procedure unless the record can be
430
checked with the police. It if were known that there was no check there could be a great temptation not to disclose a conviction in some far away place. Practical experience has shown that that is not a far-fetched idea. If it is known that there is to be a check—clearly, the applicant should be so informed—very few people would take the risk and the work falling on the police would be minimal.
As I know very well, checks with the police already take place in a number of areas where, as I see it, the need for protection is not so strong as it is in the case of the elderly and infirm people who are involved here. At Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, expressed sympathy and said that discussions were going on, but at that stage she said that she was not prepared to accept a need for primary legislation. I hope that we can now be told how those discussions have gone and how the Government propose to solve this question.
That is all I need say, but the brevity of my remarks should not be construed as meaning that the subject is not very important. It is. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will accept this amendment. It is very carefully conceived and drafted. There have been notorious cases—and some came within my own knowledge over the years—of people who have been convicted of sexual offences finding themselves employed looking after children. It is an alarming prospect that we should have legislation of this kind and not do something in the course of it to try to prevent a repetition of those circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is quite right to invite your Lordships to take a very serious view of this matter. I earnestly hope that the Government will do the same.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I can think of no answer that the Government can give. I entirely agree with everything said by the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Renton.
I spoke on this issue at Committee stage. As it stands, the Bill simply disqualifies persons who may have been convicted of an offence under the Registered Homes Act 1984 from being suitable persons for the purpose of the provision of community care services. It has one desired effect in that it provides a reason for withdrawing the registration of any home run by a person who has been so convicted. But it is a limited provision and offers no protection against racketeers whose offences did not spring from contraventions of the residential care legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, it offers no protection against those who have committed offences of physical violence or sexual abuse.
Major problems arise in relation to the matter. People moving into the private sector of care—and there are many of them—are quite new to the sector. Any offences are most unlikely to have been committed in the residential sphere because such people were not previously in it. Contravention of the Registered Homes Act still does not prevent people from setting up a care home with fewer than

431
four beds where they can continue practices which led to their being disqualified from running homes with four or more beds. I am aware that the Government wish to deal with the regulation of small homes in another way and at another time; but here is one opportunity to introduce, along with safeguards for larger homes and other services, some small check on the background of those who wish to run small homes and with whom the local authority may wish to make arrangements.
That there are abuses is not questioned by Ministers; but they have appeared to rest somewhat too complacently on a requirement by registering authorities that applicants should declare any relevant convictions. There is no independent check or scrutiny. We believe strongly that there should be. That is one of the central points of the amendment. Eventually it will be possible to ask all applicants for jobs to supply details of their criminal record in a form supplied to them by the police. When that facility is generally available, there may be less need for a system which gives the local authority direct access to information held by the police.
The Government's anxiety about this matter has not seemed to focus on any civil liberties aspect of the subject, but on the ability of the police to deal with applications for information within a reasonable period of time. It is well known that the system, which was referred to in Committee, of securing information from the police has in some areas run into difficulties because of the time taken by the police to complete their inquiries and to reply. It might be said that to require more information in respect of another group of persons would cause more problems for the police. The fundamental issue is not whether we wish to protect the police from taking on additional work, but whether or not we wish to introduce the minimum degree of protection against exploitation by known criminals of vulnerable elderly people, of those with such severe disabilities that they need residential care and of others whose protection ought to rank highly in any list of priorities.
Finally, the argument in favour of the amendment is strengthened by the fact that it would provide a deterrent to those who know that their convictions would be revealed. They would know that they would not be able to get away with it. It is the case that not all convictions would serve as a disqualification—a point which I mentioned in Committee—but we would expect the Secretary of State together with the local authorities to develop guidance on the kind of discretion to be exercised in certain cases. Fraud and physical exploitation would probably be barriers—certainly to work which would present similar opportunities—but minor and wholly unrelated offences would not. There is an overwhelming case for the amendment. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the Government should accept it.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. Directors of social services carry an awesome responsibility when delegating people to look after the very vulnerable. Unless they are helped
432
by the police, they will find themselves in serious difficulty.
I understand that the police feel that the amendment would mean a great deal of work for them. The Metropolitan Police have files on computer. The work could be done by a clerk and need not take up the time of a policeman. In the metropolitan area, the police are currently contacting collators at local police stations to get such information from them. That might mean that one would be told of a case that was perhaps pending, which would be wrong.
I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, because I meant to discuss my next point with him before the amendment was called. However, I was unable to do so because I have been away. The amendment applies to local authorities but as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will know, MENCAP has 274 homes. Would the amendment apply to voluntary organisations as well as to the local authorities? Would an application to the police have to go through the local authority? If that were the case, local authorities would be in some difficulty. I support the amendment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I support the amendment. Some time ago I carried out an informal investigation into the personal circumstances of some elderly people in registered homes of this kind. Frankly, I was disturbed and faintly alarmed by the number of cases that I discovered in which a person running a home had acquired enduring power of attorney in respect of a resident. The Enduring Powers of Attorney Act is fairly new and could easily be used fraudulently if the wrong people were in the wrong position. The amendment seeks to ensure that some of the wrong people are not in the wrong position.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I think it unnecessary to repeat the cogent arguments adduced in favour of the amendment. I would not think it necessary to argue it at any length were it not for one's acute awareness of the tendency of governments of all colours to show a knee-jerk reaction which leads them to reject all amendments and defend as though it were a matter of principle the integrity of their Bills, or what would be flatteringly described as the integrity of their Bills. In those circumstances, I want only to tell my noble friend that if the Government cannot see their way to accepting this very sensible and reasonable amendment, my surprise would overcome my desire to support them.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the arguments put forward in favour of the amendment are unanswerable. However, one broader consideration arises. With present demographic pressures in the population, it is inevitable that new people will come into this field with the aim of opening new residential homes. The Bill itself will mean that, with the closure of their own homes, local authorities will license more homes in the private sector. It is therefore important that the undoubted need for more homes should not become an excuse for lowering standards. That would be grossly irresponsible. The expanding

433
demand for this type of accommodation should lead to greater and not to less stringency. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support the amendment which seeks to protect vulnerable people who may be at risk in nursing homes. I wish to ask one question. Running some of the drug rehabilitation services are certain people with past criminal records. Would the amendment cause a problem? Perhaps we might have to have an amendment at the next stage of the Bill in order to exempt these people.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the amendment and particularly the words of my noble friend Lady Faithfull that it should be also be made to apply to homes run by voluntary organisations.
5.p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this is undoubtedly an important and serious issue and one on which there is some strength of feeling in your Lordships' House. I wish to respond as positively as I can to the case that has been made. It is not inconsistent with my wish to be positive to argue, as I intend to, that the amendment should not be pursued. In our earlier debate on criminal record checks I described the safeguards that are already built into the system, so I shall try to deal briefly with the matter.
People in residential care and nursing homes are protected by the requirements of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and by the work local authorities and health authorities do to ensure that those requirements are met. The fitness of proprietors and managers to run such homes is a cardinal requirement. It is given considerable weight by authorities in considering applications for registration. Information from applicants about previous convictions is sought as part of the process. In the same way, the business of negotiating and agreeing contracts will include both a critical assessment of the fitness and suitability of the potential contractor and specification of the way quality control will be exercised by the authority.
There will of course be occasions when an authority's hand would be strengthened if it had free access to police records. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and others have reminded us, we intend as soon as possible to amend regulations made under the Registered Homes Act so that applicants for registration are required by law to disclose previous convictions. This is an anomaly and it is only right that it should be removed.
As to the wider question of disclosure of police records raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and others, I have to tell the House with some regret that discussions between the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers have ended without agreement on the extension of the present disclosure arrangements. The association is not, I believe, unsympathetic in principle to providing information about the criminal records of those applying to run residential care homes and nursing homes. The need to protect vulnerable groups is
434
one of the criteria for making exceptions to the traditional confidentiality of police records. But the association is extremely, and understandably, concerned at the burden which forces are already having to bear because of the arrangements, set up in 1986, for vetting people whose work in schools, the health service and social services gives them substantial opportunity for access to children.
These arrangements generated 170,000 checks in 1986; a year later the number had more than doubled. At present 470,000 checks per annum are being made, and the rate is increasing. In addition, there are firm proposals to extend the child protection arrangements into the voluntary sector. The practicalities are being looked at in a series of pilot studies that are now well under way.
All this means extra work for the police. My noble friend Lady Faithfull said that it was merely necessary for a clerk to extract the information from a computer. However, it is obviously more than that because it has led the Association of Chief Police Officers to conclude that it could not commit the police service to more vetting work within existing resources.
However, some local authorities and police forces have come to local agreements to provide information from the criminal record in respect of care home proprietors and managers. But the service generally feels it must give priority to the child protection arrangements. I sympathise, as I hope the House will sympathise, with this view.
I turn now to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that legislation be introduced to establish an agency independent of the police to maintain a computerised national collection of criminal records. The committee recommended that such an agency should be responsible for providing criminal records for vetting purposes in accordance with principles prescribed in legislation and that the agency should charge for its services. The Home Office will respond formally to the report later this month and is establishing a scrutiny to explore the idea of a national criminal records agency.
We believe that it would therefore be premature to attempt to assess the significance of all these developments at this stage, but their existence is encouraging. Measured progress is being made and I believe that we should not attempt unrealistically to force the pace. I hope therefore that the movers of the amendment will feel able to withdraw it. Some queries were raised about whether the voluntary sector was included in the amendment. Obviously the noble Lord, Lord Allen, will respond on the point but it is my understanding that it is.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I am sure that in the preparation for her reply to the amendment she herself or her officials must have asked what the numbers were likely to be. If the police are already carrying out inquiries into, I believe she said, over 100,000 cases, I cannot envisage that the percentage increase of cases required for homes will be so great. We shall not have homes sprouting like mushrooms all over the country. Once the system is established, the

435
number of cases will be small relative to the total. To hazard a guess, it should be a 5 per cent. increase at the outside. Has the noble Baroness made an estimate? I should have thought the figure would be negligible in relation to what the police are already doing.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend replies and finally concludes, I wish to ask another question.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the figures I quoted were in relation to the child protection requirements. I do not have estimated figures to offer to the noble Baroness. But from experience and as a result of advice in discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers, I do not believe that the association agrees with the noble Baroness that the number of cases that would have to be investigated would be small.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps she would be good enough to deal with a matter which she did not deal with in her reply but which is truly relevant to the decision we have to take. I ask her to turn to page 48, line 23, the new subsection (1C) amending the previous legislation and also to this amendment. Does she not find that the amendment strengthens and makes a reality of the provision that the Government have put into subsection (1C)? It is therefore not breaking new ground but making effective what was proposed in the Bill. That is all it does.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point and his reference to Clause 43. However, I am not excluding all possibilities. I am simply saying in my response that in view of all the work that has been undertaken on this and the progress that we hope will be made, it is not timely to accept an amendment of this nature.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am grateful for the wide-ranging support from around the Chamber for this modest amendment. I have two comments to make to the point made by my noble friend Lady Masham. It is not suggested that a previous conviction would necessarily be a bar; it is a question of the authority knowing about the conviction and coming to a judgment on whether it would constitute a bar.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, I should say that it is a question of the registering authority knowing about convictions rather than the people who are responsible for the home. The measure would not involve a lot of extra work. There are not all that many registered homes. We are talking only about the owners and the people who run the homes. We are not talking about the staff. The fact is that without this precaution things have gone wrong and will continue to go wrong. I remain convinced that it is our duty to do what we can to protect these vulnerable people.
I have been trying to work it out, but I believe that I have spent 30 years of my official life dealing with the police. I rarely fell into the habit of doing
436
what the Association of Chief Police Officers told me to do. The association is entitled to express its view, but even the police will obey what is provided for by Parliament. I am sorry but I am afraid I must take the view of the House on this matter.
5.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 146) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 95.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kitchener, E.

[Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Auckland, L.

Llewelvn-Davies of Hastoe,

Aylestone, L.

B.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Masham of Ilton, B.

L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Crook, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mottistone, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Oram, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Faithfull, B.

Phillips, B.

Falkender, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rea, L.

Foot, L.

Renton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

[Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grantchester, L.

Seear, B.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Seebohm, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Hampton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayter, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Swann, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Swinfen, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hughes, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Belstead, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bessborough, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blatch, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Atholl, D.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Balfour, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Beloff, L.

Butterworth, L.

437

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Milverton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Chesham, L.

Morris, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Munster, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nelson, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone,

Dilhorne, V.

L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Prior, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Quinton, L.

Elibank, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Ferrers, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Foley, L.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gridley, L

Strathclyde, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathcona and Mount

Havers, L,

Royal, L.

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Hesketh, L.

E.

Hives, L.

Swinton, E.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ironside, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Killearn, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Ullswater, V.

Layton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Long, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Lyell, L.

Westbury, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Manchester, D.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) moved Amendment No. 146A:
Page 48, line 31, after ("and") insert ("subject to subsection (3A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 146A I should like to speak to Amendment No. 146B, Amendment No. 209A in the name of my noble friend Lord Sanderson and also to Amendment No. 147 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
When we discussed this point in Committee I said that I would come back with an amendment later to address the problem which we accept that the proposed payment arrangements would cause for voluntary organisations providing accommodation as housing associations. Amendments Nos. 146A and 146B are the result. It may help if I explain what the amendments do.
Briefly, they provide an alternative method of payment for use where the local authority, the provider of the accommodation and the user agree. Under the alternative arrangement the user will pay the part of the cost of the accommodation he can meet from his resources, including income support and housing benefit, direct to the provider. The local authority will then pay the balance of the cost, rather
438
than the full cost which it would otherwise be liable to pay under Section 26(2) of the 1948 Act. The local authority will work out what the user should pay using the same rules as it would use to work out what a user would pay it if it were paying the full cost of the accommodation. Thus both the user and the local authority will pay the same in both instances. However, instead of the local authority meeting the full cost and the user paying his share to the authority, the local authority and user will both pay their shares direct to the provider.
This alternative arrangement will permit the provider and user to form a normal landlord/tenant relationship. We have discussed this with the Housing Corporation which has confirmed that, if that is so, the funding will not be endangered. This appears to meet the concerns expressed by the Committee, which I accept were fully justified. I commend the amendments to the House and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will not feel it necessary to move his amendment, which seeks the same worthy objective, in favour of the government amendments.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. The amendment is the result of an undertaking that the Government gave at Committee stage to deal with the problem. We feel that the amendments do so.
There are just a couple of points that I should like to raise. First, the amendments do not deal with the problem of notional rent, which we shall be dealing with under Amendment No. 155. If the level of notional rent is set too low there will still be a problem for housing associations.
There is still some concern among organisations regarding the need for the three-way agreement between the authority, the housing provider and the voluntary agency. There is a worry that there is a potential for dispute between the agencies which could still lead to the scheme being frustrated. Can the Minister say whether the Government have any intention of addressing the issue either in the Bill or through regulations?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am particularly pleased to see the amendments. Can the Minister confirm that we can be reassured that housing association grant will now be available for providing such homes? There was some concern that if a mentally handicapped person, for example, was not technically paying rent but was instead being sponsored by the social services which were paying the costs entirely on his or her behalf, the fact that no rent was visible would mean that no housing asociation grant could be made available for the construction of the property. Housing associations which are either currently involved or have in the pipeline well-advanced plans to provide accommodation for the categories which are so desperately in need of it were very worried that the Bill might have prevented them from providing such accommodation and obtaining the necessary grant to do so. As I understand it the amendments will mean that housing association grant will remain available. Subject to confirmation of that point I support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I confirm that my noble friend's interpretation is correct. Regarding the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I look forward to Amendment No. 155 which we shall discuss later today. I shall have to consider his second point and come back to him on the matter. If there is a suitable moment during the consideration of some other amendment I shall respond at that stage.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 146B:
Page 48, line 35, at end insert:
("(3A) At the beginning of subsection (3) of that section (liability of persons for whom accommodation is provided to make refunds to the local authority) there shall be inserted "Subject to subsection (3A) below" and after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) Where accommodation in any premises is provided for any person under arrangements made by virtue of this section and the local authority, the person concerned and the voluntary organisation or other person managing the premises (in this subsection referred to as "the provider") agree that this subsection shall apply—

(a) so long as the person concerned makes the payments for which he is liable under paragraph (b) below, he shall not be liable to make any refund under subsection (3) above and the local authority shall not be liable to make any payment under subsection (2) above in respect of the accommodation provided for him;

(b) the person concerned shall be liable to pay to the provider such sums as he would otherwise (under subsection (3) above) be liable to pay by way of refund to the local authority; and

(c) the local authority shall be liable to pay to the provider the difference between the sums paid by virtue of paragraph (b) above and the payments which, but for paragraph (a) above, the authority would be liable to pay under subsection (2) above."").

[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 147A:
Page 48. line 45, leave out ("other person") and insert ("any person carrying on, professionally or by way of trade or business, activities which consist of or include the provision of services for any of the persons to whom section 29 above applies").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have made it clear throughout our community care proposals that we want local authorities to exercise an enabling role in the provision of community care services.
Our intention always was that local authorities should only make arrangements for the provision of services for payment with persons professionally engaged in providing those services or otherwise providing them by way of business or trade. It was never our intention that local authorities should be able to pay people who would have provided these services on a non-commercial basis and the amendments which we have introduced into the Bill make this clear. We feel that the amendments are needed to protect local authorities from presssure to use their powers to make arrangements with private providers in ways in which the Government never intended. The amendments are therefore necessary to clarify Section 30 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and Section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.
In moving Amendment No. 147A I am also speaking to Amendment No. 147B. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 147B:
Page 49, line 1, leave out ("other person") and insert ("any person carrying on, professionally or by way of trade or business, activities which consist of or include the provision of services for old people").
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 148:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Residential services for persons currently or recently dependent upon drugs or alcohol

(1) The Secretary of State shall make transitional arrangements, which shall come into force on 1st April 1991, and which satisfy subsection (2) below in respect of those voluntary organisations in receipt of funds or other assistance from local authorities given in connection with the exercise of their community care functions providing residential care under the Registered Homes Act 1984 for persons who are now or were recently dependent upon drugs or alcohol.

(2) The arrangement referred to in subsection (1) above shall provide for monies, to be paid by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury and provided by Parliament, to be available for the making of grants to voluntary organisations referred to in subsection (1) above for the continuation of those services, where those services would otherwise no longer be available, and to continue to be made until such time as the Secretary of State is satisfied that other funds are available and adequate to ensure the continuation of those services.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that this amendment will give us an opportunity to receive clarification because I am not sure whether the amendment which the noble Baroness moved on the same subject incorporates what we are trying to achieve here.
The new clauses arise from the difficulties which will be caused for residential drug and alcohol projects by the change in funding mechanisms proposed by the Bill which are likely to lead to the closure of large numbers of residential projects within a few months of the Bill being enacted. The amendment seeks to safeguard residential drug and alcohol services, until such time as permanent funding mechanisms are seen to be operating satisfactorily, through provision for transitional grants to be made where services would otherwise be forced to close.
The White Paper Caring for People states that many people need extra help at some stage in their lives and notes that people with drug and alcohol-related disorders may need community care at some time. In the Bill, however, there is no specific reference to drugs and alcohol. During the Committee stage debate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was asked if she could given an unequivocal assurance that people with drug and alcohol problems are included. She replied:
"I can give an unequivocal answer. The answer is yes. Whether the person is suffering from an alcohol-related problem, from drug abuse or whatever it may be, if a local authority deems there to be a need for provision, it is the local authority's duty to respond to that need. Those groups are included".—[Official Report. 8/5/90; col. 1274.]
Alcohol services have always received very low priority for funding from social service departments despite the fact that alcohol problems are not only damaging to the individual but also cause far more social and economic harm than any other equivalent problem. The Bill reflects that neglect in making no explicit reference to provision for people with alcohol or drug problems.
Problem drinkers are a largely hidden population who, because of the stigma, make very few direct and explicit demands upon social services. They are far more likely to approach a specialist alcohol agency. Alcohol problems are often seen as self-induced and are not a politically attractive option when set in competition for resources against other vulnerable groups. There is no statutory responsibility to provide services. The blurred division of responsibility between health and local authorities has meant that some authorities have failed to recognise or accept their share of that responsibility.
Perhaps I may now turn to the problem for the residential alcohol services sector. Residential services are currently funded by board and lodging payments. There are some regional variations, but the standard position in London is that a project will receive £173 per week made up of £40.60 rent, £29.40 food and £103 extra care. The extra care payment contributes towards social work costs. From April 1991 the extra care payment will cease to be paid for any new resident moving into a residential scheme. Instead, the Department of Social Services will transfer to local authorities an equivalent sum, and all referrals and funding will be via the local authority.
There are a number of serious problems with that. Clients presently seen by voluntary alcohol services put a high premium on confidentiality and are unlikely ever to approach a local authority in that way. Individual clients often have only tenuous links with any local authority. That is particularly the case for homeless problem drinkers. The number of local authorities with which most agencies would need to have formal arrangements would be extremely high as referrals come from a wide range of sources. Local authorities do not have expertise in that field of assessment. The vast majority of local authorities do not currently take any responsibility for services to problem drinkers and nowhere are they considered a priority. It is therefore extremely unlikely that local authorities will be able or willing to provide top-up funding for care costs at the levels which will be needed if current services are to be maintained and residential alcohol projects are to be prevented from being forced into closure.
Evidence to confirm that view is already mounting. A survey of 12 local authorities which have already begun planning their community care services showed that not one had made any provision for alcohol services, and that at least two had not been aware that they would inherit any kind of responsibility for funding clients in residential alcohol projects.
That is an urgent problem. The new funding arrangements apply only to those who enter residential care after the implementation date of 1st
442
April 1991 and for those in, say, the elderly field that offers a gradual transition to the new system spread over a period of several years. However, for drug and alcohol projects, that is not the case.
In the alcohol field, the turnover of clients ranges from a few days in detoxification and crisis centres, to a few weeks in assessment units and to three to six months in rehabilitation projects. That means that the switch to the new system will be completed almost immediately and will leave no time for difficulties to be ironed out before projects feel the full impact of the changes.
Voluntary organisations such as those running residential homes do not have large cash reserves, and closures would begin to occur as early as the summer of 1991. It is therefore vital that transitional funding arrangements are already in place in order to safeguard existing services until such time as a new funding system can be seen to operate effectively for residential alcohol and drug projects.
I hope that we shall have clarification on that issue. There are many worried people in the community. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name as well as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. She has made an overwhelming case, and I simply wish to summarise one or two points.
However, before doing so, I should say that I doubt from earlier debates whether the Government realise the extent of the danger that those voluntary organisations now face in the drug and alcohol field. When the noble Baroness warns that there may be massive closures, the Government must accept that that is true. It is a disturbing situation and it could all happen so quickly if the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment or another like it. Sometimes, when the Government are faced with a problem that the wording of an amendment seems to be excessive for them, they wisely take it away and consider it. I hope that, if they are not satisfied with the wording of this amendment, they will perhaps offer to do that.
The anxieties stem from four principal points. First, there is the impossibility of negotiating separate funding arrangements with the relevant local authority for each individual client where a relatively small voluntary organisation is taking hundreds of referrals a year from all over the country. Secondly, there is the lack of any statutory obligation to provide alcohol services and the lack of any clear reference to alcohol services within the scope of the Bill. I have already referred to that point on an earlier amendment which the Government rejected. It is because the Government object to those points being written into the Bill that the problem arises. Thirdly, there is the low priority generally given to alcohol services by social services departments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, and the firm indication from social services departments that that lack of priority is likely to continue as they struggle to meet their statutory responsibilities under the new legislation. Fourthly, there is the rapid turnover of clients in alcohol projects which means that the full impact of the legislation will be felt

443
almost immediately with the first closures likely to take place within a few months of the April start date.
Those difficulties are the inadvertent by-products of a Bill which appears to have been framed with other groups as the principal focus and were clearly not intended by those drafting the Bill. Although the Government are perhaps beginning to recognise those difficulties, there have as yet been no measures taken to address the urgency of the situation. No doubt with time and goodwill, all the difficulties can be resolved. I am sure that the goodwill exists. It certainly exists among voluntary organisations, but time is in very short supply.
The amendment would provide the breathing space to safeguard existing projects while effective funding mechanisms are developed. Without such a provision, goodwill alone will not be enough to save the majority of residential projects from closure. The Government must recognise the urgency of the position. I hope that they will accept the amendment or, if they do not, that they will take it away to consider it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I appreciate the anxiety that lies behind the amendment. I can assure noble Lords that the Government fully recognise the importance of residential care for drug and alcohol misusers and the care that the voluntary sector provides. I have had a series of meetings with representatives of the voluntary sector about this subject and was invited to respond to the all-party group on those matters in another place. We are therefore well aware of the problem.
Concern has been expressed that local authorities may ignore residential services for drug and alcohol misusers in their community care provision, in part because it has been suggested that many of them have little experience in this field and also perhaps because this group of clients may not be politically attractive. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made clear that he will require local authorities to include services for drug and alcohol misusers in their community care plans.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, when the noble Baroness says that "the Secretary of State will require", how does he require other than by legislation?
Baroness Hooper: By direction, my Lords. I have also ensured that express reference is made to these services in the draft guidance to which reference has already been made and which is due out tomorrow. This should ensure that services for these clients are considered by local authorities on an equal footing with services for other client groups.
The Government's objective is to ensure that local authorities make informed decisions about the priority that each aspect of community care provision will attract. To single out any particular aspect of service provision would tie the hands of local authorities and make it hard for them to set about this important task in a rational way. The Government do not wish to make any sort of
444
statement that community care provision for any one client group is more important than provision for any other, and I fear that the noble Baroness's amendment asks the Government to do exactly that.
It may be—I accept—that what lies in part behind the amendment is a concern that in the transitional period the process of implementation up to and immediately following April 1991 may not go smoothly in its initial stages and that during the course of the transition the services provided by the voluntary sector may be damaged. Once again, I fully appreciated that concern. As I have said, many local authorities have little experience of providing services for drug and alcohol misusers, since that has been in the domain of health authorities up to now, or indeed of liaison with the voluntary organisations that are active in this field.
I appreciate that also many voluntary organisations do not have large financial reserves which would enable them to withstand a significant interruption in their cash flow. However, we believe that the way to get round those difficulties is to have proper consultation and planning rather than through the introduction of any special financial arrangements. I can assure your Lordships that consultation and planning are matters that will be very seriously addressed.
Furthermore, I remind noble Lords that we are continuing to provide substantial central government funds in this respect, in addition to the £15·5 million of earmarked funds for regional health authorities to develop local services in 1990–91, of which £9·5 million are to be used to expand services to take account of HIV and drug users with AIDS. That exists and it is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Further, the current campaign of education and information on drug services launched in February 1990 made available a further £3·8 million and that too will overlap into 1991. I am talking about matters to cover the difficult transitional period. An additional £4·3 million has been made available to Alcohol Concern to improve and extend the existing network of local councils on alcohol. That is in addition to the recent appointments of regional drug co-ordinators and regional alcohol abuse co-ordinators, who are doing an important and useful job at grass-roots level.
A lot has been and is being done to help the voluntary sector in its important work, which I believe would not be helped by this amendment. I hope that what I have said and the reassurance that I have been able to give will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she accept that it is precisely the voluntary organisations, with whom I know she has been in consultation, that support this amendment? Was the impression that she gained from her consultation with them that in fact they thought that this amendment was the way to deal with the problem?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, all the organisations that I met intimated

445
that they had been considerably reassured by what I had to say to them; but no doubt everybody wished to build on what is on offer.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, alcohol is a particularly problematical thing. So many people enjoy it, including many of your Lordships. Sadly, with alcohol, some people fall by the wayside and become very ill. They do not just get drunk and have a hangover; they become ill. Their livers pack up and eventually they die. However, before that happens the problem can cause the break-up of many families. Alcoholism is perhaps one of the biggest causes of family break-up that is known.
The drug problem also exists. I do not think that the Government can see the need for this interim funding, but sadly it is the people who want to come off drugs who go into treatment. If there is no treatment and places have to close down, those people will be on the streets. They will be back with their colleagues, stealing and breaking into cars and will eventually land up in prison, and our prisons are full enough.
As I said when I moved the amendment, this matter has a very low priority. I am sure that if the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, were present, she would say that children have to be the priority. There are so many priorities. Indeed, child abuse is one of the first that springs to mind. So this issue has a low priority. The Government, I think, have realised it; indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said so herself.
At this stage I should like to consult further with the organisations, wait until we see what comes out tomorrow and then bring this matter back again at Third Reading. This is a very important issue. I said that the local authorities had not realised what had to be done. This is a new responsibility landing on their plate. I think that we need a little more time to consider this very important matter. Therefore I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 [Residential accommodation with nursing]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 148A:
Page 61, line 37, leave out ("arrangements") and insert ("such arrangements as they consider appropriate and adequate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment clarifies the nature of the duty on local authorities under new Section 13A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to provide residential care with nursing. It picks up the wording of Section 12 of the 1968 Act which deals with other residential accommodation. I beg to move.
Clause 44 [Exclusion of powers to provide accommodation in certain cases]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 49, leave out lines 26 to 30 and insert:
("(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to—

(a) persons in "relevant premises" unable to meet the fees in the said premises and to whom care is not otherwise available,

(b) other such classes of person as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe.

(4) The Secretary of State shall make grants out of money provided by Parliament towards any expenses of local authorities incurred under subsection (3)(a) above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a very familiar subject. It concerns people in voluntary and private residential homes whose incomes are not sufficient from income support with the rising prices to be able to pay their bills. We have put this matter before noble Lords on a number of occasions and have not got anywhere. Would the Government give us the best news of all and tell us that they accept the amendment? If not, will they say what is to happen to those people? They cannot pay their bills and it is a familiar position. Are they to be flung out of the institution? If so, where are they to go? Alternatively, is it expected that the voluntary and private organisations will foot the bill on their behalf? If so, where will they obtain the money from?
It is Report stage. I shall not make a long speech. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we have been over this ground a number of times. We have been unable to convince the Government. However, we intend to keep on trying.
We are talking about 180,000 residents in private and voluntary residential nursing homes in receipt of income support. All are at risk of shortfall between the level of income support and the fees that are charged.
I shall not take the time of the House by repeating the arguments because the Minister knows them well. We are talking of elderly, infirm and disabled people under great strain. The strain is on them, their relatives and those who care for them. We have evidence from all over the country that the shortfall can be as much as £60 a week. It is certainly £30 a week in a number of cases despite the increases that the Government gave in April and August. I hope that the Minister will accept the strength of the arguments this time.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the movers of the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we have been over this ground. We have been over it once before on this Bill and twice on the Social Security Bill. Perhaps I may remind the movers of the amendment that when we last went over the ground, as they put it, on 10th May, which was the sixth day of the Committee stage of the Bill, the Committee divided on an amendment that was virtually identical. It decided by 90 votes to 112 to reject that amendment. It is quite wrong and improper for noble Lords to come back again with virtually the same amendment on the same Bill.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on a point of information, if it had been improper, I presume that the amendment would not have been accepted.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said that the amendment had virtually the same effect. The amendment was rejected by the Committee on that occasion. It is not right that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord should bring it back on a later occasion.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that neither the noble Baroness nor the noble Lord spoke to the amendment, I have every intention of doing so. I shall set out the Government's case again. It is a good case. I shall repeat what I said on a earlier occasion, setting out what we are doing and what we have done.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I cannot follow my noble friend's argument. If it were improper for us to have tabled the amendment, the clerks would have said that it could not be accepted. We must rely on the clerks' judgment on such matters.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, let us keep to the spirit of the rules.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that remark. I have no idea how the clerks decide what is right or wrong. The noble Baroness knows full well that the effect of her amendment is virtually identical to that of the previous amendment, although the wording is very different. The previous amendment was much longer.
Nevertheless, I intend to answer the points that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have made because the Government's case is a good one. We recognise the very real need to give as much reassurance as possible to those who are currently residents in homes and on benefit. In addressing the new clause and the anxieties of the two movers—which they have not expressed on this occasion but did so on an earlier occasion—I must remind the House that one of the key reasons that the Government have decided to continue the income support system for people who are resident in homes at the point of change to the new arrangements was to enable local authorities to concentrate on their primary task after April 1991: that is, to provide an effective service for those turning to them for help for the first time under the new arrangements. This clause would detract from that effort. Moreover, the fact that in this case the Secretary of State would be required to reimburse the local authority for the money spent on the preserved cases would mean that they would be taking decisions on the help that they should give without any budgetary discipline.
We have heard much about the blank cheque. I believe that I used that expression on a previous occasion. I make no apology for that. But this is yet again the blank cheque approach. The Government are therefore clear that it is an issue which has primarily to be addressed through the social security system. The issue of the income support system for people in homes has, to say the least, been extensively debated, as I have already said, during the passage of this Bill, and of the Social Security Bill, both in this House and in another place. There
448
are three separate themes in the Government's response, and that response renders this new clause unnecessary.
In April we increased the weekly benefit of virtually all existing claimants in homes by £10 a week at an additional cost of over £100 million. I remind the House that that is over an existing expenditure of £1,100 million. We are also introducing a second stage of this increase in the limits in 1990–91. In addition to the changes already made, from 13th August there will be further targeted increases to all income support limits to help maintain their value during the coming year. The House will be aware that more than 200,000 people will benefit from those additional increases.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has also undertaken to make a thorough assessment of the position and to look carefully at the levels and structure of income support limits as they would apply from 1991. He is particularly concerned to have more and better information on the true costs of running residential care and nursing homes. Tendering for a research project has begun and details will be announced shortly.
In setting the limits for income support my right honourable friend wants to be able to use the information that will become available as a result of practical decisions and negotiations by local authorities after 1991. To this end the Social Security Bill currently before this House contains a new provision which confirms his powers to do just that: to set local limits for income support taking into account evidence supplied to him by local authorities about the charges that they will be meeting for residents in homes under the new arrangements.
I hope that the House will recognise that it is a thorough, practical and sensible response in what we freely admit is a highly complicated and sensitive area. All the various suggestions that have now been put to us have not altered my conviction that ours is the realistic way forward.
However, we recognise that there will always be some people whose care needs will be such that they cannot be catered for within the income support scheme. We have already announced that we will take three measures to help such people. First, if it is a question of someone remaining in a particular home where the fees are above the income support limits, it will still be possible to disregard any help they receive from relatives or charitable sources so that they can remain in the home of their choice. Secondly, since many of the people with exceptional care needs are likely to be younger physically disabled people, local authorities will be given power to "top up" fees for people under pension age as they can now. Thirdly, if someone over pension age cannot afford fees and is likely to be asked to leave the home as a result, the local authority will be able to arrange care for them in a home under local authority management.
I return to what I said at the beginning of the amendment. The question has been debated on many occasions. On 10th May the Committee rejected a very similar clause. I hope that having given my explanation, the movers will feel prepared to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on a point of information, we should make clear that the amendment is wholly different from the one we discussed previously. It is no good the Minister saying, "Pah!". The amendment simply asks that local authorities be able to assist those over pension age. It is wholly different in terms and in spirit from that which was debated and divided on previously.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord will not reply to that remark. I hope that he will not be as ratty with me as he was with my noble friend Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The noble Baroness asked a very straightforward question.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I do not believe that it is appropriate at Report stage for the noble Lord to intervene.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear!
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, my noble friend had sat down and the noble Lord did not intervene by saying, "Before the noble Lord sits down".
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am in difficulty because I am not clear whether I am allowed to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, at Report stage. I consulted the clerks on this matter, as I explained to him last week. I was told that I could ask a question and that there was no need to use any particular phraseology. I am about to ask a very simple question and I should like to be able to do so without interruption so that we do not waste time. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked the noble Lord the central question; namely, what will happen if someone cannot pay? The issue revolves around that question and it concerns us the most. We have not yet received an answer. I believe that we are entitled to a simple answer to a simple question.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in order to save time because my question is supplementary—
Lord Belstead: Order, order!
Baroness Seear: I wish to clarify a point made by the Minister and the answer will make all the difference when I decide whether to call for the opinion of the House.
Baroness Phillips: Just say "by leave". That will satisfy them.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister said that a local authority could move someone from a private home for which they could not pay into a local authority home. Did he say that the local authority would be under an obligation to do so, which will meet our point, or that it would have the power to do so? If he said that it would be under an obligation to do so I am satisfied. Surely, if I may say so to the Leader of the House, it is entirely reasonable to ask for clarification.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who moved the amendment. However, I assume that she will not speak yet again.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I apologise if the noble Lord, Lord Peston, felt that I was "ratty", as he put it, in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I was being perfectly fair. It is obvious that the amendment has exactly the same effect as the one moved previously. It was right and fair of me to state that clearly in order that your Lordships were aware that we had debated the subject at great length on three separate occasions. Indeed, the subject was debated at great length in another place. We have voted on an amendment which had a virtually identical effect. As I then said, the effect was the blank cheque book approach, as is the effect of this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked what we were doing now. I stated clearly, if he had listened to me, what we were doing—and I come to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I said that the local authority will have the power to arrange care for people in a home under its management if it so wishes.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, venturing to displease the Minister again, if he had said that the local authority had a duty I should have been entirely satisfied. However, he has said only that it has the power. Will he take the amendment away and say whether at Third Reading he will consider making it a duty? If he will do so I shall not divide the House. If he will not I shall divide the House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, no.
Baroness Seear; My Lords, I ask for the opinion of the House.
6.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 149) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 106.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Glasgow, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ardwick, L.

[Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Hampton, L.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hayter, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Hollis of Heigham, B.

L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carter, L.

Hughes, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jay, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jeger, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ennals, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Falkender, B.

Lawrence, L.

Foot, L.

Listowel, E.

Gallacher, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Galpern, L.

B.

451

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Rochester, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Russell, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Mayhew, L.

Serota, B.

Molloy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Tordoff, L.

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Northfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ogmore, L.

Whaddon, L.

Peston, L.

White, B.

Phillips, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Winstanley, L.

Rea, L.

Wise, L.

Richard, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kitchener, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Atholl, D.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Auckland, L.

Mancroft, L.

Balfour, E.

Margadale, L.

Beloff, L.

Merrivale, L.

Belstead, L.

Mersey, V.

Blatch, B.

Milverton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Morris, L.

Braye, B.

Mottistone, L.

Brightman, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Munster, E.

Butterworth, L.

Nelson, E.

Caccia, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Carnock, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,

Chesham, L.

L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Prior, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Quinton, L.

Cox, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigavon, V.

Reay, L.

Crook, L.

Renton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Renwick, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Saint Albans, D.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Seebohm, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Selborne, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elles, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathcona and Mount

Elton, L.

Royal, L.

Faithfull, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Ferrers, E.

E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Swinton, E.

Gainford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thurlow, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Greenway, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Tryon, L.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Howe, E.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Westbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

6.10 p.m.
[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 151:
Before Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
"Licensing of Horne Care.
(". After section 14 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, there shall be inserted—
""Licensing of Home Care.
14A.—(1) Subsections (3) to (6) below shall have effect only if and insofar as a local authority has so resolved in accordance with subsection (2) below.
(2) A local authority may resolve that, as from a day specified in the resolution (being not earlier than three months from the date the resolution was made), the provision of domiciliary services in the area of the authority shall be regulated in accordance with subsections (3) to (6) below.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, a licence, to be known as a "domiciliary services licence", shall be required for carrying on business as a provider of domiciliary services.
(4) The following persons shall be exempt from the requirement to obtain a licence under subsection (3) above—

(a) any local authority providing services under Part II of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;

(b) any Health Board; and

(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State may direct.

(5) A local authority may refuse to grant or withdraw a domiciliary services licence if they are satisfied that—

(a) the applicant or any person employed or proposed to be employed in the management of the business, is not a fit person to carry on or to be employed in such a business as is stated in the application; or

(b) the way in which the business is carried on or is proposed to be carried on is such as not to provide an acceptable standard of care to persons using the service.

(6) A local authority shall have such powers to inspect the business of any persons holding, or applying for, a domiciliary services licence, and to require information from any such person, as the Secretary of State may direct."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment it may be convenient for the House also to take Amendment No. 182. The purpose of this amendment is to establish a licensing system to protect the users of home care domiciliary services. One of the White Paper's key objectives is to promote the development of domiciliary day and respite services to enable people to live in their own homes wherever feasible and sensible.
While this is to be commended, it is important that the shift from care in institutions to care in a person's home does not result in a loss of protection for the users of that service. People who want to look after an elderly or disabled person in a care home must establish that they are fit and that they will provide an adequate service. Similarly, people providing child-minding services in their own homes must register with a local authority. Local authorities have a wide range of licensing systems in respect of taxis, secondhand dealers, street traders, charitable collections, boat hirers and even window cleaners. However, those who provide intimate care to vulnerable people in their own homes need not pass any such test. They need not have any suitable training or experience and they may even seek to exploit the people in their care.
Sadly, most organisations involved in this field are aware of cases where a person who has been paid to care for an elderly or mentally disabled person at

453
home has stolen property or has physically abused the vulnerable adults. The Government have opposed a registration system on the ground that it would be an unrealistic burden for local authorities. This amendment would avoid that problem by giving a local authority the power to decide if and when it wants to introduce such a system.
The Government have also argued that local authorities' power to fund and enter into contracts for services will provide a safeguard. However, this is only true to a limited extent. In particular, the White Paper states that local authorities should concentrate on services to those with the greatest needs. Inevitably there will be many people who may not receive the full service they would wish to have from the local authority and will have to make their own arrangements.
We believe that a licensing system would do much to prevent unscrupulous people from preying upon those who may find it difficult to protect themselves. We adept that by no means do these circumstances apply to all cases, but all the evidence from the various bodies involved in this work shows that there is a need for some inspection and protection. We suggest that these amendments would give the Government the necessary flexibility to introduce a licensing system if they so wish. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, may I ask whether I might speak on Amendment No. 182? Is no one going to move Amendment No. 182 as such?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I did say that it might be for the convenience of your Lordships to—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I might make a short speech on Amendment No. 182. I have no views on Amendment No. 151 but I have views on Amendment No. 182, which is grouped with it. I was very confused over what was discussed in Committee on the forerunner to Amendment No. 182. It seemed to me, although I did not take part in the debate, that the movers and the Government were not at all clear as to what Clause 49 would actually cover.
It seems clear that if arrangements are made by a local authority, either directly or indirectly, the inspection envisaged in Clause 49 is possible; but your Lordships may have seen the report in the Independent on Sunday, 10th June, reporting that council officers in Islington were called, and I quote:
"to a house infested by several hundred thousand of the blood sucking insects (bed bugs). The residents, who are mental patients, had to go to hospital for blood transfusions.
If these residents were placed in a house by the council, which is very possible, then as I see it Clause 49 would apply without this amendment. If not, I do not think it would. What would happen if they had been placed in a house by the health authority, as sometimes happens? What would the local authority do with the residents if they felt that the house was unsuitable in the long term? Would they offer alternative accommodation? It seems that the problem is not as simple or as straightforward as the answers would indicate when we had them earlier. I
454
think that there is a need for something like Amendment No. 182. I do not know about the wording, but shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say about it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to deal with my noble friend's point later and deal, first, with the amendments themselves. The amendments have a certain attractive logic, but I should like your Lordships to pause for a moment to consider that they would give local authorities the power, or, in the case of Amendment No. 182, a duty to regulate. In Scotland and, for the most part, in England these are domiciliary services. There is no doubt about that; we are dealing with services in people's homes. We are clearly not just speaking about the so-called "cowboy firms" which provide domestic services, or about local authority home helps. We are talking about the WRVS, meals-on-wheels and voluntary bodies offering grannie-sitting services. These are very important services and it is vital that the people involved in providing them do not take advantage of those they are helping. As regards registration and inspection, I would suggest that this is a matter of over-kill.
I shall now turn to the points which make me wonder whether we would be wrong to go down this route, and there are two main reasons. First, is regulation needed? Although isolated instances of abuse or wrong-doing have apparently been found, there seems to be no evidence that private domiciliary care services are offering anything other than a good service to people who need it at a price they can afford.
The second problem is that the regulation proposed appears to be too wide-ranging. For example, both amendments could extend licensing to neighbours, friends and relatives who provide help in the home. That would be quite inappropriate and might actually deter such valuable sources of help. Equally, local authorities would have to establish extensive arrangements for registration, with no certainty that there would be a better quality of care.
Amendment No. 151 could also cover services which have nothing to do with community care. "Domiciliary services" are defined in Schedule 9 to this Bill as services which appear to the local authority to be necessary to enable a person to maintain as independent an existence as practicable in his home. That means a social work service which could be provided by the local authority itself or under arrangements made for the purpose with another agency, voluntary or private. The problem comes with any agency providing services not only to community care clients but also to people with no such care needs: for example, a daily help service. Even if the daily help service formed the major part of an agency's business, it would under this amendment still have to be licensed and inspected by the local authority, and the local authority would have powers to intervene in areas unconnected with the protection of vulnerable people. We believe that that would spell unnecessary bureaucracy.

455
Let me explain how our proposals will ensure that there is quality control for domiciliary services. Local authorities making arrangements with individuals or organisations to provide domiciliary services will be able to do so under contract. Contracts of this kind will, wherever possible, include standard specifications and provisions for monitoring. The most effective safeguard against sub-standard privately provided services will be the frequency and intensity of local authority inspections. And the ultimate sanction of cancelling a contract will be a powerful incentive for agencies to deliver a proper standard of service.
Finally, any dissatisfied clients will be free to use the new complaints procedures which we will establish under Clauses 51 and 53. We are anxious to see these procedures well publicised so as to provide a clear avenue for consumer reporting.
The House heard at the Committee stage of the Bill instances where vulnerable people were allegedly exploited in relation to domiciliary care services. We are not complacent about that particular problem. However, we firmly believe that our existing proposals will provide adequate safeguards, without the need for the unnecessarily bureaucratic and over-zealous approach contained in the amendment.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone spoke of some confusion at the last stage of the Bill. I acknowledge that when we debated the issue in Committee on 14th May, we ended in some confusion about the relationship between the regulatory controls which the local authorities exercise and the meaning of Clause 49 as it stands. I shall try to clear up that confusion.
The provisions of Clause 49 apply to people authorised by the Secretary of State. Those are principally members of the Social Services Inspectorate and other staff of the Department of Health. The clause does not apply to the inspection by local authorities of community care services. On the other hand, Amendment No. 182 deals with local authority registration and inspection functions.
As regards what a local authority would do with people in Islington displaced by bedbugs, the inspection and registration already covers residential services so that I am not clear as to how Amendment No. 182 would help to prevent that situation arising. In practice, local authorities will contract with a wide variety of homes. That will give them the ability to find an alternative placement for the people whom the noble Lord mentioned, as I have already said in my explanation to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full explanation. I take issue with him when he tries to suggest that there were only isolated incidents of abuse although I do not have any figures on that. Perhaps the Minister could obtain information on that from his sources in order to discover how serious is that situation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I do not suggest that the wording of the amendment is perfect. However, if the Minister discovers that there are significant numbers of cases of abuse, he will then decide that a need exists. He will then be able to test
456
that need, if it exists, against his standard specification and the very serious business for an individual of the cancelling of contracts.
The Minister has tried to help. I shall read his very full and helpful reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Charges for accommodation provided by local authorities]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 49, line 44, after ("(6)") insert ("and the requirements of subsection (6A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 153. The amendment seeks to ensure that a claimant who is placed in residential care by a local authority will receive the same entitlement to income support and housing benefit whether he is in private care or in a home run by the local authority.
The amendment is needed to promote freedom of choice. As the Bill stands, the Government have erected barriers which disadvantage the public sector and which cut across their commitment to promote a mixed economy. Such an economy cannot be expected to operate on unequal terms. This amendment would ensure that the providers of residential care compete on equal terms, and that local authorities, in deciding which facilities they can choose, can choose which is the best for the client's need and which is the most cost effective in their operational costs.
During the debates in both Houses on this Bill the Government have said that one of their main criticisms of the current benefit rules is that they create a perverse incentive in promoting residential care. Therefore, it appears to be the Government's intention that the availability of benefits should have a neutral effect on the decisions about what kind of care is to be provided to an individual. I believe that that principle is right.
Ministers have referred to the "level playing field" in describing how the system should operate from April 1991. And yet, at the heart of the Government's proposals on funding, there is a major inconsistency. At paragraph 3.7.6, the White Paper, Caring For People, makes it clear that if the local authority places an individual in a private and voluntary home, the resident will be able to claim both income support and housing benefit towards the costs of the placement. Paragraph 3.7.10 states that, if the individual is placed in one of the authority's own homes, housing benefit will not be paid and the Government have not yet announced the level of income support that will be paid.
Such a structure does not provide a level playing field. It creates a significant financial incentive to use private homes rather than those run by the local authority.
That anomaly has now been debated several times. Ministers have been quite open that it is their intention to rig the market—they have not used that term; that is my term—so that it is weighed against local authority provision.
Responding to the debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
"the amount that a resident who qualifies for income support will be able to pay will be much less at a local authority home compared with an independent home".
He went on to say:
"As we said in the White Paper … that is a deliberate choice. We want to give local authorities every incentive to use independent sector provision".
The decision to pay housing benefit on private and voluntary homes undoubtedly has consequences and raises questions which the Government have not ad dressed in their response to these issues.
In the White Paper and in debates the Government have said that they wish local authorities to use the most cost effective care options. They clearly have no confidence that the private sector will have the lowest and most effective operating costs. The payment of housing benefit towards the cost of private homes will be a hidden subsidy which will make that sector artificially competitive. I do not see how there can be any two ways about that.
Secondly, we must question whether the use of housing benefit to subsidise the private sector in that way is a justifiable or proper use of taxpayers' money.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, stated in a debate in Committee that the Government want authorities:
"to proceed slowly, considering how they can strike the best balance between residential provision (of all types) in their areas".—[Official Report, 8/5/90; col. 1343.]
The reality is that local authorities are already struggling to meet existing responsibilities. Financial incentives to use private homes will force many authorities to transfer people from their own provision to the subsidised private sector.
There is a fourth problem. The proposal will create anomalies and confusion for residents. After all, we are mostly concerned with patients and residents. A resident who needs change may very well have to move from a home provided by the local authority to one run by another agency or vice versa. The change of home will mean that the residents will have completely different entitlements to benefit; they will have to make new claims and will not be able to understand the basis on which they are liable for a contribution to the local authority. It is madness.
The Government recognise that it is essential that local authority provision is not extinguished, and at the very minimum there needs to be local authority provision for last resort cases. Yet the effect of their proposals on funding will be to jeopardise the ability of many authorities to provide their own homes. That cannot be sensible.
The Government's proposals are unfair in principle because they do not create equity between the different sectors. They will also have undesirable consequences in practice because they will very quickly lead to a massive reduction in the availability of local authority-run homes. If that is the intention of the Government and if that happens then we shall be facing a crisis in community care, especially for elderly people. The proposals are more likely to limit choice and reduce local authority flexibility than to
458
promote the Government's stated objective of a mixed economy of care. I beg to move Amendment No. 152.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may point out that I found the Hansard of Committee stage concerning the discussion of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, rather confusing. I believe some of the columns may have been printed in the wrong order.
Lord Carter: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that I raised this matter with the Hansard office. It is correct in the weekly edition of Hansard, but the two amendments were transposed in the daily Hansard.
A noble Lord: It was not only the arguments then?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no. As always, the Government's arguments were totally unconfused and very sound. Hansard was very confusing and I found myself responding to a question from my noble friend Lord Balfour when answering the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
At Committee stage I explained the reason behind the Government's decision that residents in local authority-managed residential care homes should not be able to claim housing benefit or the full rate of income support. This is so local authorities will have every reason to use independent homes. The thinking behind our decision to restrict the benefit entitlement of people in local authority homes was precisely along the lines suggested by the noble Lord in his amendment. The Government also wish to promote individual choice and to maintain a balance of provision between the public and independent sectors.
Over the past ten years the independent (mainly private) sector has grown to the point where it equals the public sector. We all recognise that the availability of income support has helped many people to exercise choice in favour of independent homes. Whether the present balance is the correct one I am not going to speculate. That will vary from place to place in the light of local conditions. Independent homes are not distributed as evenly as local authority homes and that leads to severe imbalance in a few areas. However in most places we might expect to see an expansion of the private sector. What we do not wish to see, in national terms at any rate, is any reversion to the previous position where local authorities were virtually monopoly providers of residential care in most areas.
The rapid growth over the past few years has occurred in a situation where independent homes have been available without cost to local authorities. The Government felt that to maintain the present position and to encourage a better distribution of private and voluntary facilities across the country it was necessary to build some continuing incentive into the financial arrangements.
That is what we have done. At present it need not cost the local authority anything, as I was explaining, when someone enters a private or voluntary home

459
at public expense. Under the new community care arrangements the local authority will have to meet the difference between what the resident can afford to pay and the home charges, so there will be a cost to local authorities. In this way rather than making the playing fields less level we have in fact evened it up somewhat. In addition, although residents in local authority homes will not be able to claim housing benefit and will have only a limited entitlement to income support, the rules for working out what residents can afford to pay from their own resources will be broadly the same as for calculating their entitlement to income support.
In an increasing number of cases, therefore, where the residents have resources of their own, local authorities will be able to charge more than the minimum charge. This will reduce the cost to the local authority of placing someone in its own homes. When we discussed this in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Carter, produced figures showing that the difference in cost to a local authority between placing someone in a home of its own and placing them in an independent home might be as high as £87 per week. Without accepting that figure I can say that the noble Lord presented possibly the worst case and, for the reasons I have given, in many instances there will be a much smaller shortfall, if any at all.
The noble Lord referred to the Government's intention to force the privatisation of local authority residential care homes. However, as I explained to the Committee, we do not expect local authorities to embark upon rapid and wholesale privatisation. What we are looking for is a gradual, planned process of change. Local authorities need to have regard to the balance between public and independent provision in their areas, as the noble Lord points out, and also to the need to avoid creating a local monopoly of provision. They also need to consider the relationship between residential provision in all sectors and other forms of community care.
I hope I have shown that the amendments proposed by the noble Lord are not really necessary. In fact we are both aiming to do the same thing; to maintain a balance between independent sector and public facilities and for clients to have the widest choice of different types of provision. The measures proposed by the Government will attain the desired result without resorting to the intricacies required by the amendment. I hope, in the light of the explanation I have given, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I will withdraw the amendment, not because I have been convinced by the noble Lord's arguments, but because I am convinced that there is not much point in putting it to a Division. In his reply the noble Lord referred to my noble friend Lord Carter—we thought we would provide an alternative with at least the two of us making the same argument—as having presented the worst case in favour of the amendment. I only say that I thought his argument in defence was the worst defence
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I should not want it to go down on record that I had been rude to the noble Lord. I said that, when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, gave the figure of £87, that that was the worst case figure. Under no circumstances would I say that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, had presented the worst possible case.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in that case I shall withdraw what I intended to say. I intended to say that the Minister had made the worst defence, but as he did not accuse my noble friend, I shall not accuse him.
The Minister says that the amendment is unnecessary. From our point of view the more he repeats his arguments the more it becomes clear that fairness requires action such as this. The Government's main criticism of the current benefit rules was that they create a perverse incentive. I say in return that the Government's plans create a perverse incentive. That incentive is to the expansion of the private sector and therefore to the limitation of the ability of local authorities to provide the services that they know are necessary for those people for whom they are responsible.
I shall not win the argument except in terms of logic; I shall certainly not win it in terms of a vote, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 152A:
Page 50, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) After subsection (5) (dealing with treatment of income and capital when assessing ability to pay) there shall be inserted—
"(5C) in assessing a person's ability to pay, in taking into account any earnings or other payments, the local authority may disregard their value in whole or part if it appears to the authority that to take earnings or other payments into account as resources would be contrary to the authority's philosophy of care or detrimental to the objectives of the care programme.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the thunder and lightning of Amendment No. 149 it seems that all is now sweet reason and light.
Amendment No. 152A was discussed at Committee stage. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Henley, expressed sympathy with the argument and said that the Government would bear it in mind when drafting regulations. Although we welcome the Government's acknowledgement of the problem, we feel that we should push them a little harder. The issue of disregarding income for a disabled person who wishes to work if he or she is in residential care is too important to be left for discussion at a later stage and for regulations.
As the regulations stand, under the appropriate section of the National Assistance Act 1948 a disabled person is severely discouraged from taking up work. We know that many projects in the voluntary sector and local authorities with training or rehabilitative components are encouraging and supporting residents to take paid work. The amendment allows a local authority to continue to disregard the value of earnings when taking into

461
account what would cause disincentive or discouragement to residents who have difficulty in finding and retaining employment.
We can all understand that for many disabled residents work has therapeutic as well as Financial value It can enhance an individual's sense of identity and self-esteem. Extra money can enable people to lead a fuller social life, develop interests and buy new clothes just like their colleagues at work. All those aspects are of particular importance to people who plan to move into the community in the future.
The amendment also seeks to allow local authorities to have some discretion over the treatment of earnings. Without this amendment local authorities will be required to apply the income support regulations under which single claimants, where working, are allowed to keep only the first £5 of their earnings or up to £15 a week if they are elderly or disabled. We believe that it is essential that local authorities should continue to be able to exercise the discretion they now have and we feel that it is important for it to be spelt out on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is fascinating to see in this amendment that it is solemnly proposed to put into statute the doctrine of "the authority's philosophy of care". To put that into statute would be very unusual and it would certainly present the courts, if the action of a local authority were challenged, with a most remarkable task of interpreting whether "the authority's philosophy of care" would be outraged by doing this or that and, indeed, what that philosophy of care was. It is a nice, rhetorical expression but it would be a serious error to seek to put it into statute. I can hardly believe that it is meant seriously.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making that point. It certainly would be an interesting task for the courts and provide a very interesting income for our colleagues at the Bar and for the rest of the legal profession.
We discussed this point briefly in Committee and I acknowledge the concern behind the noble Lord's amendment. I take first people who have earnings. It is right that people who can work, even though their care needs are so high that they need to live in a home, should be encouraged to do so if they wish, and the chief form of encouragement would be, I agree, to allow them to enjoy some personal benefit from their increased income. In Committee I was able to assure your Lordships that there would be arrangements for earnings to be disregarded. The disregards will be specified in regulations we shall be making under Section 22(5) of the National Assistance Act 1948. It is to Section 22 that the noble Lord's amendment would add a further subsection.
I am afraid the full details of the disregard have still to be decided. They will of course be modelled closely on the income support and housing benefit rules, since our over-riding aim is to bring the two schemes into line. However, I can draw attention to
462
one important difference between the two schemes. The noble Lord will be aware that people working 24 hours or more a week cannot get income support however little they earn. Such a rule would clearly be inappropriate when working out local authority charges for people living in residential care. It does not apply (because of the more flexible charging arrangements) to local authority services for people living in their own homes, such as day and domicilliary care, or to housing benefit or community charge rebate.
As I was saying a few moments ago, people in residential care homes need a great deal of care which cannot be given elsewhere. Nevertheless, work may be to them, as the noble Lord explained, of great therapeutic value if they are able to undertake it, quite apart from any income it brings in. In some instances income may be output-related and, where work is undertaken by a severely disabled person, the output from working 24 hours a week may bring in a substantially lower income than it would if it were carried out by an able-bodied person. However, even where that is not the case it would be foolish to put residents in the position where they could not remain in the home and receive the care they needed if they worked full-time. Therefore, we have decided that there will be no full-time work disqualification in the local authority rules.
The noble Lord's amendment also mentions "other payments". Again, as the notes on the use of the Section 22 regulations annexed to the notes on clauses make clear, there will be a limited range of disregards for various kinds of income. However, I do not think that the situation is similar to that of earnings, which come from the residents' own endeavours, and I do not think there is a case for a general disregard. Nevetheless, where payments are made for specific purposes connected with the care programme there may be a case for allowing some additional disregard and we shall take that possibility away and consider it further in drawing up the details of the regulations.
I hope that, in the light of that explanation and the assurance I have given, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that reply. As he will know, the purpose of putting down the amendment was to get on record the remarks he has just made.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to the amendment. The amendment was entirely serious but I take his point about the drafting. In fact, I though that "philosophy of care" was a good phrase.
I am sure that everyone involved in this matter will be interested to read what the Minister said and will read with great care the draft regulations when they are issued. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 154:
("Exemptions from charges for local authority services
In section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 (charges for local authority services) there shall be inserted after subsection (3)—

"(3A) In deciding what it is reasonably practicable for a person who avails himself of a service under this section to pay for the service, the authority shall take into account any extra costs attributable to any disability of that person.

(3B) Any attendance allowance received by a person who avails himself of a service to which this section applies shall be disregarded.

(3C) This section shall be disregarded for a disabled person as defined under section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 for England and Wales and section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 for Scotland.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment introduces a new clause to deal with a situation which has been brought to our attention by the Spinal Injuries Association, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is a distinguished president.
The purpose of the amendment is to highlight the growing cost to disabled people of receiving community care services essential to their ability to lead independent lives in the community. Social services departments, because they are under financial pressure, are increasingly asking disabled people to contribute towards the cost of the services provided.
Subsections (3A) and (3B) deal with the situation where disabled people are having to pay for the additional costs of disability, whether or not they are receiving attendance allowance. Subsection (3B) deals with the situation where disabled people are asked to contribute an attendance allowance towards the service provision. Subsection (3C) ensures that people with a disability should not be means-tested for the cost of services provided to them.
The attendance allowance is a benefit which is payable to a person who is disabled to such an extent that he or she requires frequent attendance during the day or night for bodily functions. It is therefore payable only to the most severely disabled people and is intended for personal care needs, not domestic help. It is intended to make care easier for disabled people, who are free to decide how to spend it. It is a compensatory benefit that goes nowhere near meeting the cost of employing care.
Government Circular 53/71, issued shortly after the introduction of attendance allowance and at the time of the introduction of the home help service, states in connection with charges for services in the home:
"In assessing the means of persons qualified to receive attendance allowance under the National Insurance Act 1970 the amount of such an allowance is to be disregarded … The few authorities who still impose a minimum charge are asked to review their practice".
We understand that the disability organisations are increasingly receiving information of cases where people are being charged for services out of the attendance allowance. In a great many cases these are for home help services; that is, for domestic and not personal care. As I said, we are advised that the government guidance is not being adhered to by a number of local authorities.
We should like to know, if the Government accept that the circular should be adhered to by local authorities, whether the charging of attendance allowance is discriminating against those least able to pay. Can we have it confirmed that the attendance allowance is not intended for domestic help? The level at which it is set is far too low to expect it to meet any realistic level of personal care, let alone domestic help as well. If accepted, this amendment would prevent local authorities from demanding such payments from severely disabled people.
That deals with the part of the new clause which is concerned with attendance allowance. I now deal with disability costs and means-testing. We appreciate that the vast majority of disabled people are on very low incomes. Many would probably not fall within most of the brackets for means-testing and they are much more affected by charging under attendance allowance. Those who do not fall within that bracket are, by and large, working, but earning low incomes compared with the rest of the population. The services that they need from local authorities are as a direct consequence of disability needs. It is entirely wrong that any income they earn should be used to pay for their disability costs. Indeed, in some cases the introduction of a means test could act as a disincentive to work.
We ask the Minister whether he agrees that means testing severely disabled people can lead to a disincentive to work. Does he accept that the number of disabled people to whom means testing applies is small and to prevent it from happening would not be a costly measure? The central point is the principle. People with disabilities should not have to pay for the cost of their disabilities with their disposable income. I know that the Minister will be familiar with the long debate about the possibility of a disability cost allowance and whether the disabled should be reimbursed for the cost of a disability irrespective of income.
I admit that the drafting of this amendment is not perfect. Subsection (3A) modifies subsection (3C) to allow for means testing after deducting the extra cost of disability. In other words, it creates a level playing field with the able-bodied. It is a very important amendment and deals with a situation where we believe that the Government must put some clear directions on the face of the Bill; otherwise we shall have a patchwork quilt. The help from local authorities will differ in the way in which they handle this problem. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support this amendment. I do not see the point in giving an attendance allowance to a severely disabled person if it is to be taxed by a means test. I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention two cases of young men each of whom broke his neck. One is the son of a late Member of your Lordships' House who broke his neck while playing rugby. He is a doctor. That young man may be means-tested in respect of the costs of care, which could take away all the incentive to make an effort to carry on with his job.
Another young man is one of the most brilliant students at Cambridge University. He dived into a river and broke his neck. Britain needs its brightest

465
people. Not many of these severely disabled people are able to work. But those who are must be given an incentive to work, and means testing is a real killer in that regard. It is the meanest of all means tests when the extra costs involved in severe disability are not taken into consideration. The Government should look at this matter and not just leave it to local authorities. I cannot say more than that on the subject.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we were all sweetness and light when discussing the previous amendment. I am afraid that on this occasion I must say that the amendment is not acceptable to the Government.
In explaining why this should be so may I first say something about the way Section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 works. The purpose behind Section 17 is to provide a very flexible charging regime for day and domiciliary care provided by or arranged by local authorities. In distinction to residential care where the user's entire needs for support and care are provided and where local authorities are required to operate a fixed charging scheme, in the case of other welfare services, including day and domiciliary care, local authorities are free to charge whatever seems reasonable in the circumstances, subject to the user of the services being able to afford it.
At present we have little information centrally about the way Section 17 is operated but it is clear that most authorities prefer to impose a flat rate charge at a modest level for most services. This flat rate charge is pitched at a level most users are able to pay. It seems that few users are able to afford anything like the full cost of the services and local authorities thus avoid the burden of having to consider user's resources only to show that a high proportion of users could not afford to pay more than a small proportion of the cost of the services. Of course any user who feels unable to pay a flat rate charge is still free to make representations to the authority. There is no reason to think that the provisions of Section 17 as they now stand are in anyway unacceptable to either local authorities or to users and the Government have no intention of amending it.
Thus local authorities will have the same power once our new community care arrangements come into effect as they do now. There will be no power to charge for assessments of community care needs under the provisions of this Bill. As we said in the White Paper Caring for People at paragraph 3.8.1:
"In practice many consumers of personal social services cannot afford the full cost of the service, and ability to pay does not and should not in any way influence decisions on the services to be provided".
To illustrate the limiting level of charges under this section I point out that in 1988–89 local authorities in England supplied home help services at a cost of £245 million but only collected £19·5 million in charges. As noble Lords will see, that is a small percentage of £245 million.
But this system, generally fair and reasonable as it is, overlooks the possibility that a minority of users may be in a position to pay a higher charge for
466
the services they receive. As the White Paper goes on to point out, the Government's general policy on charges is that those able to meet all or part of the economic cost of providing services should be expected to do so. Since under the new community care arrangements local authorities will be providing a wider range of services to a wider range of users, we shall expect them to have greater regard to the users' ability to pay than some do now.
Our present guidance on the use of Section 17 which is limited to a couple of paragraphs in a circular, I admit, could be described as laconic, but we shall be reviewing this as part of our preparations for community care. But we shall not be changing local authorities' essential power to determine the level of the charge. Local authorities need to be able to do this if they are to respond sensitively to a wide range of circumstances. In some cases the services the local authority arranges may be only part of a care package which could also include other formal or informal facilities the amount of which the user pays for separately. Clearly local authorities should have regard to the amount the user pays for these and any other expenses arising from his or her disability in deciding what it is reasonable to expect someone to pay for the services they provide.
On the other hand, when the local authority services include personal care it may be quite appropriate for them to have regard to the user's attendance allowance in deciding what to charge. Attendance allowance is given to those severely disabled people who need frequent attention from another person in connection with their bodily functions and/or continual supervision in order to avoid substantial danger to themselves or others. Their needs may well be met by local authority-provided services. A user can hardly expect to be provided at public expense with both cash and services to meet the same need.
Turning to the details of the new clause, I hope that I have explained that Section 17 as it stands gives local authorities the freedom to take into account any expenses attributable to disability in deciding charges for the services. I have also explained why, to avoid double provision, there should not be an automatic disregard of attendance allowance though the local authority would be right not to take it into account if it was being spent on attendance needs not covered by the services the local authority was providing.
The attendance allowance should not be taken into account for home help services: it is not intended for domestic help. Since the circular was issued home help has changed in many places to home care, which includes personal care. It is towards the personal care element that the user might be asked to contribute from his attendance allowance.
Finally, given the principle that those who can pay should pay, I do not feel that there is any case for automatically exempting disabled people from these charges. I do not accept the noble Lord's point that it will necessarily be a disincentive to work. I have already made it clear that expenses attributable to disability should be taken into account together with the use to which attendance allowance is put. Other

467
services provided under the powers to which Section 17 refers can, particularly in the provision of meals, cover ordinary living expenses; in other words, expenses which a user would have to bear whether disabled or not.
I know that what I have been saying will come as a disappointment to the noble Lord, to the noble Baroness and to all those who have the interests of disabled people very much at heart. But we must be fair to everybody. Any cost of services not met by charges paid by users has to be met by the local authorities. That in turn means both the charge payer and the taxpayer, many of whom may themselves be of limited means. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I shall read carefully what he has said because it is a complicated point. His reply was disappointing. I do not believe that the Government have taken sufficient account of the way in which some local authorities ignore Circular 53/71 on attendance allowance. In this amendment we have touched on a fundamental difference between the policy of the noble Lord's party and the policy of my party in the treatment of disability. It is in our policy that there should be a comprehensive disability income and a disability cost allowance. It is the simple argument that, irrespective of income and whether or not he is rich or poor, a disabled person should have the extra cost met first. He would then be on a level playing field, to use a phrase with which we are all familiar, with everyone else. The noble Lord summed up the issue very well—those who can pay should pay, even if they are disabled. We do not agree with that. But at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage should begin again at 8 p.m.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill
7.2 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In moving that this modest measure be read a second time, I should like to thank the Member for Nottingham, South, Mr. Brandon-Bravo, for his help, not to mention the assistance of my noble
468
friend on the Front Bench and of the officials in the Department of Transport. The main provisions of the Bill as it is drafted—I shall return to this point later—are designed to enhance highway authorities' powers in the area of temporary traffic regulation, to relax existing requirements on local authorities, to seek the Secretary of State's consent for extended restrictions, to secure uniformity of approach among all authorities in Great Britain, and to sort out one or two unreasonable anomalies in the existing law. Those are reasonable objectives and are the result of wide consultation over some years with local authorities which have welcomed them.
Clause 1 together with Schedule 1 embodies the substance of the Bill in making new provision for the temporary regulation of traffic by means of orders and notices. At least 15,000 such orders are estimated to be made by local highway authorities alone every year. The schedule contains substitute versions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The main effect is to introduce a new power to make short-term restrictions for no longer than five days for the purposes of road works by means of a more rapid notice procedure. Experience shows that to be a reasonable objective. The duration of other kinds of notices would be extended from 14 to 21 days.
However, there will always be a requirement to have regard to alternative routes before introducing temporary traffic regulations which will cover both notices and orders. The Bill also provides for enhanced powers to regulate traffic on alternative roads affected. It further allows authorities to make equivalent provision on trunk roads with the Secretary of State's consent. All this will avoid the present cumbersome process which requires the Secretary of State to deal with such matters himself in separate orders.
The new Section 15 removes the present three months' time limit on orders for local highway authorities outside London except with the Secretary of State's consent. This is replaced by a standard limit of 18 months, extendable in the case of essential road works or in other cases where a temporary order is to be followed by an equivalent permanent order. Throughout the history of traffic regulations there has been progressive relaxation—and the time is now ripe to relax them in this area also.
Local highway authorities are responsible bodies and should be allowed to proceed with local road works without the need for reverting yet again to the Secretary of State. The other main change is to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe the necessary procedures by means of regulations. That is already the case in respect of other traffic orders. The change will secure greater consistency and flexibility for futher adjustment. I do not imagine that the procedures will be greatly different. The Bill defines their scope and the 1984 Act provides that they will need to be subject to prior consultation with all the representative bodies, including the local authority associations.
Subsection (5) of Clause 1 rectifies an anomaly. Your Lordships may be surprised to learn that exceeding a temporary speed limit in a coned-off area of a motorway—a contraflow section—does

469
not carry the same penalty as elsewhere on the motorway. The penalty under Section 14 attracts a maximum penalty of Level 3, which is currently only £400, but is not subject to obligatory endorsement or discretionary disqualification. That must be put right as it is monstrous that a driver who indulges in dangerous driving in a coned-off area of a motorway cannot suffer the same punishment as a driver caught doing the same thing on the open road.
Clause 2 is mainly technical. It provides for the necessary repeals or amendments of enactments in the light of the Bill, including further repeals by order after consultation. It provides also for commencement on an appointed day.
At the outset I indicated that I would return to the main provisions of the Bill. Due to the procedures of another place there was not time to resolve concerns about temporary orders affecting traffic, other than motor vehicles, on a footpath, bridleway, cycle track or byway open to all traffic. These concerns were raised in amendments proposed by the Ramblers Association and the British Horse Society. It was therefore agreed that the Bill would be amended at Committee stage in your Lordships' House to meet the concerns of those two organisations. I shall table amendments for the next stage to meet that undertaking. I shall if I may, to save time at Committee stage, briefly talk about them now as they are straightforward, and then, with the leave of the Committee, move them formally en bloc.
The amendments would introduce a shorter period of six months as the maximum permitted duration of temporary orders relating to footpaths, bridleways, cycle tracks or byways open to all traffic, instead of 18 months for all other orders. The six-month period may be extended by the Secretary of State at the request of the order-making authority. This follows the existing procedure in Section 15 of the 1984 Act. If the Secretary of State withholds consent, a period of three months must elapse before another order can be made by the authority. The amendments will help 10 ensure that rights of way for those on foot, on horseback and so on are not interrupted for lengthy periods without the express approval of the Secretary of State.
This is a short and uncontroversial Bill. Taken together, its provisions will be of practical benefit to all authorities involved in temporary traffic regulations. It offers scope for prompt and more effective measures, less encumbered by bureaucracy.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Brougham and Vaux.)
7.10 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, for explaining the Bill with clarity and speed. I am interested that amendments will be made at a later stage in respect of bridleways, footpaths and cycle tracks. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to move his amendments en bloc, but perhaps the House will wish to reserve its right to discuss them at greater length, if necessary. It may well not be necessary when we see the amendments put down by the noble Lord before the Committee stage.
470
The major question that I wish to ask tonight which perhaps the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, could answer, is this. How far will these provisions be compatible with the Government's intended legislation on the Home report? En passant, the Minister will not be surprised to hear me impress on the Government once again the urgent necessity to bring the results of the Horne report into legislation before your Lordships' House at the earliest possible moment.
I know that the Minister cannot anticipate the Queen's speech but I hope that he will impress upon the people drawing up next year's legislative programme that we need legislation on the Horne report. It is there, ready in the Government's pigeonhole. Please let it flutter out and see the light of day. If it does not come next year, there is fear that it will be delayed until after the next general election. It is far too long since the Horne report produced its response, which was agreed by virtually all sides of your Lordships' House and the other place. I hope that we can have as clear an undertaking as Ministers are normally able to give on these matters.
The provision for the registration of alternative routes is useful in this short Bill. I support it and also the idea of the devolution of the power to the local authority. There is no doubt that local authorities have had powers taken away from them at an alarming rate recently, with Secretaries of State wishing to do everything by order from their office desk. It is a welcome change to see matters being devolved down to the local authorities, where the decision-making powers should be in this case.
The only other subject to which I wish to refer is speed limits on motorway contraflows. I was astonished when the noble Lord told me that the penalty provisions for drivers offending against the temporary speed limits where not the same as those on a normal speed restricted road. Bearing in mind that a high proportion of the serious and fatal accidents on motorways occur near the coned-off sections of roadworks, it is absolutely essential that this provision be brought into force. People must be persuaded, cajoled, threatened and made to stick to the speed limits, particularly in those areas. People do not recognise how dangerous it is to exceed the speed limits in the contraflow parts of motorway construction sectors. With these few remarks, I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House and thank the noble Lord for introducing it tonight.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, after the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, there is little that I should like to say. The Bill, is useful and we are all grateful for its introduction by Mr. Brandon-Bravo in the other place. We are, however, concerned that it should not affect the Horne report in any way and should not be used as a stopgap.
I am a little disappointed that the very good suggestion put forward by my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Marshall—who is the chairman of the Select Committee on Transport—was not

471
accepted. It was that contractors or others who cause roadworks should be given a time limit and should be penalised if they go beyond it. Perhaps a period should be given to them to complete a job.
As part of the contract, there should be a charge for inconvenience caused to other road users which should increase as time goes on if the contractor oversteps the scheduled time. My honourable friend in another place believed—and I think that there is something in this—that it is not outwith the philosophy of the Government that if people make a nuisance of themselves they should pay for it. Perhaps this would help. However, in Committee the other place decided that it was not ready to accept such a penalty clause and my honourable friend withdrew the amendment.
One other amendment went to a vote and again my honourable friend and other Members of another place lost it. The general feeling was that this is a useful Bill as long as it does not become too big. The noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, introduced the Bill with the intimation that there would be an amendment dealing with the time provision which would be of benefit. I accept that and with those reservations I wish the Bill God speed.
7.17 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, let me first take this opportunity to express the Government's wholehearted support for the Bill. We welcome it and it will usefully strengthen the powers of highway authorities to regulate traffic for short periods. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux for his detailed explanation of the provisions in the Bill. I may speak for a little longer than noble Lords opposite but I wish to give a general welcome to the Bill and to explain its history.
Local highway authorities have a long history of using orders and notices to restrict or prohibit traffic for temporary periods. They are best placed to determine when a temporary restriction is appropriate. Even so, we do well to remember that the purposes for which a temporary order or notice can be used are strictly limited as the law now stands.
A temporary traffic restriction can only be justified where a highway authority is "satisfied" that traffic should be so restricted or prohibited. The grounds on which it is to be satisfied are because of works or proposed works on or near the road or because of the likelihood of danger to the public or of serious damage to the road.
If the authority is so satisfied, its may temporarily restrict or prohibit the use of the road or part of it. But it cannot at any time use temporary restrictions to prohibit pedestrian access to premises. General duties under the Highways Act 1980 to protect rights of way and minimise obstruction must be observed at all times. Nor can vehicular access be retricted for more than eight hours in any 24-hour period unless the authority is satisfied that the order is necessary on one of several counts: namely, for avoiding or preventing danger to road users; for preventing damage to the road or in the near vicinity; for allowing vehicular traffic to pass on the road, or
472
for preserving amenities of an area by prohibiting or restricting heavy commercial vehicles from using the road or roads in that area.
The Bill makes no fundamental change to any of those safeguards. Rather, as my noble friend has said, it seeks in a number of respects to enhance the powers and procedures when all those tests have been met. We must ensure that, where the powers are appropriate, they provide local highway authorities with an adequate and efficient means of managing the road network while emergency work, repairs to water mains and other remedial measures are in progress. The Government welcome the provisions set out in the Bill because we believe they will do just that.
I shall comment only briefly on a number of respects in which the Bill offers improvements. First, it introduces a new but strictly limited short-term notice for restrictions on account of road works. Parliament has approved this principle in a number of local Acts. There is merit in giving it general application. Secondly, the Bill will allow the notice procedure to provide for appropriate temporary restrictions on alternative roads. For example, parking places or a bus lane could be temporarily suspended on a diversionary route while emergency road works were in progress. As my noble friend has said, highway authorities will, with the Secretary of State's consent, also be able to introduce temporary restrictions on alternative routes where they are trunk roads rather than having to resort to the present duplication of procedure. The Bill will also clarify the powers to erect traffic signs in connection with temporary restrictions imposed by the notice procedure.
The Government particularly welcome and support the provision which will rectify the present anomaly in the law on speeding. Temporary speed limits can be essential to ensure safety in the vicinity of road works, especially where carriageway widths have been reduced. In strengthening the penalty for breach of a temporary speed restriction by making it subject to obligatory endorsement and discretionary disqualification, the Bill will bring it into line with speeding offences generally.
The Government are aware that the relaxation of time limits with regard to orders and notices has led to some concern that restrictions might be maintained for unduly long periods. That is one reason why I have reminded your Lordships of the general constraints surrounding the use of these powers. In general the Bill offers a welcome relaxation in the consent procedure which will help to remove unnecessary central involvement. We are satisfied that the proposed 18-month limit strikes the right balance.
But, as my noble friend has indicated, he will bring forward an amendment to the Bill in Committee to introduce a shorter duration of six months for temporary orders affecting non-motorised traffic on footpaths, bridleways, cycle tracks and byways open to all traffic. There are unlikely to be many such orders. But the Government are content to accept a shorter period for those, with power for the Secretary of State to approve an extension of time where necessary, as he has powers to do under the present arrangements.

473
The Bill does not seek to strengthen the law in respect of road works by utilities and the matter of subsequent re-instatement. I know that some of your Lordships would like to see more far-reaching changes in the management of utility street works. The Horne report made a convincing case for reform. The Government accept that the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 (PUSWA), which regulates the relations between highway authorities and utilities, is in need of replacement. The Bill before us is not an appropriate vehicle to make piecemeal changes to street works legislation. I hope the House and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Carmichael, will accept my assurance that the Government regard the reform of PUSWA as a priority and intend to bring forward a substantive Bill at an early opportunity.
In summary, the Bill is a useful tidying up measure. Its main advantages lie in the greater flexibility and improved powers it offers highway authorities to manage traffic for temporary periods in the interests of minimising congestion and disruption to all road users. I commend the Bill to the House and hope it will be received favourably during the passage of its remaining stages.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comments which I think have more or less answered all the questions that were raised. I also wish to thank the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Carmichael, for their support. I too should like to see the Horne report included in the measure, but the Long Title to the Bill is too restrictive to bring that in. Although I am not party to government business, I am hopeful that report will be discussed in the next Session along with another report which I have in mind. I thank noble Lords for their support. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.24 to 8 p.m.]

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 155:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Calculation of Housing Benefit for People in Residential Care Homes and Nursing Homes

(1) Persons who are provided with accommodation under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 in premises managed by a person other than a local authority or a landlord who is a registered housing association shall be eligible for housing benefit and the Secretary of State shall prescribe that the amount of housing benefit payable shall be calculated based on the average eligible rent and eligible service charges for residential care homes and nursing homes (excluding homes where the landlord is a registered housing association) in the relevant area.

474

(2) Persons who are provided with accommodation under Part III of that Act in premises where the landlord is a registered housing association shall be eligible for housing benefit on the eligible rent and eligible service charges calculated on the same basis as for any other claimant in private rented accommodation.

(3) "registered housing association" has the meaning set out in the Housing Associations Act 1985,

"eligible rent" and "eligible service charges" have the meanings set out in the Housing Benefits Regulations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 147 we dealt with the problem of registered housing associations regarding the calculation of the care element and the resulting effect on the finances of the Housing Corporation. This amendment, to which we referred in the debate on Amendment No. 147, deals with the equally important question of the calculation of notional rent. It seeks to exempt housing association residential and nursing home schemes from the notional rent formula so that they are treated in the same way as other forms of accommodation. It would also ensure that for schemes which are not owned or managed by housing associations the notional formula reflects the cost of services.
The Department of Social Security issued a consultation document which proposed a notional rent formula for the payment of housing benefit on residential care and nursing homes. It proposed that local authorities should apply the formula to reflect the rents of two-bedroomed properties in their area. It appears that those proposals may cause particular problems for housing association developments. The amendment seeks to ensure that housing association schemes are treated as any other type of accommodation so that rents can be charged which reflect the type of accommodation which is provided in order that the costs can be recovered.
I do not wish to rehearse the debate that he had at Committee stage, but the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said then that he was aware of the concerns about the issue and that the Government intended to address them in their final decisions on the subject. He also mentioned that consultations were intended with local authority associations. The amendment provides an opportunity for the noble Lord to tell the House how far those consultations have progressed. Perhaps he can also tell the House what is their likely outcome and, most of all, how the Government intend to deal with the problem, which they have admitted exists. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we debated an identical amendment at Committee stage. The purpose of the amendment is to prescribe the way in which housing benefit should be calculated after April 1991 for people who are provided by their local authority with a place in a private or voluntary residential care or nursing home.
I honestly do not believe that at this stage there is much that I can usefully add to what I said when the matter was last before the House. I hope that the noble Lord will not think me rude or discourteous. I can assure him that we are giving all the issues careful consideration as part of the consultation process with local authorities. At this stage I do not

475
believe that I can go further on the matter. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that and feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we hoped when we put down the amendment that it would stiffen the Government's resolution in this matter and that they might have been able to tell us what the consultation process would produce. It is obvious that we are not going to learn that. It is disappointing, but there is another stage of the Bill. We had hoped that by putting down the amendment we would find out how far the consultation had progressed and whether we would need to put down an amendment at Third Reading. At this stage of the Bill I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 157A:
Before Clause 47, insert the following clause:
("Guidance to Local Authorities
—(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to local authorities on the application, implementation and purpose of this part of this Act, and on good practice in the exercise of their community care functions.
(2) A local authority shall, in making any decision under this part of this Act, have regard to any guidance issued under this section by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment in the sure knowledge that Ministers will not feel that this is a subject that they have already debated. We have had a great deal of discussion about guidance; so much so that this amendment is the natural result of the fact that every time I have sought to put something on the face of the Bill Ministers in their wisdom have decided not to do so and usually said that it will be done by guidance. That being the case I am anxious to ensure that guidance is taken as seriously as possible. The amendment is intended to give some force and weight to the guidance which the Secretary of State issues. The principle is one that could well apply to health authorities. If the Government surprise us all be accepting it I shall suggest to them that we broaden its scope and include health authorities.
The Secretary of State will be issuing copious guidance to local authorities on community care. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the results of the working groups on purchasing and budgeting, care management and assessment, inspection and quality assurance, community care plans, mental illness, training, complaints, as well as working groups on joint finance and other issues, should be taken into account. Guidance issued by the Secretary of State has only the force which legislation gives it. For example, the Secretary of State for the Environment has specific powers under Part III of the Housing Act 1985 to issue a code of guidance to local authorities on homelessness. It is only because Section 71 of the Act gives local authorities a duty to have regard to that guidance that it has any force at all. In the case of judicial review it has been held that a local authority under a duty to have regard to
476
guidance must at least consider how the guidance applies and if it makes a decision departing from the guidance it must have good reason for doing so.
That is not a particularly onerous burden on local authorities but it is a sensible precaution which generally improves the standard of decision-making in local government. It gives some assurance that the Government's oft-repeated assurance to the House that the guidance is a means of generalising good practice is meant seriously. Clearly guidance will generalise nothing if no one needs to read it. If a local authority, in the words of the amendment?
"shall, in making any decision under this part of this Act, have regard to any guidance issued under this section by the Secretary of State",
in order to do that it must at least read it.
The consequence would be that the work which has gone into the preparation of guidance would be wasted if local authorities did not read the guidance. Local authorities would not have any incentive to use best practice from the guidance where that proves to be more expensive than their current operations. The only way in which anyone could be assured that local authorities were using the guidance would be to wait and see whether the Secretary of State was sufficiently committed to his own guidance that he would incur the expense and trouble of using his default powers under Clause 51. The Government have already said that they do not envisage extensive use of the Clause 51 powers. Perhaps the Minister will address himself, or herself, to the clause and how it might be used.
The amendment gives the Secretary of State specific power to give guidance and local authorities a duty to have regard to it. It is a very modest amendment but it is a modest amendment which might ensure that the enormous amount of guidance which will be consequent upon the Bill will have some effect. It is hoped that the Government will at least be able to give some clear indication that they intend to give the guidance some kind of statutory force. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am happy to say to the noble Lord that the requirement that he seeks to add to the Bill is already covered by relevant legislation.
The community care functions under this part of the Bill will become social services functions by virtue of the provisions in paragraph 11 of Schedule 9. Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 requires local authorities to have regard to general guidance given by the Secretary of State when carrying out their social services functions. It is implicit in that section that the Secretary of State already has power to issue guidance and he does not need to be given specific powers. I might add that by making those functions social services functions we shall also bring them within the scope of the general power of direction, the power to hold inquiries, the complaints procedure and the default action all set out in additions to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 in Clause 51 of this Bill. I hope and feel sure that in view of this explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that helpful explanation of the fact that what is proposed in the amendment will be effected as she said. I am grateful to her for her careful answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Local authority plans for community care services]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 51, line 35, at end insert:
("(1A) Any plan as defined by subsection (1) above shall include the local authority's proposals for ensuring that community care services are provided in a manner consistent with its powers and duties under the Children Act 1989").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 172.
We discussed this amendment in Committee when we said that we wished to bring the matter back before the House. There is an absence of a clear Government rationale for the relationship between the Children Act and this Bill. That is exemplified by the current unwillingness of the Government to establish any mechanism for considering the relationship between the Act and the Bill, either within the Department of Health or in consultation with other statutory and voluntary organisations. In view of the imminent implementation of both pieces of legislation, there appears to be a danger of leaving things too late. We are aware, for example, that local authorities are already individually making plans to implement the two pieces of legislation. We are advised that different authorities appear to be adopting quite different strategies and structures to accommodate the link between the Children Act and this Bill. So far as we know, the Government have as yet offered no guidance on the issue or expressed a view on how they see the relationship developing.
We pointed out at length in Committee the areas of overlap. I do not wish to rehearse the argument again, but the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, did not give a very satisfactory answer. We pointed out the problems faced when young people with disabilities and other special needs reach the age of 18 and then find that the nature of service provision available to them as adults contrasts dramatically with what they had experienced as children. The Government have a role in creating a framework whereby that transition can be made smooth. It is not reasonable to say that this is a matter solely for local judgment.
It must be made clear that we do not seek the merging of the statutory base for adult and children's services. We emphasise that they share the common objectives, as the Government acknowledged in the White Paper, Caring for People. That point must be formally recognised. There are any number of existing pieces of legislation, including the Bill, which make explicit links with other Acts as a way of trying to ensure consistency of service delivery. In this case, there is a link between the Bill and the Disabled Persons Act to which we shall turn later. All that we are trying to achieve with this amendment is a recognition that similar links should be made with the Children Act.
In Amendment No. 172, we have used the wording of the Children Act to try to ensure that inter-agency co-operation is consistent between the two pieces of legislation. For the Government then to deny the validity of the amendment appears highly inconsistent as they have already incorporated almost exactly the same form of words into the Children Act itself. Since that requirement is precisely what is included in the Children Act, it appears that, if the Government do not accept the amendment, they are challenging their own legislative position. We should appreciate some clarification on that point.
In conclusion, I must question the claim advanced by the Government in Committee and elsewhere that the separation of provision for children has worked well in the past. It is obvious that it has created difficulties at the point where children move into adulthood and take on adult responsibilities, but where services of a particular kind may still need to be made available and have stopped short of the age of 18. There is enough evidence of confusion from past experience to suggest that a more systematic approach is required. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is essential that some effort to integrate services between the Children Act and this Bill should be made. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raised his concern at Committee stage, and has done so again today, that there should be consistency between the two pieces of legislation. It might therefore be helpful if I try to set out why we believe that they are indeed compatible.
The Children Act places a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need. So far as it is consistent with that duty, they are required to promote the upbringing of children in need by their families. Local authorities discharge their duty by making provision for a range of services specified in the Act. These include, among other things, home helps, day care and holidays as well as social work advice and support. Where a child in need is identified, the assessment carried out for the purposes of the Children Act will include an assessment of the family circumstances in so far as they affect the needs of the child concerned. The Act specifies that a service can be provided to any member of a child's family so long as it is directed at promoting the child's welfare. Any assessment may be carried out simultaneously with other statutory assessments, such as those required under the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
Under the Bill now before us, the needs of individuals requiring community care will be assessed by local authorities. Where appropriate, that assessment must be as defined in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. The assessment procedure will take into account the views and needs of the carer or carers as well as those of the service user. Subsequent provision of care and support will be based on that assessment and, wherever possible, the aim will be

479
to enable individuals to live as independently as possible in the community. Thus, both pieces of legislation allow for the needs of both users and carers, who are usually the family, to be taken into account when providing care and support services. It will of course be important for local authorities to ensure a smooth transition in arranging services for young adults (over 18) previously covered by the Children Act. I know that that matter has concerned my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
As I said in Committee, that transition from a service designed for children to one designed for adults is always a challenge to professional social workers and can be unsettling for the young adult concerned. I can assure the House that that area of concern will be covered by guidance for those aged 18-plus.
The key is surely good assessment of the young adult's changing needs and family relationships combined with good communication and co-operation within the social services department and with any other agencies that may be involved. However, I am not clear what a statutory duty as suggested in the amendment would add in practical terms for the individual client. It seems to me that any problems which might arise would do so from problems of managing the transition which must be addressed locally in social services departments. The legislation is already consistent and any further central help would more properly come in the form of good practice guidance.
Amendment No. 172, like some others that we have discussed, for example in relation to planning, seeks to get into the detail of how local authorities carry out their responsibilities for community care. I am sure that the intention in many of those amendments is to help local authorities by pointing them in the direction of how to fulfil their duties effectively. But, as I and my noble friend Lord Henley have pointed out, the Bill is not the place for good advice. Its purpose is to lay the foundation on which local authorities can build. As noble Lords are aware, we shall supplement the Bill with more detailed guidance on policy which will spell out what is expected of local authorities in relation to their community care functions. That in turn will be followed by advice on good practice, prepared by the Social Services Inspectorate, on how they might approach various aspects of their duties.
This amendment suggests that local authorities may request help from other statutory authorities. Local authorities can already do that—it is an eminently sensible thing for them to do—but I do not think that we need to put it on the face of the Bill. There are many areas of overlap between authorities in carrying out their statutory duties. But I do not believe that this amendment would add anything that is not already covered by the statutes relating to the duties of each authority. I therefore hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw both the amendments.
Lord Carter: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may clarify one point. The noble Baroness referred to the guidance. Does she have any idea when the guidance will be available, even in draft?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I referred earlier to guidance. I believe that a substantial amount of guidance will be put out in draft form tomorrow. I see an affirmative nod. It will be included in the drafts that go out tomorrow.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is not Friday the 13th is it? It is extraordinary what an amount of guidance is being put out the day after we discuss these amendments. I am sure that it is perfectly coincidental and happens completely by accident. When I hear Ministers say that they place great reliance on the assessment for community care, local authorities' responsibilities, the smooth transition, liaison and co-ordination, I am tempted to say—although it would be extremely rude—that the Government are passing the buck to local authorities. I shall not say it.
I hear what the Minister says. Obviously we cannot get much further this evening. I am sure that Ministers are aware that there is considerable concern on the part of a number of organisations, and the Children's Society in particular, about what they see as the overlap or muddle that may occur. We shall wait to see the famous guidance tomorrow—which looks like being a very busy day with all the guidance that is being produced. We have to reserve the right to come back on this matter perhaps even at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 158A:
Page 51, line 40, after ("services") insert ("giving consideration to the religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background of inhabitants").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another issue which, I am happy to say, we have not previously debated. Amendment No. 158A attaches to Clause 47, which governs plans for community care. Amendment No. 167B attaches to Clause 48, governing the assessment of needs for community care. Taken together they seek to oblige local authorities to give consideration to:
"the religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background",
of their communities, both in drawing up their plans and in making their assessments.
One may ask: why is this necessary? Are we not already a multi-cultural society and do not these things happen already? The answer, sadly, is, not by any means everywhere or widely enough. The better local authorities are attempting to improve their services generally because of a growing recognition that particular groups in their communities may have particular needs which require a different approach. There is very little point in attempting to give accurate information about the services on offer to a local community if, in the first place, a section of the community does not speak English as its first language and, in the second place, the services are offered in such a way as to make trust in the local authority's sensitivity to cultural, religious and ethnic differences unlikely to be very high.
So a sensitive response to the particular needs of sections of the community is one which recognizes

481
that the kinds of service needed may be the same but the approach to delivering and advertising those services may need to be rather different. Unless authorities are required to consider these issues at the stage of planning their services it is probable that such services on offer will be inaccessible and inappropriate to large numbers of their populations.
More specifically, black people with HIV/AIDS have experienced great difficulty in their contact with statutory services and have had to rely very extensively on such voluntary groups as "Black HIV/AIDS Network" and "Black Liners" to make their case for them and to talk to health advisers, social workers, counsellors and doctors on their behalf in order to secure access to appropriate services for those who come from ethnic minority communities, some without any or with little knowledge of English. Therefore, I suggest that it is vital that the requirement to deal not only sensitively but competently with such members of their populations be built into authorities' community care plans.
Next, there are severe housing problems. Clause 47(2) of the Bill obliges local authorities which are housing authorities to include details of how those authorities propose to meet the housing needs of the persons in their areas who are in need of community care services. That again is particularly applicable to black people with HIV or AIDS. There is considerable evidence of existing tenants being victimised and attacks being made on their person and homes. This leads to a need for prompt rehousing in alternative accommodation which is suitable to their medical condition, secure and sufficiently supportive to ensure their reasonable safety and well-being.
In Hammersmith and Fulham from the beginning of this year to the end of last month there were recorded eight separate serious cases of harassment of people with HIV and AIDS between council and private tenants and four additional cases from other boroughs which sought advice from Hammersmith and Fulham. But other local authorities might simply want to wash their hands of such problem cases requiring both housing and community care if they are to remain in the community rather than in institutions.
In a particular case, someone with advanced HIV disease approached Hammersmith and Fulham housing department. He was an ex-intravenous drug user who had been clear for six to nine months and was receiving additional therapy from the London Lighthouse. He was terrified of returning to the local authority of his origin, where he believed that he would not receive sympathetic treatment and additionally would be under pressure and threats from local pushers to go back to his earlier habit.
It is quite wrong that some authorities should be allowed to opt out of difficult cases which require help, thus loading them increasingly onto more enlightened authorities. Thus, it seems to me to be important to have a statutory obligation to require all local authorities to prepare in their plans and to make allowance in their housing and care policies for people from different ethnic backgrounds experiencing the sort of difficulties that I have described.
As your Lordships will be aware, there is a very large black community in south London. Many of those with HIV and AIDS are treated at St. Thomas's Hospital. That puts tremendous pressures on local authority accommodation in the surrounding areas. There will be a natural tendency for local authorities to pass on those pressures to other authorities who may not want to assume them. These problems should be shared as widely as possible among social services departments, and a statutory requirement in the words that I propose would be of great assistance.
Finally, and quite apart from the humane and sensitive treatment of people in very difficult circumstances, there is also a public health point to be considered. If people in the categories of which I am speaking are shunted around the country without proper accommodation, treatment, domiciliary care or counselling, there is the additional danger of the spread of infectious disease. Alternatively, if they return to hospital they occupy beds, which their condition may not warrant, at a greater cost, thus reducing the availability of those beds for other purposes.
On all those grounds, I suggest that something along the lines of what I propose is needed in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government accept that the characteristics mentioned are some of many which need to be taken into account when planning services and carrying out assessment of individual needs. Indeed, in paragraph 2.9 of Caring For People it is stated that:
"Good community care will take account of the circumstances of minority communities and will be planned in consultation with them".
However, we do not believe that it would be helpful to draw particular attention to them on the face of the Bill and so I cannot support the amendment. I can repeat the assurance given to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on his withdrawal of a similar amendment on 10th May (Hansard, col. 1588) that the need to take account of these factors will be stressed in our guidance, which can be reinforced by directions.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we have read many things in the White Paper which are not in the Bill. I agree that not all of them can be there but the spirit of some of them could perhaps have been reproduced rather more accurately on the face of the Bill.
That takes us back into the world of guidance about which we have heard so much this evening. The noble Baroness has already made a distinction between guidelines and guidance. She implied that guidance is somewhat stronger. She has also spoken of good practice and about advice on good practice being given to local authorities by the Social Services Inspectorate. All that sounds admirable, but it is extremely unclear what precise status and force these various exhortations have. Can the noble Baroness enlighten me as to what force she believes the guidance issued by the Social Services

483
Inspectorate will have? In relation to that and the drafts which have been referred to, can the noble Baroness say to whom the drafts will be circulated and whether we shall see them on the day they are published, which I understand will be tomorrow?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the answer to the question about the strength of guidance is this. As we have been told a number of times, guidance is stronger than guidelines. My understanding is that if an authority did not take note of guidance, the Secretary of State has the power to make directions. In other words, guidance is expected to be followed. In the absence of it being followed and there being breaches, the Secretary of State can use powers so to direct.
I should have thought that some of the examples given by the noble Lord, which were very distressing, were in breach of the law on racial discrimination. I therefore believe that where that can be proved, the law should be invoked.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She has stated that the matter that I have raised will form part of guidance. She has given me some slight reassurance on the strength that is to be attached to it. I shall read carefully what she has said, and I shall read the draft and decide whether it is necessary to come back to the matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 51, line 40, at end insert:
("(2) The plan prepared under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above shall include arrangements made between the local authority and each District Health Authority such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above whereby—

(a) the District Health Authority shall give the local authority at least 14 (fourteen) days' notice in writing of the date of formal discharge into the area of the local authority from the Authority's hospitals of—

(i) persons who have received medical treatment for mental disorder (other than those to be immediately discharged pursuant to an order made by a Mental Health Review Tribunal);

(ii) other disabled persons who have been resident in hospital in excess of such period of time as the Secretary of State shall direct;

(iii) other persons who have been resident in hospital for more than three months;

and who in the opinion of the authority may need the provision of community care services after discharge;

(b) if the local authority agrees with the opinion of the District Health Authority given in the notice under paragraph (a) above they shall prior to the discharge of that person carry out an assessment in accordance with section 45 below of his needs for community care and then decide in accordance with that section whether his needs call for the provision by them of any such services; and

(c) if community care services are to be provided, a named individual is appointed to oversee the provision of those services.

And for the purposes of this section "mental disorder" and "disabled person" shall have the same meanings as in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that this amendment is probably one of the most important on Part III of the Bill. In moving the amendment I shall rely very much on the skills and knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, about those suffering from mental disorder. His knowledge and skills are much greater than mine.
We both put down amendments at Committee stage which overlapped. This amendment is a combined effort which we believe covers the point that we were both trying to make. The objective is to ensure that local authorities are given 14 days' notice of a discharge of a patient so that an assessment of his needs can be made. It is a requirement that does not at present exist and is not covered in the Bill.
The amendment covers three categories of patients. The first concerns those who have been receiving medical treatment and who suffer from mental disorder. The second refers to other disabled persons who have been in hospital for some time; the length of time is to be fixed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the appropriate authorities, normally the local authority. The third category concerns any person who has been in hospital for more than three months.
I need hardly stress the importance of the first category. My experience concerns those who have been discharged without arrangements for after-care and those who have discharged themselves knowing that they are not fit. We all know what happens then; I need not elaborate. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will no doubt elaborate if he feels it necessary. The second category would frequently merely return to previous management for care. For many, a fresh assessment before care will be necessary. The third category concerns anyone who has been out of circulation and is likely to need help to rehabilitate himself or herself into the responsibilities and problems of ordinary life.
It is worth repeating that there is no obligation at present for health authorities to notify the local authority that they are about to discharge a patient. The amendment is strongly supported by the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Schizophrenia Fellowship, MENCAP and RADAR. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I fully endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, about this being probably the most important amendment. For me it is certainly the most important amendment to the Bill. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for having suggested at Committee stage that we should get together, as we did. We were able to have a meeting. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for meeting us to discuss it. I hope that we were able to convince her and her officials that we were discussing a matter which requires some provision.
I have the support of the Association of Directors of Social Services—who in the last resort prepared the amendment and met with the requirements of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship—and Rescare, in addition to those organisations that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, mentioned.

485
Although I shall try to be brief, because it is so important I have much to say. The amendment has three vitally important aims. It seeks, first, to ensure that local authorities are given advance warning of patients who are thought to be ready for discharge from hospital and who in their consultants' opinion will need community care services. Secondly, it enables the local authority to decide (a) which of those patients it can assess before discharge; and (b) what services they need. Thirdly, it makes a named individual responsible for overseeing any community care services that are to be provided.
There is widespread concern about how a persons' needs for community care services may first "appear" to a local authority (Clause 48), so triggering the vital assessment which is the gateway to any provision of services. A particularly critical time is before discharge from hospital. That was the fundamental argument behind Section 7 of the disabled person's measure. That was the nub of the Schizophrenia After-care Bill which I introduced to your Lordships during the last Session and which was supported on all sides of this House.
The Audit Commission—which is more important than many people in this country—in preparing for its new responsibilities for the NHS under the Bill has already said,
"if suitable support is not co-ordinated at this critical point of transition, much expensive constructive work in the hospital may be rapidly undermined".
The amendment covers three groups of patients. I shall speak only about those who have received treatment for mental disorder. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, mentioned the others. It is not limited to schizophrenics, as was my Bill. The House wanted its provisions extended to all mentally disordered persons. That was ruled out for technical reasons at that time. I am happy to have met the wishes of the House in the amendment.
Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said, even using a broader definition, its provisions are most likely to benefit schizophrenics and others with serious psychotic illnesses. It is essential to distinguish them from disabled persons and others, where a special need for community care can reasonably be linked with their longer stay in hospital. That was where Section 7 of the disabled persons legislation seemed to us to fall down.
Contrary to what is still generally believed, the overwhelming majority of schizophrenics are not and never have been long-stay hospital patients. But as the Chief Medical Officer pointed out in 1988,
"It remains an unpalatable fact that many mentally ill people require support and treatment on a long term basis".
He also said,
"Over half of those admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of schizophrenia will be left with significant residual symptoms and seriously impaired social functioning".
I should like to quote some figures to back up what I have said. The latest figures refer to 1986. In 1986, in English hospitals there were 25,046 admissions of schizophrenics, of whom 13,307 were discharged in less than a month (over half the total), 20,665 were discharged in less than three months (four fifths of the total) and 22,872 were discharged in less than six months. Section 7 of the Disabled
486
Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act would not apply to any of those people. Of the 25,046 admissions, 90 per cent. were re-admissions. Relapses needing hospital treatment are a characteristic feature of the fluctuating illness. However, almost certainly some would have been preventable if adequate, continuing medical and social care had been available.
There is no doubt that after-care for schizophrenia is crucial. We know that failure to provide it has led to the shameful homelessness of some, to the inappropriate imprisonment of others and to the colossal strain on many family carers. It led to the murder of the social worker Isobel Schwartz, the public inquiry into her death and to various recommendations which surfaced in the White Paper Caring for People. In the chapter about the mentally ill, legal provisions about after-care recommended in the inquiry report have not so far commended themselves to the Government.
This is an important amendment. I hope that after our meeting with the Minister she will, if not accept the amendment exactly as it stands, be able to welcome it and make provisions in the Bill which represent the amendment's main features, particularly those relating to schizophrenics.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Seebohm and Lord Mottistone, for their work in preparing the amendment following their discussions within the department. Speaking from these Benches and as president of MIND, I totally support the argument. I agree with both noble Lords that this is an extremely important amendment.
Almost every day we see or hear from all sides the consequences of the absence of a statutory obligation on the district health authorities to inform local authorities of people who are to be discharged. We see the consequences of the Government's failure to implement Section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, the Act would not cover all such people but it would have covered many of them.
The Government have made clear the fact that they do not intend to implement that section. That is most sad. There are many cases in which social services departments cannot find out about people arriving in their areas and requiring community care services. If local authorities are not given notice of people who are about to be discharged and if those people are not referred to social services departments there is no way in which we can blame the departments. How are they to know? It is often the case that people moving into an area for which a social services department is responsible do not originate from that area. They may have started life somewhere else and then been admitted to hospital. They may have come from any part of the country.
Unless there is a way in which local authorities receive such details and unless health authorities have an obligation to inform them, the present situation will continue. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that a large number of such people suffer from schizophrenia. Many others suffer from chronic depression or other psychotic conditions.

487
However, for the sake of the argument the nature of their complaint does not matter. For that reason the noble Lords were wise to use words in their amendment which do not specify schizophrenics or a particular type of person.
The amendment is crucially important. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred to the case of Isobel Schwartz. I could give case after case in which tragedies have occurred—for example, the Sharon Campbell case, which we debated at length in this House. The case for the amendment is overwhelming. The Government must say by what means it will be made obligatory for health authorities to consult with and inform local authorities in order that they may pick up these numerous cases. I hope that we shall receive a satisfactory answer.
8.45 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I support the amendment. In recent years it has been hard to escape from the image of homeless people sleeping rough in our major cities. As noble Lords have heard all too often, many have a history of mental illness. For them community care has meant no more than a doorway in the Earls Court Road or in "cardboard city" around Waterloo.
Today the sixth report of the Social Services Select Committee in another place stated that the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 should be implemented immediately. Unfortunately, the Government have made it clear that Section 7 is not to be implemented. That section provides for assessment before discharge. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wish to refer to the people who must arrange for patients in hospitals to return to the community. When people suffer from, for example, schizophrenia or a mental disability, not only must one find accommodation for them but one must also deal with the neighbours in order to make them acceptable to the community. If people are physically handicapped one must find separate places for them.
In a recent case it has taken me eight months to find an appropriate placement for someone who had a severe stroke. If we are to rehabilitate or place such people in the community, a great deal of time must be taken in negotiating the accommodation and in dealing with the neighbours and the family to prepare for their reception at home or somewhere in the area.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the case for the amendment has been clearly made. I wish to say only that MENCAP is heartily in favour of it. We learned with regret the proposal of the Government to postpone indefinitely the implementation of Section 7 of the 1986 Act. I noted with interest the fact that the Select Committee in another place has now recommended that the section should be implemented. However, the proposal contained in the amendment is even better and we hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I wish to express my strong support for the amendment. The arguments for it have been expounded clearly. My interest is in relation to those who are mentally ill and discharged. I wish to refer to the resource prospects in relation to after-care which makes the tying down of the procedure particularly important. In previous debates we have listened with growing apprehension to the scenario for resources. It appears that for the foreseeable future the pressure on local authorities in relation to the poll tax and so forth means that the prospects for after-care are poor. Therefore, it is all the more important that the procedures should be laid down as far as possible within a cast iron framework.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment most strongly. Since its formation I have had a close association with a psychiatric association. For many years I was chairman of a local health authority. I assure the Minister and the Government that the amendment provides a way of saving money; it is an investment. If when patients are discharged into the community there are enough people to help, understand and care for them they will be saved from returning to hospitals, mental institutions and so forth. We know it is one of the tragedies of life that once somebody is very ill or has a mental condition of some kind it is very difficult to help them except over a long period; and if they are to be out of the hospital and out of care they will simply go back into a hospital again. It is vital that they should be cared for by the community. That can only be done if there is the closest association between the health authority, the community councils and local government. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although we have had an excellent debate up to now, I wonder whether I might dare to add a few more facts and arguments to what we are discussing, especially from the point of view of MENCAP. The policy of discharging mentally-handicapped people from long-stay hospitals where there are still countless thousands of them, was initiated by MENCAP in 1980 when I was chairman. It was supported by the Government and by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who was then the Opposition spokesman, and indeed it commended itself to everybody. Therefore we welcome that policy. However, a vital part of it is that people should not be discharged unless there are effective alternative arrangements for them to live in the community in suitable accommodation where they will be properly cared for. That really means in small homes, much smaller than long-stay hospitals—homes of 10 or 12 people at the most.
In MENCAP we started, with some government support, a massive programme of creating such small homes and I believe that our branches now have over 200 of them. As a result—and it is only right and fair that one should say this—after being discharged very few mentally handicapped people have nowhere to go. The mentally ill have been much less fortunate. However, whether people are mentally ill or mentally handicapped, we really must take this opportunity to ensure that none of them is ever found to be homeless after discharge from hospital. This

489
amendment will ensure that they never will be homeless.
There is a real practical need for this amendment, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not find reasons for rejecting it because, if I may say so with deep respect, they would be purely departmental reasons.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I intervene in this debate simply to say that this amendment has our very strongest support.
Lard Swinfen: My Lords, noble Lords from all side, of the House have spoken about the position of disabled people on leaving hospital. We have an increasingly elderly population in the country. This amendment will apply to them equally, whether or not they are disabled. The tendency today is for people, when they grow up, to leave home and to work. and live well out of reach of their parents. Often when an elderly person is discharged from hospital the only person at home will be another elderly person—perhaps the spouse—who quite often may be infirm and incapable of looking after someone who is both elderly and ill. It is essential that proper arrangements should be made before discharge from hospital, and in the long run it will be a great deal more economical.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I, too, would like to support this amendment. I am told that subparagraph (ii) incorporates physically disabled people. I have a whole file at home from a surgeon in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, who has had difficulty in getting his patients back home. His acute beds are being blocked and although some of the local authority housing departments are very good, some are only middling and others are totally hopeless. His health authority will not employ an occupational therapist to help and advise the housing authorities, and there is a shortage of hospital social workers. This amendment might help to encourage more hospital social workers and occupational therapists to help to get people home.
The Spinal Injuries Association is concerned about this and says that this is a good amendment. So many awful accidents happen. Sometimes one half of a family is killed and the other person, perhaps after a long time in hospital, has to go back home. It can be very difficult for that person to adapt without the help of husband or wife, and so there is a great need. The local authorities and the health authorities need to be encouraged to work together, otherwise this problem will get worse.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, because we recognise the need for a seamless service for patients being discharged from hospital and in particular the special needs of those who have had treatment for a mental disorder, we have taken steps to address the situation. First, we have issued guidance on discharge planning for all patients. That was issued in a comprehensive circular last year. It covered the care of patients released after a short spell in hospital as well as of those who have received long-term care.
Secondly, our draft guidance on community care planning, which is to be issued tomorrow, specifically mentions discharge procedures as an
490
area on which health and local authorities should make planning agreements. As part of such agreements, health and local authorities will need to reach agreement on assessing the needs for care services provided by local authorities.
Thirdly, in relation to mentally ill people, we have made it clear that mentally ill people discharged into the community should have a precise plan drawn up for their aftercare. This should help both to prevent inappropriate discharge and also lessen the risk of people losing touch with the caring services at a later stage. We have recently issued for consultation with local authorities, district health authorities and other interested bodies draft guidance on care programmes for mentally ill people.
Perhaps I may mention some good news in all this. I would say to my noble friend Lord Renton, in relation to mentally handicapped people, that I had the pleasure of going to Huddersfield yesterday to open a community care unit for patients discharged from an institution, which until eight years ago had 3,000 mentally handicapped people in it. That institution now contains just over 200 people, and the facilities that are being offered in a community setting are excellent and also a very good example of good practice—an example which is being replicated up and down the country. So I would say that everything is not impossible in the worst of all possible worlds.
Fourthly, Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 already imposes a duty on district health authorities and local authorities to provide, in collaboration with voluntary agencies, aftercare services for certain categories of mentally disordered patients who have ceased to be detained and who leave hospital. The duty on the authority is to provide such aftercare services until they are satisfied that the person concerned is no longer in need of them.
Finally, the arrangements for the mental illness specific grant, which will be paid through regional health authorities, will bring further pressure to bear on local authorities to bring all their services and arrangements up to scratch and encourage co-operative planning locally.
Eyebrows have been raised once or twice in the course of today's discussions about the timing of the issue of guidance on community care planning. That guidance is to be issued tomorrow. I wish to make it clear that the fact that it is to be published the day after rather than the day before these discussions, is entirely fortuitous. That has depended upon practicalities such as printing deadlines. Formal consultation will take place with local authority associations, the Association of Directors of Social Services—
9 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Baroness really saying that it was necessary for the draft guidelines to be published after today's debate, and that that could not have been done before? I find that very difficult to understand.
Hansard is printed overnight, and look at the way in which that is done and the accuracy which is achieved! I should have thought that it would have

491
been possible with some foresight and respect for your Lordships, to have had the guidance, which is not a large volume, printed in time for today's debate. After all, 12 noble Lords on all sides of the House have spoken on this amendment. Should not the guidance have been in our hands in time for today's debate?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I hate to worry the noble Lord, but it will be quite a large document. We have not been aware of the date of today's discussions sufficiently early—namely, at the initiation of the consultations which had to take place—to enable us to have the guidance in the lap of the noble Lord at what he considers to be the appropriate time.
Nevertheless, consultation will now be with local authority associations, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the NCVO and medical and nursing professions. In addition, it will be distributed widely to local authorities, health authorities, the voluntary sector, professional and other organisations involved in implementing the proposals, and it will be available to your Lordships.
This amendment also seeks to introduce a requirement for a named individual to oversee care arrangements which the local authority agrees to provide. That is the point made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. We agree that a named individual or key worker should, as a matter of practice, play an integral part in case management. Our draft guidance on the care programme approach for the mentally ill, which has been recently circulated for consultation before today's discussions, makes that very point in paragraphs 8 to 10, of which noble Lords will already be aware. The annex refers to guidance on aspects of the care programme approach. Our draft guidance on assessment and case management at paragraph 24 also covers that area.
This type of detailed advice about how local health authorities discharge their obligations to care for patients and clients is much better addressed as part of the guidance which fleshes out the framework of care which this Bill attempts to establish.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, for coming to see me in order to discuss the position and for giving me this further opportunity to explain how we believe the matter is covered.
Perhaps I should add that the effect of the amendment is merely to require local authorities to include such arrangements in their plans. If the intention is to impose a duty on district health authorities to give notice to local authorities in the circumstances mentioned, then the amendment is defective.
I hope that the movers of this amendment will appreciate that we are taking very seriously this situation and will not feel that the only way to achieve the best possible results is by insisting upon this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask her two
492
questions. She referred to Section 117 of the Mental Health Act. Is she aware that in 1986 of the 26,077 schizophrenics discharged, only 1,175 were eligible for after-care under Section 117? It does not answer the problem of schizophrenics.
Is she telling us that effectively—and until we see it we cannot believe it—regulations and guidance will replace this part of the Bill? Does she not agree with me that it is very important to have in major legislation underpinning matter from which circulars can be developed rather than circulars, even if they are already in existence? Circulars can be changed at the drop of a hat because they do not even have to come before Parliament. The whole burden of my noble friend's remarks, as I saw it, was: "Oh yes, it is all in circulars". Does she not agree that that is a very inadequate reply? It is terrible that, after seeing my noble friend, this very important matter is being left to circulars, whether or not they are issued. I just do not like this.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend has in a sense contradicted himself in his last remarks in that he has pointed to a matter which is enshrined in legislation and then said that that was not effective—that is, Section 117 of the Mental Health Act.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is not good enough.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have pointed to the various forms of guidance which will, as I said earlier, flesh out the framework of care, the general principle of which is established in this Bill. After all, this is a framework Bill and it provides the necessary legal framework. I have explained at an earlier stage of the Bill that guidance carries a great deal of clout. In draft it is subject to considerable consultation so that it is not something which is in any way prepared secretly. If not complied with, it is for the Secretary of State to enforce the guidance by giving the necessary directions. The position therefore is well covered and I hope that your Lordships will recognise that.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the guidance deal with the 14 days' notice? Does it deal specifically with the issue in the amendment?
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords. In relation to a previous amendment I said that a fixed amount of time can very often become a maximum amount of time and create inflexibility in an area where we believe flexibility to be important. As I said in relation to an earlier amendment on a slightly different topic, assessment will take as long as is necessary.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, would she agree that the guidance she offers does not have the force of law and that what we are seeking in the amendment is to have these matters covered by the force of law in the Bill?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the guidance deal with this position? Someone comes out of care and it is decided that he or she must go to the family or their nearest relation; the family may feel unable to look after that person. If there were rights established on the face of the Bill regarding prior consultation,

493
the family could claim that the arrangements were not adequate. Does the guidance give the family the right to claim that the arrangements are inadequate and that it cannot accept the person who has come out of care? That is the situation which has to be protected.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that the guidance is being issued in draft form for the purpose of receiving comments and advice from relevant bodies. I have listed them at some length. They will be able to make any necessary amendments should the draft guidance be found to be wanting.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend could say that this matter will be taken back and brought in as a government amendment at Third Reading. Would that not be something she could consider, even at this late point?
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, there is no answer to that. I must say that I am not only disappointed at the reply from the Government Benches; I am horrified, and for a number of reasons.
One reason is that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, referred to past instructions which are in existence. They have not worked; they are not being obeyed. They might as well be non-existent. In the same way the noble Baroness talks of guidance coming out tomorrow, but that is different to rights being established on the face of the Bill. If they do not appear on the face of the Bill the disappointment of the people for whom we have been speaking will be extreme. MENCAP, RADAR, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and the Association of Directors of Social Services will be bitterly disappointed. I cannot accept the so-called soothing remarks with regard to guidance.
The noble Baroness spoke about the named carer. That is all very well, but if something is put loud and clear in the White Paper, and then it is said that it is either not necessary or cannot be done, it becomes useless.
I take a very strong view about this. We have had the same situation on other occasions in connection with the White Paper. I must put the amendment to the House for its opinion.
9.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 159) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 42.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Grantchester, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

L.

Hacking, L.

Carter, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ennals, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B

Faithfull, B.

McNair, L.

Falkender, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Falkland, V.

Mishcon, L.

494

Mottistone, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Seear, B.

Renton, L.

Seebohm, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Swinfen, L.

Rochester, L.

Thurlow, L.

Russell, E.

Tordoff, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Balfour, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Hives, L.

Blyth, L.

Hooper, B.

Braye, B.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mancroft, L.

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mountevans, L.

Crathorne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Denman, L.

Swinton, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Elles, B.

Ullswater, V.

Ferrers, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 51, line 40, at end insert:
("(2A) In the case of those local authorities which are not housing authorities, the plan for the provision of community care services referred to in subsection (1) above shall, after consultation with local housing authorities, include details of how such housing authorities, whose area is within the area of the local authority, propose to meet the housing needs of the persons in their areas who are in need of community care services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will recollect that at Committee stage Members agreed to an amendment instructing local authorities which are also housing authorities to include in their community care plans details of the housing needs required to implement the community care plan. The proposals for implementing them are now in Clause 47(2).
That left in the air the question of the necessary powers concerning housing requirements where local authorities are not housing associations and housing authorities. Therefore, the amendment provides for similar details of plans after consultation has taken place with the appropriate housing authorities. I must say at this stage that there has been a most disastrous ruling. It was decided that most planning requirements should be removed from counties down to districts. That has produced a most disastrous effect.
The Redcliffe-Maud Commission, which considered local government reorganisation, made it absolutely clear that, in its view, housing and social services should be on the same tier. That was also clearly set out in the Seebohm Report. In my case, concerning the county of Hampshire, I wonder whether noble Lords realise that the director of social services in the county, instead of just walking across the corridor and thrashing things out with the

495
director of housing, now has to co-ordinate with 15 districts and 15 directors of housing. It is going to be a terrible task.
The amendment I am putting forward this evening is designed to help the directors of social services in their tasks. We all know that housing has a welfare infrastructure. We must do everything we can to put on the face on the Bill the requirements necessary to bring housing and social services together. I believe I need not say more than that. We thrashed this out in connection with the amendment moved at Committee stage. Local authorities which are also housing authorities were instructed to make their plans with the housing authorities. The same must apply to counties, which are no longer housing authorities in many respects. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we supported from these Benches the amendment which the Committee accepted at the previous stage of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has said, it is obvious that all authorities must be treated in the same way. If the Government intend to reject the amendment, I ask them how on earth the system will work if, where housing needs are concerned, all authorities are not treated in the same way as regards community care.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I cannot prejudge whether or not the amendment that your Lordships have already voted on, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred, will find favour in another place. In any event, I cannot accept this amendment. The requirement to consult with housing authorities in respect of community care plans is in the Bill at Clause 47(3)(c). For that reason the noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary. What can sensibly and realistically be done in this part of our Bill, which concerns the powers and duties of local authorities in respect of community care functions, has been done.
We do not think it right to place a duty on housing authorities via provisions which are concerned with the social service functions of local authorities. My colleagues in the Department of the Environment are as concerned as we are to ensure that the housing dimension and, more importantly, the delivery of care services, are on board in community care planning. But we are not able to accept this amendment and I ask your Lordships to agree that Clause 47(3)(c), to which I have referred, coupled with our guidance on developing care plans in consultation with housing interests, is as far as we can and should go.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I do not propose to divide the House on the amendment tonight. I hope that the information which I gave on the strange effect between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health has not been overlooked. I doubt whether the departments ever communicate with each other. That is what is so disturbing. They cannot possibly have realised the situation that they were creating at county level by divorcing housing from social services. That was quite absurd.
496
I very much hope that the noble Baroness will take the amendment away and think about it. I shall withdraw it now but may bring it back at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 51, line 44, at end insert ("on such matters as appear to either authority to be appropriate, including the matters specified in subsection (3A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of what happened with the amendment before last, when the House was so evenly divided though the Government won, this amendment has become even more important. It concerns the relationship between health authorities and local authorities. The previous amendment touched on one aspect, although a crucially important aspect, of that relationship. It touched on whether notice should be given by health authorities to local authorities on the discharge of patients under certain categories as defined in that amendment. The fact that there was so much feeling in the House at this time of the evening shows the depth of concern. We know the depth of concern that exists among health authorities and local authorities and indeed among voluntary organisations and the public.
The Bill requires local authorities to consult relevant health authorities. It does not say what they will consult about. It lists no subjects on which there should be consultation. I suppose that consultation might be about whether the clocks in the two authorities were working correctly. There is no guidance on the issues on which consultation should take place. It gives the health authorities no rights to be consulted other than on matters identified by the local authority. That is not acceptable. Perhaps I may give a few examples of the kinds of issue which may be dealt with inadequately or not at all if they are not covered by regulations or guidance or allowed for by an amendment which gives to both health authorities and local authorities the right to raise issues for formal consultation.
One concerns the financial arrangements, which are to be subject to local government, and the future of joint financing. If it is to be wound down, how is it to be done with the minimum of disruption? At present £120 million is being spent. The future of dowries is another aspect, with payment by health authorities, often in perpetuity, for the transfer of patients from NHS to local authority facilities. Nursing homes are to be inspected and registered by district health authorities but care homes are to be inspected and registered by local authorities. A common standard needs to be applied. As local authorities will in certain circumstances pay for the care costs in nursing homes, it is vital that there should be close co-operation. Another area where agreement is needed are the circumstances in which the district health authorities will pay for places in nursing homes.
I shall give only one other example, although I could give many more. There is the still unresolved matter of hospital based social workers. I raised this matter in Committee, as did the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. Since then at least one local

497
authority—Camden—has been sending out distress signals. It cannot charge the DHA for the services and it has no power to charge other local authorities whose residents make extensive use of Camden's hospital based social workers. The role in the future of hospital-based social workers is something about which both sides will be concerned. In some places it will become an increasingly troublesome problem.
This amendment, which stands in my name and in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Seear, is grouped with Amendments Nos. 161 and 194. We seek to list in Amendment No. 161 the issues on which there should be consultation by the two authorities. It is essential to put on the face of the Bill a requirement for this form of consultation, the more so since, in my view, the Government so unwisely and insensitively rejected the amendment on which we recently voted. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, particularly on two points, although I do so on many others. Regarding the place of social workers, they are on the staff of the social services department but work in the hospitals. At the moment a number of authorities are cutting back on the social services because of local government expenditure. They have statutory duties to carry out under the various Children Acts and the Children and Young Persons Act. In order to carry those out, the authorities are withdrawing their social workers from child guidance clinics and hospitals. This is a disastrous state of affairs because the social workers in hospitals are the bridge between the hospital and the community. They are also the bridge between the doctors and the social workers in the community. Therefore it is essential that the position be clarified.
I suggested at the previous stage of the Bill that a rearrangement of the financial provisions should take piece. The health authority should pay half of the social workers' salaries and the social services should pay the other half. I adhere to that because they would then both have a vested interest in the social workers.
It almost goes without saying that the Bill cannot be successful unless there is a good relationship between the district health authority and the social services. One would expect that this went without saying, but sadly it does not. If it were to be on the face of the Bill then people would realise how necessary it was to have a good relationship, and a structured relationship with the two departments.
Lord Carter: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ennals moved the amendment and I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention a case which illustrates extremely well the need for it. In the town where I live, Devizes, in Wiltshire, there is a geriatric hospital and a district hospital. The intention was to close the geriatric hospital and to rebuild the district hospital with geriatric beds. Because of the slump in the property market, they are not able to sell the site of the geriatric hospital in order to raise the money for the district hospital, so the whole proposal has been deferred.
498
Because of the crisis in funding occurring this year, there is a plan to close the geriatric hospital anyway, and of the 31 patients, nine are to move to the district hospital which is not equipped to receive them. The other 22 are to be decanted into the community. I wish to read a few lines from a letter from the district general manager of the Bath District Health Authority which exactly illustrates the problem with which the amendment is intended to deal. He writes:
"There is an assumption however in our strategy that we will be able to increase the community support. This is the problematical area given the shortage of revenue funds. I am not able to give an absolute assurance that if we do transfer the patients to Devizes Hospital at an earlier date than originally intended that we will at the same time be able to increase the numbers of community nurses".
That is to look after the 22 old people who will be decanted into the community. The letter continues:
"Generally speaking there is a great deal of concern about the proposals in the Government's Caring for People White Paper. It is not at all clear where the resources are going to come from and it is unrealistic to expect Health Authorities to transfer significant money (indeed if any) to Social Services Departments to maintain people in the community. We are also concerned by the confusion regarding responsibility for assessing elderly people's needs. Caring for People seems to lay this clearly at the door of the Social Worker but a look at the general practitioners' new contract suggests that they are in charge of the primary care of their patients. On top of all this consultant geriatricians have been used to taking the lead in organising care for those patients referred to them".
The responsibilities of general practitioners are referred to in the amendment. The letter continues:
"At present in the discussions which I have had with all these parties, very little sense of the best way forward has emerged".
The letter provides a practical example of the kind of problem with which this amendment is intended to deal.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is absolutely true that effective consultation will be the key to the success of the reforms. On that point there is no difference between what this amendment wants to achieve and what the Government are looking for.
We discussed community care planning in considerable detail during the Committee stage of this Bill. We then made the point that the Government view planning as one of the keystones of community care. Because of this the Government accepted an amendment in another place to include a list of appropriate bodies, including district health authorities, for local authorities to consult in drawing up plans. During the Committee stage of the Bill in this House we agreed to consider further an amendment which would add consultation with representatives of service users and their carers to that list. I hope that Amendment No. 160A to this effect will be accepted by this House later today.
Those amendments add to the framework of the consultation process. My concern about the amendment now before us is mainly that it goes into the realm of detail. It specifically sets the agenda. Local authorities are already required by the Bill to consult district health authorities. I cannot imagine that they would consult on matters which they considered inappropriate. I also believe it is inconceivable, given the scenarios as set out by the I noble Lord, Lord Carter, that effective and proper

499
consultation would not be carried out. I believe that under the reforms the necessity to consult will be absolutely essential to the effective delivery of services.
The danger of listing in the Bill matters to be included in consultation is that if topics are not there they will be viewed as less important and omitted from the process.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, Amendment No. 161 states:
"(g) any other matter which either authority considers appropriate".
Nothing is excluded therefore.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have discussed on a number of occasions the difficulty of specifying some details and not others. That leads to the risk that people will interpret the items that are not there as not being for the agenda. Another risk is that undue prominence may be given to those items that are listed in the Bill. People may believe that those items that are not listed in the Bill are somehow or other less important. As I have said, local authorities are already required by the Bill to consult district health authorities.
I believe that these suggestions on the areas to be covered in consultation are all perfectly valid. However, I also believe that as suggestions—the amendment is framed so as to allow authorities discretion in discussing these items, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, just mentioned—they are better made in the context of guidance or advice on good practice. We do not believe it is appropriate to place them on the face of the Bill.
The amendment also proposes a new subsection (3C) which seems to intend to impose requirements on district health authorities. Whatever the merits of the suggestion, this cannot really be included in a clause whose major purpose is to place requirements on local authorities. Local authorities are already required to consult housing authorities and housing associations as part of the planning process. It is right that they should as the main body responsible for providing community care services. They are also required to consult with district health authorities. It will be their job to ensure that their care plans reflect agreements they have reached with both health authorities and housing agencies. I do not believe that adding a requirement for district health authorities also to consult on housing will improve the services available to clients. It seems rather an opportunity to add a further layer of bureaucracy which might hinder rather than help the already complex planning process. What is absolutely essential is that the practitioners and the professionals in local authorities and health authorities are the people who should be working in a productive way. They should not constitute talking shops which may stand in the way of and thwart practical progress which is about delivering services to the customer. I hope the noble Lord will therefore feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, T am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but my view has not changed
500
at all. I do not believe that subsection (3C) of Amendment No. 161 is in any way out of place. It is about consultation; this is the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. The amendment includes the opportunity for the district health authority to be able to place items on the agenda:
"to satisfy itself that adequate provision, including housing provision, is available to persons discharged from hospital who are not long-stay patients".
That is a reasonable requirement for a health authority. This is an amendment which, as we see, is moved by members of three parties in this House. It is perfectly reasonable to include items which might be raised by a health authority as well as items that might be raised by a local authority.
However, it is perfectly clear from all that I have heard this evening that the Minister is not likely to give way on anything. I have heard one or two assurances in connection with a previous amendment that the amendment was not necessary, but I have not been impressed on this occasion. However, I shall not press the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 160A:
Page 52, line 6, at end insert:
("(cc) such voluntary organisations as appear to the authority to represent the interests of persons who use or are likely to use any community care services within the area of the authority or the interests of private carers who, within that area, provide a substantial amount of care on a regular basis to persons who are living at home and for whom, in the exercise of their social services functions, the local authority have a power or duty to provide a service.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 160A I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 160B, 160BA, 160C, 160D and 163A. Noble Lords will recall that during the Committee stage of the Bill I agreed to take away and consider further the wording of an amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I am sorry to see that she is not in her usual place.
Lord Carter: My Lords, are Amendments Nos. 164 and 164A also included in this group?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. I am so sorry. Having considered the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, we have brought forward the amendments, which would incorporate into the Bill the requirement for local authorities to consult organisations representing service users, their families or carers. I explained previously that the Government fully support the principle behind the amendment, which now places the requirement on the face of the Bill.
I hope that Government Amendments Nos. 160A, 160C and 160D fully convey the spirit of the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Henderson of Brompton and Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in their Amendment No. 160B, which I therefore ask them to withdraw in favour of the government amendments. I commend them to the House and I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as my name is down to Amendment No. 160B and the noble

501
Lord, Lord Henderson, cannot be here, perhaps I may say a word of appreciation to the Government for their proposal, which substantially meets the difficulties that we had in mind.
I have only one point to make. The amendment to which my name is attached mentions organisations of disabled people and organisations of carers, whereas the government amendment is limited to voluntary organisations representing the interests of those people. I have in mind, for example, the local branch of the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People or that of the Carers National Association. Can the noble Baroness say whether she reads the words which she has introduced as being wide enough to cover consultation not only with the voluntary organisations representing the interests of those persons but with the organisations consisting of those persons, who are perhaps in a better position to tender advice than some of the others?
Lord Renton: My Lords, this seems to be essentially a drafting point. The government amendment, welcome though it certainly is, is not so specific in relation to organisations of and for disabled people and the other people who are mentioned in Amendment No. 160B.
I hope that my noble friend will not try to conclude this matter tonight because she may well wish to think about the drafting of the amendment in the light of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. It is essentially a drafting matter. There is no harm in our delaying a little to try to get it right.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness because I was not in my place when she moved the amendment and she referred to the amendment to which my name appears.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I think that this is a step in the right direction, but it has perhaps not quite arrived. The point that I should like to query is the phrase:
"such voluntary organisations as appear to the authority".
That phrase may be perfectly harmless, but it might mean that the more vociferous and perhaps more representative organisations would not be the ones that appeared to the authority to best represent the interests. We should have preferred it to be organisations which represent the interests, where they are the substantial body. I am sure that it is not the Government's intention to do that, but it would be possible for a somewhat tame organisation to be accepted as the one to be consulted, whereas the more vociferous and genuinely representative would not be included in the list.
Perhaps the noble Baroness will consider that matter again and follow what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said about getting this absolutely right. Perhaps that point could be taken into consideration if the noble Baroness looks at the amendment again, as I hope she will.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words about Amendment No. 160BA, which has
502
been grouped with Amendment No. 160A. It is very similar to Amendment No. 160B.
The representatives of consumers and carers play an invaluable role in alerting service providers to new health and social care needs and in demonstrating how existing systems of health and social care may need to be adapted to meet those needs. Knowing my interest, the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear me produce as the most dramatic example of that the appearance of HIV and AIDS and the emergence of extremely articulate and energetic self help and community-based organisations to advocate on behalf of those infected and their carers in the case of that dreadful condition. Without the forceful representation by those organisations of the community care needs of people with HIV and AIDS and their carers, the development of provision for appropriate community care for that group would have been far slower than has been the case. In addition, much firsthand knowledge has been accumulated by those bodies and a great pool of expertise built up on those matters which it would be wrong to disregard in preparing plans and other actions under the Bill.
That takes me to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Although the general thrust of the Government's amendment is welcome, the phrase,
"as appears to the authority",
somewhat diminishes the force of it. There is no absolute requirement in that phrase to consult the kind of bodies to which I have referred. Along with other noble Lords who have spoken, I therefore wonder whether the Government could not have another look at the phraseology before Third Reading. If that could be tidied up, I should be happy with the government amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, although I was not involved in the lead-up to the amendment and have no amendments tabled in my name, I am sure that Amendment No. 160A is just the sort of thing that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship would like. I applaud my noble friend for having introduced it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, noble Lords worried by the vagueness of the phrase "appear to the authority" should not worry. If you are on a local authority and you consult organisations representing people, you must decide between all the many organisations and the many people who claim to be the right people to consult. You cannot consult everyone. Like my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I should have thought that that was the right way to put it. We often use the phrase in legislation. It is for the authority to decide. We all know that it will be very difficult to decide who represents the users. We have to trust the authorities to do it. It will be a very difficult operation. Indeed, an organisation which represents carers will not be an easy one to identify. I expect that there will be several but one cannot include everybody. I should have thought that this amendment was right from the local authorities' point of view and that we should go along with it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thought that the whole point of the community charge having to be paid by disabled people was that they would then be able to decide whether they were getting the kind of services that they wanted from their local authorities. I understood that that was the argument when we debated this matter in your Lordships' House.
Now there are organisations of disabled people that seem to have been left out. Some of the organisations for the disabled are exceedingly annoyed about it. It has perhaps not been done deliberately. However, perhaps at Third Reading Amendment No. 160B could be incorporated with Amendment No. 160A, which would then make them all happy.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as my name is attached to Amendment No. 160B, perhaps I may say a few words on this point. We are grateful to the Government for making an attempt to meet our concerns and to the Minister for the useful meeting that we had the other day in order to discuss this matter. A problem that the Government should address, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is the distinction between organisations of and organisations for the disabled. Let me give a simple example. The National Federation of the Blind is an organisation of the blind. The Royal National Institute for the Blind is an organisation for the blind.
I shall pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The vast majority of government funding goes into organisations which are for the disabled rather than of the disabled. There is an important point about the way in which local authorities will look to organisations; whether they will take advice from those vociferous organisations that are under-funded by the Government and which consist of disabled people compared with the other organisations that are substantially funded by Government which are for disabled people. That is an important point which the Government should be prepared to take on board.
There is also another problem raised by the phrase "a substantial amount of care". I was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, should approve the amendment. It seems that a lot of carers for schizophrenics would be left out by the words of the amendment:
"a substantial amount of care on a regular basis".
The Government have gone a considerable way to meet us but I think that there is still some redrafting to be done.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful for the more or less general welcome given to these government amendments. But I have to say that I am amazed; if organisations consisting of disabled people are not able to represent the interests of disabled people, then who can do so? In my view they are the people best able to represent disabled interests. Therefore, the government amendment includes groups of disabled people as well as other groups interested in that area.
504
With regard to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, there is certainly nothing sinister about giving local authorities a certain choice in this matter. In fact, in the interests of consistency, perhaps the noble Baroness would care to look at Clause 47(3)(d) on page 52 of the Bill. The wording of this government amendment is consistent with the wording of that paragraph, which relates to housing and community care services. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out, it is important to give local authorities a certain authority in this matter. I have no doubt that the vociferous groups to which the noble Baroness referred will make their views heard whether or not they are invited so to do.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 160B to 161 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 160C and 160D:
Page 52, line 14, leave out ("and").
Page 52, line 23, at end insert ("and
"private carer" means a person who is not employed to provide the care in question by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 162:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Research and grants for community care in rural areas
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall from time to time conduct research into the extent to which the costs of local authority provision of community care services are higher in rural areas than elsewhere.
(2) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that—

(a) the results of the research conducted under subsection (1) above indicate that the costs of providing community care services in rural areas are substantially higher than they are elsewhere; and

(b) such higher costs are not otherwise met by grants paid under Part V of the Local Government Finance Act 1988,

he shall make grants to local authorities under subsection (3) below.
(3) Subject to subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall make grants out of money provided by Parliament to defray such additional costs of provision of community care services by local authorities in rural areas as are identified by the research conducted under subsection (1) above.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument prescribe a definition of "rural area" for the purposes of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, an amendment was moved at Committee stage which the Committee did not accept. It was to obtain extra ring-fenced funding for community care requirements in rural areas and to meet the extra costs involved.
This is a more modest amendment. It requires the Secretary of State to research costs involved in rural areas and then to make direct grants to offset any extra costs that are discovered. The Secretary of State would be required to make grants only if the costs were substantial and were not catered for in the general grant system—that is, accounted for in the standard spending assessment for social services.
The argument on the extra cost for providing community care in rural areas is strong. There are the high costs, the lack of local services, unmet needs,

505
poor support for voluntary action, and the poor co-ordination between different local authorities.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House to any extent this evening. A substantial report has been commissioned by the NCVO entitled Counting the Rural Cost: the Case for a Rural Premium. It is a weighty and well researched report. It concludes that costs are higher in rural areas for the following reasons: first, lack of economies of scale; secondly, additional travel costs; thirdly, additional telecommunication costs; fourthly, the high level of unproductive time; fifthly, the extended timescale and slow pace of development work; sixthly, the extra costs of providing mobile and outreach services; and, seventhly, the extra costs of accessing training and other support.
It is clear that there is extra cost in the task of providing community care in rural areas. I shall be interested to know whether the Government propose to comment on the report if they have seen it. For the reasons stated in the report, and for those discussed at Committee stage, we feel that the Government should be required at least to conduct research to satisfy themselves that the standard spending assessment takes sufficient account of those extra costs which are so well borne out in the NCVO report. Perhaps the Government will tell me whether that is the assessment on which they rely. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who is unable to be here today, asked me to support the amendment on his behalf.
Country areas will obviously have expenses that town areas do not have. If someone has to be transported to a hospital or clinic, long distances are involved. The same applies if one considers the Highlands of Scotland or remote parts of Wales. I was taking to various people in Hereford recently. Hereford covers a large rural area. Those people do not have local clinics. They have long distances to travel to attend an ordinary clinic, let alone a hospital. Such services as meals-on-wheels and home helps are extraordinary difficult to provide.
The amendment does not provide that more money should be given to rural areas but provides that there should be monitoring process to ascertain whether that is so. When I was talking to a doctor who covers a wide rural area, the importance of that was brought home to me. She compared her mileage with that of a colleague in the city. Her mileage was five times greater than that of her colleague. That is only one example. We should monitor and conduct research into the matter so that people in rural areas do not suffer.
I am not a farmer but I wish to speak on behalf of the farmers. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is able to do so better than I. Many are worries that so many people are leaving the land and moving into the cities. One important reason for that is for them to be nearer to the facilities which are not available in rural areas.
10 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I was glad to add my name to the amendment and I wish to
506
emphasise a point that has been made. The amendment does not state that the requirements of rural areas necessarily cost substantially more. We believe that they do, but the commitment set out in the amendment will arise only if the Government's reasearch shows that the extra cost is substantial and not covered by the relevant standard spending assesssment. Incidentally, I am under the impression that at present that assessment does not take account of sparsity of population. However, that is a consideration allowed for in certain formulae adopted for Scotland and Wales.
That there are grounds for believing that extra costs are involved is borne out by the report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The NCVO has overcome its printing difficulties and has produced the report today. It suggests that the factors that have been mentioned—such as the lack of economies of scale, travel costs and the scarcity of volunteers—make it more expensive to ensure that the elderly and disabled in rural areas are not condemned to an existence more miserable than that of such people in the towns. However, it is fair to say that the main conclusion of the report is the paucity of reliable information and the need for further research. The amendment is aimed at that, with action to follow only if the conditions set out in it are met.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. Rural communities are characterised by small numbers of people scattered over a wide area. Costs are high because of the large distances involved in travelling into and out of rural areas and in moving from one location to the next. In North Yorkshire distances are great and there can be difficulties with snow and ice, particularly black ice. That must add to the costs and risks of those travelling; for example, the distance that a district nurse might have to travel. As was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the situation is more difficult for those providing meals-on-wheels and home help.
Today the NCVO published its report, Counting the Rural Cost: The Case for a Rural Premium. The report prepared by a consultant is a review of the existing material. It shows that in general providing services to rural areas is more expensive than providing them elsewhere. In her reply to Amendment No. 159, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said that she had visited a new community centre in Huddersfield. That is good news indeed. But she is aware that Huddersfield is an urban area; and does she not agree that to run such a community centre in a rural area necessarily costs a great deal more? Therefore there is something to be said, in appropriate cases, for the Secretary of State to make grants if the costs are substantial and are not catered for in a general grants system that is accounted for in the standard spending assessment for social services.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, there is considerable merit in the idea behind this amendment; but, so far as I can see, there is one major difficulty. Is there a legal definition of a rural area? People's ideas of what is a rural area vary considerably. Are we talking

507
about the wide-open spaces of Caithness or about what is rapidly becoming Greater Suburbia, East Kent?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in talking about this, perhaps we are forgetting the way local government is funded at the moment, and the way the revenue support grant is worked out. All these facts about the extra costs in rural areas are very well known to local government and to central government, and the revenue support grant negotiations are all about that—the needs element in the whole thing.
Ring fencing is going to make this more difficult. Your Lordships will know that I am very worried about ring fencing. It is going to make the problem very much more difficult. But even with ring fencing, the principles which are used in negotiations when the grants are settled take account of all these things. It is not true to say straightforwardly that rural areas are more expensive. In some respects social service provision is more expensive in cities because of deprivation and so on.
I am sure that all the facts your Lordships have elucidated are true, and economy of scale is not there in small homes, just as it is not there in small schools. These things are all well known, and I would have thought that arriving at a figure is not difficult under the present system. The research is really done by the local authority: they know what these things cost. The Government hold discussions with them and I am sure there are people who can look at the figures and check whether they are right. It is unnecessary to say on the face of the Bill that what has always happened and what will continue to happen in a wider sphere has to be included.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may first briefly respond to my noble friend Lord Swinfen, who asked for a definition of "rural area". I am afraid I cannot help him. I can refer him to a remark that I made earlier this afternoon to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and say that I suspect it would create yet more work for the lawyers; but I might be wrong about that.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether we intended to monitor—
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, if the noble Lord is about to leave behind the definition of "rural area", is it not true that the Rural Development Commission have a definition of rural area?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have to admit to the noble Lord that I do not know the answer to that question. If they do, all well and good—and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, assures me that they do. I thought that possibly we might be creating a little more work for my learned friends but perhaps we are not, as it has been defined.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether we intended to monitor what was going on and to conduct or commission research into what was
508
necessary. I can assure her that we shall monitor and commission research into all aspects of community care. This will clearly involve assessing whether the costs being incurred are greater in one local authority's area rather than another, whether they are rural or urban. We recognise that obviously some aspects of care may cost more in the inner cities because of differing social conditions there. I would agree that there may be additional costs arising in rural areas, with widespread populations, which often receive rather less attention.
I have a local authority background. I served on my own county council, which was in a rural area. I served on the social services committee and my own county council division, representing a mere 4.000 electors, covering some 100 square miles. I know about the problems of rural areas, and I know that their problems are different from those of urban areas. All those factors have to be taken into account. We are alive to that issue. If it proves to be a problem, it will be best solved by looking at our distribution mechanisms through the revenue support grant rather than by small additional payments on the side.
The standard spending assessment for personal social services is being reconsidered in the light of the new responsibilities. It is being discussed with the local authority associations. Having said that, at present I can see no case for highlighting on the face of the Bill one individual aspect of research and, equally, no case for separate equalisation grants. Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is the answer which we expected from the Government. In passing, it is a fact that 53 per cent. of the homeless are from outside the metropolitan areas. A substantial number are in rural areas. There is a definition of "rural area" which we discussed during the passage of the Housing Bill when we were discussing the definition of rural housing. Therefore, there is a definition on the statute book.
I was impressed by the touching faith in the standard spending assessment. I do not believe that Wandsworth and Westminster are rural areas but they seem to have done extremely well out of the standard spending assessment without any research. That just goes to show, does it not?
Of course, other departments provide extra money for rural areas; for example, the Department of the Environment in respect of some local authority services; indeed, the Department of Health in respect of community health services, medical practices and pharmacies; the Post Office in respect of subsidy for the network of rural sub-post offices, and so on. Therefore, in a number of departments there is a recognition of the extra costs.
We are disappointed that the Minister cannot accept this amendment. We hope that his faith in the review of the standard spending assessment will be borne out and that the extra costs which we know exist in rural areas will be compensated for. However, at this stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.10 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 163:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to meet needs of chronically ill
In exercising their functions under Part III and Part IV of this Act, local authorities shall take special measures to attend to the needs of any person who is suffering from grave chronic illness and who, by reason of age, illness or disability, is living in conditions which in the opinion of a court give rise to an immediate and serious risk to the life and safety of that person.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak to this amendment with the assistance of an outstanding briefing from Age Concern, the Spastics Society and an organisation called SENSE which deals with, helps and gives assistance to deaf blind people.
I believe that I owe an apology to the Minister because I did not make myself clear at the last stage of the Bill when I moved this amendment. It is not an amendment designed to take over from people their lives. I believe that last time I gave the impression that if a very vulnerable person's life was at risk, that life should be taken over.
The Bill deals with people who are vulnerable whose lives are at risk and those who appear to be unable to help themselves. We all know about the case of Beverley Lewis in Gloucestershire. A mentally handicapped girl died. She had been looked after by her mentally handicapped mother, who died. The girl was in the vulnerable position of being unable to look after herself and unable to seek help from anybody else.
This amendment is not intended to take away people' s wishes regarding the future. If someone wishes to have no help, not to co-operate and not to allow anyone into their home, their wishes should not be transgressed. However, my experience and the experience of those three organisations is that many vulnerable people need and want help but do not know how to ask for it or obtain it. Under the law at present it is not possible to offer help to those people even if it is known that they need it.
The amendment is designed to safeguard the very vulnerable who need help; those who, if they could express themselves, want help. It is to enable them to be given help. It is not to remove them from their homes but to give them supportive services and only remove them from their homes if they ultimately agree.
Some people do not want help and wish to die. Who are we to stand in the way if that is the case? However, there are many others whose life expectancy would be extended and their lives enriched if they could be helped. The amendment seeks to help those vulnerable people who are unable to ask for help and to enable social workers to be able to offer that help under the Bill. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, in spite of the reassurance of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, it seems to me that we need the amendment only if
510
we wish to force our views upon those vulnerable disabled people.
Over the years I have been immensely impressed with how wrong one can be in an assessment of some disabled people. As often happens, a patient may go for treatment for an acute condition. After the treatment he is seized upon by one or two well-meaning people who decide that he is no longer fit to live on his own. The gentleman I have in mind was very angry about the interference, but the two ladies insisted on making a home visit. He said tO them, "Now we have arrived back home, let me show you how able I am to look after myself. Sit down and I will make you a cup of tea". He then went into the kitchen and put into the teapot three heaped teaspoonsful of rat poison!
I have always been impressed with how able some people are. We must allow them the freedom to choose not to have the benefits of those who are insisting on helping them.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this issue was discussed at Committee stage. I agree with my noble friend that the main problem with Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948 is that there is no interim action; no halfway house. Section 47 provides only for removal. That may seem to be a limited provision, but there are good reasons why it should be so.
In moving the amendment my noble friend said that it is not her intention to force people to accept help if they do not want it. She clearly therefore does not wish to infringe civil liberties. I understand that, but there are still difficulties.
A person in the situation that she described, who is perhaps not compos mentis—for want of a better expression—and able to judge whether help is needed, is covered by other provisions so that care may be taken of them without the need for the amendment. Furthermore, in the event of somebody being seriously disturbed, the Mental Health Act 1983 deals with compulsory orders in the hospital. If a person is comatose, that person can be removed to a hospital under the powers already contained in Section 47. However, we are agreed that we are trying to deal with a situation that those powers do not cover.
In any event, the wording of the amendment could cause some difficulty. The reference to "special measures", for example, would need definition. It contains none of the protections about medical evidence being necessary and for an appeals procedure that are built into Section 47. This is a difficult area and I understand the concerns, but important issues of personal freedom are at stake and we would run into more difficulties than we had bargained for if we changed the present provision which caters for situations where matters are so bad that something has to be done. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend is persuaded not to press her amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, do not the Government accept that it

511
would be better if community services were able to get in earlier instead of having to wait until the people at risk are in such a state that the only option is to put them into institutional care under Section 47? If the services are able to get in earlier they can provide the services in the home and keep the person at home, which is the object of the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, and that can be done by agreement. Care can be taken of a person in the home in the vast majority of cases. However, there are other cases where there is a danger that civil liberties may be infringed. A person may require entry in order to carry out domiciliary provisions or something of that sort, but the recipient of that care may not be agreeable and there could be difficult and damaging scenes. I am sure that no one wants that. As my noble friend said, it is not her intention to force services on people.
The point is that where there is real need there is provision. This amendment would have the effect of forcing people against their will to accept services. Therefore, on balance I think the amendment would do more harm than good.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. There is a proportion of people who want help but if they are deaf blind they do not know where to go for it and do not even know that help is available. Such people have a right to expect or to be offered help, which they may or may not accept.
I know that there are some people who would say that they do not want help. Taking up the point made by my noble friend Lord McColl, I am sorry that the social worker forced help on the person concerned. My experience these days is that if anyone does not want help they are only too thankful to say, "Thank goodness, I do not have to pay for a home visit". Therefore, the case cited by my noble friend is most unusual.
From the point of view of compassion and of duty we should be able to offer domiciliary help to anyone who cannot apply for it. If it is turned down, so be it, but it should be possible to offer it. I mention again the girl who died, Beverley Lewis, in Gloucestershire. If she had been offered help she would not have died. There was no need for her to die. She was perfectly fit when her mother was alive but she was mentally handicapped and did not ask for help and did not know how to get it.
Having said that, if my noble friend the Minister feels that the wording is not right then at this stage I shall withdraw my amendment to reconsider the matter and bring it back at the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Local authority plans for community care services]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 163A:
Page 57, line 30, at end insert:
("(ba) such voluntary organisations as appear to the authority to represent the interests of persons who use or are likely to
512
use any community care services within the area of the authority or the interests of private carers who, within that area, provide a substantial amount of care on a regular basis to persons who are living at home and for whom, in the exercise of their functions under this Act or any of the enactments mentioned in section 2(2) of this Act, the local authority have a power or a duty to provide, or to secure the provision of, a service.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 164 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 164A:
Page 57, line 44, at end insert ("and
"private carer" means a person who is not employed to provide the care in question by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 164B:
Page 57, leave out from the beginning of line 45 to the end of line 12 on page 58 and insert:
("(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may by order require local authorities to establish a procedure whereby a person, or anyone acting on his behalf, may make representations (including complaints) in relation to the authority's discharge of, or failure to discharge, any of their functions under this Act, or any of the enactments referred to in section 2(2) of this Act, in respect of that person.
(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, "person" means any person for whom the local authority have a power or a duty to provide, or to secure the provision of, a service, and whose need or possible need for such a service has (by whatever means) come to the attention of the authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 164C, 164D and 164E; and Amendments Nos. 183A and 204B which are consequential. Grouped with them is Amendment No. 165 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
We have sought to provide the power in Clause 53 for the Secretary of State to make an order providing for the establishment of local authority complaints procedures in the social work context because of concern expressed in another place. I think I can say that our proposals were generally welcomed at the Committee stage in this House.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised a question about the ability of people to complain or make representations during an assessment; that is, before services were actually being provided by the local authority. He was also concerned that there should be no bar to organisations making representations on behalf of people.
In the light of these concerns we looked again at the clause and have concluded that the drafting could indeed be simplified and improved. In doing so, we have made clear that the right to make a complaint extends to all people for whom the local authority may have a power or be under a duty to provide a service under the Act. This right extends not only to the way the authority discharges its functions but also to a right to make representations about the authority's failure to discharge its functions. Functions of course include the duty to carry out

513
assessments for people seen to be in possible need of community care services.
The clause as now drafted thus takes in the full range of persons who are receiving, or could receive, a service from the local authority. The specific mention of carers as persons who can make representations on behalf of the persons they care for is no longer necessary because any complaint can be on behalf of such a person.
I can assure your Lordships that we have looked closely at the question of organisations being able to act on a person's behalf. There is no doubt that the provision as drafted allows for this. It states that representations can be made by a person or anyone "acting on his behalf". "Anyone" includes an organisation. To attempt to include specific reference to organisations might in the event be less than helpful. It could raise difficulties of definition and would add nothing to the sense of the clause.
Though the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has not spoken to Amendment No. 165, I assume that he wishes to probe further the point which he raised so helpfully at Committee. I hope that I have been able to assure him that assessment is covered by the complaints procedure, because assessment is a function of the local authority. I am grateful for the constructive interest which he has taken in this subject, and I hope that he will be able to see what the Government have done in response, when the time comes.
Amendment No. 183A, in the name of my noble friend, does the same as Scottish Amendments Nos. 164B to 164E. Its wording is different, reflecting the approach taken in the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, into which Clause 51 inserts it. But it incorporates all the important points, including the reference to "functions"—thus covering the assessment stage—and to,
"anyone acting on his behalf",
which covers carers and voluntary and other organisations. Amendment No. 205A is a technical amendment, adding a mention of the new complaints procedure to the list of functions of local authority social services committees in England and Wales. I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me and for enclosing a copy of his amendment. At this time of night, when he and I have been waiting here for so long to deal with the amendments relating to Scotland, I feel a wee bit like timpani drums in a symphony orchestra—two notes at the end of the movement. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister wishes to omit the word "carer". Is that only in connection with complaints made about the person being cared for? I am extremely anxious to make sure that the rights of carers as carers, as distinct from carers as people who are acting on behalf of the cared for person, are adequately safeguarded and to ensure
514
that they can make complaints on their own behalf as it were. The assumption that carers have no rights and interests of their own as distinct from their interest in the person they are caring for is one about which I am much concerned and hope will he adequately covered in the Bill. By removing the word "carer", is the Minister in any way diminishing their ability to make complaints on their own behalf about the way the procedures and the plans are affecting them as well as the people they care for?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we are dealing with the person who is in need of assessment and with the representations that can be made by anyone on their behalf. As for the carers themselves, that concerns a different issue from the amendments before us. I shall see whether this is the correct assessment. Carers, I understand, can have assessment on their own behalf. There is therefore no diminution of their ability to complain. But I think it is only fair to say that I shall look carefully at what the noble Baroness has said. The purport of these amendments is to deal with those who are being assessed and the ability of their representatives to complain.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thank the Minister for that response. It is an important point although it may be covered elsewhere. I wanted to make sure that it was not going to default in the course of the changes that were proposed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 164C to 164E:
Page 58, line 13, leave out ("and any such order") and insert—
("(1B) An order under subsection (1) of this section").
Page 58, line 28, at end insert ("and").
Page 58, line 32, leave out from ("1986;") to end of line 36.
On Question, amendments agreed to
[Amendment No. 165 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 166:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Health Board Plans
.—(1) After Section 13 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 there shall be inserted the following section—
Health Board Plans for Community Services
13A.—(1) Within such period after the day appointed for the coming into force of this section as the Secretary of State shall direct, and in accordance with the provisions of this section, each Health Board shall prepare and publish a plan for the provision of health care for the users of community care services in their area.
(2) Each Health Board shall from time to time review any plan prepared by them under subsection (1) above, and shall, in the light of any review, prepare and publish—

(a) any modifications to the plan under review; or

(b) if the case requires, a new plan.

(3) In preparing any plan or carrying out any review under subsection (1) or, as the case may be, subsection (2) above the authority shall consult—

(a) any local authority having responsibilities under Part II of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 in their area;

515

(b) insofar as the plan or, as the case may be, the review may affect or be affected by the provision or availability of housing, every district or island council in the area of the board;

(c) such voluntary housing agencies and other bodies as appear to the authority to provide housing or community care services in their area;

(d) such voluntary organisations as are representative of the users of community care services and their families and informal carers in the area of the board; and

(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may direct.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of what is happening to the health service in Scotland we consider this to be an important amendment. Its purpose is to make health board plans public and to require consultation in their preparation. The Government's implementation document Community Care Planning: A Review of Past Experience and Future Imperatives, and the Scottish chapter of Caring for People make it clear that local authorities are not being placed in the lead role for community care as a whole. Health authorities will still be responsible for planning all those elements of community care which the NHS currently provides. That is stated on page 43 of the document. It also emphasises that arrangements for ensuring the compatibility of health and local authority plans will be imperative. That is stated on page 27 of the document. The new clause seeks to achieve this point.
The Government's proposed arrangements for health board plans in Scotland fall short of this ideal in two main respects. First, while local authority plans must be public, there is no equivalent requirement for health board community care plans. This defect is peculiar to Scotland, since the English sector of the White Paper states in paragraph 5.13 that English health authority plans will be public and,
"Health authorities will be accountable for ensuring the provision of the services to which these plans commit them".
An explanation of the different treatment in Scotland is obviously called for.
Secondly, health board plans will be drawn up in isolation whereas local authorities will be required to consult widely with other bodies involved in community care. Also, health board plans will not be specific to community care but will be part of the general accountability review. Given the importance of health board plans in the community care framework, it is surely vital that health boards should also consult other bodies when drawing up plans. If this is done, it is far more likely that health board and local authority plans will start from similar assumptions, which will make it easier for the planning agreements between health boards and local authorities proposed by the Government to be reached.
I feel that, if the Government reject the clause on the grounds that it is unnecessary given the Secretary of State's general powers to direct health boards, we need an assurance that such directions will require health boards to make plans public—as, I stress, will happen in England—and also to consult widely. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we debated a similar amendment at the Committee stage and I thought that I had been able to make it clear then that the amendment was unnecessary. However, I shall play my notes on the timpani at the end of the symphony and see whether I can ring true this time!
In Committee, the noble Lord pointed out that while there was explicit provision in the Bill for community care plans to be made by local authorities, there was no such provision for health boards. In this case it is necessary to look not only at the Bill but also at the White Paper, Caring for People, which makes very clear our intention that there should be separate health and local authority community care plans and full collaboration between all relevant agencies in planning for community care services.
The noble Lord asked whether these would be public documents just as the English ones are. This is not done in isolation: consultations will take place with others concerned—notably of course the local authorities, who have the lead role. Health boards will, I can confirm, be required to draw up their own community care plans in agreement with local authorities and other relevant bodies.
Perhaps I did not explain clearly enough in Committee why we do not need primary legislation to provide for health board community care plans as we have done for local authority plans. The difference in approach is because the Secretary of State stands in a quite different relationship to health boards and to local authorities. Basically, health boards are accountable to the Secretary of State, while local authorities are accountable to their electorates. This means that primary legislation must sometimes be more prescriptive for local authorities than for health boards. The Secretary of State gets health boards to do many tasks simply by non-statutory administrative means. So our proposals for obtaining health board community care plans are entirely in line with existing procedures. A circular will be sent to health boards in September or October commissioning them to prepare community care plans, probably (like local authorities) annually. They will cover the same kind of ground as the local authority plans and the two sets of plans will be compatible.
In Committee the noble Lord said he was concerned about what would happen if there were a difference of opinion. I accept that this is a possibility, but it is one that could arise even if health boards were required by law to produce community care plans. I would expect that if such a disagreement arose, the authorities would probably be able to sort it out between themselves. However, if the problem persisted, we have redress. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has the power to intervene. He can use his existing powers under Section 2 of the 1978 Act or, depending on the circumstances, he can issue directions to the local authority under the powers provided under Clause 52 of this Bill or to both the local authority and the health board.
In conclusion, I assure the noble Lord that health boards as well as local authorities will draw up

517
community care plans and boards will receive the necessary guidance on this in due course. But that guidance does not need to be backed up by primary legislation. I hope the explanation is now clear to the noble Lord.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, while I accept the good will and good intentions of the Minister, he must be aware that in Scotland there is a fair amount of unease about the apparent secrecy of health boards' plans concerning almost everything that they undertake. As the Minister will be aware, that unease is particularly great in parts of the west of Scotland.
I do not for a minute doubt the Minister's sincerity when he says there will be full consultation, but I still want to know at what point the plans of the respective bodies will be published separately before they are issued in one document. As I understand it, the local authority plans will be made known. I have to accept the Minister's point of view, but there is still a great deal of unease about this matter.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I intervene and I apologise for so doing. I wish to make a further point as regards a comparison with the English plans. We are not talking about glossy documents being on sale on every newsstand. However, they will be publicly available, like most of the papers discussed at health board meetings.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, that is an advantage as we are always a little worried when this Government produce glossy documents. Having said that and having taken on board what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Grantchester): My Lords, I now call Amendment No. 167. If Amendment No. 167 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 167A on grounds of pre-emption.
Clause 48 [Assessment of needs for community care services]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 52, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert:
("(1) On request by any person, a local authority shall within 72 hours of receiving that request make a determination as to—

(a) whether that person is a person for whom they may provide or arrange for the provision of any community care services, and

(b) whether that person's request for a determination and assessment is unreasonable, vexatious or obviously without foundation in any need for community care services,

and shall notify that person in writing of their determination.
(2) Where a determination under subsection (1) above has found that—

(a) the person is a person for whom they may provide or arrange for the provision of any community care services, and

518

(b) the person's request for a determination and assessment is neither unreasonable, vexatious nor obviously without foundation in any need for community care services,

or where it appears to a local authority to be appropriate to do so, the authority within a reasonable period of time—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that the Government have been hoping that before we concluded our business for the day they would come across some amendment which they could accept, at any rate in principle, as a magnanimous gesture. Here is a suitable candidate. The amendment seeks to clarify the provisions of the Bill as regards procedure for assessments and the rights in this context of users of community services. The system of assessment is a vital part of the community care proposals and has been described as the gateway to community care. Unfortunately the Bill is lacking in clarity as to the precise route to this gateway. Clause 48 states that local authorities have a duty to carry out an assessment where it appears to them that an individual is someone for whom they may provide community care services and that the individual may be in need of such services.
However, there is no provision as regards how a local authority becomes aware of a person's possible needs. Neither is there provision about carrying out the kind of pre-assessment to which the government spokesman referred at an earlier stage. There is no provision entitling the individual or his representative to take the initiative, unlike the position of the disabled under the 1986 Act.
I entirely accept that there should be no unrestricted right to assessment on request, but it seems to me that the Government's fears could be met and the obscurities removed by a provision on the lines of the amendment. It envisages a two-stage procedure. In the first stage the local authority would be under a duty to come to a quick decision—it is suggested within three days, but I am not wedded to that particular time limit—on whether the individual might be eligible and on whether the application is unreasonable or vexatious. Only if both tests are met does the local authority proceed to the second stage of carrying out a full assessment.
It seems to me that such a provision would meet the fears that the Government expressed at Committee stage, if I understood them correctly, and, following the precedent of the 1986 Act, would make clearer the rights of the individual—a matter on which the Bill in its present form is regrettably silent. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I support the amendment, as I supported its predecessor, Amendment No. 113BE, in Committee. It seems rather strange that, without the amendment, the Bill represents a step backwards because the services can only be provided if it appears to the local authority that they are necessary. At the moment one can ask a local authority for help but there is nothing to make it comply. The amendment would improve matters because the local authority would have an obligation to act. Obviously local authorities do not want that, but the Government should not be upset

519
by that. I hope that the Government would not always give in to what the local authority people tell them. I hope very much that, even if my noble friend cannot accept the amendment at this moment, she will take it away and see whether she can improve it rather than rejecting it out of hand, which would be a great pity.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment. The noble Lords who have already spoken have explained the argument extremely well, but it is worth emphasising that the amendment does not propose an unrestricted right to assessment on request. It seems to express the Government's own concern, but within the context of what we feel is a clearer procedure. It ensures that users will receive a fast response to their requests. It also makes entirely clear the nature of the preliminary inquiries which would lead to assessment, and it makes clear to the applicants the grounds on which they may be refused an assessment. In other contexts the Government have always seen the consumer as king. The amendment reflects that approach.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment. However, as I see it, it has one flaw. Not all disabled persons are able to make their own request. Therefore, somehow we should include the disabled person's representative. It may be better to do that by agreeing to Amendment No. 170, which we shall come to in due course.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when debating Clause 48 at Committee we discussed the need for assessment for community care services to be available on request to any person. I explained on that occasion that that was virtually the effect of the clause as drafted since it requires any local authority to carry out an assessment of any person for whom it appears the authority might arrange community care services. The provision was intended to be as wide-ranging as possible and not to deny anybody making a request for an assessment the opportunity to have one. The form of the assessment is of course left to the local authority to decide. That being so, I do not see the point of this amendment, which does no more than require the local authority to observe a time limit on deciding whether an assessment is needed.
Under Clause 48 a local authority is required to decide if a person is a person,
"for whom they may provide or arrange the provision of services",
and this would entail taking action not unlike that suggested in the noble Lord's amendment. Our guidance on assessment will advise local authorities on the advisability of setting up some sort of initial scrutiny. Such a procedure would be quite proper since the clause leaves the form of the assessment to be decided by the local authority. An initial sift would have two purposes: first, to identify the people for whom no more detailed assessment is required, which would include those making unreasonable or vexatious requests; and, secondly, to decide the most appropriate form of assessment for those cases clearly needing further investigation.
520
As regards decisions in writing, our guidance will advise authorities that decisions should be given in the way most suitable in the particular circumstances and always in writing where the person concerned requests that. The important thing is to ensure that the person concerned understands the decision reached. Whether or not a decision is given in writing, the person concerned would still have access to the representations and complaints procedure that authorities will be required to set up in accordance with the new Section 7B of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 as set out in Clause 51 of the Bill. Finally, the amendment would require the local authority to carry out an assessment within a reasonable period of time. Again, the need for assessments to be carried out without undue delay is stressed in our guidance.
There is no difference between us on this aspect. The intention is that those who require assessments receive them as speedily as possible. I hope that I have shown the noble Lord that his amendment is not required and that the spirit of his amendment is met.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness when I say that she has not demonstrated to me at all that the amendment is not required. Listening to her on this occasion and to Government explanations on previous occasions, I sometimes wonder why we are legislating at all, and why we cannot have it all in guidance.
There is not much point in dividing the House at this time of night. I must content myself with saying that I shall read carefully in Hansard what has been said and with putting on record that, so far as I understand it, I find it unsatisfactory. I leave open the possibility of coming back to the matter at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 167A:
Page 52, line 24, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 145ZA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 167B not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 52, line 27, after ("services") insert ("considering in particular the need for respite care if requested to do so by the person being assessed or by a person who has the responsibility of caring for the person being assessed").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will not say that this amendment is not acceptable, because it particularly mentions respite care. The answer that I imagine I shall receive is that if respite care is mentioned, why are not a whole list of other requirements?
There is a good reason why respite care should be included in the Bill in relation to the services for which assessment is required. That is primarily not so much in the interests of the person to be cared

521
for as in the interests of the person who does the caring. If a disabled or frail elderly person is being looked after, usually by a single carer in their own home, then that is a possibility—although difficult—if there is a certainty of respite care which makes it possible for the carer to have an essential break from the continuous 24-hour caring, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, which is the position unless there is respite care.
Respite care therefore becomes an absolute essential if people are to be looked after in their own homes by single carers whose life is impossible unless they can rely on respite care. That requirement is therefore in a quite different category from other special considerations which should be taken into account, but do not need to be on the face of the Bill. Without it, that kind of care is just not possible, especially with the kind of cases that will come forward as all the much more severely handicapped and disabled people come out of institutions. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I support the principle of this amendment very strongly although I have reservations about the amendment itself. Respite care is immensely important for people with schizophrenia and their carers. It is not good for either of them to spend all their time with the other. They need time for themselves for independent activities and both need long periods apart from each of her, and so on.
Having said that, I very strongly object to the fact that this amendment was tabled at all. In effect, it is exactly the same as Amendment No. 113BF which was moved in Committee. As I said earlier in relation to another amendment, as I have understood the rulings in the past 20 years in this House, one cannot table an amendment at Report which in effect is exactly the same as an amendment which has been defeated by a Division in Committee. It may not be so according to the written word but that is the spirit of it. I think that that is a very sound spirit. That is why I was so annoyed when the noble Baroness took us to a Division on Amendment No. 113BF, which I strongly supported, because I had hoped that we should have been able to progress it to Report.
As a matter of principle I believed that that action was absolutely wrong, so I voted against the amendment, having spoken for it. At this stage, if the noble Baroness again takes us to a Division, I shall vote against the amendment although I think that the principle is absolutely right and I hope that the Government somehow will incorporate it in the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am not sure that my noble friend Lord Mottistone is entirely right in what he has just said. But I shall not go into that argument.
I very strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Respite care is absolutely essential, not for the disabled person but for the carer, and that includes the whole family. A complete family can be very seriously affected by having a disabled person living in their midst.
The people for whom I work run a number of respite care units. Very often they are not full. They
522
ought to be full. The local authorities, which generally are responsible for paying the fees, do not like paying those fees because they are not cheap. Respite care, on the face of it, appears to be very expensive.
But if the disabled person had to go into full-time care instead of being looked after at home by his family, the cost to that local authority and indeed the nation as a whole would be very much greater. By not investing in respite care there is in the long run likely to be very considerable expense to the public purse as a whole. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government fully appreciate the valuable part that respite care can play in giving hard pressed carers a much needed break. I should remind the noble Baroness that the number of short-term admissions to local authority residential care homes in England—which we may take as an index of respite care—went up from 60,200 in 1980 to 92,021 in 1988—a rise of 65 per cent. So it is going in the right direction. We have said repeatedly in discussions on this clause, both in this Chamber and in another place, that our guidance to local authorities on assessment—guidance which can, if necessary, be reinforced by directions from the Secretary of State—will advise authorities to involve users and carers fully in the assessment process and in the subsequent issues on service provisions.
We have also said that we want these decisions to be led by care needs and not by the availability of particular services. That is why an amendment highlighting one particular form of care could perhaps be unhelpful. I say that because it could have the effect of steering authorities and users alike down familiar pathways rather than encouraging them to be creative and innovatory in meeting care needs.
Respite care will be among the care options that local authorities will be able to consider in suitable cases. I certainly very much hope that they will give serious consideration to it when asked to do so by users or carers. I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Mottistone, for his comments on the amendment. They might also be applicable to a subsequent amendment.
I hope that in the light of that explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I certainly do not press it at this time of night. I am very disappointed with the answer. I hope that I have made the point as plainly as I can. Respite care is in a category by itself. Other noble Lords have reinforced what I have been trying to say. It would not be difficult for the Government to introduce an amendment of their own on these lines. However, as with almost everything else that we have suggested—making us feel that to a considerable extent we are wasting our time—they are obviously adamant. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.

  SUDAN: HUMAN RIGHTS
  SUDAN: HUMAN RIGHTS
  MANCHESTER PRISON: WORK FOR INMATES
  MANCHESTER PRISON: WORK FOR INMATES
  MANCHESTER PRISON: OFFICERS ON TEMPORARY GRADING
  MANCHESTER PRISON: OFFICERS ON TEMPORARY GRADING
  CHURCH SCHOOL CLOSURES
  CHURCH SCHOOL CLOSURES
  SPECIAL HOSPITALS: CROWN IMMUNITY
  SPECIAL HOSPITALS: CROWN IMMUNITY
  DIETARY AND NUTRITIONAL SURVEY OF BRITISH ADULTS
  DIETARY AND NUTRITIONAL SURVEY OF BRITISH ADULTS
  NCC: SUCCESSOR COUNCILS' STAFFING AND COSTS
  NCC: SUCCESSOR COUNCILS' STAFFING AND COSTS
  NCC: SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT ON SUCCESSOR COUNCILS
  NCC: SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT ON SUCCESSOR COUNCILS
  WORLD HERITAGE SITES
  WORLD HERITAGE SITES